I have received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Community Affairs—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Barnett
Appointed—
Senator Fierravanti-Wells
Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Allison for the committee’s inquiry into funding and operation of the Commonwealth- State/Territory Disability Agreement
Participating member: Senator Barnett
Employment, Workplace Relations and Education—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senators Bernardi and Johnston
Appointed—
Senators Barnett and Lightfoot
Participating members: Senators Bernardi and Johnston
Selection of Bills—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Eggleston
Appointed—Senator Parry.
Question agreed to.
Consideration resumed from 11 September.
The committee is considering the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 and Family First amendment Nos (1) and (2) on sheet 4928 revised, moved by Senator Fielding. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
We had just about got through this last night. These amendments are about making sure that we are helping independents—a lot of them are basically small businesses—to collectively bargain, streamlining the process, lightening their load and making it easier for them. The reason this is so important is that if this Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 goes ahead, it will see the independents being squeezed out of the market even more because of very few restrictions placed on the regulation of service stations across Australia.
I appeal to senators to think about this particular amendment, which is all about collective bargaining, making it easier, streamlining it. The Senate had voted on something similar in a previous Trade Practices Act amendment, and it thought that streamlining collective bargaining for small businesses made sense. This is all about pursuing that at a time when we are discussing legislation for petrol stations and retailing of petrol, which is a very important issue for Australian families.
These two amendments moved, by leave, together—items (1) and (2) on 4928 revised—indeed have merit. They are principles which were recommended and implanted in the Dawson bill. The problem is that they replicate, for a specific industry, principles which are established at law generally. The difficulty I have is that the Senate has in fact already passed these amendments to the Trade Practices Act; it passed them with the Dawson bill. What happened was that schedule 1 was excised as a result of a combination of non-government senators and a brave and lonely coalition senator, and the Dawson bill then passed through the Senate. Those collective bargaining initiatives in the Dawson bill now await their passage through the House of Representatives. All the House of Representatives has to do is accept the Senate amendment excising schedule 1—if the Treasurer is so attached to that schedule 1, he can reintroduce it in a different bill—and pass that Dawson bill. These collective bargaining arrangements, which would apply for the whole country, would then be in place.
The difficulty we have with these amendments to the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 is that these would only institute that principle for the petroleum industry. It would be odd if the government, through the House of Representatives, were to finally accept the amended Dawson bill, which is what it should be doing, only to then have another set of amendments pass dealing with the same issue. That is my concern. Of course these can only pass if there is a majority. It would be useful to see what the views of other participants in the debate are. For instance, if Senator Joyce were to support these amendments, it would make a difference. If the government were to support them, it would make a difference. If Labor were to support them, it would make a difference. I would like to hear the views of participants in the debate because, as I said, the intent has merit, but we have a conflict in law if both these amendments and the Dawson bill amendments were to pass.
I understand completely the intent of Senator Fielding’s amendments and, like Senator Murray, my concern is that we have already passed the piece of legislation that deals with these amendments. For whatever reason, they have gone down to the lower house and been sat on, but we will have a problem because we will have two pieces of legislation contradicting each another in the passage of the Senate’s Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1). However, that does not detract for one moment from the intent of what Senator Fielding is endeavouring to do, and I agree absolutely with his sentiment.
On looking at it further, my concern is that it means one or the other would stand and, in support of this, would draw into question which one we wanted it to be. My obvious choice is that the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1), as amended, should be the one that gets passage, because it deals with everybody—all facets of small business and not one in particular. The right of protection that small businesses should have and the right to grow should be manifest throughout all sections of the economy and not designated to one section of the economy in particular. I agree with the intent of this and that it should be there. I agree that it should be in place, but this gives us an overlap and would cause a legislative issue that people could knock edges off in a debate.
The opposition essentially agrees with the views put by Senator Murray and Senator Joyce in relation to these amendments. We think it is incumbent upon the government to give passage to the Dawson bill. We do not want to provide the government with an excuse to further delay the passage of that legislation; they have the opportunity to give effect to these measures. If they are serious about these issues for all business sectors, as Senator Joyce puts it, not least the petroleum retail sector, they would expeditiously give passage to that legislation. Indeed, if they wanted to deal with this issue specifically for this industry only, they could support Senator Fielding’s amendments. As I understand it, they have indicated that they are not going to, and that is a test of their bona fides, I suspect, in relation to how serious they are about these measures. We will not be supporting these amendments. We continue to support the Dawson bill measures which have been passed in this chamber. We encourage the government to pass them in the House of Representatives, and we will continue to press that.
I think that, generally, there is consensus on the perspective of the intent of Senator Fielding’s amendments. The government has a position with relation to the Dawson legislation which came through this place earlier in the year, and we have a view as to what we would like to see passed. Obviously, that will be dealt with at the same time. Certainly, the issue that Senator Fielding raises is not one that we are dismissive of. It is something that is contained within the Dawson legislation, and we would like to see that passed. Perhaps that is something that could be discussed with Senator Fielding down the track. Given the reasons that have been quite well articulated by others in the chamber on this matter, the government will not be supporting the amendments.
In case a number of people are listening who may be a bit confused, the Senate has agreed that the idea of being able to allow small businesses to collectively bargain on a much easier basis makes sense to everybody except, it seems, the government. It is relevant to this particular issue because people have raised it. We as a Senate have already sent the signal that we want collective bargaining, but the government are refusing to pass collective bargaining provisions that make it easier for small business. If a political party were pro small business they would do all they could to make sure that what we have all agreed here makes sense; they would not be tying it unnecessarily to something called the ‘Dawson changes’. Let us be specific here so that everybody can understand what was said here previously on this issue: the government is tying in collective bargaining with allowing big businesses to merge together. The Senate said, ‘We’ve got some questions about making it easier for big business to merge even more,’ so the Senate rejected that part and then voted for allowing collective bargaining to go ahead.
The government looked at that in the lower house and decided not to proceed with allowing collective bargaining for small businesses on the basis that they cannot get easier provisions for mergers for big business. The two are totally non-related, and I think that, if the Senate does not agree today to reinforce the message that we need to have collective bargaining streamlined for small businesses—that is what this provision does; it makes it easier for independents and small businesses to collective bargain—we are sending the wrong signals, especially when we are talking about petroleum retailing service stations. If this repealed bill goes through, it will make it even harder for independents, and we need to level the playing field with collective bargaining. Again, I appeal to senators to support this in principle and make a statement again that we are for collective bargaining.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (3) and (5):
(3) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:
4 At the end of section 51AE
Add:
Oilcode
These amendments that Family First are putting forward are to ensure that no one company owns or operates more than 25 per cent of service stations. The reason for this provision is that we know that petrol for cars is an essential item for Australian families. There is not a lot of choice. That is another issue we can talk about another day; we will get to that one somewhere else. There is not a lot of choice and so we need to do what we can to make sure that we have real competition and more competition in petrol retailing and not potentially less. What we are looking at with the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 is that any restrictions that were placed on petroleum giants, going back many years ago, to prevent them from controlling any more than a certain number of sites across Australia were put in place for a very good reason, with both the government and opposition at the time agreeing that they made sense.
In 2006 we are realising that those provisions are not working the way they should, they are not serving the intended purpose and so it makes sense to change them. But to just throw them out and have no real regulation on how many sites certain players can have does not make sense. It made sense in principle many years ago, and so Family First is proposing to put some regulations in place that allow not only the big end, oil giants and large companies, to survive but also the independents by restricting any one company to owning or operating only 25 per cent of the market. This allows competition. It means that we do not end up like we have with the food and grocery sector, where we have two players controlling and dominating the food and grocery market across Australia. No-one believes that is a great idea, and there should have been some restrictions put in place to ensure that we did not have that situation. We have an ideal opportunity today to put some restrictions in place to allow competition.
I note that Senator Joyce has got an amendment that has merit that is looking at allowing 25 per cent of the market to be apportioned off for independents. I think our amendment works very well with Senator Joyce’s amendment in making sure that no one player can control more than 25 per cent of the market and also in allowing 25 per cent of the market to be earmarked for independents. I think our amendments are worthy of support, especially considering that Senator Joyce also has an amendment that is trying to achieve the same thing. I think that using both his and ours would serve Australia very well.
The opposition appreciates the sentiment that lies behind these amendments and the concerns that Senator Fielding expresses, which are concerns held within the community, about market control and market dominance. With this legislation we are dealing with the removal of legislation that effectively capped site control. On the one hand, we have taken the cap off and, on the other, this amendment seeks to reinstitute a cap of perhaps a different nature. We also looked at the amendment in the context of the practicality of how it would operate. We have seen a reduction in the number of sites from 20,000 to about 6,000 over the last recognisable period of change in this industry. We perceive that there are a couple of problems with this approach. Let us say that there was not a massive dislocation when you put this into effect—and that is a big ask—and you did not force the closure of sites with this proposal, which is a distinct possibility. If then there is a further rationalisation, a player could find themselves holding more than 25 per cent without acquiring additional sites simply by holding onto the sites that they had.
Another concern would be that, in those circumstances, which sites would those who dominate the market hold onto? It would be the sites that were the most profitable and serviced the biggest markets. Perhaps Senator Fielding might say, ‘If you roll Senator Joyce’s amendment in with mine and you control volume as well, then we might be able to deal with that problem.’ But if you have the two limiting factors in the market and a player has to say, ‘I can’t have more than 25 per cent of the sites by number and I can’t have more than 25 per cent of the volume of fuel sold but we would determine that on a month by month basis,’ the mind boggles when you think of the sites that might have to close because volume has changed over months. I am not sure how the amendments would handle that.
I apologise to Senator Joyce for in part dealing with his amendment at the same time as Senator Fielding’s. The point that I am making is that there is a distinct problem with giving effect to the sentiment that he proposes. I am not saying that we should rule out the concept of devising a mechanism to ensure that market dominance does not completely take hold in the petroleum retail market, or whatever fuel market we ultimately end up with, given that we are talking about a model which, in essence, should go for a decade or more into the future. We have looked at the legislation and we have seen that there are some very serious practical difficulties with giving it effect.
In saying that we have sympathy with the idea that market dominance ought to be prevented, we are not certain that this is the best mechanism with which to do it. I suppose if the amendments that we all supported had been carried last night, it would be easier for us to have an expectation that the ACCC might have played a role in that. That not being the case, it is going to be incumbent on this government or a government in the future to come up with a workable solution and to work with industry on this matter.
The other concern we have is with the proposition that the legislation would compel the promulgation of a regulation which would compel an annual review, which is a somewhat clumsy way of going about it. If you wanted to require a review, why would you then ask the regulation to require a review? You would put it in the legislation. But, as we understand it, the Oilcode contains provision for a five-yearly review. We think that, if there were an annual review of the Oilcode, there would be a distinct lack of certainty in the market, given that there could be an expectation of change on an annual basis because of that factor.
So we are not comfortable with the idea that there ought to be an annual review. We were comfortable with the idea that there ought to be annual reporting, which would have given the parliament the option to accelerate the review if circumstances justified it, but to require a review on the basis of nothing other than a desire to be kept up to date with what was occurring in the market we think would give the industry the idea that the review would, almost of necessity, lead to almost annual change in the industry. I do not think that sort of uncertainty is necessary.
We are comfortable with the review proposed in the Oilcode. We would be more comfortable with a Treasurer who was keen to look at imbalances in the industry and to empower the ACCC to do the work that it can do to investigate fully the operation of that market and to report publicly, and we will continue to pursue that. Clearly the government has the majority in this place, and even if all the other senators vote together, and even if we see what occurred last night when Senator Joyce crossed the floor, we still cannot carry the amendment. So, if the government wants to proceed down this path, of course the amendment will succeed. But we think that the appropriate course of action in relation to this is that we look at the implementation of the Oilcode and we will continue to pursue the amendments to the Trade Practices Act which the Senate narrowly failed to support last night.
The concept of a 25 per cent market measure has quite a good pedigree. The Fair Trading Act 1973 in the United Kingdom was altered to ensure that there was a warning mechanism measure inserted in regulatory practice whereby companies or organisations which reached a 25 per cent market share were put on notice that they were subject to competition law or a competition regulator watch and had enhanced reporting requirements put against them. Of course, 25 per cent is an arbitrary figure, but it was a recognition that 25 per cent delivers very substantial market power.
One of the great criticisms I have had of this government in the 10 years I have been pursuing these matters in depth is that they have failed in trade practices matters to take note of advanced, flexible and workable mechanisms which operate in similar overseas jurisdictions, which are effective in assisting the restraint of any abuse of market power and in ensuring that corporate operators in the market, particularly in intensely concentrated or oligopolised markets, are appropriately restrained and regulated. There is a lack of similar mechanisms here. I continually describe our Trade Practices Act as weak. It is intentionally weak, because the government will not take action in these matters. The Labor Party, to their credit, have recognised the way in which competition law needs to move and consistently over the last few years have joined the Democrats and others in the Senate chamber arguing for a strengthened Trade Practices Act.
I note in debate that the coalition often get annoyed with being told that they are overly subservient to big business views in the matter of trade practices law, but I am afraid that is the distinct impression that legislators, policymakers, small business observers and many media and expert observers have. One of these days, hopefully, the coalition will act to correct that perception. So once again—because I have done it over many years—I draw the attention of the government to the United Kingdom processes and procedures established under the Fair Trading Act, particularly what is appropriately regarded as a warning mechanism for a trigger percentage which alerts one to market concentration.
Having said that, of course, I can see that the danger of the design of Senator Fielding’s amendment was picked up by Senator Joyce in debate. It could, in practice—as opposed to the intent of the designer because the intent is a good one—lead to oligopolisation: namely, the creation of a number of major players, each approximating 25 per cent. It is certainly not the intent of Senator Fielding to end up with four companies running the entire petroleum market, each with a 25 per cent market share of retailing. I have not got the impression that is his intent, but it is why Senator Fielding has reacted well to Senator Joyce’s flip side, which is to reserve a portion of the market for non-major players. He commented on that in his earlier remarks. But I see a fatal flaw at the heart of this: the way in which the amendment is designed could lead to more concentration rather than less—an unintended consequence, I think.
There is a difficulty with industry specific regulation. I am not entirely averse to industry specific regulation—in other debates on other bills at other times I have supported it—but I am of a view that we should move more and more towards general law provisions rather than specific industry provisions. I have noted that the Commonwealth have followed that practice—with respect, for instance, to the criminal code, extracting elements and clauses out of individual pieces of legislation and putting them in the general legislation which covers criminal law to do with issues of fraud or where there is a penalty or other issues. I think we would need far less industry specific regulation in areas like Telstra, the media—or, as we dealing with here, petrol—if our general law were strengthened.
That is one of the reasons I have persistently, consistently and in detail, argued in this place for the assumption of divestiture laws being the flip side of merger and acquisition laws. They work exceptionally well in the most dynamic capital market in the world, which is the United States. The fact that the coalition government, and the coalition at large, will not accept the value of anti-trust or divestiture laws overall, is to their discredit because it is part of the law in the dynamic USA capital market. And once you introduce the flip side to merger and acquisition—which is the ability of the regulator to insist on divestiture in the appropriate circumstances—you can afford to back off from industry specific law because the regulator has a mechanism available.
It is no good saying to me that section 81 covers divestiture, because it only covers divestiture in very limited circumstances. I note, again to the credit of the chair of the committee, and to the credit of the Labor Party, that support for divestiture laws was included in the majority views spelt out in the Senate Economic References Committee, in its report The effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business.
Let me tell you, if there is one constituency that does not want effective divestiture laws it is big business. As I said, it is to the discredit of the coalition government, which has been quite brave and gutsy in other areas of corporate law reform, that it will not take on this major policy issue. If divestiture did exist, you would be able to parallel with it the UK early warning system of, when you reach a sizeable market share, being put on watch. Then senators would not need to take the initiative—as Senator Fielding has—to try to introduce a minimum mechanism in a particular industry to serve a particular need at a particular time, because the general law would be sufficient.
That is not Senator Fielding’s fault; it is the fault of a failure of broad political principle and policy by the coalition. If the government loses government next time, or the time after, I look forward, shadow minister, to the Labor Party taking up these issues and bringing forward the sound recommendations that are supported in the Senate Economics References Committee report.
The shadow minister raised the issue of review, which is covered in these amendments. I agree with the shadow minister and Senator Fielding that the Oilcode needs to be reviewed, and probably on a regular basis. It is a moving market and it is an extremely dynamic market. It is a complex and very sensitive market from the perception of consumers and businesses, and if the Oilcode is to be the principal and mandatory regulatory mechanism to keep the oil industry honest—I will not use the pejorative word—then the Oilcode needs to be kept constantly under review, and independently so.
The shadow minister made the remark that the role of monitoring and reviewing the oil code is currently contained in section 3 of the draft Oilcode, and that the review and monitoring role will be shared by the ACCC and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. I consider the ACCC, in law, to be an independent statutory authority. I do not accept the minister’s version of it being part of the executive, although I accept that it is part of the broad government area of responsibility.
I tend to see the executive as the coalition government cabinet or, if Labor are in, the Labor cabinet. They are the executive to me. The bureaucracy and agencies are separate. And, of course, independent statutory authorities are, and should be, at arm’s length. Anyway, those two bodies—the ACCC and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources—should be sufficient under the Oilcode, as I understand it, to achieve the appropriate review of the way in which the code may work. Therefore Senator Fielding’s amendments could cross with that.
I am concerned that a non-expert body may be given the role of reviewing regulatory competition matters and I am of the view that these matters need to be given to the ACCC as the experienced and concurrent reviewer and regulator. So overall I am concerned that Senator Fielding’s amendments—once again, with the right intent, and reflecting a genuine concern that he has and that is present in the community—will deliver an effect or an outcome which is contrary to his intention. So I must join with my shadow minister colleague from the Labor Party in informing the Senate that the Democrats will not support these amendments.
Although, once more, I agree with the intent of what Senator Fielding is trying to achieve, and I understand completely how difficult it is to work with the resources he has, I have some concerns about a couple of issues. I have had a discussion with Senator Fielding and I agreed that, if his amendment went to volume, I would strongly consider it. But the amendment goes to sites. The problem we have with sites is that you could hold 25 per cent of the sites and 75 per cent of the volume. That could pose a serious problem. The number of sites is not a determinant of the amount of the market that you hold. You can have Big Bill’s discount sideline petrol station that sells 100,000 litres a year next to a major site on a highway that may sell a couple of million litres, 10 million litres or even 100 million litres. The number of sites is not the crucial issue here; it is the volume in the market.
I thank Senator Fielding for his support for a following amendment which goes to volume. We really need to change this and make it a volumetric statement which is part of the same amendment, because there is the possibility of getting only one through. If Senator Fielding’s amendment went through as it stands and mine failed—and I know that is not going to happen, but let us presume it does; we can always hope for miracles—we would have a position where four petrol retailers could control 100 per cent of the sites. We know there are six retailers—the four majors and Coles and Woolworths. So it is quite possible that we could have complete saturation of the marketplace without any independents.
The aim—and this is where I agree with Senator Fielding’s intent—is to find a section of the market in which the independents can live. It was the intent of the 1980 act to do that and the intent remains. People do not change that much. The principle of fairness does not change over time. Modern Australian freedom should include the principle of freedom to go into business. That principle does not change over time, or I hope it has not changed. If we all end up working for business, we may as well work for government. The conservative side of politics believes that it is an absolutely fundamental principle that you have the freedom to go into business and be master of your own ship. That is what I am trying to address when I seek a section for those operators to exist in, because we do not all want to work for somebody else. Some of us like to work for ourselves. It is a basic principle to be able to do so.
I agree with the intent of what Senator Fielding is trying to achieve. My concern is that we are talking about sites, not volume. When we talk about sites we make no statement whatsoever about the volume that can exist in the market. In addition, the amendment starts to cross paths with the ACCC and the role of the ACCC. I believe in having a stronger ACCC. I believe—and I place this on the record—that Professor Fels had a much stronger and more partisan view of being an arbiter in the ACCC than possibly that body’s current incumbents. But that is an issue for another day.
When I look at this amendment I see two issues. Firstly, four retailers can control 100 per cent of the sites. This would leave no room for independents to exist. Secondly, the amendment talks about sites, so you could have one retailer having 25 per cent of the sites but possibly 75 per cent of the volume. Obviously, you would ensure that you set off on a path of taking over the major sites that sold most of the petrol, which could have an arbitrary effect. The reason the 25 per cent figure is in the amendment is that it is roughly the figure used now in relation to independents, non-branded and branded, and franchisees. It is a section of the market that we know will not create a great disturbance. It is really drawing a line and saying, ‘This is where we are at,’ so it will not create great turmoil in the market. It is just going to protect the position of the existing independents. The 25 per cent figure applies monthly. Some time period has to be given to do a review, otherwise it has no effect.
I agree with the intent of Senator Fielding’s amendment. If a few things were done to it it could be something that I could support, but in its current form I cannot do so. It is the detail I cannot support, not the intent.
The 25 per cent concept is something that we have obviously heard about from a lot of quarters, but the government does not support it. As Senator O’Brien notes, the government sees this amendment providing all sorts of problems in relation to its practical application, and I think that has been indicated in the comments of others this afternoon. The concern is that it would in fact lead to increased price pressures—I am certainly aware of Senator Fielding’s concerns about the price of fuel and his entreaties in relation to that and certain elements of the price of fuel—so the government has concerns in relation to that and also in relation to potential investment in the sector. I think this could have a negative impact. More importantly, I think some of the pressures that could be imposed, certainly from some of the issues that Senator O’Brien raised, could see a negative impact on availability in regional areas.
In respect of the comments that have been made regarding the review, I note that the government has reaffirmed its commitment to a review of the Oilcode 12 months after its implementation. Senator O’Brien mentioned five years, but the government have also indicated that we would review within that time frame as appropriate, not necessarily in the standard time frame of five years.
I have some concluding remarks on these amendments. We are moving to a situation where we have two players that are going to dominate petrol retailing in Australia. I do not know anyone who thinks that is a great idea. In removing regulations that made sense in their day but do not make sense today, we should be replacing them with regulations that do all we can to make sure we have more competition, not less. I understand that the intention of these amendments is right and honourable—and maybe some of the content is not—but how do you get a government to sit down and genuinely look at the interests of Australia and have a fair dinkum debate and tussle about whether 25 per cent is right or whether 20 per cent is right or whether it should be based on volume or on sites? But to stand by and do nothing and allow the independents to be squeezed out of the market—and that is what we are talking about here—rather than trying to allow real competition to happen, is ludicrous. We are in danger of going down the path we went down with groceries in Australia—having two players dominating the whole grocery market and also dominating petrol retailing when we have an opportunity to stop it. It is absolutely crazy.
Question negatived.
I move Family First amendment (4) on sheet 4928 revised:
(4) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:
5 After subsection 95Z(1)
Insert:
Offence: failure to negotiate on price, terms of conditions of supply
Senator Murray, on a point of order?
In fact, it is on a matter of guidance, Mr Temporary Chairman. I note that amendment includes references to 51(1)(f), which refers to an earlier amendment—item 2—which was knocked off by the Senate in committee, so I would assume that this amendment therefore cannot be put in this form.
As I understand it, Senator Murray, your Democrat amendment—
No, it is not a Democrat amendment. I refer you to sheet 4928 revised. If you have a look at item 2 of Senator Fielding’s amendments which have been dealt with and voted against, you will find that it refers to ‘at the end of subsection 51(1)’ at (f), (g), (h) and (i). Subsection 51(1)(f) does not exist, as I understand it, in the bill; it exists in Senator Fielding’s amendment, item 2. If that item 2 has been rejected by the Senate in committee, surely you cannot move an amendment which includes a reference to an amendment which has been rejected.
Senator Murray, as far as I am able to ascertain, on my advice there is no conflict and therefore Senator Fielding should continue, having moved amendment (4).
On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: if you look at item 2, it says:
(2) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Trade Practices Act 1974
That is on sheet 4928 revised. Item 3 has:
So that is the subparagraph (f) to be added on. It is on sheet 4928 revised. As Senator Murray has indicated, amendment (4) moved by Senator Fielding does actually refer to that clause. Seeing that clause does not exist, it would be very hard to pass an amendment that refers to it.
Senator Fielding, it would appear that you may have to amend your amendment or that the amendment is not valid.
On a point of clarification, what has been pointed out is actually technically correct and it would not stand on its own. The point was about prohibiting refusing to supply independent retailers. Because the previous amendments have not got up, this would not be able to stand in its current form. You are right, Mr Temporary Chairman.
So do you wish to withdraw or amend?
If I had time, I would like to amend. As I do not have the time and as the previous amendments have not gone through, then I will need to withdraw it.
Are you seeking leave to withdraw then?
Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman; I seek leave to do that.
Leave granted.
Thank you, Senator Murray, for your guidance and thank you, Senator Colbeck. The Senate in committee will consider Senator Joyce’s amendment on sheet 5045.
I move amendment (1) on sheet 5045:
(1) Schedule 2, page 4 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Trade Practices Act 1974
Oilcode
One thing that we have seen in the chamber today is that everybody seems to have a great desire to protect small business. They believe in it. Now it is a matter of putting that desire into effect. We have gone through a number of amendments that have been trying to control from the top down—that is, putting controls on sites and suchlike. But this amendment says that we should look at what is actually there at the moment as being part of the independents, the family businesses—the businesses that we intend to support. Our rhetoric is that we believe in and support the right to be in business. According to the Motor Trades Association, who I have been in consultation with, those types of businesses represent about 25 per cent of the volume at the moment. What this amendment is doing is quarantining the section of the market that is currently being used for that section that we want to protect.
BP, Caltex and Shell put their hands on their hearts and say: ‘We have got no intention to ever remove those families from those businesses. We have got no intention to go into their area.’ If that is the case then this will not worry them, because it is no more than stating their status quo. The other 75 per cent can do what they like. They can have all the rearrangements they like. This amendment says to the Australian people that we believe there is a section of this market which must be left behind—if we say that we are a government that believes in small business. It does not cross paths with the ACCC; it purely and simply talks to a section of the market that we want to quarantine.
People have asked, ‘Why a month?’ They have said, ‘It is going to be outrageous—every month!’ Not really. You have to find some sort of time frame in which to deal with these issues. You could say a year. But you do not have to worry about anything monumental at the moment, because currently we are abiding by that. There are no problems whereby they have to go to the market now and change it. It does not make any prescriptive comment about who is what, who is going to have a competitive advantage, which of the oil majors is going to leave and which is going to follow. It does not talk about them at all. They have 75 per cent of the volume of the market to deal with.
I am going to read my tea leaves here: I do not think the Labor Party are going to support this. I think they are going to come up with another reason not to support it. I think they are right on board with the bill. But it is going to be fascinating to hear what they have to say—’Why this time?’—about why they are not going to when they have got a chance of actually doing something. I wonder if they have been got at. I wonder if someone has had a little knock on their door. Today the Labor Party have actually got a chance to achieve something. They have always talked about the outrageous power in the Senate, saying that it is this and it is that and it is something else. For once in their life they have got the chance to do something about it and they are going to fold. We can see that coming today. Today is their chance, today is their Waterloo. It just goes to show that the knock on the door has happened: ‘Hey fellas, you are going to fall into line.’ We know that all the other times it is just Labor Party theatrics before a Labor Party fold.
It is going to be fascinating for the people in the gallery today to see what Labor are really like. Never again listen to Labor’s rhetoric about the extremism in the Senate, about the Senate being out of control, because they are part of the problem. They will fall into line today. It is going to be marvellous to watch. The big boys have knocked on your door and you are going to do what they tell you to do, because that is your job. Around about question time, you will go back to your old rhetoric, expecting people to believe you, and they will not. After this, they will fail to believe you on virtually anything. What you will show is that you are an absolutist power in the Senate, that you believe in the rights of big business to reign supreme, that you do not believe in small business and that, when you get the chance to make your mark, you fold.
It will be interesting today to see who are the so-called backdown people. Who will be the doormats today? I hope that we get the voices on this one, because I want to see them drawn out. I want to see what it looks like to see some doormats cross over to protect their mates in the big oil companies. That is what you will be doing, because they have got your number.
I rise to support the amendment proposed by Senator Joyce. I was not in support of Senator Fielding’s amendments, for all of the reasons that were cited, but I am certainly in sympathy with the principle that we have to keep the small business operators, the franchisees, in business. It is absolutely fundamental, especially coming from rural and regional Australia, as I do. All of Tasmania could be classified as rural and regional.
Hobart is very sophisticated.
I agree that Hobart is very sophisticated, but some people still regard it as regional. Having said that, and as I said in my second reading speech, I think it is absolutely essential that we support small business in Australia. The tragedy is that small business operators continue to support the coalition in spite of the fact that, day after day and week after week, the coalition tramples small business. We have seen an example of that in the last week or so with the reneging on the promise of a mandatory code. Fruit and vegetable growers in particular are outraged. They were promised things about labelling that went nowhere and then they were promised mandatory criteria. People as high as the Deputy Prime Minister, eight days before the last federal election, absolutely promised growers in Australia that they would get this mandatory code that would govern their relationship with the wholesalers and retailers—that they would get a decent go. Instead of that, after two years nothing has been done.
The coalition absolutely reneged and now it has been flick passed to Minister Macfarlane, who is saying that it is a voluntary code. It totally flies in the face of what the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, said. Rural and regional Australia have a right to ask whether they can take the word of the Deputy Prime Minister on its merits. The former Deputy Prime Minister has been hung out to dry in front of the whole of rural and regional Australia. As the current Leader of The Nationals in the Senate was saying, the National Party has been dudded in front of the whole of rural and regional Australia. The fruit and vegetable growers across this country have been let down by the coalition in terms of the promise of a mandatory code, and now we have rural and regional Australia being let down again in relation to supporting small business.
We have never rejected the notion that we should be able to quarantine certain volumes to certain sections of the market, and I think that this is certainly one way in which we can support the small business operators in Australia and support rural and regional Australia. That is why I am supporting this amendment. I think it is significant. You only have to read the submissions from small business operators to see their awareness of what is going to happen to them as a result of this legislation. We have already seen the market dominance of the four major oil companies in Australia. We have seen what happened with the introduction of the supermarket schemes and we can see the writing on the wall. I think this is, as Senate Joyce has just said, a red-letter day for small business in Australia. In fact, it has been a red-letter week for small business because of the backdown that I referred to a moment ago. For all the words that have been spoken on this bill, it is essential that people actually stand up at this point and vote to support those small business operators throughout Australia, because they are not going to be there forever.
The people who are going to suffer the most are the people who have the least amount of power when it comes to lobbying the government. For all the government’s promises about standing up for the battler, standing up for the little guy, it is about big business, writ large. It has been big business writ large for the coal industry in holding up any movement on climate change. It is big business in terms of the government ignoring moves to ban the television advertising of junk food in children’s television hours. They are out there totally supporting big business in blocking the moves to do that. Now we have yet another example of it.
I am pleased that Senator Joyce has brought forward this amendment. I urge the Senate to support it as a very strong signal to small business and to rural and regional Australia that we believe these services are essential, that we support families in small businesses in rural communities and that we support allowing those communities to continue to be sustainable. There will come a day when the four big oil companies will withdraw from the so-called uneconomic sites. What is going to happen to those communities when that withdrawal occurs? When it occurs, the people to blame will be those who are sitting right here in this chamber. It should be taken up to them at the next election.
It is very important, for a range of reasons, that we keep independents in the market. Obviously, regional areas are absolutely crucial in that. You can go to any small town and find independents there. That is one of the issues I had with the legislation that talked about sites. They are usually smaller volumetric sites—small sites in what they produce—but they are vitally important to the lifeblood of the town. One of the great fears that we have with this legislation is that we may end up with oil companies deciding not to supply them because it is uneconomic. What we are going to have is complete social dislocation.
Just imagine a small town like Surat, in Queensland, which is 75 kilometres from Roma to the north and 120 kilometres from St George in the south. You can forget about the closest towns to the east or the west; they are about 200 kilometres in each direction. There is one fuel station. What are you saying about the lifestyle of the people in that town when you close the fuel station down and their cars have to have the fuel capacity, and enough fuel, to go 75 kilometres to Roma and 75 kilometres back? They have to take a 150-kilometre round trip to possibly cover the five kilometres around town to do the shopping and such things. It is a vital part of life. I suppose you could tell them to walk. You could say, ‘People in these towns do not deserve the right to own a vehicle.’
You could go back to the horse and buggy!
That is right. So you only deserve the right to own a vehicle if you can afford to fill it with enough petrol to take you 150 kilometres out of your way to fuel up the car! That is one of the things that is wrong in this legislation that we have to deal with. We have to put in some protection mechanism for these people.
It is the height of absurdity to expect that BP will develop the conscience that we are supposed to be developing in this chamber. We are going to leave it to some corporate entity to develop that conscience: ‘Oh, you know, Caltex will look after you. BP will look after you. Shell will look after you. Coles and Woolworths will look after the people of Surat.’ I do not think so. I do not think that is going to happen, unless we have a section of the market that they have to supply—independents—and that is because we know that they have volume at the refinery that they have to move. They have to find the sites and, if some of those sites are independents, they have to go out and supply those sites—it is our best intention of trying to look after those people. People might say, ‘It’s naive. It’s got this wrong; it’s got that wrong,’ but where is your solution? Where is the solution in the current piece of legislation that looks after those people? Where is it? Take me to it and you will have won me. But you have not got it there.
It is a statement about fairness and what is primarily unfair. I do not think anybody in this nation should be just dropped off. We are talking about people—generally, pensioners—who do not have a lot of money, who probably have a vehicle that is not one of the latest models and is not very economical with fuel. It may be a bit old-fashioned, but I think we should look after them. I think we should give them something that says, ‘I believe you have a right to fuel up your car in your town.’ I am going way out on a limb on that one, but we will give it a shot and see how it goes; we will put up the flag and see who salutes on this one.
That will be interesting. We will come up with a few platitudes, and the Labor Party will have a good reason why they cannot. There will be some reason: it will be a bit too complicated, there will be something technically not right, the wind is not blowing in the right direction, the sparrows are not facing south today. There will be something—something fascinating—as to why they do not want to look after pensioners in small towns or other people except the oil majors who knocked on their door. They will be looking after them today; they will not be looking after their own.
This is one of the issues where we really have to give ourselves a bit of a wake-up call about what we are trying to do here. The only people we know who will supply people in those small towns are independents. Why? Because you just do not make a lot of money out there. Where the major oil companies want to be is on strangulated sites on major arterial roads. That is where they want to do business. They do not want to do business on the edges of suburbs, from corner stores and from independents. And, if they do—if they are telling us the truth—they will not be worried about this amendment because it will not affect their game plan. They will be saying, ‘We always intended to keep independents in the game, so we have no problems with the amendment because it’s what we’re doing already.’
But, if they do have a problem with that, it spells out clear as a bell that they are getting out of it—they are getting out of there, they are going to go back and we are going to have some beautiful new petrol stations around strangulated sites on the Gold Coast, putting out of business independents that are already there and putting out of business families that are already making a buck there. We are going to have some big sites up on the M1 and around the edges of Sydney, probably putting people out of business there, and big sites down the Gold Coast putting families out of business there. But, if they are not going to do that, they will have no problems with this amendment—none whatsoever.
There is a whole range of things that go away from the purely dry economics of this resolution. It talks about looking after people. It talks about the protection of that manifest belief that you have the right to go into business in Australia, to be master of your own ship, to determine your own destiny, to think your own thoughts and not be scared of what you have to say. One of the things that attracts me to this place is that you should be able to protect that in all the ways, shapes and forms in which it comes.
I have had some questions about my amendment (2) to add (f) to section 95A. We have to be able to review petroleum products and we have to have the capacity in that act to add in petroleum products as one of the mechanisms of review, because we are talking about a monthly period. If somebody says, ‘I don’t like a monthly period,’ I will meet you halfway. If you have a different period—two weeks, two months or three months —I will go there. We do not need to stumble around it, but you have to have the mechanism with the power of review, and that is where 95A(f) comes in.
It is vitally important that we get a fairer outcome. This amendment is all about fairness. Fairness is a simple word. What is this amendment about? It is about fairness. It is about fairness to people who are in business. It is about fairness to the aspirations of the Australian people and their ability in the future to go into business. It is about fairness to people in regional towns and their ability to source fuel. It is about fairness in giving people the right to jump in their car and be a part of a community. If you do not have a car, you do not have a community.
We cannot be sending people in regional towns back to 1911. It is not fair. We cannot be saying: ‘Mrs Smith, we know you’re 87 and you’ve got an old Commodore in the garage and it’s probably not the most economical car but, from now on, we expect you to ride a bike.’ I do not think that is fair. When you need to see a doctor in another town, you will have to drive to that town first, before you can see the doctor, because the only fuel station will be the big corporate site back in a major town. So you will somehow have to get yourself to the town to buy the fuel to get to the town. I do not think that is a fair outcome, but it is going to be fascinating to hear the arguments as to why it is fair. We will hear today some arguments about why it is fair. It will be interesting. The arguments about why this is fair will be something that we can put on with Monty Python tonight.
It is going to be an absolute expose of the power of major oil companies. People will be looking after themselves because it will be a case of, ‘If you guys get into government, you have got to be on the right side of us.’ The Labor Party will be saying: ‘We’re going to do that today. Don’t you worry, you can count us in. Don’t you worry about that. We’ll look after you today, Mobil, Caltex, BP, Shell, Coles and Woolworths. The Labor Party are going to look after you today, because all that other stuff we talk about is just rhetoric. We just spin that out—it’s a yarn. We’re programmed to say that sort of stuff; we don’t mean it. You don’t honestly think for one second that we believe in that? You don’t think we believe in looking after people in regional towns! You don’t think we believe in fairness! It is just theatrics. We’re with you, Caltex, Woolworths, Shell and Coles. We’re with you all the way.’ Maybe that is fair enough. There are a lot of people in the shop stewards union—maybe it will help union membership. I do not know. But it will be interesting. It is going to be a fascinating expose of the power of the major oil companies.
I found that a remarkable contribution. We are on broadcast, so I suppose Senator Joyce has to take his opportunities where they fall. It is a bit rich for Senator Joyce to ascribe motions to the opposition on how it votes on this legislation. I have just one word to say: Telstra.
I can tell you about the amendments you have there, if you want to run through them.
If Senator Joyce wants to debate how he changed his mind from the commitment he gave before the election to vote against the sale of Telstra to the metamorphosis that brought him to the point of voting for the government’s legislation, I am happy to debate him at the appropriate time. I just say that it is a bit rich to ascribe to the opposition all sorts of motives, without hearing what we had to say on this legislation. I found that a remarkable contribution.
Some interesting questions ought to be asked about this amendment. What does the term ‘prescribed independent fuel retailer’ mean? How will it be interpreted by the courts? Can Senator Joyce assure us that it will be interpreted in the way that he intends? Is there a definition in the legislation which the courts would rely upon? Senator Joyce sets out sites in subclauses 4 and 5 of his amendment. I am not certain, but I take it that they are operated by Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd—Caltex—BP Australia Holdings Ltd, Mobil Oil Australia Ltd, Shell Australia Ltd, Coles Myer Ltd and Woolworths Ltd. If they have been supplied their 75 per cent of the market, say, 20 days into the month and the independents have not taken up all of their 25 per cent, I have interpreted this to mean that there would be a breach of the law if the oil companies kept those sites supplied. If those sites that had been supplied ran out of petrol, they would simply have to shut down while the suppliers waited for the independents to take up the balance of that supply—that is, the 25 per cent. So, for the next 10 days in the cycle, if they did not take it up, those sites would shut down. Is that what Senator Joyce is saying? Or would they be fined, would they have to pay a penalty to be able to continue to operate their businesses? What would happen—and perhaps this is the intent of the proposed amendment—if those independents said, ‘We’re not buying the fuel unless we can get it for 50c a litre less, so your sites will have to shut down unless you sell us the fuel for a massive amount less than the market rate’?
It is all very well for Senator Joyce to come in here with good intentions but, when he does not do his homework and he does not put up a proposition which is supportable, it really is not appropriate for him to cast aspersions on other parties in this chamber which try to get a workable piece of legislation through. I am happy to have a debate. Senator Joyce wants to ascribe motives to everyone. Let me suggest that many people could ascribe the motive that this is just grandstanding. It is something that Senator Joyce knew would never get up, it is something that Senator Joyce knew he could have a rant about while we are on broadcast and it is something about which Senator Joyce could say: ‘I’ve defended the faith; I’ve defended the independent wholesalers.’ Frankly, that is just a hoax.
Here we have a provision which, if implemented, would be totally unworkable. I understand that, in Goulburn, not far from here, there are 12 service stations. There are a variety of service stations. What would happen if three-quarters of those had sold all the petrol that their supplier would give them under this measure because they decided they could do better with margins in other places? Let us say that nine of the 12 service stations had to close while three remained open. This is really sounding like the old soviet state command economy. We are talking about saying to businesses: ‘Lay off your staff, close your doors, lock up the pumps. Those three businesses remain in town. They can keep trading for the rest of that month, until the others start at the beginning of the next month.’
There will have to be some massive policing of this, so we can understand just when the 25 per cent limitation kicks in. When in the month do you stop supplying the stations that are run by these companies? Which parts of the community will run out of fuel because they are only supplied by these companies and not by the independents? Which of these places where you have to drive 75 kilometres each way to get fuel will be on the receiving end? The petrol stations in their town are all closed and they have to drive 100 kilometres up the track to an independent who will sell them fuel at $2 a litre, because that is all that they can get. These are the sorts of unintended consequences—I am certain that Senator Joyce did not intend this—that ill-considered drafting can lead to. Frankly, if Senator Joyce wants to cast aspersions and suggest that people are motivated by improper motives, he had better have a good, hard look at the proposition that he puts before this chamber and asks people to vote for and then castigates them for not voting for it.
We are happy to consider reasonable amendments and, indeed, we support reasonable amendments. Senator Joyce voted for Senator Murray’s amendments yesterday and then had himself paired, so that he did not have to vote for an almost identical amendment last night, and walked out of the chamber. Frankly, I was prepared to let that go through to the keeper. But, after that performance, I do not think it is fair of Senator Joyce to expect us to ignore the way that he behaves on legislation if he is going to ascribe the sorts of motives he ascribed to the Labor Party in relation to this matter.
Our bona fides are clear. We have been proposing improvements to the regulatory regime through amendments to the Trade Practices Act. We have supported—as has Senator Joyce—certain other propositions going through in terms of the competitive model through the Trade Practices Act, and we continue to support that and we are expecting the government to give effect to the legislation that has been passed through this chamber which will have some effect in this regard. We think there are further improvements to be made. But we will not be supporting a proposition which is totally unworkable.
It does not matter that the legislation might be passed through here with the best of intentions. If it is not workable, if it leads to catastrophe in the market and to chaos in the marketplace, if it leads to the closure of businesses and to towns shutting down, and to the sorts of consequences that Senator Joyce referred to—the inability of some markets to be supplied—how can we vote for it? That is the reason we will be opposing this amendment: it is not workable.
It is well-intentioned but, frankly, Senator Joyce needs to put up a better-thought-out proposition—one which has behind it enough detail to give it a chance of success. I suspect the difficulty that Senator Joyce faces is that that is a very difficult thing to do—even for an opposition party, let alone a member of the government who is taking his own path on a particular piece of legislation.
I respect the fact that Senator Joyce is well-intentioned, but I think he ought to think very carefully about how he addresses the intentions of others in this place when it comes to amendments such as this. There is no way that this could be given effect without major rethinks and major bureaucratic intervention at every step of the way and, subsequently, major change after it had been trialled. By all means, Senator Joyce should pursue his intention of making sure that independents have a place in the market. This is not the way to do it.
I do not want to prolong the debate, because I hope we get to a division before question time, but I want to make three points. The first point is that I would caution anyone against ascribing motives in this place. I am aware that, within the Labor Party and their caucus, there have intense debates and different opinions about many matters, and my information is that they have had some contested views on this bill. But I do not ascribe to them a weak belief with respect to Trade Practices Act amendments; they are on the record in quite a formidable manner in that regard.
The second point I would make is on the amendment itself. Whilst I recognise that the criticisms of the shadow minister have some validity, the great saving point of the amendment is that it actually leaves the detail of management to the Oilcode; the detail can be developed and the practical measures can be introduced through the Oilcode.
My third and last point is that I see this as a holding proposal until such time as the Labor Party are in power and can introduce divestiture provisions—because, of course, once you have divestiture provisions you have proper market management and you then do not have to hold to particular percentages in the market as a whole. So, recognising the validity of some of the criticisms, overall the Democrats think that both the intent and the design are sufficient for us to support this proposal.
It is interesting. We have just heard a good expose by Senator Murray, basically setting out exactly what this is—a holding pattern—so that we do not crucify those who are currently in the market. Why it is 25 per cent, and why it is not going to bring about the so-called moment of doom that has been talked about by the opposition, is that, if that were the case, it would be doing it now, because that is the portion of the market that is currently being described by the Motor Traders Association as ‘independents’. You asked for a description of what an independent is. It is right there in front of you. It is there in the legislation. The independents are all the fuel stations except the four major oil companies and Coles and Woolworths. It cannot be any clearer than that.
If this proposal were about to bring about this complete dislocation then we would already be suffering that complete dislocation because the sites and franchise acts have been in place since 1980; and, while we all agree that they need to be amended and fixed, we are not seeing that doom at the moment. So I do not know why this amendment is going to bring it about. It was a great exercise in spin, and it was great to see that, when their number is called, the Labor Party have the ability to fall into line. I do not think that Government Whip Jeannie Ferris could have done a better job on the Labor Party members than the job they have just done on themselves. It was brilliant. They have fallen into line. They know what they have got to do. They have to support the oil majors. They have got to make sure that those horrid independents and family businesses go broke. They have got to make sure they screw them down, because their number has been called today and they have all answered.
And it is all right. There are no protections in there for independents—none. The Labor Party obviously believe that the market should reign supreme and that there should be no controls—basically, that the biggest shall survive and the small shall die. That is an interesting position. But, anyway, we will continue this debate later on. We are going to make sure that this is carried out.
Progress reported.
My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin. I refer him to press reports that he has just announced the deferral of the sale of Medibank Private. Can the minister confirm that is the case? If so, isn’t that a humiliating backflip brought about by the fact that he cannot prove the government owns Medibank Private, he cannot prove premiums will not rise following the sale and he cannot explain whether foreign ownership will be permitted if it is sold? Of course, the minister also knows that the public do not support the sale. Minister, given this is the third botched sale you have been responsible for, following the failure of your handling of the Snowy and Telstra sales, will you now abandon your ideological and arrogant obsession with selling Australians’ assets and listen to the Australian public when they say they do not want their assets sold?
I suspect the Australian public said they did not want Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank sold, but the Labor Party wisely and properly sold them. I thought I might get a question from behind me on this subject, so I thank Senator Evans for a very timely and appropriate question. It is the case that we announced in April this year that we were committed to selling Medibank Private. We do not see why the government should continue to hold and own one of the 38 private health insurance funds. We cannot see why taxpayers should continue to have that risk and that burden. We think the private sector can do a better job of running a health insurance business just as the private sector does a better job of running airlines and banks.
We reject this Labor scare campaign that change of ownership will force premiums up. If a health fund raises its premiums excessively in the competitive market that we have, customers can leave and go to another health fund. They have full portability. As we announced in April, we are retaining our full ministerial approval power. We also said in April that, while the government had decided to sell, we had not made a decision on the method and timing of the sale and that that would be a function of our decision on T3. We have now decided, in light of the T3 decision, that the best way to sell Medibank Private is by way of a share market float, and we have just announced that. That will ensure MPL does remain a strong and independent player in the private health insurance market. We do not want to see Medibank Private broken up, and we do not want to see any lessening of competition in this market. All Australians will be able to participate in that float. As we have said before, existing customers will receive some form of entitlement.
We took advice from our professional advisers on both MPL and Telstra about the timing of a Medibank sale. As we might have anticipated, that professional advice was very much that it was not in taxpayers’ interests to have two competing government share market floats. They did advise that holding the MPL sale even some months after T3 could affect demand for Telstra shares. The clear advice and the experience of governments, both Labor and Liberal, is that a full market float takes about nine months to organise. That means we would be looking at June next year if we were to do a float, so (a) that is still too close to the T3 sale and (b) everybody would understand that June next year is not an appropriate time for us to be contemplating a public float for a whole variety of reasons.
We have decided that Medibank Private will be sold by public float in 2008 if the government is re-elected. That will also enable the government’s broader private health insurance reforms to pass the parliament and be fully implemented before the sale occurs. Those are very good reforms to make private health insurance an even better product for consumers.
As I said, we remain committed to this sale. We will introduce the legislation in this session. We will seek the passage of the sale bill by December 2006 with the private health insurance reform package to be dealt with in the early part of next year. We have a very good package to improve the product. We have a very good package to take Medibank Private to the people—to put the private into Medibank Private. We think that taxpayers have had to bear the burden of owning this business for 30 years—they had to find the $85 million to provide the capital injection this company needed some two or three years ago. This business will be better off in the private sector, just as Qantas, CSL and the Commonwealth Bank were under the Labor Party.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would be interested to know when the minister came to the view that suddenly the sale had to be deferred. I also want to know what the minister has to say to Australians who have watched his performance in handling the sale of Telstra, handling the sale of the Snowy and now handling the sale of Medibank. Why should Australians have any confidence in the minister, given that he has botched all three sales? This comes at a great cost to the Australian taxpayer. Isn’t the burden to the Australian taxpayer the minister’s failure to do his job properly? Why should we not come to the conclusion that the minister is driven by ideology rather than the interests of Australian taxpayers?
We have not sold Medibank Private and T3 yet. You will get your chance to say I botched it, if you like, but not until they have occurred.
But it’s not going well, is it!
It is going very well thank you, Senator Evans. I said in April that we had not decided on the method or timing of this sale because we had to see what final decision was made in relation to T3. I very explicitly said back then, and in subsequent interviews, that the timing of the Medibank Private sale would be very much influenced by what we decided to do with our remaining shares in Telstra. There is no deception there; we were quite clear in our position.
The history of the Snowy is well known. We only had 13 per cent of the shares. The New South Wales government initiated this sale with their majority stake of 57 per cent. We decided, after they had initiated the sale, to tip in our 13 per cent. But as the Prime Minister clearly announced, given the public reaction to that, we decided to withdraw our 13 per cent. Victoria and New South Wales could have gone ahead and sold their 87 per cent if they so chose. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Would the minister please inform the Senate how the government is encouraging the take-up of digital television in Australia by providing Australian consumers with new digital services? Further, is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
I thank Senator Parry for the question, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on being elected Deputy Government Whip in the Senate. It is a very auspicious position, and I well recall how much I enjoyed it. I am sure he will do extremely well.
The growing popularity of digital is changing the face of television for Australian consumers. It offers new services, makes viewing interactive and improves picture quality, among other benefits. That is why new and innovative services for consumers are the centrepiece of the government’s media reform package. I announced earlier this year that, following the passage of legislation, the two national broadcasters will be able to show a broader range of content on their digital multichannels. From 1 January 2007 commercial broadcasters will be able to create one high-definition multichannel to be complemented by a standard definition multichannel from 1 January 2009. This will significantly augment the services of the current television broadcasters and provide new viewing choices for Australian consumers.
However, in addition, there are currently two unallocated lots of spectrum that could be made available for innovative news services, including in-home digital services to help drive digital take-up. Earlier today, I announced details for the allocation of the two channels, channel A and channel B. Both channels will be auctioned as separate national licences, with channel A to be used for in-home, free-to-air digital services and channel B for innovative new digital services such as mobile television. A potential model for channel B could be a mobile TV offering integrated with 3G mobile telephony and Diginet services made available on a subscription basis. To ensure Australian consumers get access to new services, as opposed to a replication of currently available services, neither channel A nor channel B will be able to be used for traditional commercial free-to-air TV services or subscription TV services to fixed in-home receivers—that is, the set sitting in your lounge room. This is exciting news for Australian consumers who, over the next few years, will be able to enjoy the true digital experience and the new range of offerings that will be enabled by these measures.
To encourage new players and services into the media market there will be restrictions on who can control channel A, the in-home services. Considerable interest, however, has been expressed in the potential uses of channel B by current media and telecommunications players, content aggregators and infrastructure companies. The government has decided, therefore, not to restrict who can bid for this channel in an attempt to ensure the channel’s success and sustainability and to encourage the emergence of new and different services on this spectrum. All bidders will be subject to the usual competition constraints that are set out in the Trade Practices Act and apply to acquisitions in any industry.
I was asked about alternative policies. So far as I can tell, Labor do not have a policy for digital television in Australia, and they also oppose cross-media reform. Labor would rather stick with the old Keating model, which is 20 years old and very out of date, where you can only be a prince of the printer or a queen of the screen but certainly not both. But the game has moved on and industry needs to grow and invest in new services while maintaining diversity. This government now has a far-reaching set of media policies and reforms designed to give consumers the new media services they want, that they need and that they will enjoy.
My question is addressed to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the Victorian Supreme Court figures on mortgage repossessions show a massive 58 per cent increase in writs between 2004-05 and 2005-06? Is the minister further aware that the South Australian Supreme Court figures show that the number of repossession summonses lodged increased by more than one-third between 2004-05 and 2005-06? Is the minister aware that these figures come on top of the New South Wales Supreme Court mortgage repossession statistics showing an incredible 59 per cent increase in judgements between 2004 and 2005—the fastest rise in 16 years? What does the minister have to say to those Victorian, South Australian and New South Wales families who are now at risk of losing their mortgages because of the government’s failure to keep its election promise to keep interest rates at record low levels?
In relation to the specific question, I have some advice here that applications to the Victorian and New South Wales supreme courts to foreclose on mortgage loans have increased over 2005 and in the first half of 2006. But while these trends are important in their own right, an application to foreclose does not necessarily translate to a writ for repossession, and applications for dispossessions make up a very small proportion of overall households with a mortgage.
APRA noted in June that in the last year arrears rates, loans where payments have passed due date but not considered impaired due to the quality of collateral, have risen somewhat according to data reported to APRA as well as industry data on securitised loans. So there may be some pick-up in impaired loans—that observation is correct—but I think that one has to see this in the context of the most extraordinary period in Australian history of sustained low inflation and sustained low interest rates as a result. Much of it has been the result of this government’s very careful stewardship of the economy, which has been reflected by the public’s confidence in our government at the last four elections, where economic management has been the critical issue and where the Australian people have judged the Labor Party to be seriously failing in their capacity to present any sort of credible alternative to the Australian people.
As a result of the 15 years of consecutive economic growth in this country, 10 of those under us, and, as I say, the prevailing very tight job market, the low inflation, the low interest rates and the deregulation of the financial markets, which has brought to bear much greater competition for the provision of housing funds and the greater availability of housing funds, I think it is fair to say—and some of that, at least, was begun under the alternative government, the Labor Party—that there is, as must be expected in a deregulated environment, a greater and potential propensity for risk.
We have repeatedly said throughout our 10 years in office that potential home buyers should always be very conscious of their capacity to service their loan, they should be conscious of the fact that interest rates can vary and they should take clear and careful advice before they enter into a loan. There is no doubt that the great bulk of Australian families have benefited enormously from our stewardship of the economy, which has provided them with job opportunities, rising real wages, relatively low interest rates, job security and housing affordability rates that by and large have been very good relative to wages. Obviously, we are disappointed, as anyone would be, if families get into financial difficulty and cannot continue to service their loans. It is a reminder to everybody to be extremely careful before entering into these sorts of arrangements and that they should, in a less regulated environment, be conscious of those risks.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Given his reference to the increase in the number of impaired loans, I would ask him if he is aware that Standard and Poor’s mortgage arrears statistics for 30 June 2006 show an increase in serious arrears over the last year? Is the minister further aware that Standard and Poor’s attribute this trend to the increase in low doc loans and the fact that borrowers are generally finding it more difficult to meet their commitments once they start falling behind in payments? Can the minister explain how much of the increase in arrears and repossessions is due to the government’s failure to properly regulate shonky home loan providers and how much is due to the broken promise to keep interest rates at record lows?
The senator may wish he had directed his question with regard to regulation to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, but I note that Standard and Poor’s mortgage performance index—apparently called SPIN—noted that, while delinquency rates have been edging up in the past 12 months, the rise was based on an arrears rate that was still extremely low. That is consistent with observations by APRA in its APRA Insight report in June that:
Australia appears to be at a cyclical high point in terms of credit quality.
It was noted that some borrowers who had missed repayments and were therefore considered in arrears still remained ahead of their repayment schedule. While it is appropriate for the opposition to be drawing attention to these matters, it is their propensity to see the glass as half empty rather than half full. Australian families are benefiting from an extraordinary period of strong economic growth, relatively low interest rates, a very strong job market and rising real wages. The mob over on the other side of the chamber have been rejected four times because of their failure in economic policy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister outline to the Senate the important contribution being made by skilled migrants to the booming Australian economy?
I thank the senator for his question. Coming from Western Australia, he understands, as all Australians do, that we are in the middle of an economic boom, which is great news. He also understands that it has led to skills shortages, which might be particularly felt in a state like Western Australia, where the resources boom is having a particular effect. He understands the tremendous use of 457 visas all around Australia, but particularly in Western Australia. The senator understands that eight state and territory Labor governments support these visas. They are designed to make the most of economic conditions. They are designed for businesses to be able to stay in business, to help grow the economy, to grow business and to therefore employ more Australians.
I was surprised to see last Friday that my colleague Senator Webber was on the ABC announcing that one particular abattoir in Western Australia—Fletcher’s International Abattoirs—was exploiting skilled migration visas and bringing in cheap labour from overseas. This was of course denied by Fletcher’s International in Albany, which does bring in some workers from overseas. It claimed that it does attract local workers. Senator Webber is unhappy because she said:
If people are prepared to advertise in Australia and pay award or enterprise bargaining agreement rates of pay then I’m sure they can find the people that are prepared to do that kind of work ...
Senator Webber might have liked to have said that to the union movement before they advertised in the United States for a job that we could not see advertised in Australia. But, in any event, Mr Fletcher of Fletcher’s International has been on the ABC rejecting this allegation and he pointed out that in fact 10 abattoirs in Western Australia are looking for meat workers and that people could not want a job very badly because they have plenty to pick from.
Senator Webber’s comments highlight hypocrisy on this issue. Senator Webber is saying, ‘If you just advertise, you’ll be able to get who you want.’ That is the point. Senator Webber said, ‘If you just advertise in Australia or pay the award rate or EBA rates of pay then I’m sure you can find the people that are prepared to do that work.’ But that is completely inconsistent with the Western Australian government, which wrote to us and asked if we could make special arrangements for Western Australia to get some more meat workers in quickly on 457 visas. It is not apparent that Senator Webber speaks to her state colleagues. That is something that we all might understand; there are occasions when none of us do. I understand that, but it is not usually wise to go on radio and announce that your own state does not need any more meat workers and that all you have to do is advertise and they will come along when you apparently do not realise that your own state Treasurer, I think, has written to the federal government and asked for assistance.
This is a very interesting point to make. We are working with the Western Australian government, as we work with all the state governments. It is not only the states and territories that are amongst the biggest users; there are others and there is plenty more to say about the other users. The 457 system was criticised by Mr Ripper, who said that it should favour Western Australia more. There is no cap; if Western Australia wants to apply for more, if the Western Australian government wants be a sponsor of more, we are happy to help them in other ways as we do the other states. In 2005-06, 260 grants of these visas were for the Western Australian state government: 220 of them in health—a 34 per cent increase on the previous year. (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister further expand upon the requirements of states to access 457 visas, particularly the state of Western Australia?
As I was saying in the answer that I have just given, Western Australia has had a 34 per cent increase since 2004-05 in the use of these visas, but there would be other government instrumentalities within Western Australia that would use them. The Western Australian councils are also seeking workers from Britain and Ireland—they do not have to worry about Beijing, Beirut or Bombay. The Western Australian Local Government Association chief, Ricky Burges, in the West Australian last week said the recruiting drive did meet some resistance, but she said: ‘Look, we’re happy to employ locals, but in effect we just can’t get them. Many of the councils are really stretched.’ States and territories have sponsored, facilitated, brokered and recruited something like 50,000 overseas workers since 2001—not all of them on 457s. Since 2002 South Australia has more than quadrupled its state sponsored skilled migration intake and Queensland’s has more than tripled, as has Western Australia’s. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the minister recall telling the Senate in November 2005 that:
Certainly, there is still reasonably healthy growth in the number of first home owners, which remains above the long run average for the seventh consecutive month …
Is the minister aware that ABS figures actually show that the proportion of first homebuyers in the market has now been below the long-run average for more than four years? Is the minister further aware that last week’s Housing finance report showed that the proportion of first homebuyers in the market fell from 19.1 per cent to 16.7 per cent in the three months following the interest rate rise in May—the sharpest fall over a three-month period for more than four years? Does the minister expect the proportion of first homebuyers to fall even further following the latest interest rate hike in August?
I presume that is a question really about the level of interest rates, and we continue to assert very strongly, and will continue to assert very strongly, that the level of interest rates that is likely to prevail under a coalition government will always be lower than the level under a Labor government. The Australian people strongly supported that proposition at the last federal election, and it is not surprising, given that the Labor Party is the party that presided over a $96 billion build-up in debt and continuous government deficits. We are seeing that now with state Labor governments going into deficits, which put enormous pressure on interest rates because of the competition for funds.
It is Labor governments, and the former Labor government—and indeed in opposition—which so consistently advocate greater government spending. Whenever we have announced during our period in office any restraint in government spending, we have been roundly attacked by the Labor Party. After every budget we get attacked by the Labor Party for not having spent more than we are spending. They always propose to spend more money and therefore risk returning the government to a deficit position, therefore putting upward pressure on interest rates. The greatest threat to first homebuyers—and any homebuyer—in this country is the return of a Labor government—
That’s not what Ian Macfarlane said.
committed to reversing the reforms that we have made to the economy, tightening up the labour market, producing forces in the economy which will put upward pressure on inflation, returning the budget to deficit. With upward pressure on inflation you get upward pressure on interest rates. The Australian people learnt their lesson when they had 13 years of the Labor Party, with interest rates at unbelievable levels. If you were a first homebuyer under the Labor Party, you really knew what high interest rates were all about. There is no doubt that whatever the recent movement in interest rates—
Senator George Campbell interjecting—
Order! Senator George Campbell!
The Reserve Bank governor has indicated in his statements that what is happening with interest rates is a return to a more normal level. Of course, the level of interest rates under us still remains substantially below the level of interest rates that prevailed under the Labor Party. The average rate of interest for mortgages under the Labor Party was some 12.75 per cent—
Senator George Campbell interjecting—
Order! Senator George Campbell, shouting across the chamber is disorderly!
and it is in the range of seven per cent to eight per cent now, and that has been the average level of interest under us. So first homebuyers, whatever the current conditions, are certainly experiencing much better conditions, much more affordability than was ever the case under our opponents.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the number of families who own their own home outright has actually fallen by 150,000 during the term of the Howard government? Given the importance of home ownership for financial security in retirement, can the minister explain how this collapse in home ownership helps to address the financial implications of an ageing population, identified in the government’s own Intergenerational report? Why has the Howard government spent the last five years ignoring the housing affordability crisis in this country?
I would remind the senator that it was this government that introduced the First Home Owners Scheme, which has assisted over 865,000 Australians to purchase their first home since 1 July 2000, with almost $6.5 billion worth of grants being distributed to date. That is one of our schemes, which we introduced to help first homebuyers, and if she is concerned about affordability then she ought to talk to Labor state governments about their land release policies, their ridiculously high stamp duties and their outrageous tax burden on first homebuyers through their own state tax systems. Labor senators have it within their power to talk to their state counterparts about their outrageous policies on this issue.
My question is to the Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Kemp. Will the minister update the Senate on the progress of coalition government programs encouraging Australian school children to become more active? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
Thank you to Senator Cory Bernardi for this important question. I acknowledge his continued interest in this topic. Many of my colleagues, Mr President—including your good self, if I remember correctly—attended a function recently in Parliament House where we had the ambassadors Kieren Perkins and Cathy Freeman for the Active After-school Communities Program. I think it is true to say that this was an occasion which was able to highlight to Parliament House, and I hope to the wider community, the importance of this program. As senators know, I do not often praise Senator Lundy in this place, but Senator Lundy was at this particular occasion and, I must say, is able to support this program, as indeed I think all parts of the chamber are.
As many senators know, in June 2004, the Prime Minister announced the Building a Healthy, Active Australia initiative, which was to encourage all young Australians to participate in more physical activity and embrace healthy eating habits. A major component of this very important program is the Active After-school Communities program. Its aim is simply to get more young children—those who are particularly inactive—doing safe, fun and inclusive physical exercise. The program, as senators would know, offers free, structured physical activity to all children in primary schools that are registered and out of school hours care services across Australia, in the hours after school.
The sports portfolio, through the Australian Sports Commission, has carriage of the development and implementation of this very important Active After-school Communities program. It is a practical means of improving the health, wellbeing and motor skill competencies of primary school children. The support for the program has been overwhelming and the government aims to involve over 3,000 primary schools and childcare approved centres with the program by term 3, 2007.
Last week Kieren Perkins and Cathy Freeman were here in Parliament House for a very successful occasion. It is a program which is very important. Today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing, announced another important step in the work of the government’s task force. Socceroo Harry Kewell was announced as the Australian government ambassador to promote healthy living.
Senator Lundy interjecting—
Senator Lundy is very excited about this and that is terrific. Senator Lundy, we can arrange a photo with Harry Kewell if you like. I will take that on board and see whether it is possible. Indeed, every other senator in this chamber would be very proud to have a photo with the great Harry Kewell. Similar to the role of Kieren Perkins and Cathy Freeman, Harry Kewell will work with schools, community groups and the media as part of the government’s ongoing campaign to promote healthy living. Harry Kewell is not only a great footballer but a fantastic role model for young Australians, and the government is very pleased to have his involvement in this program.
To conclude, this is a very important program. It enjoys the support, I believe, of all senators and members. It is one that the government is very keen to continue to promote. It is important that we get as many young Australians as possible, particularly those who are not very active, involved in this program.
Mr President, my question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the Prime Minister’s announcement that nuclear power might be an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, he included this as one of his terms of reference for his task force on nuclear energy. If the Prime Minister accepts that emissions need to be reduced, how is it that the government’s own modelling, the ABARE report issued at AP6 in January, shows overall emissions increasing steadily over the next 30 years?
Given that nuclear power is likely to be too slow and too expensive, and given that last month the Centre for Low Emission Technology told the ABC that the government’s contribution to the low emissions technology fund was nowhere near enough, how will the government fund its so-called low emission technology, or nuclear power? Will the government finally concede that relying on not clearing land will not be enough, and that a carbon price signal will be needed to reduce greenhouse emissions significantly?
The government has been committed to a lowering greenhouse gas policy for a decade now. It is internationally recognised as leading across a whole range of areas. That is one of the reasons that the deputy secretary of my department, Mr Howard Bamsey, has been asked to co-chair the key United Nations framework convention dialogue on trying to develop an effective post-Kyoto regime.
We know that, under Kyoto, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by around 40 per cent. We know that Kyoto ignores roughly 70 per cent of the world’s emissions. We know, for example, that a range of European countries that have signed up to Kyoto—and this is in answer to Senator Allison’s question about price signals and carbon trading—have created a European trading scheme. Most of the countries within that trading scheme will fail to meet their targets under the Kyoto protocol and many of the countries within that carbon trading scheme—where you effectively get Labor’s policy of a trading scheme and a new carbon tax which will drive energy prices up—will have emissions growth that is higher than Australia’s.
I will just pick some countries to get these on the record. Denmark will overshoot their Kyoto target by 25 per cent. Austria will overshoot their Kyoto target by 22 per cent. Their emissions growth is likely to be higher than Australia’s. They are on target to have 109 per cent emissions growth when Australia is on target for 108 per cent. France, which has a substantial reliance on nuclear power, will see their emissions growth overshoot their target by nine per cent; they are on track to reach about 109 per cent during the first Kyoto period. Ireland will overshoot by 20 per cent; they are on track for 133 per cent emissions growth. Spain will overshoot by 36 per cent; that is 151 per cent emissions growth. Portugal will reach 152 per cent growth and Norway will reach 123 per cent.
All of these countries are within the European trading scheme, which Labor and the Democrats support. It is difficult for Labor to get their idea of this national emissions trading scheme up because, as you will remember, Mr President, last time we discussed this trading scheme I was able to say that before question time WA had pulled out of the scheme, and I predicted that by dinnertime Queensland would as well. So I might as well complete my artwork here. Queensland is out. So Labor’s policy is dead. They only have one state left.
Senator Allison also asked about our low emissions demonstration and deployment fund. We have not only put in place that fund, which I and the minister for industry will be announcing the successful applications for, but we have also funded an additional $1.5 billion worth of programs in the renewable sector, across a range of technologies. This government believes that you need a range of technological solutions. We say to those people on the left of politics, ‘If you think you can solve this problem by simply relying on wind and solar and energy efficiency, you are as wrong as those people on the right who say that you can solve it purely with nuclear.’ In fact, you need, across the globe, nuclear power to be expanded. The Prime Minister has shown leadership by saying it is a head in the sand attitude to not look at Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle. You need a range of technologies. You need to clean up coal; you need to capture carbon from burning coal and geosequester it. If you do not do that, you will not solve the problem. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would ask that the minister look at the actual question I asked because none of it was answered. However, I also ask: is it not the case that by 2004 emissions in Australia from power generation had already increased by 43 per cent over 1990 levels, that the figure was 23.4 per cent for transport, 18 per cent for industry and 2.2 per cent for agriculture? Isn’t it the case that ABARE’s research report shows that the cost of carbon capture and storage from CO from coal-fired power would increase the cost of electricity by 17 per cent—CSIRO says 50 per cent? Minister, when will the government face up to what is obvious to everybody else in this country—that is, Australia needs a carbon levy or some other price signal to drive emission reductions?
What is very obvious to anyone who is dispassionate and without an ideological bent—unlike the Democrats or the Labor Party—is to say that the last thing this country needs, if we want to address climate change, is a new tax. We actually need to invest billions of dollars in the world—ultimately trillions of dollars—in a range of technologies. That is going to mean a whole range of technologies. If you say you have an ideological bent against capturing carbon and buying it under the ground, if you have an ideological bent against the coal industry, you are part of the problem; you are not part of the solution. The last thing you need is a carbon price that drives up taxes on energy. We need a healthy, growing economy with full employment which gives the government and the private sector the wherewithal to invest in the technologies, be they renewables, in solar—where Australia leads the world—or in geothermal, using energy from under the ground. We need to make sure that we have a modern approach to our role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Let us take the ideology out of this and get on with some practical solutions.
My question is to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Eric Abetz. Will the minister update the Senate on progress in the fight against illegal foreign fishers in our northern waters, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?
I acknowledge that this question comes from a keen champion of the fishing industry in Western Australia and he is ably assisted by his other five Liberal senator colleagues from that state. This government continues to make progress in the battle against illegal foreign fishers in our northern waters. Today two important trials concluded in the Supreme Court in Darwin. In both trials, two separate juries unanimously found the masters of the two Chinese trawlers—the De Yuan Yu 1 and the De Yuan Yu 2apprehended by the Navy earlier this year off Darwin guilty of being inside the Australian fishing zone, with 55 tonnes of fish, without having their fishing gear properly stowed and resisting a Commonwealth official. The two men were sentenced this morning in the Darwin Supreme Court. They were each fined $70,000 in relation to not having their fishing gear properly stowed and they were sentenced to a period of six months imprisonment for resisting a Commonwealth official.
These cases are very important because they firmly send the message to those seeking to steal our fish that we do not have to actually catch them in the act of illegal fishing for charges to be successful. As a result, those thinking about stealing our fish have yet another reason to stay out of our waters, which brings me to comments reported recently in News Ltd newspapers by one Ardani Laduma, a Mr Big of the illegal fishing operations based in Roti in Indonesia.
It is reported that Mr Laduma used to own 59 fishing vessels which operated illegally in Australian waters. I say ‘used to’ because during the past year over half of his fleet—namely, 30 boats—have been seized and destroyed by Australian authorities. Mr Laduma is reported as saying that at that rate of attrition he will soon be out of business. I can tell him that that is exactly our aim. ‘Australian authorities,’ he said, ‘are very professional’. Mr Laduma went on—and I have to be delicate in this—to use an earthy expression, ‘But you only have to increase the sea levels over the side of your boat into Australian waters and you get arrested’. He is right. This year 268 illegal foreign fishing vessels have been seized in our northern waters, almost double the number last year. As the kingpin himself attests, we are starting to hurt the bosses of the illegal fishing trade.
I was asked about alternative policies. Can I simply say that I thought those opposite were supportive of our initiatives. Unfortunately, the barrage of interjections in giving the answer would indicate that they are, unfortunately, not on board as they ought to be. We are starting to win the war against illegal fishing and I commend all those officers, be they Customs, Fisheries or Defence officers, who are assisting in this fight to protect our borders.
My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister representing the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware that the Cowra Abattoir, which attempted to sack and then rehire workers on lower rates of pay under Work Choices, was placed into liquidation in recent days? Can the minister confirm that the administrator’s report found that over $1 million was transferred to related companies during the same period in which the Office of Workplace Services conducted its investigation, such transfer reducing the funds available to pay workers’ entitlements? Can the minister further confirm that these loans are the subject of an ASIC investigation? Given that the government’s Office of Workplace Services, at the insistence of the Prime Minister, thoroughly investigated the financial circumstances of the company, can the minister indicate whether OWS ever alerted ASIC to these suspect transactions? Minister, when precisely did ASIC first become aware of the transfer of these funds?
I thank Senator Wong for the question. I will certainly share with the Senate information that I can provide, given that obviously the recent events are issues that are operational in terms of what ASIC might be doing. I can confirm that ASIC is the appropriate independent statutory authority responsible for the enforcement of the Corporations Act and for matters that relate to it. It is working closely with the administration—I certainly can confirm that. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the exact substance or status of those inquiries at this particular time, but there is some information that I can give to the Senate in response to Senator Wong’s question which I think will be helpful.
Speaking generally, the law does provide a framework for the investigation of allegations about improper transactions and unfair loans or transactions with related parties occurring before a company’s entry into external administration. Directors must provide the administrator with information about the company’s affairs and financial circumstances, including transactions entered into before the company’s collapse. The administrator must then make a report to creditors about any recoverable transactions. He may also report about possible insolvent trading. The law also requires the administrator to lodge with ASIC as soon as practicable a report about any offences or any breach of duty or trust in relation to the company. A liquidator is able to recover the proceeds of improper transactions entered into before a company’s collapse, for the benefit of creditors, or indeed trace those payments.
Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is very interesting for the minister to read into Hansard details of the operations of the Corporations Law. I am sure senators are aware of that. The question was about when and if OWS alerted ASIC to the suspect transactions which have resulted in workers having insufficient funds to meet their entitlements.
The minister has two minutes to conclude her answer, and I would remind her of the question.
Thank you, Mr President. I am sure it is highly relevant to the question for the Senate to be aware of the arrangements that are likely to apply as these investigations are undertaken. The law imposes heavy sanctions on persons who enter into agreements or arrangements that aim to avoid payments to employees that they would be entitled to in a liquidation. A person can be liable for a penalty of up to $110,000 or 10 years imprisonment for such actions. The legislation enacted by this government in 2000 sends a very clear message indeed to corporate employers that deliberate avoidance of the obligations to employees is not acceptable.
It is important that one not leap to conclusions, and that you allow ASIC to carry out its proper function to investigate what media reports suggest, and that is—and this is a suggestion—that the administrator has identified possible improper transactions by the company in the period prior to the company’s entry into administration, including a possible transfer to a related entity. That is not proven; that is rumoured. It is entirely appropriate that this matter be investigated and that I not be invited to comment, on behalf of the minister, on the substance of the allegation or indeed on the process whereby it will be investigated. It is being attended to.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise whether ASIC became aware of the suspect transactions via information received from OWS, or is it the case that it was only via the administrator’s report? If so, does the minister consider it acceptable that the OWS review of the financial statements of the Cowra Abattoir gave it a clean bill of health at the same time as the owners were moving funds to other allegedly related companies? Finally, will the minister guarantee that ASIC will investigate OWS’s knowledge of the movement of funds out of the business and the reason for its failure to provide this information to ASIC?
I will say this very slowly for Senator Wong’s benefit: while the matter is being investigated and while it has not yet been established, it is hardly appropriate for me to comment, on behalf of the minister, about events and matters that have not yet been established. I am aware that Senator Wong would like me, and invites me, to enter into this speculation together with her. I do not accept the proposition upon which she bases her question, in the absence of a concluded piece of evidence.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the Department of the Environment and Heritage decision not to accept major seismic work being proposed by Woodside at Scott Reef in the Kimberley. Is the minister aware that DEH’s conditions of 14 July 2006 initially prevented Woodside from undertaking seismic work during the peak nesting periods of green turtles? Can the minister explain why this decision was revoked by the DEH on 17 August this year to allow seismic work to occur?
That is one of many decisions that the department makes. I think it has been made without reference to me. I am not blaming them. Most of the decisions, in fact, are dealt with in that way. I am aware that they have been working alongside Woodside. They are very aware, as a company, of not only the issues relating to turtles but also a range of other issues that affect their operations in the north-west. They are very cognisant of those. I regard Woodside as one of the exceptionally well-behaved corporate entities in this country who care very deeply about Australia’s unique environment and our heritage. My department works very closely with them.
For all Australians who would like to see Australia’s energy resources developed—particularly those in the north-west, where we have abundant supplies of gas, which has a phenomenal capability to transform the way the world produces energy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—and who care deeply about the future of the globe and the impact that massive increases in greenhouse gases could have on the climate, one of the truly transformational things we can do is to supplant the coal and oil that is burnt in places like China and North America and in other rapidly growing economies such as Korea and Japan with gas from the North West Shelf. Depending on what you are replacing—whether it is coal or oil—and on how dirty the oil is, you get a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent for the same amount of energy created by using gas from the North West Shelf. So there is a phenomenal environmental advantage in developing those abundant resources of gas off our North West Shelf and exporting them to the world and replacing coal and oil burning facilities. It is one of the great contributions of Australia—
Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is fascinating, but it is irrelevant to the question, which was about the impact of seismic testing on green turtles. The minister might either get the information from the department or say that he does not know.
In response to the point of order: seismic testing is done to assess what gas is in the ground. My comments are absolutely relevant to the question. Senator Brown may not like the answer, but you cannot ask a question about seismic testing for gas reserves and then get upset by an answer that talks about why we are seismic testing in the first place.
Minister, I remind you that you have almost two minutes left to complete your answer; I would ask you to return to it.
Seismic testing is, of course, a crucial part of the process of developing the North West Shelf’s gas resources. Woodside have been a leading entity in doing that. They have also been an exemplary corporate citizen when it comes to complying with Australia’s world-leading environmental standards and the protection of our heritage. I am absolutely confident that Woodside should be encouraged to go on with their partners in exploring for gas, using seismic testing to find that gas. I wish them well with their Scott Reef projects and all of their projects off the North West Shelf. I look forward to maintaining Woodside’s incredibly strong relationship with my department, whereby they have enormous respect for Australia’s environment and for our heritage. We wish them well, because what they are doing up there can transform the globe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by massively reducing the emissions that occur from burning coal or oil in other parts of the world. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Am I to understand from that answer that the reason that decision was overturned was so that Woodside was able to go and explore to find gas, not because Woodside was able to demonstrate that seismic work does not have an impact on the green turtles? Could the minister please answer the question: why did they overturn their initial decision? Also, is the minister aware of the impact that seismic surveying has on small cetaceans, smaller marine fauna and fish? What follow-up studies is the department doing to look at the mortality and morbidity of these species?
If the senator wants to say that it was overturned because they are exploring for gas, then she did not listen to my answer. The department is working with Woodside to ensure that seismic testing does not impact on marine mammals, small cetaceans and all affected fauna in the area. Woodside has been one of the leading corporate entities that have engaged with the department in a constructive process—along with the oil and gas industry generally—around the Australian coast to minimise the impact on all cetaceans, not just small cetaceans. If the Greens want to try to stop seismic testing off the North West Shelf they will be standing in the way of an industry that has a transformational benefit for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on this planet, and this is one of the crucial ways to address climate change. But that is not the reason the decision was made.
My question is to Senator Abetz, the minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Again I refer the minister to the government’s broken promise to deliver a mandatory code of contact for the horticultural industry. Can the minister confirm that the then Deputy Prime Minister committed on 1 October 2004 that ‘a re-elected coalition government will impose a mandatory code of contact on the horticultural industry’? Hasn’t the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources now walked away from that commitment, with his statement on ABC radio this morning that: ‘The government’s understanding as part of the 2004 election commitments was that we would introduce a voluntary code of conduct’? Why has the government broken its promise to protect Australia’s 20,000 fruit and vegetable growers?
As I understand it, the ‘code of contact’ is that there be absolutely no physical contact between the honourable senator and me. I think that what she is referring to is a ‘code of conduct’. If that is what she is referring to, I am more than happy to oblige the honourable senator. Having said that, can I say that Senator Polley is one of the senators that my office does enjoy having contact with from time to time as we seek to serve the people of Tasmania.
The Commonwealth government is committed to improving the day-to-day relationships between fruit and vegetable growers and wholesalers by providing greater certainty and clarity for transactions. It remains clear that there need to be minimum terms of trade that are transparent and enforceable in law. Growers have the right to know whether the wholesaler is acting as an agent or a merchant prior to the sale. Other aspects that are being worked on as part of this process include an effective dispute resolution mechanism and the provision of clear market signals on price.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order!
I would have thought that those opposite would be interested in getting an answer. I know that Senator Polley is genuinely interested; those around her do not seem to be. As announced only two days ago—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! There is too much noise on my left. I remind senators on my left that interjections are disorderly. I ask the minister to return to the question.
As I was saying, as announced only two days ago on 10 September, meetings of fruit and vegetable grower and wholesale representatives will be convened to develop an enforceable code of practice for the industry if that is deemed necessary. The key aim is to develop a code enforceable through law that will provide growers with a transparency of contract that many currently do not have. As I indicated, I think it was earlier this week or late last week, we as a government are a consultative government and we are seeking to work our way through this issue to ensure the appropriate protection to all the sectors.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am pleased to hear that the senator is in fact listening to me because the government obviously is not listening to Australian fruit and vegetable growers. Isn’t the National Farmers Federation right when it condemns the government for trying to weasel out of its promise to deliver a mandatory code of conduct to help produce growers? Why is the government more interested in trying to deflect scrutiny of its broken promises to Australia’s 20,000 fruit and vegetable growers by promising another talkfest than in actually delivering on a clear election commitment?
I for one, and I get criticised for this from time to time, am always interested in listening to Senator Polley and what she has to say. In relation to the scrutiny that the honourable senator refers to, we as a government made a commitment to the horticultural sector and we are working through the issues to ensure that we can deliver for them as we had indicated. As I have said previously in relation to this matter, we want to get this right—and as a result we will be consulting continuously to ensure that we do get it right.
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Yesterday in answering a question from Senator McLucas I undertook to supply further information. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
Qld has received 10,806 new places since 1996 through the Aged Care Approvals Round.
That is a 37 per cent increase on the 29,127 places available in 1996.
We have allocated 116.0 places to Qld already—no doubt we’ll see at least 108 places operational by December 2007 as we promised the people of Qld.
If the State Government and Local Governments work together with providers, we will see these allocated places become operational sooner rather than later.
Pursuant to standing order 74(5) I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to two questions on notice, Nos 2005 and 2006, which I asked on 13 June this year.
The appropriate minister is not here. It is very hard to pursue that.
I am sorry, Mr Deputy President. My office did contact Senator Santoro’s office and the minister for health’s office at one o’clock today. As I said, I did try to get the call immediately after question time.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr and Webber today relating to interest rates and first home owners.
Senator Minchin today was asked a series of questions relating to direct impacts on the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of Australian families. These are people who are now most at risk of losing their homes because of interest rate rises. In fact there have been seven interest rate rises in a row, and three of these have occurred since John Howard promised to keep interest rates at record lows. Following the Prime Minister’s lead, today we saw Senator Minchin attempting to pass the buck on the issue—trying to blame everybody else but the government itself. Unfortunately for him, he is also on the record—and Senator Minchin is still with us here, perhaps he could advise us as to why this is the case—in February this year as saying that interest rates are the most important factor in relation to housing. Now, of course, we have a situation where the government is seeking to blame the states and blame anyone else for the increasing deterioration in housing affordability.
One minute we are told that interest rates are the most important factor and then when they go up, causing pain for many hundreds of thousands of hardworking families, suddenly someone else is held responsible. Senator Minchin’s somewhat condescending response has demonstrated that this government has simply run out of ideas when it comes to the question of housing repayments and meeting the cost of keeping a roof over your head. They simply do not care about the fate of hundreds of thousands of Australian families in the face of skyrocketing default rates. All they offer is condescending financial advice. Senator Minchin, in a somewhat desperate manner, resorted to arguing that the first home owners grant scheme was introduced to help first home owners into ownership. Of course this response directly conflicts with what Senator Minchin has said in the past. I have referred already to the fact that, back in February, he said that the first home owners grant was:
... introduced at the time of the new tax system’s introduction was very much and overtly in recognition of the consequences for home purchasers of the introduction of the goods and services tax.
We heard Senator Minchin go on to say that the grant:
... was and is a grant which acknowledges the one-off impact of the goods and services tax on the purchase of a home.
Then we were told that this was a grant to compensate for the GST; now we are told it is a device by which the government seeks to address the question of housing affordability.
We know that the pain being felt by Australian families is real and is not just a fantasy which the government seeks to dismiss in its rather cavalier manner. The Supreme Court of Victoria’s figures on mortgage repossessions show there has been a massive 58 per cent increase in the number of writs issued between 2004-05 and 2005-06. There was an increase in mortgage repossession writs from 1,948 to 3,084. In South Australia the Supreme Court figures indicate that the number of repossession summonses lodged increased by more than a third over the same period: from 371 to 476. In New South Wales, Supreme Court mortgage repossession statistics show an incredible 59 per cent increase in judgments between 2004-05, which is the fastest increase in 16 years—a jump from 3,061 in 2004 to 4,873 in 2005.
What we are seeing, of course, is the dark side of the housing boom—a boom described by the Prime Minister on 17 March 2004 as being ‘fantastic for the economy’. At that time, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were happy to take the credit for higher house prices when they thought they were good news. Of course, now that we see clearly that the housing boom is far from being fantastic for the economy, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been trying to shift the blame for this pain to state governments.
In yesterday’s motion in the House of Representatives, they went one step further and tried to shift the blame to local governments. One minute they are shifting costs; the next moment they are shifting blame. It goes to show how hollow the resolution on local government that they passed just last week was. Labor does agree with Peter Costello on something; at least, we agree with something he said in 2003, where he— (Time expired)
I have never, ever accused Senator Carr of being ineloquent but today he has simply demonstrated the pervicacious nature of the Labor Party and their entire policy-free zone. He has demonstrated to me exactly why the Australian people have rejected the Australian Labor Party at four successive elections. We are talking about home ownership today, and specifically about affordability of home ownership and the burden upon regular Australian families. The dream of home ownership remains a uniquely Australian dream. It is a dream that, in this great country, allows all Australians the opportunity to own their own home. And it begins, let me tell you, with having a job.
This government has lowered unemployment to such a level that every Australian in this country who wants a job can actually get a job. We can only contrast this with what happened under the Labor Party. In 1992 the unemployment rate across this nation was 10.9 per cent, and it in fact averaged 8.5 per cent under the Labor administration. How do you buy a home or afford to pay for a home when you do not have a job? The answer is: you cannot. How can you afford to buy a home, if you have a job, at 17 per cent interest rates? The answer is: most people cannot. You want to talk about home loan affordability and how many people defaulted on their payments; you need to go back to the high point in this country—the high point of defaults. In fact, it should not be the high point: it is actually the low point in economic mismanagement in this country, and it occurred under a Labor government.
We need to remind people that this government—and I remind Senator Carr—has reduced the tax burden on the regular taxpayer so that 80 per cent of the taxpaying public pay 30c or less in the dollar. This is a very important point because, under the Labor Party and under their administration, the top tax rate kicked in at around $50,000. Today it does not: today the average taxpayer pays around 30c in the dollar. This government has assisted first homebuyers by providing over 828,000 first homebuyer grants. This enabled a lot of people to put their foot on the housing market ladder—the ladder of opportunity—which, under this government, has every rung intact. It is not missing a few rungs along the way so it is only an opportunity for some, because it is an opportunity for every single person.
We have reformed taxation rates not only by reducing the marginal tax rates but by reforming our entire taxation system. By doing that, there were some agreements reached with the state governments that they had to fulfil in order to receive the rivers of gold in the GST. What has happened? We are talking about housing affordability. The estimated costs—the exact figure—escape me. I must be suffering from lethologica, I think, because the word was on the tip of my tongue. However, we have to decide here that the states have abrogated their responsibility. They have not cut stamp duty, which adds an unfair impost and an unfair burden to the new homebuyer. In fact, it adds to the cost of housing for any person upgrading, or even downgrading, their home ownership dream.
What else have the state Labor governments not done? Perhaps it is what they have done. They have fully loaded the costs of development of land onto private individuals and private developers. This is one of the tragedies that our developers are facing at the moment. Land banks are being released on an ever-diminishing basis by the state Labor governments. When they are released, the developers are expected to fully fund the infrastructure costs that go into them and pass those costs on to local homeowners and to new homebuyers. The cost of building a home has actually risen only marginally over the last 10 or 15 years in real terms—what we have are massive costs of land. This is the responsibility of the state Labor governments, I have to tell you, because the land is being released by them and they are failing in and abrogating their responsibility to support affordable home ownership for Australian people. Let us talk also about the level of investment, the level of asset growth and also the level of debt in the Australian nation. (Time expired)
I also rise to take note of the same answer. As reported in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, household debt has climbed to a record 171 per cent of household income, and regular financial obligations, such as mortgage repayments, are now soaking up more than one-fifth of all disposable income. In my home state, Tasmanians pay over 30 per cent of their income in servicing their mortgage. We have seen interest rates rise seven times since 8 May 2002, and many hardworking families right across Australia are feeling the impact as they deal with the pressures of financing a mortgage or their dream of buying their first home.
We are also seeing homeowners losing their homes at a record rate, forced out by massive mortgage payments, rising petrol prices and high personal debt. And, true to form, the Prime Minister has looked around to find someone to blame for this national crisis of housing affordability. This is what we have here: a national crisis in housing affordability. Unfortunately, Senator Bernardi seems to have fallen for the Prime Minister’s line. The Prime Minister has looked around to find someone in his blame game and he finds the states—‘I’ll blame the states for my neglect, I’ll blame the states for my lack of leadership and I’ll blame the states for my broken promise on interest rates.’ We have now seen three rises since that promise was made, taking the tally to seven in a row.
The Prime Minister blames the states for failing to release enough land for new constructions. But housing expert Alan Moran—the Prime Minister’s own expert—has confirmed that the PM’s only solution, massive land releases, would slash home values by $100,000. This would leave struggling families in financial crisis, owing more than their house is worth. We see figures confirming our worst fears: that the chance of young families owning a home—the great Australian dream—is diminishing; they are being locked out of homeownership.
According to figures, the proportion of first home buyers in the market has hit a 12-month low, with just 16.7 per cent of all loans being for first homes. Families are struggling with rising petrol prices, rising prices at the checkout, rising education and health costs. Families are simply unable to afford the loan repayments that are now required.
Families have seen the Prime Minister’s promise on interest rates go up in tatters, it having already, as I have said, gone up three times. They know they cannot trust the Prime Minister on interest rates. The government’s answer to those families paying off crippling mortgages, which are now taking up a massive proportion of the family household budget, is to blame the states and put forward a now discredited policy on land release—a policy encouraging a massive land release campaign that will erode property values. That is leadership! I support Senator Carr’s statement:
As a result of the Howard Government’s neglect of the housing affordability crisis, the proportion of first home buyers has been below the long-run average of 20.2% for over four years.
These figures show that higher interest rates are hurting everyone—those who have taken on a mortgage because they just couldn’t wait any longer, and those who want to buy their own home but can’t afford it.
The states and territories do have a responsibility and they have each taken action. By contrast, the Howard government has reduced funding for housing programs and abandoned Australian cities, including abolishing Labor’s Better Cities program, which had a return of four to one in terms of government dollars spent. States and territories have unanimously supported the development of the framework for National Action on Affordable Housing and are working together to implement it. The government had to be dragged to the table to sign up to the framework and it has not committed to taking any concrete action.
The Prime Minister needs to show leadership on this issue, an issue critical to all Australians, by taking responsibility for the crisis. Appoint a minister for housing and start working cooperatively with the states and territories to fix the problem, instead of playing the blame game for your failures and attempting to dump all the responsibility on the states. Australians will not be fooled. The government cannot take the credit for house prices increasing but dump homeowners now that housing affordability has reached a crisis.
Unfortunately, we have already seen evidence of homeowners unable to keep up repayments and being forced to sell their home for less than it is now worth. This leaves families with a large debt and no home. The Labor Party will have a minister for housing who can focus on the housing market and ensure that homeownership stays within the reach of hardworking families.
The Labor party knows that to address the problem of housing affordability we have to work together. These measures are vital if we are to address the growing problem of housing affordability and if we are to ensure that the dream of owning your own home is not simply a fairytale that is beyond the reach of everyday, hardworking Australians. (Time expired)
I also rise on the matter that was raised in question time today and the answers given by Senator Minchin. Senator Carol Brown has highlighted the fact that Labor will introduce a minister for housing. I think before they do anything on that basis they should have a minister that will look after economic management, because that is how the housing situation in this country has become very strong. That is how our economy functions—we concentrate on economics, and that is the broad picture.
Turning to some of the minor detail, Senator Brown mentions interest rates. Interest rates fluctuate within bandwidths, and the interest rates under this government have fluctuated within an extremely low bandwidth. Under the Labor government, prior to this government taking office, interest rates fluctuated on a high bandwidth. I know because in 1990 I had a mortgage and mortgage rates went to just under 20 per cent. I still have a mortgage today, but mortgage rates are nowhere near that level. My mortgage rate is at a very affordable and manageable level. Also, from my family’s perspective, I have a son who recently married. They are saving for their first home. They have purchased a block of land. They have borrowed money to do so because interest rates are affordable to do that. That is a very important and significant factor: whilst interest rates move within bandwidths, they are relatively low. They have been a lot lower under this government than they have been in the past.
Senator Brown also blames the Prime Minister for blaming others. That is incorrect. The Prime Minister is not blaming the states; he is pointing out facts and stating the obvious. I quote the Reserve Bank Governor, who on 18 August this year said:
I think it is pretty apparent now that reluctance to release new land plus the new approach whereby the purchaser has to pay for all the services up front—the sewerage, the roads, the footpaths and all that sort of stuff—has enormously increased the price of the new, entry-level home. That is a supply-side issue, not a demand-side issue. I think there is a lot of evidence that, at the moment, those factors are becoming very important.
So it is not only the Prime Minister and this government but also people outside of this government who understand these issues who are saying that the state governments are a serious part of this issue. And the state governments are ensuring that housing affordability at the new entry level is too hard. It is just too difficult, because of those state costs.
That is not to mention stamp duty. We can look at stamp duty for forever and a day. State governments need to reduce stamp duty. If Labor were serious about low entry level into the housing market, the Labor Party would certainly be encouraging their counterparts at each state level to reduce and remove stamp duty. It is very important.
I will recap. Economic management: we have that, and the Labor Party need to pick up on economic management. Interest rates: we have low interest rates; within a bandwidth that fluctuates, they are still very low compared with the high, fluctuating bandwidths that the Labor Party had. It is not federal government issues that control the state government issues—and even, to a degree, local council issues—that affect the price of entry into new housing. These factors are all very important. I think the public of Australia understand that what we do, as good economic managers, is to ensure that housing affordability stays at the best possible price.
Then we come to first home buyers grants and subsidies. This government has been extremely proactive in introducing and maintaining these schemes. They enable people to have some offset when they first take up a mortgage. That is very important.
Housing affordability is a very important thing in this country. This government has a very serious approach to housing affordability. We can only ask that the state Labor governments follow the lead of the national government and reduce their charges to make it easier for those first-time entrants when they wish to move into their first home or, indeed, buy a block of land.
So I refute the allegations, made by Senator Carol Brown in the chamber a short while ago, that our interest rates are high; they are relatively low. And it is not only this government indicating that we have state governments to blame; outside experts are indicating the same. And I think we could find a long list of people who would also support that. (Time expired)
What Senator Parry might also find is that this government has ignored five years’ worth of warnings from esteemed organisations like the Reserve Bank about housing affordability and the need to invest in skills and infrastructure to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. That is just a fact of life.
We can play the blame game as much as we want but, when there is a fundamental problem, we need some national leadership and a national government that will take action. If the government’s economic management was so rosy and if housing affordability was such a simple issue, why is it that, in 1996, when this government first came to power, people were spending on average 28.7 per cent of their incomes on mortgage loan repayments and yet, in early August this year, only a month ago, average repayments were consuming 32.3 per cent of people’s incomes? It is not only that a greater percentage of household income is being absorbed by the cost of housing. When you also bear in mind that people are actually earning more money these days, on the whole, then that says there is a serious affordability crisis in our community.
It seems we are going to play the game of blaming the states. As I say, that seems to be this government’s only solution or option in discussing this. Whenever we define a problem it is always someone else’s fault. There is never any national leadership to fix this problem for all Australians; instead we are going to blame the states.
In my home state of Western Australia, when the Labor government came to power—and they took over from the Liberal Party, when last I looked—there were only 7½ thousand blocks of land per year released for new homes. Some five years later, there will be over 16½ thousand new blocks of land released for homes, just in the Perth metropolitan area. If that is not the sign of a state government accepting its responsibilities and trying to do its bit to address the need for housing affordability, I do not know what is. Where is the action from the federal government to assist in that, in what is a booming economy? Nowhere. All they can do is just keep blaming others. That is hundreds of percentage points of increase: in five years it has gone up from 7,500 blocks of land released to over 16,500, with the aim to have released 20,000 blocks of land in this financial year. That is a significant contribution to easing the supply of housing. And those opposite then carry on about state government fees and charges.
Yes!
And stamp duty.
I wonder how much those opposite know about how much of the fees captured by state governments actually pay for providing the infrastructure and the planning required to actually release those blocks of land. In my home state, the fees collected—including stamp duty—only make up 39 per cent of the cost of releasing that land. So 61 per cent of the cost of releasing that average block of suburban land is borne by the state taxpayers. It is not actually recovered in fees; the fees are not the significant issue.
When we look at housing affordability, we are not saying it is just the cost of land; it is also the cost of housing. I do not know anyone who says, ‘It is only the cost of land that is the issue.’ It is actually a house and land package that is the issue. And this government is doing nothing about it.
You cannot get away from the figures. We have looked at the percentage of average weekly incomes that are now spent paying off household mortgages. The latest figures that we have from the HIA-Commonwealth Bank quarterly review of housing affordability from June 2006, show—and there is no escaping this for the federal government—that first home buyers entering the market would have to commit at least 27.9 per cent of their incomes towards mortgage repayments. That is first homebuyers. That is a significant amount of their income that they would have to commit to just attempting to live the great Australian dream of owning their own home. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
Sadly, the minister made no attempt to answer my question. It goes to the whole issue of low-emission technology and nuclear power that this government seems to be relying on to reduce emissions. Of course, this government has refused to ratify Kyoto. The Prime Minister confirmed that just the other day in an interview. The Prime Minister said:
… I have no intention, as Prime Minister of this country, of exporting the jobs of Australian workers to other countries.
He also said:
… if we signed the Kyoto Protocol we would destroy a lot of Australian industry and we would send Australian jobs to countries like China and Indonesia and India.
As we all know, jobs have already gone to China, Indonesia and India from this country. In the textile sector and manufacturing across the board, Australia has already lost those jobs.
But leaving that aside, the Prime Minister’s head is well and truly stuck in the sand if he thinks Australia can isolate itself, cannot be part of a global environment where our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions remains one of the highest globally —the highest, as far as I recall—and if he can say this is not something we have to take responsibility for. That is a complete cop-out, and it is time this government seriously addressed how it is going to do it. The best scientists, including our own—CSIRO scientists and other scientists involved in looking at climate change—are telling us that a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is going to be necessary to avert the most damaging climate change. Already we are seeing climate change in this country. Sustained droughts, lower rainfalls across the whole of the middle part of Australia were predicted years ago, and now it is a reality, as are water shortages around the country, temperature increases, coral bleaching and massive amounts of damage done by higher temperatures already.
This is going to get worse. More extreme events are going to affect Australia. Not just farmers but the whole economy will eventually be damaged unless we do something. It is all very well to say, ‘There are other countries in the world that Kyoto doesn’t include.’ That is true, but the Asia-Pacific agreement, which Australia has signed up to along with United States and which does include those countries, has no targets. It might as well be nonexistent. It is a pointless exercise to include those developing countries if you have no targets and no mandatory means of achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, the figures we have show us how much Australia has already gone beyond the 1990 levels that we committed to: 43 per cent for power generation, 23.4 per cent for transport, 18 per cent for industry, 2.2 per cent for agriculture. The only reason we look like getting even close to the commitments that were made by Senator Hill when he was environment minister is because of the tricky land-clearing consideration that we had written into our agreement at the time—72 per cent offsetting of those increases has come about because of that land-clearing agreement.
But the real crux of the matter is that the government is not prepared to encounter some sort of mechanism or price signal that would bring about change. Even ABARE, and we all know how conservative ABARE is on these issues, has prepared a report that shows the cost of carbon capture and storage of CO, which the government is relying on for the future of greenhouse gas reductions, would increase the cost of electricity by 17 per cent. CSIRO says it is much higher than that; it is more likely to be up to 50 per cent. We know through MRET, the mandatory renewable energy target, that you have to have in place mandated measures to force industry to move in this direction. They will not do it of their own accord. It will cost money, but so will damaging climate change in this country. Australia has to face up to the most obvious in this debate. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
Senator Troeth to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Brandis to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bob Brown to move on Thursday, 14 September 2006:
Senator Bartlett to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bartlett to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on Thursday, 14 September 2006:
Senator Santoro to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting, I shall now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for two sitting days after today and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for five sitting days after today. This is on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion no. 535 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to Australian Foster Care Week, postponed till 13 September 2006.
General business notice of motion no. 536 standing in the names of Senators Stephens and Mason for today, relating to anti-Semitism in Australia, postponed till 13 September 2006.
I move:
Question agreed to.
I move:
Question put.
by leave—I move the motion as amended:
That the Senate—
Question agreed to.
I move:
Question put.
I move:
Question put.
I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 12 September 2006, from Senator Bartlett:
Dear Mr President,
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:
“That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
In the light of the repeated failures by our society to protect children from serious abuse and neglect, the need for all political parties to make child protection a national priority and for all governments to urgently determine ways to significantly reduce the totally unacceptable levels of serious child abuse and neglect that is occurring in all sections of the Australian community.”
Yours sincerely,
Senator Bartlett
Australian Democrats Senator for Queensland
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:In the light of the repeated failures by our society to protect children from serious abuse and neglect, the need for all political parties to make child protection a national priority and for all governments to urgently determine ways to significantly reduce the totally unacceptable levels of serious child abuse and neglect that is occurring in all sections of the Australian community.
I thank senators for their support for this important topic and what is, I suggest today, a matter of urgency. Last Thursday the Senate passed a motion urging the federal government to prioritise encouragement of uniform laws and strategies on child protection and urging all political parties to support child protection becoming a national priority. That motion, I should emphasise, was eventually passed without dissent.
It is one thing to make statements—I am pleased that that motion was passed; it marked Child Protection Week that occurred last week—but we need to make sure that we are not just making positive-sounding statements, that we are not just prepared to be involved where it is convenient or where it suits, but that we are actually prepared to take responsibility. My concern at the national level is that whilst the federal government has taken some specific actions and provided some funding for specific programs—and I am sure we will hear a bit about some of those over the course of this debate—we need to move from taking action from time to time, to taking responsibility and national leadership on this absolutely crucial issue.
We need to recognise that this is a major crisis nationally and that it affects all parts of the community. There has been a lot of focus, appropriately, on child abuse and neglect issues in some Indigenous communities around Australia. That requires action but we also need to recognise, firstly, that there are failings on the part of individual people or families. We should not blacken the name, reputation or culture of Indigenous peoples around Australia as a result of that; in the same way that we do not blacken the entire Australian culture and every part of our society because of the widespread amount of child abuse and neglect that occurs in the entire community. We need to be consistent about this and we need to show the same level of outrage and the same level of social responsibility for child abuse and neglect that occurs across the entire community. It must be recognised how widespread this is and that it occurs across all sections of our community.
As part of Child Protection Week there were a lot of reports, I am pleased to say, in the mainstream media, noting a lot of issues that need attention. One of the things that came forward was how significantly people underestimate the level of child abuse in Australia. For example, it was reported in the Canberra Times on 6 September that many people interviewed thought there would have been only about 5,000 reports of child abuse in New South Wales last year, when the figure was well over 100,000 and growing.
In the ACT alone, there were more than 8,000 reports of child abuse in the last financial year. These are reports—they are not all established cases—but they amounted to a 400 per cent increase on three years ago. As I said, in New South Wales there were over 100,000 reports in the last financial year and, according to a separate report, that number was going up even further. In the first three months of this year we had over 5,400 reports a week in New South Wales according to the Sunday Telegraph on 27 August.
In Western Australia we have had a lot of coverage about a few specific terrible cases but we need to look at the broader picture. According to the Australian on 6 September, hundreds of cases of suspected child abuse and neglect in Western Australia are being placed in queues and not followed up for weeks. There are up to 900 cases not allocated to case workers.
In Victoria, according to the Australian of 7 September, child protection workers were criticised for failing to investigate properly warnings of sexual abuse, chronic neglect and family violence against up to 20 children who subsequently died. The Hobart Mercury of 8 September reported that newborn babies suffering drug withdrawal symptoms were among the record 1,648 cases of suspected child abuse or neglect not being investigated in Tasmania. This figure had grown from 120, less than four years ago. In my own state of Queensland the Chief Justice, Mr de Jersey—as reported in the Courier-Mail of 8 September—warned of what he called ‘the sickening level of child abuse in Queensland’, which shows no signs of abating, with more than 920 higher court convictions in the last 16 months alone.
These are not all failings of government. Some of them are—because some of the cases involve children who have been placed in so-called care on the part of government—but it is a social responsibility. There has been a failing of parents and our society in general, because this serious abuse and neglect are carried out by people in the community. It shows how our approach to date has failed and the fact that we as a society—as well as, I believe, at a national level—have not given this the priority it deserves. It affects tens of thousands of children every year throughout Australia. A harmed child, an abused child, is often harmed for life. That costs all of us as a society. I think all of us need to look at ways to make this a matter of urgency and a matter of national priority. We need to take it on board as a community and we need to recognise that we are failing. Whilst it is appropriate for parents to have the primary say in what happens with their children, we have to look at wider issues. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to take part in a debate on an issue of extremely great national importance, one which it behoves all of us, including governments across Australia, to take extremely seriously. The abuse of children is a phenomenon which is totally unacceptable in this or in any other society. The vulnerability of children imposes a special obligation on parents, carers and governments, which is to protect and nurture children. The failure to meet that obligation exacts a terrible price in this, as in any other, community—not only in terms of the immediate impact on children from that abuse but on the whole of society, which will bear the cost of that abuse over many years following the ending of the abuse. The cascading social and personal consequences and the problems which multiply from such abuse throughout the life of the abused child are serious and come with a cost which is borne by the entirety of Australian society. As such, it is extremely important that we take this issue seriously and that we design programs and responses which address the issue as fully as possible.
I understand that my colleague Senator Murray is not taking part in this debate. In a number of key inquiries which the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has conducted into the status of children in Australian society he was fond of saying that a hurt child equates to a hurt adult. There are a great many hurt adults in our society today whose hurt is traceable to their experience as children.
Of course, it is not possible for governments to be present at all times in the homes of Australians, in schools and in other places where there are children in order to prevent child abuse. To some extent a level of child abuse will be inevitable and unavoidable. What we as governments need to do is to create the circumstances where such abuse is less likely to occur because pressures on Australian families and individuals are mitigated and reduced—pressures which may in turn lead to child abuse—and create services which are comprehensive and accessible so as to prevent the harm of child abuse multiplying and continuing for long periods.
In this respect it is worth observing that state and territory governments in Australia constitutionally have a very important role to play in dealing with instances of child abuse and providing the sorts of services I have just spoken of. I know that is an issue which state and territory governments have taken more seriously in recent years. I do not think it assists us greatly in this debate to talk in terms that might be mistaken for buck passing. No child and no family of a child in this country that is subject to child abuse wants to hear that one government wipes its hands of responsibility and blames another level of government. What is important is that we properly assess the number of such cases that occur in our community, take steps to prevent those cases from recurring and provide full and appropriate services where they do occur.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported in 2005 that the number of notifications of suspected child abuse in Australia had more than doubled in the previous six or so years—from 107,000-odd in 1999-2000 to 252,831 in 2004-05. Of those reported cases, the rate of substantiation of cases of child abuse had also risen substantially—in fact more than doubled—from 24,732 to 46,154. That is partly a reflection of the creation of better reporting avenues and the creation of opportunities for people to come forward and report child abuse than were the case previously. Perhaps we are seeing more child abuse reported. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that more child abuse is occurring in Australia today. We need to make sure that if that is the case, we take serious steps to wind back that alarming statistic.
The Commonwealth’s responsibility as to this issue is fairly clear. We need to create a strong and secure environment in which families can operate in this country; that is, we need to give families every opportunity to deal with these problems in a constructive and effective way. We need to take pressure off families so that through factors such as poverty, unemployment, mental illness and a host of other indicators we do not inadvertently create the circumstances whereby Australian families turn to abuse of their children. It is worth reflecting in this debate on the fact that a significant number of cases of child abuse occur within the framework of the family. Indeed, the statistics available through the beyondblue website suggest that 3.3 per cent of perpetrators are natural parents, 2.7 per cent are step-parents, 4.5 per cent are siblings and 18.3 per cent are other relatives of the child. So a significant number of abusers of a child are members of that child’s own family. However, it is also worth reflecting on the fact that 47 per cent of abusers are acquaintances of the child and 23.4 per cent are strangers to the child.
This obviously suggests that some measures need to be taken to deal with the causes of the perpetration of such cases of abuse. It also suggests that a significant number of cases of abuse are happening within families, so mechanisms to strengthen the framework of families do need to be considered. The government can point to a number of measures which have been taken in recent years to strengthen the capacity of families to deal with such problems and, in particular, to strengthen the environment in which families find themselves generally. I believe that the lessening of unemployment in Australia, the strengthening of the social services available to Australian families and the proliferation of programs specifically designed to provide assistance to families are measures which ought to have in the long term a positive effect on the incidence of child abuse. It is very hard to demonstrate a link between those things, but I believe those sorts of measures are entirely appropriate. I will leave it to others in this debate, particularly colleagues on this side of the chamber, to talk about some of those programs, such as the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy and Local Answers, which are very important measures that the government has taken to strengthen families in a community context.
The inquiries which the Senate Community Affairs References Committee has conducted in recent years into child migrants, children in institutional care and the stolen generation are important steps to understanding the abuse of children in our community. Those are particular slices of community experience which deserve special attention because of the incredibly serious impacts on children in those three contexts. But we do have a broader responsibility, one which revolves around the need to strengthen services and to identify cases, and those are the areas where government programs need to be continually reviewed and strengthened. I believe that we can point to the successful rolling out of programs which have had that very effect.
I for one believe that the community needs to discuss these issues more fully, to bring them out into the open, and to be prepared to consider measures that will provide support to those people in the community working in these areas who may need assistance in getting protection into the places where child abuse is occurring. I commend the programs that I have referred to, but I particularly hope that cooperation between different levels of government is both possible and the order of the day, in order to make sure that we minimise the number of such cases in the future.
On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will be supporting the urgency motion moved by Senator Bartlett. I congratulate him for bringing the issue forward today, because I think it is important that a Commonwealth parliament concentrates on these issues on occasion, and particularly for his call for child protection to be seen as a national priority and to see what the Commonwealth’s role in this is.
Can I say at the outset that freedom from violence and freedom from abuse are fundamental human rights. All children have a right to the protection, care and support that will allow them to thrive. All children are entitled to the full protection of the law, and we are all responsible for the safety and protection of children in our community. We are not just responsible for our kids; we are responsible for all kids in our community. All levels of government have a responsibility to ensure that the law is applied and children get the protection they need.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, Child Protection: Australia: 2004-05, notes that from 1999-2000 to 2004-05 the number of child protection notifications nationally increased, from over 107,000 to more than 250,000, and the number of substantiations increased, from 25,000 to more than 46,000. It may be, as Senator Humphries has pointed out, that the reporting, rather than the incidence, is increasing. But whichever way you view them, these statistics are appalling and they do tell us we have got a major problem. A large amount of abuse and neglect does go unreported, and I think statistics of this magnitude can only highlight what we are dealing with.
In my state of Western Australia, we have had the terribly tragic death of a baby. It has been very much in the public spotlight in recent weeks. It is a terrible tale that has upset everyone—and, quite frankly, on occasions I have skipped a couple of paragraphs in the newspaper because it is so distressing. I think all Australians are shocked and saddened when they hear of cases such as this where family dysfunction and the failure of child protection result in the death of a child.
All abuse has severe consequences. In addition to its physical effects, abuse can impair personal and social development; lead to psychological damage; result in poorer health, education and employment outcomes; lead to alcohol and drug abuse; and lead to a cycle of abuse in the next generation. It is an issue that we have to give greater attention to. Dr Fiona Stanley, from the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Perth, has noted that rates of abuse are higher among Indigenous and other disadvantaged children than they are among children from more advantaged backgrounds. These factors present a complex, multifaceted challenge which demands complex solutions, not simple solutions, which provide full protection to children and address the causes of abuse and neglect.
Recently, following the shocking stories revealed on Lateline by the Northern Territory Crown Prosecutor, Nannette Rogers, there has been a national debate on child abuse and sexual assault in Indigenous communities. Like all children, Indigenous children have the right to be free from violence and abuse and should receive the full protection of the law. In her 2002 Cunningham Lecture, Dr Stanley noted that Indigenous children experience higher rates of abuse, neglect and other areas of disadvantage than their non-Indigenous peers. The high levels of abuse, neglect and disadvantage experienced by Indigenous children are largely a function of poverty, not of race or Aboriginal culture, as some have claimed. Professor Stanley attempted to illustrate the complex web of social and physical factors that influence the broader health and welfare of Indigenous Australians.
Mick Adams, of the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Forum, has argued that the breakdown of the traditional role and status of Aboriginal men has contributed to abuse in their communities and that the poor health status of Indigenous men leads to suffering within Indigenous families and communities. There is no excuse for the abuse of children in Indigenous communities. But there is also a danger that the current debate is falsely painting all Indigenous men as perpetrators. Such dangerous stereotyping should be avoided at all costs. Abuse of children is not just an Indigenous problem; it is a community problem which is more prevalent in underprivileged groups but prevalent throughout society.
There has been community debate about how we ensure that Indigenous children are free from abuse, assault and neglect and about where ultimate responsibility for this lies. There are clear responsibilities here at both the state and federal levels, and no-one boasts a particularly proud record. The federal government has been told time and again about the nature and extent of the problems. There has been a stream of reports and at least three federal summits. We seem to be trapped in a cycle where every few years a shocking story prompts calls for immediate action, but, as the focus of public attention shifts, the issue disappears and little progress is achieved. This pattern is also present in relation to abuse, assault and neglect of non-Indigenous children. We are seeing it in Western Australia now; we have seen it in New South Wales; and, quite frankly, we have seen it all before.
The culture of blame shifting in relation to child protection is extremely unhelpful. We look to blame rather than to solve. Political point-scoring takes place by those not in government at the time. All this holds us back from focusing on how to get results, how to build systems that protect children and how to encourage broader community responsibility. There needs to be more openness and honesty and less blame so that we can develop stronger systems to better protect Australian children. It is an approach I have certainly tried to take in Indigenous affairs in trying to support this government in tackling violence and abuse in Indigenous communities. But I do not think it is helped if people seek to sensationalise issues or to make political capital out of really tragic cases. We have got to focus on the causes and on assisting Aboriginal people and communities to tackle these problems, not constantly blame or highlight the problems.
Labor supports Senator Bartlett’s call. We do think we need national leadership. We do think we all have to contribute. I think it is about us all renewing our commitment and our efforts to do much better as a society than we have done in the past. (Time expired)
The Greens also support Senator Bartlett’s motion. Unfortunately, not all Australian children are raised in safe living environments. As citizens in a supposedly First World country with many privileges and advantages, we find that the current rate of childhood abuse and neglect is unacceptable. Healthy, positive and supportive environments in early childhood, from birth, are essential for the move into successful adolescence and adulthood.
As Senator Evans pointed out, the child protection report released in January this year notes that the number of child protection notifications in Australia has more than doubled, from around 107,000 in 1999-2000 to over a quarter of a million in 2004-05. As has been pointed out, some of these notifications would have been the result of changes in child protection policies and practices in jurisdictions across Australia and reflect increased public awareness of child abuse. However, that cannot be used as an excuse to say that the situation is okay.
The figures for those children placed in protection or removed from home and put in out of home care indicate a very worrying trend. The number of children in care and under protection orders is increasing. Nationally, the number of children in out-of-home care rose each year from 1996 to 2005, increasing by 70 per cent, from nearly 14,000 in 1996 to nearly 24,000 in 2005. Of these children, four per cent were in residential care, 54 per cent in foster care and 40 per cent in kinship care. The rates of children in out-of-home care in Australia increased from three per cent per thousand in 1997 to 4.9 per cent per thousand in 2005. This is clearly an unacceptable situation. As has also been highlighted by previous speakers, the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care was six times that of non-Indigenous children.
In Western Australia the Gordon report of 2002 is well known. I think it is useful to look at the barriers to change that were highlighted then. I do not think many of them have changed. They include: ongoing paternalism in government policy; Aboriginal communities must be involved as architects of the solutions; the lack of services to adequately address violence; inappropriate models; inadequate funding; the lack of coordination between Commonwealth and state bodies; mistrust and uncertainty; historical loss of confidence in the justice systems; the need for restorative and reparative processes to counteract historical wrongs; fear of the police; concern that nothing will be done anyway; concern offenders will be imprisoned and die in jail; lack of knowledge about the law and access to legal systems; and an inability to protect women and children. There is a need to focus on actual service development on the ground rather than reassessing the problem. It is also important to look at the child protection workers and the trauma that they are facing in situations of severe overwork. They are suffering from burnout, are unable to cope with the levels of stress, and face a lack of support and training. Things have not changed very much since that report, and most of those issues would also relate to non-Indigenous communities.
The solutions have also been fairly strongly articulated a number of times. They include: promoting a safe family environment, taking the stresses off family related situations; looking at prevention and a whole-of-community response involving community members in child protection and antiviolence policies; involving community members in program design, implementation and assessment; looking at risk and resilience; looking at early childhood programs; and looking at alternative models that better involve communities in decision making and that are culturally relevant support services—services that respect cultural and familial obligations and ties and actually address the fundamental causes. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak to Senator Bartlett’s motion. The protection of children from serious abuse and neglect is paramount in our society. The Australian government has great concerns about the continuing increase in the number of child abuse cases; however, responsibility for improving child protection services rests primarily with each state and territory government. In 2006-07 the Australian government will provide an estimated $17.5 billion to support families and children. Over $10 million a year is also provided for a range of early intervention and prevention programs.
The Australian government’s policy focus is on prevention and early intervention strategies, given the research showing children’s early experiences set the stage for their later development in many ways. Senator Bartlett states that there is a need for all political parties to make child protection a national priority. I can assure Senator Bartlett that the Howard government has made this very important issue a priority. There is no doubt that the best outcomes for children will be achieved if the Australian government and the state and territory governments all work together. Child protection is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments; however, there are areas of joint activity such as prevention and early intervention.
The Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference has agreed that a national approach to child protection—focusing specifically on prevention and early intervention, data development and workforce issues—will be progressed. A cross-jurisdictional working group has been established to progress this work. This will build on work already being done jointly by the Australian government and the state and territory governments, which includes the development and implementation of: firstly, the National Plan for Foster Children, Young People and their Carers, which aims to improve outcomes for children and young people in foster care, including Indigenous young people; and, secondly, the national framework for creating safe environments for children, which focuses on a national approach for increasing the safety of children in their dealings with community service organisations.
You might ask what the government is doing on internet safety. Last week was National Child Protection Week. Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, Minister for Justice and Customs, launched a joint initiative to educate children about the dangers lurking online. Cybersmart Detectives is a joint initiative between the Australian Communications and Media Authority, known as ACMA, and Australian law enforcement agencies. It builds on the Australian government’s $116.6 million package Protecting Australian Families Online, which will provide every Australian family with a free internet filter. The online tool launched nationally last week uses the internet to teach young people key internet safety messages and helps them recognise the danger signs when using online services such as chat rooms. By using Cybersmart Detectives, young people learn about the dangers of giving out personal information on the internet, that they should never meet face to face with someone they have met on the internet without a parent accompanying them and that people in the online environment may not be who they say they are.
National Child Protection Week was an opportunity to remind parents and children about the dangers lurking on the net. I think it is important that parents become more involved and more vigilant in supervising their children online so that, along with the law enforcement agencies, we can crack down on predators and paedophiles, who use increasingly sophisticated means to groom their potential victims. Parents and children can protect themselves online by keeping their personal information private, learning how to save a copy of a conversation in a chat room and blocking people who make them uncomfortable. Children also need to speak up to their parents if they continue to be worried. The internet is just another public place; and just as crimes are committed in our communities they are also committed online. I am proud to be part of this government that remains committed to ensuring all Australians, particularly children and families, can access a safe and secure internet experience.
I would now like to speak about the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, which commits $490 million, between 2004-05 and 2008-09, for early childhood initiatives and resources that can be used to achieve better outcomes for children, their families and communities. The strategy has proven to be extremely popular, especially throughout Western Australian electorates.
There are four streams to this strategy. The first is Communities for Children, where non-government organisations are funded as facilitating partners in 45 community sites around Australia to develop and implement a strategic and sustainable whole-of-community approach to early childhood development. The second, Early Childhood: Invest to Grow, provides funding for early childhood programs for improved outcomes for young children and the development of tools and resource materials for use by families, professionals and communities supporting families and young children. Third, the Local Answers stream helps strengthen disadvantaged communities by funding local, small-scale, time-limited projects that help communities build skills and capacity to identify opportunities and take action for the benefit of their members. Fourth, Choice and Flexibility in Child Care provides Australian parents with flexible and innovative childcare solutions.
If we can teach adults to be better parents, we can drive down the incidence of abuse and neglect. The website raisingchildren.net.au provides expert, impartial information on raising children, from newborns to eight years of age, in an engaging and user-friendly format. The website has been developed by the Raising Children Network, RCN, a consortium made up of three early childhood organisations: the Smart Population Foundation, the Victorian Parenting Centre and the Centre for Community Child Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne. This government commissioned the website, providing $4 million over four years under its Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. The Raising Children website provides practical tools and up-to-date information on child health, safety—(Time expired)
I rise to speak on Senator Bartlett’s matter of urgency relating to the need for all political parties to make child protection a national priority and the even greater need for governments to work together to determine ways to reduce the completely unacceptable level of serious child abuse and neglect that is occurring across the Australian community. As we are all well aware, last week was Child Protection Week, and the Democrats’ motion, supported by Labor, calling for a nationwide approach to child protection was not supported by the coalition in its original form.
Child abuse is a scourge in our society that all too often remains hidden, and therefore it is a difficult topic for governments to tackle. Unfortunately, although the number of cases is on the rise and the incidence of abuse and neglect is growing, the subject seems, far too often, to fall into the too-hard basket. Recently I attended a forum on families and homelessness at Levi House in Launceston, which was attended by representatives from local community organisations. There, I was reminded of the many problems that are facing Australian families and the strain that is being placed on families, not just in Tasmanian communities but in communities nationwide. We all know that problems that are ignored do not just go away. What is needed is a national, bipartisan approach to child protection. The cycle Senator Evans alluded to—in which a terrible story of abuse draws calls for immediate action, only for the issue to disappear when the story vanishes from the newspapers—must end now.
Yesterday during question time we saw the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kemp, fail to explain why the government has failed to act on the recommendations of the 2004 Senate Community Affairs References Committee report Forgotten Australians and the 2005 Senate Community Affairs References Committee report Protecting vulnerable children: a national challenge. Senator Kemp said he would refer the question to Minister Brough, but the time has come for answers, not more questions. The time has come for a unified, whole-of-government approach to stopping child abuse and neglect before it occurs. Both reports by the committee recommended the installation of a national commissioner for children and young people.
Freedom from violence and safety from abuse are the basic rights of all people. Children are only different in that they often do not have the ability to stand up for their rights themselves. They require our protection. It is the responsibility of all levels of government to ensure that the law is upheld and our children are protected from abuse and violence. Recent figures relating to the incidence of abuse are alarming. Suspected cases have doubled in number since 1999-2000. According to Australia’s leading national child abuse prevention agency, the NAPCAN Foundation, in 2004, 220,000 reports of child abuse were made—a figure equal to one report for every 25 children in Australia.
Child abuse is arguably Australia’s worst social problem. The statistics are frightening. In Australia, a child is abused every 13 minutes. Adam Blakester, Chief Executive of NAPCAN, said in a recent statement:
The appropriate and urgent response required today needs to address the underlying root causes of child abuse, or else the cycle of abuse will only continue. This would form the basis of a National Child Abuse Prevention Strategy, targeting all Australian children.
Unfortunately, we all know that the figures are just the beginning. With every case that is reported, there are countless others that will remain unknown, and the problem will continue to grow. The time for action is now. Child abuse and neglect is not limited to Indigenous communities, although it is recognised that Indigenous victims are over-represented in statistics. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Child protection Australia 2004-05 report found that not only is the number of victims of child abuse increasing but the seriousness of cases continues to worsen, particularly those involving substance abuse, mental health and family violence.
The AIHW report has also revealed an over-representation of sole parent families in confirmed abuse cases. In today’s society, the breakdown of the traditional family unit and the higher incidence of sole parent families may be a reason why the incidence of abuse is on the way up. NAPCAN stated that sole parent families are more likely to have low incomes, be financially stressed, be socially isolated or have less support from their immediate family. It also stated that these are all factors that have been associated with child abuse and neglect.
Intergovernmental cooperation is the only way to develop strategies to respond to these sorts of situations. In some cases, abuse occurs due to pressures being placed on parents who may be new to parenting or who may be suffering from their own ailments, including mental health problems or depression. In many cases, abuse can be avoided if appropriate support services are instigated before the situation degenerates. If we do not act and work together now to stop the incidence of abuse and neglect in our communities, the statistics will continue to rise. It is worth remembering that the statistics are not just numbers—behind every statistic there is a young person, a child, who deserves protection.
Labor supports this urgency motion to make child protection a national priority and calls for a whole-of-government approach to develop strategies to reduce the incidence of abuse. Australia’s young people are our future, and Labor is prepared to work with the Howard government and other parties to stop the abuse and neglect of Australian children. We need national leadership on this very important issue.
I do not think there is any doubt that it is an absolute priority for this government to protect children from serious abuse and neglect, and I do not think there is any doubt that there is not a person in this chamber for whom it is not a priority. I certainly take on board Senator Polley’s comments about working together with the government to ensure that we get the right outcome. That is the goal. It is not about politics. It is about ensuring that we protect those children right across this nation who are relying on us, not just as parliamentarians but as adults in this community, to ensure that they are safe. They deserve that, and we have a real responsibility to ensure that we deliver that.
This government has a very strong commitment to a national approach. Although the federal government has a significant range of measures in place, it is not just about the federal government. It is about working with the opposition, the states and territories, community groups, parents and organisations right across the country to ensure that we get the right outcomes. The government has committed around $17 billion to supporting families and children. About $10 million of that goes each year towards early intervention and prevention.
The government has a real focus on recognising that early intervention and prevention is vitally important in ensuring the safety of our children. We have a range of measures in place, such as the REACh program—Responding Early Assisting Children—which funds 41 services that support children and parents in vulnerable families, those who are experiencing significant transitions or those who are at risk of child abuse, neglect or other crises. We have the Indigenous children program, which emphasises early intervention and prevention and focuses on the delivery of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, families and communities and builds and strengthens their resilience and support networks. We have the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, which is provided through the Australian Institute of Family Studies to get information on child protection activities and research out to professionals and organisations in this field. It is important that we note all those programs, because they are only a part of what the government is doing to ensure that we have the right measures in place to do as much as we possibly can to address this issue.
One organisation I would like to focus on in the area of government working with community organisations is NAPCAN, which was founded in 1987 by Rosemary Sinclair and Christine Stewart. I congratulate them both on their vision, their dedication and their foresight in setting up NAPCAN and recognising the need for an organisation like that. It was created to establish lines of communication between government and organisations, agencies and professionals so that we could have a real focus on this very significant issue. In 2005, NAPCAN released its new strategic plan. It is important to note that because, again, it is not just about governments and what we are doing; it is about working together as a community to ensure that we get the right outcomes.
Last week was National Child Protection Week, and we saw funding of $250,000 from the government ensure that we raise awareness. Last week a report stated that about one in three people suspected instances of child abuse, but 43 per cent of those did not report those suspicions. I think it is so important to raise community awareness of this issue, and it is through things like National Child Protection Week that awareness will be raised and, hopefully, this very serious issue will be addressed.
Many of the mainstream programs that the government funds contribute to ensuring that we have a real goal of child abuse prevention. It is not just the direct programs—the sorts of things that I mentioned earlier—but the mainstream programs as well, such as health, social security, housing, disability services and family policy. We need to adopt a holistic approach to this. It is not just about specifically targeting child abuse and those very specific measures we put in place; it is about the broader environment that those children are living in. We know that, when families are under stress, that is far more likely, unfortunately, to be a factor in child abuse. It is about issues such as poverty, unemployment, illness and disability, so we need to have a very broad-ranging approach to that, and this government certainly has that.
If we do not address those things then we are not going to be able to address the issue itself. So I believe it is vitally important that we take a very broad view to make sure we encompass all those things. We need to recognise the factors that result in instances of child abuse and do everything we can to minimise those factors. If we do that and combine it with early intervention and prevention, working collectively with all sides of government and the community, then we can make sure we get the right outcomes in this area. The more we assist families to cope, the more they are able to raise their children in a caring environment.
I am a mother of two children. I know that many senators in this place are parents. You cannot help but feel it very deeply when you hear of instances of child abuse—and you do not have to be a parent to feel deep emotion when you hear about instances of child abuse. The onus is on us to work together, to work with the community and to work with the groups. The onus is on us to ensure that we have a plan together which does not get distracted by politics and that we have a very clear path forward to ensure that our children, in this wonderful country of ours, have safe and happy lives.
Senator Bartlett, I do not think you are going to get a lot of debate around your motion. Listening to anyone who has spoken this afternoon and looking at any review of the literature would show that the words ‘child abuse’ can be linked very clearly to commitment, outrage and anger. Over the years, there have been very many reports, debates and times that all levels of government, politicians, churches and institutions have come together and had the kind of discussion that we have just had in this place. The literature is dripping with statements about how terrible child abuse is and about the need to have reform and cooperative operations to work together to effect change.
One of the very difficult aspects of this discussion is about how you can appropriately balance the need for hope with the overwhelming frustration that in 2006 we are talking in very similar ways to those who spoke in these kinds of debates before. In some ways, I suppose, there is hope, in that people from all sides in this place can get together and restate that we need to accept that child abuse must be a national priority and that it should not be dismissed or pushed aside by whatever the next national priority is going to be. One of the failures of our system is that we tend to be provoked by sensation—that whatever is the sensation of the moment in the media gets the reaction not just of this place but of the wider community. The message for us—and I am sure it is the message in Senator Bartlett’s motion—is that this issue should not be displaced or stimulated by sensation. It is bigger than that, it is more important than that, and there is an opportunity for us to effect real change.
This year, 2006, we have seen a number of national conferences which have been stimulated by the work of a range of people in our community, including those in NAPCAN to whom Senator Nash has just referred. The people who formed that organisation did a wonderful job for us all. And, through the Senate Community Affairs References Committee process, which has already been mentioned, a series of reports was delivered in this place, stimulated very much by the hard work and tenacious efforts of Senator Murray.
By that process, we have come up with significant reports. I refer again to the report Forgotten Australians. I think there were 39 recommendations in that August 2004 report, and the supplementary report of March 2005 came forward with another 17 recommendations, not all of which were picked up by the government. Certainly, when the government response came out later, in 2005, there was the almost inevitable response that a great deal of the constitutional responsibilities for the area of child abuse lie with state governments. That was clearly pointed out by the national governmental response. But I think there has been a move forward, beyond that kind of national shaking around over who is mostly responsible. I think that out of that process has come an acceptance that there will be an effort at the national level to coordinate responses that can address the issues that end up in the horror of child abuse.
There have been two conferences this year. One of them looked specifically at the issues of those people who were victims of institutional abuse. Those issues were covered in the Forgotten Australians report. That report talked about kids who were in care who had survived that process, many of whom have gone on to be victims throughout their lives. They actually talked about how they could move forward and address their ongoing concerns. But that also stimulated the issue of the ongoing problems of people in foster care—families that are damaged in many ways and the kids who are the most immediate victims of that kind of process.
We are awaiting with interest the government’s responses to those conferences so that once again we can work together to see what the next step should be. Senator Bartlett’s goal of making this issue a national priority can be a living reality rather than just another talking point. I hope that, out of the process, this place could perhaps have some kind of ongoing role. It is not enough that we deliver a report, move away from it and not know where to go next; we tick that box. I think there is some hope that this parliament could have an ongoing responsibility to monitor the range of programs that are introduced, how they are going and whether they are working. It could ask: ‘Has there been an actual response to the heaps of commitment and rhetorical media-covered statements about how, this time, we are going to work together?’ I am hoping that, perhaps through the Senate Community Affairs References Committee process and back through the Senate, we can have regular updates—not just at Senate estimates time—where we talk to, in particular, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to see how the programs that have been mentioned today are going. But that should be done in a much more coordinated way so that we can do a snapshot of how these processes are working, what advances have been made and what still needs to be done. That would put some action into Senator Bartlett’s statement about working well together and making this a real national commitment and priority.
There are very many people who are looking to this place for a response, and I think that we owe our community the respect of saying that we have heard what they have told us and that we accept our responsibility as people who are representing them in parliament. I think we can move together. I think there is a genuine opportunity arising out of the need of the community and also out of the wonderful commitment of organisations like NAPCAN and the various community agencies around the place that are working in the field on this issue.
We cannot just have another speaking opportunity or media release. This issue demands that there be action, not just another series of pilot projects. I think that ‘pilotitis’, the condition of giving short-term funding to areas, does more harm than good. This needs strong, systematic change and commitment. It also means bringing the people who most understand these processes into the discussion. Then, maybe, prevention of child abuse as a real national priority will be a reality and not just something that we can talk about in this place to release our frustration.
I thank all senators for their contributions on this motion. I would like to broadly concur with the statement by the NAPCAN foundation president, Teresa Scott, that child abuse and neglect is Australia’s greatest social problem, and it is the responsibility of all Australians to do everything they can to prevent it. That must include government and political parties, of course, but I should emphasise that it is a responsibility for all Australians. It is not something that government can somehow fix without the community coming along with it and showing greater concern for the issue. However, I slightly disagree with Teresa Scott in that I think the continuing gross inequality between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians is our greatest social problem, and it is actually no coincidence that some of the ways that manifests itself are also through child abuse and neglect.
I acknowledge the contributions and the generosity of the contributions from everybody, but, frankly, I am not convinced that this is actually being given the priority it deserves from the federal government. That is not a criticism of them specifically. It is not being given the priority it deserves by state governments and it has not been given the priority it deserves by previous federal governments either.
I also acknowledge the impossible role of welfare workers in the field in this area. They make mistakes from time to time and occasionally they are very grievous mistakes, and they should be continually monitored. But, in many cases, they carry the can for society’s failures, and for decades they have been under-resourced by governments. They are in the impossible position of deciding whether to remove a child from a family situation—and having to deal with all of the grief and upheaval that goes with that—or whether to leave the child in a situation where they may be at risk, and having to face all of the criticism if that pans out badly. As well, they have the knowledge that removing them and putting them somewhere else in care is not necessarily always terribly safe for the child either. We need to acknowledge the work of many people at the community level who are trying to navigate through this.
I support the call of Joe Tucci for a national children’s commissioner. I think that is absolutely essential. That is a recommendation of the Senate committee report that has not been taken up by this federal government. I think it is absolutely crucial that it is taken up, and the Australian Childhood Foundation has pushed for that for a long period of time. Why can’t we have a parliamentary secretary with responsibility for this? We have a parliamentary secretary with responsibility for water. Even though we all know that it is a state issue, it has been seen as an issue of national priority. I think the same sort of thing can be done with this issue, where we actually hold ourselves accountable as a nation and report to cabinet. It does not make it a national priority by just funding some programs now and then. You have consistent follow through, time after time, with the person who has that core responsibility. It is only when the parliament and all political parties agree to take the responsibility that you actually get some action.
Question agreed to.
In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Audit report No. 4 of 2006-07: Performance audit: Tax agent and business portals: Australian Taxation Office.
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
I move:
Australia’s national and international policing requirements over the medium- and long-term, with particular reference to:
There is a very simple reason why I am moving this motion for an inquiry into Australia’s national and international policing requirements over the medium and longer term. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Senate has not had the opportunity to look at this issue nor has there been a substantive inquiry by the government into this issue.
If you look at the Australian Federal Police, at its birth and its subsequent changes, you will see that it has changed in reaction to events. It was the bombing outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney back in 1978 that brought about the AFP’s creation. Then the terrorist attacks in New York, almost five years ago to the day, led to significant shifts in its role and an increase in its funding under the current government.
What has been lacking is a strategic assessment of our future policing needs to help guide workforce planning, not just at the federal level but also at the state and territory levels. A failure to have this forward-looking approach means you end up with the quagmire that this government finds itself in today. Look at the response of the Minister for Justice and Customs to a dorothy dixer that he took during yesterday’s question time. Senator Ellison was asked what this government had done to ensure Australia’s security interests. All he talked about were the laws this government had passed and the money it had appropriated. Strong laws and sufficient government funding are both important parts of the equation for a successful policing approach in the modern security environment. But on their own they are not enough. On their own, neither can put themselves to good use. Strong laws cannot enforce themselves and money cannot spend itself on what it was intended for, and sometimes it cannot even be spent at all.
To put the laws to good use two things are required: firstly, sufficient numbers of police officers who are appropriately and properly trained and able to enforce the laws; and, secondly, accountability and transparency mechanisms to help ensure that money is actually put to the use that was intended. Those two elements form the other half of the equation, and both are essential elements that are severely lacking under the current government. For one thing, the government has done away with the accountability mechanisms of the Senate ever since it took control in July last year. Its constant sabotage of the Senate, particularly in the estimates process and the committee structure, have made the task of holding this government to account more arduous. I might add that this does not mean that we never get to the bottom of the stench or that problems disappear, but, rather, that the problems fester away under the surface and it takes longer than necessary to find the solution that the public deserve and that this government should then address.
If you require particular proof that the government wants to hinder accountability when it comes to funding policing then look no further than its refusal to support this inquiry. I am aware of the numbers in this place. This inquiry will not get up, because the government will not support it, but it is an inquiry that should get up and the government should support it. When you look at the government in terms of police numbers and training, you will see that, perhaps more through negligence than intent, it has dropped the ball when it comes to recruiting and training sufficient numbers of police officers. The reason that the government is failing to make a strategic assessment of Australia’s longer term policing needs is that it is not in a position to put in place a plan to ensure that those needs can be met.
In many ways, passing laws and appropriating money, as I said, are the easy parts of the equation to get right, since all the government requires is having the numbers in the Senate. Finding suitable recruits, training them up and giving them plenty of field experience, on the other hand, is not something that can be done overnight. It is a process that takes some time. The government, from time to time, sets itself one-off discretionary targets, such as the recently announced increase to the AFP’s International Deployment Group, but the problem with discretionary targets that are not part of any universal goals is that, when the government comes under pressure to deliver them, they may just come at the cost of other areas of the agency.
So, in two years time, if the government manages to successfully boost the IDG—which is an important initiative that Labor, as I indicated at the time, fully supports—we will need to be sure that experienced officers have not simply been diverted or pulled from other areas of operations within the AFP, such as fighting drugs, crimes abroad, fraud, terrorism and sex-trafficking crimes. All of those exist for the AFP to fight.
The evidence to date causes me serious concern. We can go to some of the evidence that demonstrates that this government has failed in the five years since September 11 to put in place a forward-looking plan. Consider the manner in which the government has increased funding to the AFP over that period, even if we look at one of the things that it has tried to do. In the five budgets since September 11, not one of the significant increases to funding has been built into the forward estimates—not one. In fact, across each of the budgets, the forward estimates for out years projected an average annual decrease of 3.5 per cent and sometimes as high as 22 per cent. The problem facing the Australian Federal Police Commissioner is that, when he looks at his budget and sees a one-off increase of 16 per cent for the first year followed by a decrease for every year after that, he is hardly in the best position to grow the organisation by the actual average increase of 26 per cent. It is just not the right way to grow the Australian Federal Police.
If you look at the effects of not having a plan, you will see that it is of little surprise that the Australian Federal Police average staffing levels fell short of the projected growth in the last financial year by 421 personnel. The 2005-06 Budget Paper No. 1 showed that the Australian Federal Police had expected the average staffing level to rise from 4,865 to 5,191, but the table in the 2006-07 budget paper showed that it ended up falling to 4,717. In other words, the agency was unable to deliver what was projected in the previous year. The 2006-07 budget paper then predicted an increase of only 23 personnel. Not being satisfied with that, we had the opportunity of asking the Australian Federal Police about that at estimates. The AFP responded: ‘Those are the figures in the PBS’—that is, the portfolio budget statement. ‘Are those the figures that we expect? The answer is no.’ So, just three weeks after the budget figures were published, the Australian Federal Police were already contesting their accuracy. It is little wonder that they had difficulty in meeting the previous year’s target.
I had been concerned that the Australian Federal Police had difficulty in actually spending their appropriated money each year, so I put the question to them during the May hearing. The Australian Federal Police took the question on notice—No. 103, for those who are interested in reading the response for themselves. This is what they had to say about the receivables for the 2003-04 year:
A significant upward movement in receivables—
that is, $145 million—
in 2003-04 is due to the forecast surplus of $80m and deferred capital expenditure of $64m.
The main drivers of the surplus were delays in implementing new measures (particularly recruitment activities) and an underspend of $32m for PNG related activities …
I understand and accept the complications related to Papua New Guinea and recognise that the money concerned, a few hundred million dollars, was returned to the government in the last budget, but the Australian Federal Police itself chose to specifically mention, of all other activities, delays in recruitment. Yet the minister told the Australian public on national TV on 27 August that the Australian Federal Police has no trouble in recruiting. It just defies belief.
It is worth mentioning that, in their response to question on notice No. 103, the AFP failed to provide any explanation whatsoever for the additional $275 million in receivables as of the last budget. To be fair, I have asked the Australian Federal Police to provide further clarification on their answer, so I do not want to prejudice their response. But it is far from reassuring to see that it is now September and there has been no answer to date. What it amounts to is a 37 per cent increase in Australian Federal Police funding from the Commonwealth for that year which is as yet unexplained.
I turn to some of the other areas that have become newsworthy issues—for example, airport security and the Wheeler report. The Wheeler report recommended that the Australian Federal Police take control of airport security. The government has managed to put into place airport commanders but, as far as getting the full complement of community police officers together is concerned, it seems that achieving that is a little way off. What we have is airport commanders at airports but no community police officers to go with them.
Meanwhile, an analysis of the numbers in the most recent annual report for 2004-05 reveals that there are 4,770 AFP staff. If you break that down, you will find that 258 were stationed in overseas posts; at least a further 147 were on peacekeeping duties overseas; 1,205 are protective service officers providing guarding and not investigating services; 26 were on secondments to other agencies; a further 1,291 were unsworn; 608 were on ACT local policing duties; and 20 were on local policing duties in other territories. That means that there were fewer than 1,215 sworn operational police officers actively investigating domestic federal crime during that year—that is, less than one sworn officer concentrating on fighting terrorism, illicit drug distribution, money laundering and fraud against the Commonwealth for every 15,000 people.
It is not just the Australian Federal Police that has to deal with the consequences of this government’s failure to properly plan in the area of policing; it impacts upon state and territory police forces as well. To begin with, existing skills shortages across the economy mean that all police forces have a shrinking pool to recruit from. When the federal government bursts onto the scene and announces a massive increase in its own recruitment activities, this can throw a disproportionate burden on state and territory workforce planning.
There is another issue, though—that is, the Australian Federal Police may be forced to poach directly from state and territory police forces in order to achieve its target. The government has given assurances that this will not occur, but the fact that the minister could not say how many of the current applicants before the Australian Federal Police were existing officers in state and territory police forces suggests that he is not particularly worried about the impact it might have on any agency other than his own.
Now the government is about to defend its position of not having a Senate inquiry into this matter. The last inquiry was before September 11; it was a rather narrow inquiry, dealing with certain matters. There have been none from the government, unless you go right back to 1998—that was the last one. An inquiry like this will not get off the ground because this government will not support it. In the first week of the new committee structure, it is surprising that the government is going to knock over a reasonable reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to look at this issue. I think it is because this is an inquiry that this government does not want as it thinks that scrutiny is not good. You could say that it is because it might think that there are no serious concerns about the current state of affairs. The government might want to pretend that everything is rosy, but even the minister failed to deny Labor’s claim that average staffing levels fell 421 short of the target for the last financial year. He was given the opportunity yesterday to do that and he failed to take that up.
The reason is that the government are addicted to shutting down all avenues for holding themselves to account. They tried to argue that changing the committee system would mean that more inquiries would get up because the government would not have to worry about them being run by a hostile chair. That was one of the arguments that was put. I am not going to get direct about this, but they put up a number and range of spurious reasons as to why the new committee structure would provide a more streamlined and efficient system which would allow committees to deal with references. That has not come to pass, I have to say. On the second day into the new committee structure, here we are: the government are again seeking to reject this reference, despite the compelling need for it and despite the government’s claim to care about national security.
The Prime Minister likes to ask voters to judge him on his record. I have looked at the PM’s record on national policing and I have to say that I am far from reassured. If this government were proud and confident of its record on national policing then it would have nothing to be concerned about and nothing to fear from having an inquiry proceed, particularly given that it would be responsible for chairing it as well.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion of Senator Ludwig’s motion proposing a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It is interesting that this is a matter concerning the Australian Federal Police and that the debate at this point involves Senator Ludwig and me, because both of us as members of this chamber have had extensive contact and engagement with the Australian Federal Police in a number of contexts over the last few years.
Certainly, as Senator Ludwig noted, there was a previous Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry, chaired, as I recall, by Senator Jim McKiernan. Although that was referred to by Senator Ludwig as a committee inquiry with a narrow focus, I have different memories. I remember it as a broad-ranging, comprehensive inquiry which explored far and wide the administration and operation of the Australian Federal Police and matters such as the one before us this afternoon. In fact, we were well supported by the Australian Federal Police through the information they provided us with during that inquiry. Perhaps we will have to agree to differ on that point.
I will come to matters of confected political exaggeration that Senator Ludwig has pursued in his remarks a little later, but let me deal with the substance of the reference, which is essentially AFP recruiting and, in particular, Australia’s national and international policing requirements.
Senator Ludwig was right about one of the observations he made this afternoon—that is, that the government does oppose this reference. The government opposes this reference because there are no particularly cogent reasons for it and none were advanced in this afternoon’s debate that would persuade us otherwise. Yesterday in the chamber, reference was made by Senator Ludwig to a shortfall, allegedly, of 421 people in the AFP’s recruitment planning for the 2005-06 financial year, and it seems that that assertion formed at least part of the basis for his proposed reference to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It seems to me, however, on a closer examination of the figures, that that assertion itself is not correct. What I would like to present to the chamber is a more accurate representation of the AFP’s actual staffing levels and its success against recruitment plans. I also reject the assertion that the government does not have a plan and a strategic approach to these matters as far as the AFP is concerned.
Let me go through some of the numbers that have been discussed. In the 2005-06 Budget Paper No.1, the AFP projected a staffing level of 5,191 in 2005-06. In fact, the AFP reached an actual staffing level of 5,150 for the 2005-06 financial year. That indicates a shortfall of only 41—which was addressed, I am advised, by police recruit courses on both 17 July and 14 August this year. Senator Ludwig was referring to forecast figures published in the 2005-06 and 2006-07 budget papers No. 1. It is important to note, however, that the published figures for each year were determined on different bases. The figures for 2005-06 are a whole-of-AFP position which includes ACT policing, whereas I am advised that the figures for the 2006-07 paper do not in fact include ACT policing numbers. Having reviewed the data, the AFP acknowledges that there was an inconsistency in presenting the 2005-06 data in Budget Paper No. 1—an acknowledgement which it is entirely appropriate to make in this chamber. I am advised that there is a clear undertaking to ensure a consistent approach in the future. Staffing figures in the future will include those relevant ACT policing numbers.
The forecast AFP staffing level of 4,793 in the 2006-07 Budget Paper No. 1, published in May 2006, does not include ACT policing. Nor does it take into account the government’s more recent decision to increase the AFP’s International Deployment Group to 1,200 personnel over the next two years. Indeed, a more accurate description of the environment in which the AFP finds itself is that it has been in a period of continued growth over the past five years. So, rather than Senator Ludwig’s claimed decrease of 95, the increase between 2004-05 and 2005-06 in actual staffing was 372—that is, it rose from 4,778 to 5,150. The government has continued to show its strong commitment to the work of the AFP over the past five years, with the AFP workforce—not including the former Australian Protective Service—growing by almost 1,200 staff in that period.
I would also like to make some comments about the environment surrounding the International Deployment Group. Prior to the recent IDG announcement, the AFP had a total of 848 recruitment actions either in progress or planned for the next 18 months. That recruitment planning is being revised upward to incorporate the recent government announcement of the expansion of the IDG to 1,200. I also understand, and it has been a matter of some public discussion in recent days, that as at September 2006 there are over 2,000 people—in fact, 2,372 people—who have put in unsolicited applications for police and protective service officer positions in the AFP.
The AFP has in fact recently concluded an independent review of its recruitment structure and practices in recognition of the significant relevance of ongoing recruitment activity to AFP business outcomes. The recommendations of that review have been accepted by the AFP Commissioner and will be implemented over coming months. In addition, in late December last year, the AFP also introduced a new online recruitment system for police applications. That system has seen significant increases in the number of unsolicited applications received.
In late 2005, the AFP also began a strategic review of its medium-term financial outlook. A retired former deputy secretary to the Department of Finance and Administration, Mr Len Early, has been working with AFP managers and also the AFP finance area to map the emergent financial outlook for the organisation for the next four years and to develop strategies precisely to address those emergent issues. It is expected that that review will be concluded by the end of this calendar year and will form the basis of future financial planning.
So, in contrast to the observations made by Senator Ludwig, the AFP’s workforce planning is undertaken by a very dedicated workforce-planning unit. The work of that unit is overseen by a senior-level strategic workforce planning committee, which includes the deputy commissioner and the AFP’s chief operating officer. The committee meets monthly to review AFP workforce targets and strategies, and it monitors achievements from recruitment through to the completion of training.
The AFP is continually reviewing the demands they face. Senator Ludwig is also right on that point, as was the minister in the observations he made in question time yesterday. Those demands are significant and they are dynamic. That is the nature of the environment in which the AFP are policing. They review the resources and the personnel they need to meet those demands. On the basis of that ongoing review and—ironically, in light of some of Senator Ludwig’s observations—on the basis of the access that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and members of this chamber have to deal with the AFP on these questions, there is not a need to refer this matter specifically to a parliamentary committee. This government has quadrupled funding to the AFP since 1996 and, as I have demonstrated, it has increased personnel numbers in that process. The government’s commitment is to ensure that the Australian Federal Police have both the resources and the personnel they need to meet domestic and international obligations.
It is pertinent to note, perhaps, that there are other interesting organisations that do not appear to agree with Senator Ludwig’s proposition in relation to this reference. The ABC earlier today reported that the AFP Association has rejected the views put forward by Senator Ludwig and does not share the concerns that the force is struggling to attract new recruits. In fact the AFPA’s Jim Torr is reported as saying that he is confident that the federal government’s promise and commitment to boost numbers means that this is not the issue that is being presented in this chamber tonight. The ABC quotes Mr Torr as saying the federal government has just very recently made a ‘commitment for 400 more police into the AFP’. Mr Torr said that upon delivery of those numbers the issue would be put ‘beyond any doubt,’ and that the government had ‘made a commitment of around half a billion dollars to bring the members up to that level.’ The piece goes on to say that the AFPA said that it ‘is confident that the recent funding boost by the federal government will help the force meet its recruitment targets’. So not even the industrial association that supports the AFP is supporting this supposed reference in this chamber this afternoon.
I want to make some brief reference though to Senator Ludwig’s assertions—and in my view they are little more than that—that the government has in some heroic manner done away with the accountability requirements of the Senate. I think that Senator Ludwig said that the system was under constant sabotage, and that included the estimates process—an observation that I find interesting as I spend more hours with Senator Ludwig in an estimates room than I do with members of my family during most weeks. Hundreds and hundreds of questions are put on notice and questions taken across the table are put to agencies like the Australian Federal Police in estimates meeting after estimates meeting and are answered comprehensively in as timely a manner as possible. That did not change in May and it will not change in November, so that is not an accurate representation from Senator Ludwig as to the way in which the committees will work.
The senator asserts that the government is of the view that scrutiny is not good. If the government were of the view that scrutiny is not good, then we would not provide members of the committee with access to the Australian Federal Police, as we so often do, not just through the formal hearing process but also in an informal environment where constructive discussions and exchanges can take place and where members of the opposition can avail themselves of the opportunity. Members of the opposition do not appear to complain about it at the time. We would not invite the AFP and its associated agencies at the most senior levels to spend hours and hours in committee environments in public hearings, with material on the record, government and opposition senators asking questions and senior officers of the AFP answering those questions constructively and willingly if this government were in the business of avoiding scrutiny. We just would not do it. Why would we? That is what puts the lie to the assertions that Senator Ludwig makes this afternoon about avoidance of scrutiny and about constant sabotage of the system including the estimates process. It is simply not demonstrable on the evidence, particularly in relation to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. As the chair of that committee both in its new incarnation and previously, I absolutely and totally reject that. There is no question to the best of my recollection or knowledge that those opposite have ever been denied the opportunity to pursue matters of concern to them in relation to AFP policing and the associated issues.
I think that this notice of motion perhaps belies a desperate search, if you like, on the part of those opposite to find something constructive to do. It is not necessary to pursue it in this way. The committee has plenty of work to do. The committee gives those opposite plenty of access in relation to the Australian Federal Police, as do the minister and the government. I have never heard the Australian Federal Police decline an opportunity to appear before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee either formally or informally. I am sure that position will not change, notwithstanding the change in the committee process. For those reasons and the matters to which I have earlier referred, the government rejects this proposal for a committee inquiry.
Unless there is anyone else to speak, I will close the debate. We have now heard a half-hearted attempt to justify why a Senate inquiry should not be had into this. The government hides behind its own committee to say that there should not be an inquiry in this place. In the committee estimates process last time, this government, with little notice, took away the spillover days. If you do not think that they were a valuable contribution to how the Senate works and how the estimates process works, I would ask you to reflect upon what it means. It potentially means that significant hours are removed from the debate during a committee process. This means that questions that would otherwise have been asked, with time allowed for a response, have to be put on notice, and there is then a wait for a careful answer months down the track. Answers are provided—there is no argument about that. But if those on the other side do not think that the estimates process has been sabotaged as a consequence of removing the estimates spillover days in May then I would ask them to reflect upon what that has meant and how the government has managed the committee process through the use of spillover days, which were used for the purpose of hearing certain issues such as the Vivian Solon matter.
One wonders whether the issue of Vivian Solon would have come out if spillover days were not available to be used. When you listen to the defence that has been put up today you hear that matters that go to the Australian Federal Police, such as what might be called the ‘early review’, will go ahead. Is there a guarantee that that review will be public? Is there a guarantee that the Australian Federal Police will provide that to the committee? I do not know. Do the government know? I am not sure they know that themselves. Is there a commitment from the Australian Federal Police to make that review available to the opposition? I cannot answer that.
A Senate committee would allow the Senate to look at those issues and examine them. The issue of numbers might be raised. There might be open debate about whether the information you have from the government’s perspective is accurate; there might be debate about whether my information is accurate. It is from the portfolio budget statements, so it would be interesting if it were not accurate. It might require an explanation from the Australian Federal Police—which they could have an opportunity to answer as an aside.
Was there a narrowly or widely cast Senate inquiry? There was, but it was prior to 9-11 and the significant increase in funding to the Australian Federal Police. If you are going to use figures which refer to quadrupling the size of the budget available to the AFP, I ask the government to reflect upon that figure and give me the base and the figure it has quadrupled to. These are all issues that could be debated and examined in an inquiry such as the one I am proposing. This is broader than simply looking at staffing numbers, as I indicated during the primary debate; it also looks at a national focus between state and federal police. There was no response from the government in respect of that issue or the impact that increasing the Australian Federal Police would have on state policing.
If the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth government are truly going to play a national role in fighting terrorism, drugs, crime and fraud, and in deployment overseas, they should also consider the wider implications of their recruitment in the short to medium term. The inquiry would also look at that, but there was no response from the government on that—there was no response from the other side in respect of that matter. Why? Because there is no argument against it. There is no argument to justify why a Senate inquiry would not be able to look at all of those issues and have access not just to the narrow focus of the Australian Federal Police but also to others who can make submissions, provide views and inform the Senate of what they think—not simply what the AFP might think or, for that matter, what I, Labor or other members of the committee might think—are the issues at hand. The strength of a Senate inquiry is to draw other submissions and parties into the debate to provide information and explanation. To discard that strength is to throw away a significant amount of scrutiny that this government would otherwise have. It is a poor response to say the AFP make themselves available—of course they do; they make themselves available to the legal and constitutional legislation committee now referred to as the standing committee. But that is not the point of an inquiry.
The point of an inquiry is to provide a much broader view, and everybody here knows that. In terms of the Australian Federal Police Association—I will not go to the specifics. To the senator who at least quoted from the document: look at where it mentions the reference to a review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee or perhaps go there. I ask you to consider whether that is a viable position to advocate.
The broader issue is whether or not, after 9-11, the Australian Federal Police should have a broader inquiry into matters that go to national policing. There are, as I have argued, primarily cogent reasons why the Senate should have the ability to look into state and federal issues from a national and an overseas perspective. There is a strong argument for why this is so. To say that this place, since 1 July 2005, has continued to remain accountable in the same way that the Senate has been in the past is short-sighted and belies the figures that underpin it. When you look at the number of references that this government has accepted, the number of gags and guillotines shortening the debate, the number of amendments during committee stages and the shortening of Senate inquiries looking at particular legislation, you have to say in sum total: this government avoids scrutiny where it can. This is another example of this government avoiding scrutiny where it can.
Question put:
That the motion (That the motion (Senator Ludwig’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.
Consideration resumed.
A couple of questions have been rightly asked in this committee stage debate on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006and I now intend to answer them—about what happens if the independent volume falls below 25 per cent. Senator O’Brien put it that this would cause trauma in the market—if the independent portion of the fuel fell below 25 per cent, imagine the trauma that that would cause to the major oil companies! The major oil companies would have to reorganise all this stuff. I agree: if the independent section of the market fell below 25 per cent we would have a major problem, because it would mean that the overcentralisation of the oil retail market was absolutely imminent. It is about to happen.
We have drawn a line in the sand at 25 per cent because you have to draw the line in the sand somewhere. Somewhere in life you have to make a stand. Somewhere in life you have to stand up and say, ‘No, we can’t allow it all to go to the major oil companies and the major retailers.’ So, yes, it is a line in the sand, and it is there for a purpose, because below 25 per cent we know that the end is nigh. And when the end is nigh there are ramifications for the price of fuel. We will lose fuel discounters in the market. The price leaders in fuel discounting belong to the independent sector. Everybody acknowledges that. I do not know how many inquiries we have been to—umpteen?—where they have asked, ‘Who are the price leaders in discounting?’ and the answer has been, ‘The independents.’ The independents lead price discounting.
Beyond that, if it goes below 25 per cent, we will know there has been a disenfranchising of the Australian people of their right to be in the retail trade. We know that that manifest right that we hold to be so dear—your right to be in business—will be lost, if this goes below 25 per cent, from yet another sector of our economy. I will be saying to my kids: ‘No, you won’t have the opportunity to be the owner of your destiny, to be the owner of your business, because that was lost, that was in the past; in the past they put in legislation that actually protected that, but it is there no longer. You can have other jobs—you can work for one of them, but you cannot actually own and operate one. You used to be able to be in the grocery market, you used to be able to own a fuel station—you used to be able to do a range of things, but you can do those no longer.’ So there is a specific line there. Yes, if it falls below 25 per cent, there will be traumas for the major oil companies, but there will be a far greater trauma for the Australian people. I think it is right that this parliament draws a line in the sand.
We also heard that it is totally unworkable. Who told you that? We have a sites act and a franchise act that have been around since 1980—26 years—and all of a sudden you are won to the argument that something that amends them is totally unworkable. You have swallowed the line that that proposition is totally unworkable. Why would it be unworkable? We do not know what your argument is, but you are swallowing the line that it is unworkable because it suits your purpose and your purpose is predetermined. I suppose you can say anything today.
The thing is that it is not actually unworkable. It is totally workable because the current amount of fuel that is being utilised by independents—‘What are independents?’ they ask; well, they are actually defined in here—as advised by the NTAA, is around that margin, and that will not cause a problem. So it is a workable proposition. If it serves your rhetorical purpose to say that it is not workable, I suppose you can say that, but it is just not the truth.
They ask: ‘What is an independent?’ It has been clearly set out here: it is every service station that is not operated by one of the oil majors or one of the major retailers. In the future, if issues change, surely we have the acumen in here to change with them. Not for one moment do I say that the Oilcode does not need amending—of course it needs amending, but amending in a form that protects the right of the Australian people to go into business. That is how it needs to be amended. What we are going to get is an absolute approach that knocks the complete stuffing out of the independent sector. Where will they go? What protection do they have? What are we offering them? If we say we are a party of small business, let us put our cards on the table—let us show it.
If you own a small business and you are watching today, it is going to be a bit hard—the Labor Party are not going to support you; that is completely evident. Maybe they are proving their credentials to the big end of town. Maybe that is it. Maybe families have to realise that that is the price you pay: you will not get much support around here anymore. But it is a shame. We could make some minor changes to this that would make a clear statement that we take the role of small business seriously.
I suppose that, after this, there is going to be nothing to stop Coles and Woolworths buying up more stations. There is going to be nothing to stop BP taking over independents. I know that, as soon as leases become available in the appropriate areas, they are not going to renew them. They are not going to renew a lease in a valuable corner of the market to an independent, to a family—they are going to take it over themselves.
There are no guarantees in here of supply to regional towns—none. There is no guarantee that, if the company so wishes, they cannot just decide: ‘You’re an inconvenience, town of Surat. You’re an inconvenience, town of Tambo. We don’t need to supply you fuel.’ What do we say about the social structure of those towns? What do we do? Do we just say: ‘Oh, sorry, it’s just that we had to get the support of the major oil companies. We had to show our credentials for the next election. Tambo: you have to understand our position—we’re in a terrible position’? So we say to them: ‘If you want to go to the doctor, I suppose you’ll just have to catch a bus, get a lift or hitch—if you can find someone else.’ The fundamental concept of a pensioner having a fuel station in their town? We are moving past that. So it is going to be an interesting vote.
There is an amendment here. I can read the tea leaves. I know which way it is going to go, obviously, but there is an amendment here that would protect some of those rights, that would make a statement that, even if it is not perfect, at least we are making an attempt to look after them. If this is not the right attempt to look after the independents, I am willing to take suggestions from other people around the chamber as to what that attempt should be. It is a free debate. We are in committee—you are welcome to stand up, have your say and tell us how we are going to protect the independents.
The Oilcode.
You are welcome to stand up. You have a chance after this—in fact, I look forward to your standing up, Senator McGauran, and putting your position on the record. That would be a brave thing to do. So we are going to hear from Senator McGauran. He is going to tell us how the independents are going to be protected and how we are going to deal with this issue of protecting families in regional towns. It is going to be an interesting debate. I think I should let him have his say.
I cannot let Senator Joyce misrepresent reality, let alone our position, in relation to his amendment. I really think that Senator Joyce should sit down and read the proposition that he has put before the chamber and attempt to understand it:
… not less than 25 per cent of the volumetric supply of petroleum products in the market—
which I take it means the whole national market—
within each calendar month is available only to prescribed independent fuel retailers.
Is there a crystal ball to tell the suppliers that this is the cap and that they can supply no more to the so-called non-independents? Or do we take the liberty of saying that, if the major companies lease their stations and enter into a contract to supply their oil to an independent operator, they are then an independent? This has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look like a very solid object. It is, as I said before, a prescription which is probably incapable of enforcement. I do not know what the enforcement is intended to be, looking at the amendment, but I just cannot see how this can be enforced. I say again: if Senator Joyce wants us to seriously consider this proposition, he is going to have to do more work on it rather than putting up the sort of proposition that he has put up. Frankly, the corporate world, if they wanted to, living under this proposition, could shoot holes in it.
Senator Joyce is apparently making an honest effort to do something, but he should not castigate people for not being prepared to vote for something which is demonstrably unenforceable, which demonstrably cannot lead to the outcome that he is talking about and which demonstrably, if it were interpreted as strictly as he would like us to believe it could be interpreted, would lead to some petrol stations and possibly some towns being denied fuel. It would lead to shortages in the country. As I said earlier, it would be like the Soviet command economy in some parts of the country, where the supply of fuel, depending on the predictions that the suppliers made, would be cut off because there would be a fear that they would exceed the 75 per cent limit on those companies set out in subclauses (4) and (5) of the proposed clause.
We notice sometimes that these statements are made when we are on broadcast, and if Senator Joyce needs to make those statements while we are on broadcast so be it, but please do not misrepresent our position and make things up to make your argument. If you have some facts we are happy to hear them, but I have not heard many so far.
I have heard much better attempts by the Labor Party to cover its defence of the big oil companies and the big end of town than that one. Senator Joyce has brought forward a prescription for keeping independent petrol dealers in the business and is looking to the interests of small towns as a consequence of that. It shows he has a bit more experience there than the Labor Party. The first thing to be said about this is that the Labor Party, on my reading of it, is going to defend the cross-media ownership rules from changes proposed by the government, and that is all about percentages. That is all about sections of the market. That is all about how many media outlets big corporations can own. It restricts them from the city right through to the smallest places in the bush. So Labor is defending a prescription for what is, if I heard Senator O’Brien correctly, a Soviet style—
No, I didn’t say that at all. I said we weren’t going to vote for it.
He does not like it much, but the fact is that when it comes to the media you can have restrictions on the big corporations to defend the number of outlets but apparently when it comes to petrol you cannot, and that is nonsense.
No, this is not about the number of outlets. It’s about volume.
That is total nonsense.
Senator O’Brien interjecting—
Senator O’Brien is not taking this too well.
Order! Senator Brown, you have the floor. I will ask you to continue, and if Senator O’Brien wishes he may make a response later on.
He is talking about volume. He needs to turn his volume up if I am to hear it—and I should not listen to it, should I, Chair? Thank you very much. The fact is that we in this country have lost track of the fact that parliament is here to look after small business. Parliament is here to look after those people who are prepared to set up shop in small towns to sell essential services. Parliament is here to look after people who are prepared to go with less—because that is what it means in the bush, in terms of income—to be part of a community, to service that community and, as result of that, as Senator Joyce was saying, to keep other entities and communities going. But the big parties have over a number of decades now simply pandered to the market as a whole range of small businesses got squeezed out.
I can remember being in the Tasmanian parliament when there was a perfectly good roster system for petrol stations in Tasmania—and Senator O’Brien will remember this. The local petrol stations in Hobart, Ulverstone and Launceston were on a roster system. This meant that family proprietors could get home to their families on weekends. Where you could go to get your petrol was in the daily newspaper, so you drove to one of the on-roster stations. And it worked well. The oil companies did not like that, I can tell you. They wanted a seven days a week grind for the business. They got their way. The legislation was brought in, this system was knocked out and now the big oil companies are serially buying up the independents, often simply to close them down as nothing else replaces them, and aggregating their petrol outlets.
In an age where we are concerned about the consumption of fossil fuels because of the huge impact it is having on the environment, we will end up with people from Tambo driving to the next biggest town, Longreach, to get their petrol. Either that or they will have to store it back in Tambo. The same applies to small towns. It is in the interests of these big petrol corporations; efficiency and profit is what they are about. So they close down the small businesses and make the public come to the centralised place. And of course when you get there you have groceries and a whole range of other goods, which deny other small businesses the ability to survive.
You can mischievously call this ‘Soviet command’ economy and ‘centralised’ economy. But that is what the big oil companies are into: centralising the economy in downtown Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and so on, with the profits going there, and everybody in the regions having to do what they say. I agree with Senator Joyce on this because I think it is this parliament’s responsibility to look after the people of this country and not leave it to the Stock Exchange and the big oil companies, who are preponderantly foreign owned.
A good debate is being had here, but the lowest common denominator would be to say: ‘Senator Joyce, your legislation’s got holes in it. There’s going to be difficulty if that is passed as is.’ That is not the argument. The argument being used here is that Labor and the government do not like the sentiment that Senator Joyce has brought into this chamber.
If there are problems with the wording of this amendment they can fix that. That is not the argument; that is a spurious argument. The reality is that they do not like the sentiment that 25 per cent of the product should be kept for independents. Whether you fix the figure at 20 per cent or 30 per cent or even 10 per cent, there should be some line. I have heard the argument that, if enough independents get out so that there are not enough to supply 25 per cent, woe betide us. Do we not have the facility to come in here and look at that situation and debate it again? Of course we do.
You do not legislate by buying in all the possible problems in the future. Parliament legislates for now, with the ability to come back and fix up things if new contingencies arise. So the sentiment is right. It is an honourable sentiment. It is a sentiment that is good for the people of Australia, particularly for regional Australia, and it deserves to get more support.
The argument put forward by Labor would hold water if I could go through this pile of papers on my table and find the Labor amendment that talks about the protection of independent petrol station owners. But I have been through it, and it is not there. Maybe they do not feel that it is important. We have heard their protestations about why this amendment is not good enough. But their amendment is not there. They do not believe in this. It is a convenient argument to say, ‘Your one’s not right.’ But if my one is not right, your one does not exist. Yours is just a blank sheet of paper: tabula rasa.
Labor do not believe in the protection of independents and are all over the shop. The next week you will be back talking about how you think there should be controls on the cross-media laws. You are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Make up your mind. What do you want? If you believe that we should be protecting against the overcentralisation of the media market, what has happened to you today? Do you realise how foolish you look? Yes, you are on broadcast and the public are hearing this. It is good that they are hearing this. It is good that the Australian people are hearing what a completely mixed-up, all-over-the-shop ship you are. In the next couple of days, every time we hear you talk about protection to stop the overcentralisation of the media market, we will just laugh at you because you are not for real.
You have had your chain pulled by the right people in town and you have listened to them. You are going to look a complete and utter fiasco: insincere, no-one can take you for real. You have gone through with this and you do not realise the bind you have got yourselves into. You have got yourselves into a hole that you cannot dig yourselves out of. I disagree with it. At least these people are constant: they believe in no regulation anywhere or any time. But you: you are here somewhere today and somewhere else tomorrow.
Maybe somewhere, coming up, will be the Labor Party amendment to protect the independents. Maybe it is still on the way. Maybe if we hang around here for a little while longer it will turn up. I would love to be a fly on the wall at your next party meeting. It is just going to be fur and feathers everywhere, because you have made such an absolute fiasco of this one. The Labor Party has no motion on the books to protect the independents, but they are going to charge in here next week and start talking about the protection of the media market.
The whole of Australia will read about this tomorrow. Even your arguments do not hold water. When you say, ‘What is an independent?’ it is there: the independents are the ones who are not the major oil companies and not the major retailers. It will work in a similar fashion, I imagine, to the way it works at the moment in the sites act and the franchise act. It is a case which I think we have the competence to deal with. I really do think that. I think we are smart enough to do it. If we can build this building I reckon we can manage this. I know I am going out on a big limb, but if there is something slightly wrong with it I think we have the capacity to bring it back and amend it. I really do.
The Labor Party are of the view that you legislate from now until eternity. Everything that happens now will happen for eternity. That is an interesting proposition to have. It would suggest that if they ever win government they will not change anything: if they are ever given the power they will never change anything. Maybe they think they are not capable of changing anything; maybe they think they have not got the acumen to change anything; or maybe they think they cannot go through a piece of legislation and suggest better changes. It will be a very interesting time.
On the record is the fact that the Labor Party are going to vote against this amendment. They will be voting for the bill. They will be voting for the major oil companies who pull their chain. They will say that it brings about a socialist type of economy, or some other palaver that they have just dreamt up because they have not had time to have a good think about it. Next week they will all be back in here and trotting out, one after the other, talk about the evils of cross-media ownership laws. Here they come. It is going to be like a circus. It is going to be the funniest show in town. That argument and your arguments today—get ready for them—are all going to be quoted back to you.
Would Senator Joyce let the Senate know whether an entity—who is not named in subclauses (4) or (5) of the new part to proposed section 51AE—that leases a site from one of those named companies in subclauses (4) or (5) and contracts with them to purchase petrol is a prescribed independent fuel retailer?
It says ‘a prescribed independent fuel retailer means any fuel retailer except those operated’—‘operated’ is the key word there. It is in there; you just have to read it. It is a bit difficult, but have a go.
I can read, but I wanted to be sure of what you intended, Senator Joyce. So you would accept that, if the oil companies arrange leases to other corporate entities to sell their petrol at a price they nominate, they will be able to fill that 25 per cent that you say should be set aside for the prescribed independent fuel retailers and that there would not need to be any other entities in the market for that 25 per cent to be satisfied. Do I understand you correctly?
It is the obscurum per obscurius—‘to get myself out of here’—type argument. That is an interesting way of doing it. Let us make life so complicated that we cannot possibly do anything but throw up our hands and commit harakiri. The same argument is going to be quoted back to you on the cross-media ownership laws. Are you suggesting that the major oil companies will try to take over all the independents? Are you suggesting that all the independents are going to disappear and that oil companies would devise such a plan? Pray tell, where would you get ideas like that from? That cannot be right. The Labor Party cannot believe the sentiment that all the independents are going to disappear. Are you suggesting that the oil companies would be so clandestine as to devise ways of pushing the independents out of business?
Senator O’Brien interjecting—
If you are suggesting that, you should be suggesting a way to protect the independents. Rather than talking about the affliction, you should be thinking about the cure. It is an interesting approach to take. We will have a whole raft of these obscurum per obscurius suggestions of how we can possibly get around something that is quite simple and painted in black and white.
If the major oil companies or the major retailers operate the site that has been noted as a lease, then it is not written in stone. At some stage in the future, they can change it, amend it or do what they like to it. They are not the independent sector of the market. This amendment is the only suggestion that we have here at the moment. We looked at the Democrats amendment. Family First have put up some good suggestions, and there are possibly others to come forward. However, I have not seen the Labor Party suggestions; they are not there. But we do get a lot of suggestions about what is wrong with protecting independents.
That is what you are talking about today: what is wrong with protecting independents. It is because you do not want a socialist type economy; you want one that is controlled by about two organisations. Instead of big government controlling the world, you are quite happy for a couple of organisations to control the world. You do not believe in the freedom of people to go into business, and you are not going to protect them. It is quite obvious that you do not; otherwise, you would have put forward an amendment. I have answered your question, but I am waiting for the next obscurum per obscurius type suggestion—and here it comes.
I thank Senator Joyce for referring to the Democrat amendment that he thought was a constructive attempt to deal with these matters. I would remind Senator Joyce that the Labor Party moved an identical amendment, but he had walked out of the chamber and did not vote for it. This was after he had voted for the Democrat amendment. So I am not surprised that he has forgotten that the Labor Party had a proposition which was in identical terms to the one that he supported that was supposed to deal with some of the competition problems.
Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order. He said it was ‘identical’. I do not think it was.
Senator Joyce, you will allow Senator O’Brien to explain and then, if you wish, you may respond.
Senator Joyce is technically correct. There was an additional proposition. However, Senator Joyce is apparently saying that he did not want the ACCC to be empowered by a vote of the Senate or the committees of the Senate to inquire, but he has some prescription in his next amendment about petroleum products price monitoring. The senator asked what the Labor Party’s proposition was. In essence, on the competition model, it was identical, word for word—
No, it was not.
Yes, it was. In relation to the competition model it was identical, word for word, with the Democrat motion that he supported. If the senator conveniently forgot that, I am here to remind him.
If we put up some serious concerns about his proposition and he cannot deal with them, so be it. But for him to castigate the Labor Party because we cannot vote for a proposition that demonstrably will not have the effect that he is talking about is just grandstanding. Senator Brown came into the chamber to take advantage of the fact that we were on broadcast. He made a contribution, but clearly he did not understand that the proposition that we were putting forward was about a volumetric control on the market, not a control on the number of sites. He changed that during his contribution, so I accept that he has corrected the way that he had approached the matter.
But, frankly, the Labor Party’s position on this legislation and on competition in this industry stands up to every bit of scrutiny. The fact that we do not put up a proposition of this nature because we think it is unworkable does not demonstrate that we do not think small business has a role in this industry. We think that small business has a role in this industry through a proper competition regime. That is why we put up the amendments that we put up. Those amendments are in many respects amendments which have been requested by the ACCC to give them a stronger hand to deal with the competitive regime. The government voted against them. Senator Joyce voted for them when they were moved by Senator Murray, which therefore demonstrates that, to that extent, he supported the Labor Party proposition. So it is a bit bizarre for him to suggest that we did not have a proposition in relation to competition to assist small business in the industry. If he wants to imagine that that is the situation, I cannot dictate what goes on in his head, but I am here to tell the Senate and the Australian public that it is a fantasy.
They are obviously in a spot of bother, aren’t they? You can see that they are in a spot of bother. Rather than going down this red-herring path, let us get back to talking about independents. But we will deal with the issues so they do not say we are avoiding them. Senator O’Brien has said that his amendment was identical, word for word, to the Democrat amendment. That is either going to be the truth—and I will check—or it will not be the truth. I stand to be corrected—I will read it—but I do not think it is. Nonetheless, let us go back.
First of all, if that is the sentiment then I have supported it. I have voted for it. I crossed the floor on it. You cannot support it much more than crossing the floor to support the sentiment. Secondly, the Democrats actually approached me—they rang up, went through it and well and truly discussed the issue. You have well and truly discussed this issue right now, so do not try and use that as an avenue out. You are telling me all the things that you think are possibly wrong with it, and we are proving you wrong on all of them, but the only thing you are proving to us is that you have never actually come up with an amendment to protect the independents. You have come up with an amendment to protect—and we have laid it on the line; in fact, I crossed the floor to bring about the Dawson review—provisions in the Dawson bill. So I am on the record there as well. I crossed the floor to support your sentiment then, and I also crossed the floor on the other issues—I voted with you to protect small business on the other Dawson provisions by taking out the mergers and acquisitions power. So my position is pretty clear on the record. I think everybody in Australia knows that.
Your position is also totally clear: you have absolutely nothing on the table, not one amendment, to protect independents, to protect regional towns and to protect the freedom of people to go into the business. You have nothing. What you have on the record is the fact that, when required, the Labor Party will play to the tune of the major oil companies and if they have to walk over a few bodies on the way they will do that. We know that absolutely. If they have to make hypocrites of themselves by calling for a certain argument, they say, ‘We must let the market reign supreme today, but—wait for it—next week our views will be different.’ But I am going to sit back, because you really have got my interest. I am going to grab your amendment and the Democrats’ amendment, and I am going to check them word for word. If they are word for word correct, I will happily stand up and say, ‘Yes, they’re word for word correct,’ but I have a funny feeling that they will not be.
The question is that amendment (1) moved by Senator Joyce on sheet 5045 be agreed to.
It has been a very interesting debate to sit and listen to. We have heard a lot of discussion about the support for small business and also for regional Australia. I was fascinated to hear Senator Milne talk about her place in regional Australia, with her vantage point from the third or fourth floor of the Marine Board Building overlooking Constitution Dock in Hobart—but perhaps it is about perception from one’s own point of view. I do not think too many of us would consider that to be—
Wow, that was a strong point, that one!
And I might move to Senator Brown’s comments about the petrol market in Tasmania. It confounds me how little the Greens know about what is going on in their own state, particularly in relation to a range of issues we saw during the discussion on marine protected areas—in fact, the lack of engagement from the Greens in relation to marine protected areas surprised me. I heard in my conversations with the fishing industry, with whom we work very closely, that they never met with the Greens. The Greens did not seek a meeting with the fishing industry in relation to marine protected areas.
In relation to fuel sales, it has only recently been announced that Mobil sold all its sites in Tasmania to an independent, to United. So there has been a significant change in the market in Tasmania in favour of the independent sector. I think one of the largest petrol stations in my home town of Devonport, which sells fuel from Ampol Caltex, is a privately owned, independent service station. In relation to the rostering arrangements, that particular business took the opportunity to open 24 hours, seven days a week, and that is one of the things that has made it a successful business. It has taken advantage of the operation of the market. In fact, in the last two years, it has been one of the Prime Minister’s employers of the year for employing people with disabilities or people with return-to-work issues.
The Greens get up in this place to make comments about what is happening in their own state—quite sadly, uninformed statements. It is perhaps pertinent that Senator Brown has got up and made those uninformed statements on a day when parliament is broadcast and there is an opportunity to let people in my home state know that there are inconsistencies in the comments that the Greens put on the record. I also refer to the comments that Senator Milne made about her being in regional or rural Australia from the vantage of the capital city, in the centre of Hobart.
Commenting on the protection of independents: the mandatory Oilcode already contains provisions which will prevent wholesale suppliers from unreasonably refusing supply. That provision is currently in the legislation and provides the support that Senator Joyce in particular is looking for in relation to independents. If you consider the comments that I have made about where things are going in Tasmania, you will see there are movements in the retail sale of petroleum in regional Australia, in particular regional Tasmania, towards opportunities for independents and independent supply. In fact, the price of fuel in Hobart is very low at the moment, based on the competition that is being put out by the supermarkets and also on the entry into the market of the independent sector through United. That has made a significant difference to the price of fuel.
In relation to government support for the small business sector, as we discussed earlier in this debate, the government has already announced its intention to strengthen section 46 and it is very keen to see that legislation introduced as soon as the Dawson bill has passed through the parliament. We hope we can do this in a timely manner. We have already had one crack at it. We would like to see that done so that we can get those protections in place. We have a very clear and obvious view that we would like to see measures such as a small business capacity for collective bargaining. That is quite clearly contained in the provisions of the legislation that we have brought to this place once before. Obviously, we have a position on that and we would like to see it passed. That is our intention: we would like to see that passed. So I think it is a bit disingenuous for people to get up in this place to talk about our lack of support or otherwise for small business or for regional Australia.
One of the concerns that I would have about this amendment of Senator Joyce’s is that there is going to be a significant cost attached to monitoring and processing this whole deal. And guess who is going to pay? Regional Australia will pay the cost or the independent sector will pay the cost, because it is going to be applied, quite reasonably, to them. So much for the effect of trying to keep fuel prices down, which we have talked about in this place today! There is going to be a negative impact on that through the very significant red tape that will be tied around the proposals, such as those being discussed by Senator Joyce in this particular amendment, particularly in a climate where we are looking to reduce the amount of red tape that applies to the overall market. So there are some pretty significant questions that need to be answered in relation to this.
Senator O’Brien has raised, quite correctly, some of the very practical matters in relation to the operation and allocation of market share through the 25 per cent of the volume of fuel proposal that has been included by Senator Joyce in this amendment, but I think that it goes even deeper than that. There is no question that the independent sector will be made less competitive by a process such as this, because it will pay the cost. The cost of monitoring and the cost of application and the cost of managing this whole process will be applied, quite reasonably, to the independent sector. That is just a fact of business.
If, as Senator Joyce is implying, this is largely about small country towns in regional Australia, then the effect of this is that he will be imposing additional costs on fuel in those small country towns. I know that is not something that he wants to do—I do not apply any motive to him in that respect—but, in the context of this amendment, there are a range of issues that should have been much better thought out. I do not think that they were explained to either Senator O’Brien or the chamber effectively enough when he was putting this particular amendment to the committee.
So the government will not be supporting—and the opposition has expressed its opposition—this particular amendment. I think Senator Joyce already understood that that might be the case, but obviously he is intending to continue with his amendment. It is quite obvious that there is a range of practical and also business based issues that need to be resolved for this proposal to be effective and, quite frankly, I do not think that they are resolvable, particularly some of the issues that Senator O’Brien has raised in relation to allocation of the 25 per cent quotas. I think that really does create some very difficult situations. Senator Joyce really should have given some deeper consideration to the particular elements of this amendment before it was brought before the chamber.
Senator Colbeck does tempt one to look a little bit at his and his party’s record in Tasmania. I remember a couple of elections ago when at state level they promised they would protect shopping hours because there were hundreds of jobs at stake. But within six months of the Liberals getting in they had broken that promise and hundreds of jobs went west as a result.
It is interesting that Senator Colbeck has been supporting tax breaks for the huge combines which want to put in plantations, closing down small businesses—small farmers, potato growers and dairy farmers—right across Tasmania. They do not get the breaks but Gunns and the big plantation owners do—that is what Senator Colbeck supports. It is interesting to note that, when I brought legislation in here to have fair labelling so that ‘Made in Australia’ meant made in Australia, Labor and the Liberals voted down the anticheating legislation, so that people in supermarkets see ‘Made in Australia’ and buy a product thinking it is made in Australia when in fact very often the ingredients are not. Of course that puts farmers right across Australia at a disadvantage compared to the big combines, the multinationals who bring in cheaper produce from elsewhere around the world.
When it comes to the fishing industry, Senator Colbeck did not know that the government had in mind some reserves around Tasmania, and he was not consulted. When the government announced it, there was a backlash and he found himself in front of protest meetings by fishermen, trying to explain it and change it around. The Greens were not involved in dumping that without consultation with the community, but the government was, and he can defend that as best he can.
Everywhere you look in Tasmania, the Greens have a superior record to that of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in defending small operators, locally owned businesses, small farmers and small producers. But what is germane at the moment and what is testing the big parties—and what they do not like—is Senator Joyce’s amendment to give the independents some protection against the expanding market share of the big companies. When it gets down to it, they are not arguing against the rationale, because they know they cannot defend their position on that. They are arguing with the wording of his amendment. Senator Joyce has said, ‘Well, fix it up.’ The time-honoured practice is that, if there is a good amendment and it is accepted by the government, we pass it. If there is to be a terminological change to it or a closing of loopholes, that is done in the other place, it is brought back here and we accept it. That is the way it goes with private amendments.
There is a spurious debate going on here by the Labor and Liberal parties. They oppose this amendment. They oppose protecting the independents in this way. We will see that in the vote in a moment. When all is said and done, it is the vote that counts. Senator Colbeck can get up and take on the Greens. I am happy to debate him, because in the end he will lose on who defends small business and on who looks after Tasmanians at home. We can really get into some good debates on that—I would welcome it—but this is not the place to do that. We are debating Senator Joyce’s amendment, which has merit. I have not heard either Labor or Senator Colbeck state that they do not support the merit of his amendment. They are saying that it is not written the right way, it is not this and it is not that. That is a spurious argument. They are either defending the protection of independent retailing, which this amendment goes to, or they are not. And the truth is that they are not.
I am not going to be pedantic, but it just goes to show: what have turned up here are the Democrats’ amendment and Labor’s amendment. Senator O’Brien, you are not right, mate. This part is in yours, and you can see that it is not in theirs. It is different. You cannot come in here and say that they are word for word, that they are exactly the same—everybody here heard you say it—when they are not. You are telling porky pies.
Senator Joyce, please address your remarks through the chair.
Madam Chair, they brought these two sets of amendments in here and they are both on the record; they are quite obviously different. We all heard Senator O’Brien tell us they are exactly the same, word for word. They are not. The reason he says that is that he does not know what his own amendment is. He is just saying it for the purpose of the argument. He comes in and talks to me about my amendment, but he obviously does not know, word for word, what his was. That is fair enough. I know which way you are going, so we will not pursue it. You have had your chain pulled, you are voting with the big oil companies—good luck to you, God bless your cotton socks, off you go.
There is a belief that there are some big independents in Tasmania. Great! If there is a big number of independents in the market, then this amendment will have no effect and you will not have anything to worry about. This amendment only kicks in and has effect if there is not. It is the parachute if there is not.
Talking about parachutes, we have heard about the passage of the trade practices amendment bill No. 1. Give us protection so that before we jump out of the plane we have got the parachute on, and you will get that through. But do not tell us to jump out of the plane without strengthening section 46 and a range of other things when you leave people vulnerable. It is simple logic: get the parachute on before you jump out of the plane.
The other argument that has been brought up by Senator Colbeck is this case of red tape. When in doubt, say that the red tape will cause an increase in price—that is the line. It is like we have just arrived at Kafka’s palace and we are going to be subdued with red tape, and some poor old lady will be staying up until three o’clock every morning vigorously typing away as she monitors fuel services. I do not think it is like that at all. I think it will be easily handled. Companies that can handle things such as GST, diesel fuel rebates, grants schemes, tax returns, compliance measures and occupational health and safety officers probably have the capacity and the aptitude to handle this. We are talking about the major oil companies that sell fuel here. I think they have the capacity to know whether there is a fairly good suggestion that less than 25 per cent of their sales are going to independents. I am going out on a limb on that one, but I reckon I am going to back myself in. I reckon they can do it. If they can refine fuel, turn oil into petrol and get the sulphur content right, I reckon they can handle this. This idea that that will be moved on and, all of a sudden, the price of fuel—we are using Tambo or Surat—is going to go through the roof specifically because of this amendment is not correct.
Let us suggest there is a cost component. What is your choice—no fuel? Is that what we are going to put up instead? Are we going to say, ‘We do not want you to have the administrative component and the costs incurred with this process, so we are going to give you no fuel at all’? That is blatantly ridiculous. That is an absurd proposition. If the choice is nothing or the administrative component, I will take the administrative component every day of the week, to protect our position. Once more, what came out so clearly in the committee stage of the debate is that the Labor Party accused me of not understanding my own amendment when they obviously did not understand theirs and they have gone on the record saying something that is completely and utterly wrong about something they wrote themselves.
If we have got a strong independent sector, you have got nothing to worry about, because this amendment will not have any effect; the problem will be fixed. It is only there to protect you if it falls. As for the argument about red tape, I suppose it will do, but it is not right, because it is not going to sink the boat. If your choice is a slight administrative charge or no fuel at all, I will take the slight administrative charge.
I hesitate to take up additional time, but if Senator Joyce was being accurate he would have reflected that the difference between the opposition amendment that I moved from sheet 5028 and that which was moved in a later prepared sheet—sheet 5038 revised—is identical in clauses 1 through to 6 but that we had a seventh clause which deals with a different matter. If Senator Joyce recalls, what I said was that we are identical on those matters and we inserted a provision in relation to the monitoring of prices. If Senator Joyce wants to hear what he wants to hear and try and make an argument from what he wants to hear, that is fine. I am satisfied, having put that on the record, that the amendments are identical to that extent and that is what I reflected—which was that our amendment in that respect was about the protection of small business and competition. That is all that I was attempting to put on the record. I will not be misrepresented. Frankly I do not think that it does any credit to have addressed the matter in the way that Senator Joyce did.
We can go back to the Hansard and check exactly what you said. I am sure you said word for word, exactly the same. If that is the case then I support the Democrats amendment if it is word for word. That is all that needs to be said. It means that ultimately I have supported what you wanted.
Question put:
That the amendment (Senator Joyce’s) be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Because of the size of this report and the fact that it has only been tabled today, I will speak further on it later, but, given the recent increase in the amount of public debate about housing affordability, I think it is worth drawing attention to it. I very much welcome the fact that there is some wider public debate about the problem with housing affordability in Australia. It is very timely to have this report on the Housing Assistance Act and the annual report for the last financial year. It has appeared more quickly than previous reports—although it is still more than a year past the relevant financial period—and that slight increase in speed should be noted.
When we are having these debates—and I hope that we continue to have debates about how to make housing more affordable and more secure in Australia—it should also be emphasised that it is not just a matter of interest rates. It is fine to recognise the role that interest rates can play—and we all make our political points about who has the best or worst record on interest rates—but interest rates are just one component of the housing market and the different types of housing available in Australia.
This report goes to the operation of the Commonwealth-state housing agreement, which basically deals with public and community housing. The level of political attention to this area of housing is, sadly, very much diminished at state level as well as at federal level in recent years. It is now seen almost as a subsidiary welfare housing approach and as playing a residual role. I believe that is a great shame, because it has shifted from an era when it played a much more central role—although not sufficient in its own right, as no specific model is sufficient in its own right—in ensuring that Australians have the opportunity to afford a roof over their heads and, without chewing up the vast majority of their incomes, just keeping themselves in a home. We must continue to remember that, first and foremost, housing, as a policy issue, should be about ensuring that all Australians have access to secure, safe and appropriate housing.
As housing also is an investment for many, it is appropriate to have a debate on the wider issues of people’s rights and opportunities but the value and the direction of the property market should not take priority over the core issue of affordable housing. The property market itself, of course, particularly inasmuch it relates to the private rental sector, also has a role to play. So, not having had time to study the report in detail, I simply welcome the fact that it shows the important role that public and community housing does still play and that that should be a part of any proper systematic debate about affordable housing in Australia.
We saw the Productivity Commission bring down recommendations following our inquiry into the affordability of housing for first home owners a year or two back. We have seen the Treasurer repeatedly complain in recent times that the states did not pick up any of the recommendations of that report. He was perhaps right to point to that failure but, as he conveniently neglected to mention, nor did the federal government pick up any of the recommendations of that report that affected the federal sphere. It is time we moved past this selective blame-shifting and buck-passing approach to affordable housing and looked at all aspects of housing provision. That should include more attention being given to the very efficient role that public and community housing can play in ensuring affordable housing. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
DHA is part of the Defence portfolio and is responsible to the Minister for Defence, Dr Brendan Nelson. In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, I am responsible for Defence corporate services and infrastructure matters, including Defence housing, so I take a particular interest in DHA.
I have on a number of occasions participated in the opening of new DHA housing estates, and I can understand why the majority of DHA clients and customers are satisfied with the standard of housing and assistance provided by DHA. Its function, as senators are probably aware, is to provide high-quality housing in housing estates and smaller housing subdivisions, and to manage Defence housing, in partnership with developers and contractors. It is also involved in providing relocation services to members of the Australian Defence Force and their families to meet the increasingly high operational needs and requirements of the Department of Defence.
DHA currently manages around 17,000 residences in all states and territories and has about $6 billion worth of housing assets. It is an extremely important statutory corporation. The authority also provides housing and relocation services to employees of the Australian Customs Service. DHA is required by legislation to perform its functions in accordance with sound commercial practice and, in recent years, it has done so extremely successfully. It operates cost effectively and with absolute accountability.
DHA’s projected full-year earnings for 2005-06, before interest and tax, are around $113 million, with a projected $67 million to be returned as a dividend to shareholders, which of course is the government. With around 700 employees in over 25 housing management centres across Australia, DHA provides an efficient and high-quality housing and relocation service that meets the needs of customers, clients and, increasingly, a wide range of investors in the public-private partnership arrangement that DHA runs by providing houses to the Australian defence forces.
The year ahead will be an exciting one for DHA as it pursues a number of growth opportunities, including the Defence Single LEAP: Living Environment Accommodation Project and off-base single accommodation. DHA will also change its name to Defence Housing Australia. It is a very good organisation, and I am pleased to be a part of it. I am pleased to see that it has tabled its statement of corporate intent for 2006-07, and I commend the report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
The following government documents were considered:
Migration Act 1958—Section 440A—Conduct of Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) reviews not completed within 90 days—Report for the period 1 March to 30 June 2006. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.
Migration Act 1958Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days—Report for the period 1 March to 30 June 2006. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Implementation of the recommendations of the Palmer report of the inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau—12 month progress report, dated September 2006. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Moore. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Moore in continuation.
Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The UNFPA last week launched its report State of world population 2006, a matter of some interest to a number of us in the chamber—in particular, Senator Moore. The report is entitled A passage to hope: women and international migration. I was very pleased to be involved in a very minor way with the launch and the associated seminar held in this building last week by the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. I congratulate the leadership of the group, its members and the staff of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance on their assistance in bringing that event about.
Although it is not often acknowledged, over half of all international migrants are women and children. That seems like a fairly obvious statistic but it does not often make up part of the popular debate on the question. And often immigration policy and debate ignores the specific rights and needs of those two groups in particular—ironic, given that, in so many cases, they are the most vulnerable parties in the migration process. Their concerns will be specifically taken into account when governments come together for the first-ever UN meeting on international migration and development in New York later this week.
The number of people living outside their country of birth has almost doubled during the last 50 years, reaching 191 million in 2005. And today, as I said, nearly half of all international migrants—over 94 million individuals—are women. They remain largely invisible in debate and policy, yet they outnumber male migrants in most regions of the world, and that includes the major destinations of Europe, North America and Oceania.
Well-managed migration, on any analysis, can be a win-win situation and more so, I think, when the contributions of women and children are maximised. Migrant women and children can be responsible for energising the economies of both their destinations and their countries of origin. It is interesting to note that female migrant workers contribute substantially to the more than $US230 billion in official remittances world wide as of 2005. Those are the funds that they send back to their countries of origin. This money can lift families and communities out of poverty, raise standards of living, improve education and health care for children and provide for impoverished ageing parents. Even much more fundamentally, it can serve as an investment to start up businesses, build houses and build community infrastructure.
It is true to say, without exploring this too far, that men and women spend very differently. When women control the use of remittances, they usually spend the money on their children before they spend it on themselves. They send a higher share of their earnings home than their male counterparts. But they still face discrimination. They face limited power when it comes to making financial decisions, or accessing credit and banking services, or even owning property and land. And that, consequently, limits their possibilities for investing in productive, income- and employment-generating activities.
Female migrants also contribute to the quality of life and productivity of what are known as ‘receiving countries’. They make payments into the tax collection and pension systems. For example, you might find that nurses—overwhelmingly, female nurses—migrate to fill critical health shortages in wealthier countries, many of which have ageing populations that further fuel the demand for their services.
It is fair to say, though, in any analysis of this very compelling report, that migrant women face double discrimination across the world, both as women and as migrants. Many, especially those who are low skilled, are subject to violence, are the victims of sexual exploitation, and are subject to poor working conditions and low pay. They often suffer from poor reproductive health and heightened exposure to HIV-AIDS.
Through the focus on women, this UNFPA report has paid particular attention also to the impact of trafficking upon women and their global movements. The realities and needs of migrant women highlight the persistence of poverty and gender inequality and the very dark side of this aspect of globalisation. Women may be desperate to find work, to look after their families and to maintain themselves, even if it means relocating to another country, and they end up being very easy prey for traffickers. Many trafficking victims are often very young women in search of employment, and they may also have children to provide for.
Trafficked women, it is clear from the evidence, are usually forced into sex work, hard domestic work or even sweatshop labour. Sadly, human trafficking is the world’s third most profitable criminal business after traffic in arms and drugs, and is a major source of organised-crime revenue. It is estimated that $US7 billion to $US12 billion annually is generated, which only reflects profits from the initial sale of persons. Once victims are in a destination country, traffickers are reported to net an additional $US32 billion a year, according to the assessments of the International Labour Organisation.
Between 600,000 and 800,000 women, men and children are trafficked across international borders each year, mostly for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. Of these, the majority—up to 80 per cent—are women and girls; in fact, up to 50 per cent are children.
These are the very heavy human costs of the dark side or the downside of migration, but they can be averted. It will take stronger measures which will empower migrant women and protect their rights, and many migrant women are completely unaware of their rights. They need access to information in their own languages to understand their legal entitlements and where they can seek support or protection or recourse to justice. Often, migrant women refrain from using health services or reporting abuse. Culturally sensitive community outreach programs and services, especially those targeted to reproductive health and rights, HIV and gender-based violence, are able to encourage and support them in making use of available resources that are critical to their safety and wellbeing.
Married women, whose visa status might even depend on, perhaps, an abusive husband, may be caught in what is known as the ‘dependency trap’. They fear that reporting an abuser in that situation can result in losing their visa sponsorship, or their custodial rights where children are concerned, and they can be unfairly forced to choose between their own safety and the risk of deportation and losing their children.
Migration is an extraordinarily complex issue. But one thing is clear, from this report and from so many other experiences: gender does play a key role in shaping the migration experience. In that story, though, women’s concerns and rights have remained mostly outside the purview of public laws and policies because so many abuses can be hidden in private homes, in workplaces and so on. What the report makes clear is that it is really time to make visible the invisible and recognise the very significant role that women play in international migration.
At last week’s launch of the report and the following seminar, Amanda Vanstone, as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, made some remarks. It is important that her observations in relation to the women at risk visa which Australia provides be reported and reproduced in the Senate. That was a visa which Australia introduced in 1989 in recognition of the priority given by UNHCR to the protection of refugee women. It is a visa specifically for female applicants who are subject to persecution or are registered as being of concern to the UNHCR. To qualify, an applicant needs to be outside their home country, to not have the protection of a male relative, and to be in danger of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse because of their sex. In my own office, I have explored this as a result of representations made to me on behalf of women in various parts of the world.
These women are granted permanent resettlement in Australia. They are eligible to receive a range of settlement services on arrival. They are given priority access to torture and trauma counselling services to help them rebuild their lives. That reflects some of the areas of challenge which I identified in my earlier remarks about the difficulties faced by many migrant women, particularly those who come from circumstances of crisis.
In 2005-06, a total of 995 visas—or almost 17 per cent of the total number of refugee visas in Australia—were granted to women at risk. That brings to over 7,000 the number of women at risk that the program has helped since its inception. I think that is a very important aspect of our humanitarian program.
I want to finish with some remarks about a visit I made some two years ago to Kakuma refugee camp in northern Kenya with two colleagues from the lower house. It is an extraordinary place where men, women and children every day face remarkable challenges. Meeting with the chairladies of the Kakuma refugee camp, who have taken upon themselves the coordination and leadership for the women in that area, showed me what can be done by the strength of women in most extraordinarily adverse circumstances. They were women of which to be proud.
Today we buried a very good man in Crookwell. His name was Robert Kelvin MacDonald. I think that, if you were to google him, you would not find a single entry. He certainly was not famous or notorious in that sense of the word, but in his community Robbie MacDonald was famous for his love for and loyalty to his family, his friends and his community. He rarely travelled out of Crookwell—which is quite an extraordinary feat in itself!—but this was really because he had everything in the world that he wanted right there. He had a big, loving family, many friends and many children and grandchildren who supported him throughout his life. He was born and raised in Crookwell, and he worked all his life in Crookwell. He was one of those community champions that we so rarely acknowledge. I really wanted to put that on the record this evening.
There was another issue I wanted to speak about today. Last week in the Senate I spoke about the fact that last week was acknowledged across the world as Adult Learners Week. On Friday, 8 September, Learn @ Work Day, which I referred to briefly in my speech, was celebrated in workplaces across Australia. As I said last week, Learn @ Work Day is an annual awareness campaign promoting and supporting workplace learning events across Australia. As part of Adult Learners Week, it draws attention to workplace skills and learning. The day operates as a bit of a hook to draw into workplace learning people and organisations who might not otherwise get involved. Hopefully, this will lead to further learning opportunities.
Learn @ Work Day allows thousands of organisations to engage staff who might not normally take part in learning. Fun, informal learning can be far more successful in engaging employees who may not readily participate in a formal course or program. We all know that informal learning can also have a very powerful effect on an organisation’s goals. For example, a day of job swaps can improve employees’ understanding of how their workplace operates and can lead to more streamlined processes and better workplace relationships. Learn @ Work Day can also be used to promote existing training opportunities offered at work that not everyone within the organisation may be taking advantage of.
Last year an estimated 500 organisations took part in Learn @ Work Day, from large organisations like ActewAGL to many small businesses, public sector organisations and government departments. This year it was even more successful. By getting involved, organisations reach new staff, uncover new skills, build new partnerships and help reach their business goals, all at the same time.
On Friday I attended the national launch of Learn @ Work Day at the Marrickville council chambers in Sydney. It was a shame that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Mr Farmer, who was listed to conduct the launch, did not attend, because those from the ACE sector who do much of this work were keen to hear about the federal government’s commitment and interest in this area.
Nevertheless, the launch was an inspiring event because we were able to acknowledge the work of the Marrickville Council and its commitment as a learning organisation to facilitating the learning of all its staff. We heard from the general manager, Candy Nay, how staff are encouraged to develop learning plans and are mentored in their learning and how contributions that staff have made through their learning have made Marrickville Council a very successful and service oriented council.
Learner of the Year Awards were presented to two staff members who had participated in formal learning programs and who had been able to instigate significant workplace change because of their studies. Marrickville Council certainly has embraced Learn @ Work and all that it represents.
We acknowledged the commitment and learning of a range of staff throughout the council’s departments who had completed their certificate IV front-line management course, and we heard what this program had done for their personal growth as well as for their workplace performance. We heard about the participants in WELL programs—that is, the workplace English language and literacy programs—some of whom had taken those first tenuous steps in learning then moved on to complete the front-line management program.
We heard about the innovative response that Marrickville Council has developed to support post-release prisoners, using volunteers and mentors to help those who have served their sentences to readjust to life on the outside. And we heard the inspiring story of one young woman who came to Australia with little formal education, started in a community program and has gradually worked to develop her skills and confidence and is now about to embark on enrolled nursing.
Marrickville Council acknowledges that organisational learning is a process in which the council strives to improve its performance, to detect and correct errors and to adapt to its environment through evolving knowledge and understanding. The crucial issues at the heart of a learning organisation are social—what beliefs about society are reflected in organisations themselves; ethical—how and why organisations operate and how they establish an environment and ethos in which people can grow and mature into effective human beings; and organisational—the different learning and change contexts within the organisation, as well as the impact and management of these learning and change contexts.
It was clearly evident from the contribution of staff and the enthusiasm of the staff in attendance that in their organisation there is genuine commitment to these issues. I would like to extend my congratulations to all involved—most particularly Charu Hurria, the employee development advisor, and Ian Fuller, the manager of employee services—for their efforts.
Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, I am sure you have heard the old Chinese proverb: ‘Without learning, the wise become foolish; by learning, the foolish become wise.’ In Australia we have seen a very significant change in emphasis on workplace learning. The National Centre for Vocational Education Research has reported that a significant proportion of Australia’s adult society holds dismissive or restrictive attitudes towards participation in structured learning activities. They are turned off by formal learning activity and daunted by the prospect of returning to an educational institution. We have to promote and support different forms of learning activities and pathways so that people are not excluded. We know that investment in lifelong learning leads to wider social and economic benefits such as positive outcomes in health, crime prevention and social inclusion.
Since the 1990s there has been quite an interesting and increased focus on lifelong learning. In 1991, you may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, the report Come in Cinderella: the emergence of adult and community education was released. Since about 1995 we have seen the development of Adult Learners Week. The most recent undertaking was the Ministerial Declaration on Adult Community Education, which has the endorsement of all state, territory and Commonwealth ministers with responsibility for education, employment, training and youth affairs. I want to reflect on that declaration. The declaration identifies four goals to guide the future development of adult learning in Australia:
1. Expand and sustain innovative community based learning models.
2. Raise awareness and understanding of the role and importance of adult community education.
3. Improve the quality of adult community education learning experiences and outcomes.
4. Extend participation in community based learning.
That declaration was signed in July 2002 with the accompanying comments:
The goals demonstrate the Ministers’ commitment to the future development of adult community education in Australia and firmly place adult community education as a significant contributor within the continuum of education and training provision in Australia.
It is therefore a little frustrating that funding to adult and community education has actually declined in real terms since 2002. There are also the challenges for the kinds of women who are coming into Australia, whom Senator Payne spoke so passionately about a little while ago, and for those in regional and rural Australia, who really struggle to access second-chance learning other than vocational education. The ACE sector provides a pathway for those learners in communities to source some training and redevelopment of the skills that they need to manage the change that is happening in their environments. I hope that we will see a huge commitment to this sector in the coming years.
Tonight I want to pay tribute to Sir Robert Sparkes, born May 1929, died 6 August 2006—a significant day for me and the Nationals. Sir Robert Sparkes was once described as ‘the most important non-parliamentary member of any political party in Australia’. Widely regarded as Queensland Nationals’ patriarch, Sir Robert was a well-known and respected political operator.
Born in Dalby, Sir Robert cut his political teeth travelling around the electorate with his father, Sir James, the Country Party MP for Dalby. Sir Robert was to eventually hold the position of Queensland Nationals president for 20 years—from 1970—holding the party presidency longer than any of his predecessors without anyone contesting the post against him in his first 15 years in the role.
Sir Robert was also the local council mayor of Wambo Shire on the Darling Downs for 32 years and an architect of some of the Nationals most memorable and successful election wins, including the 1983 Queensland state election.
Sir Robert was a man of vision and strong leadership, helping Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen to drive Queensland’s economic growth during the seventies and eighties. And he was one of the main engineers of the Nationals organisation in today’s form. Recognising that the Country Party needed to modernise and broaden its support base across all of Queensland, Sir Robert guided the name change to the National Party in the early 1970s, which saw the party expand from its traditional bush roots to a party that also represented metropolitan interests and held seats in Brisbane.
I am a proud product of the Bjelke-Petersen-Sparkes ambition to extend the National Party’s reach into the state’s capital city. Coming from a small business background before politics, I committed to building the National Party’s vote in Brisbane, having success on my first campaign to win the seat of Wynnum for the National Party. The 1974 election validated the name change, with the party’s parliamentary representation doubling and the Nationals governing in their own right following the 1983 election and a further landslide in 1986.
Ever the behind-the-scenes decision maker and political powerbroker, Sir Robert never sought elected office for himself, yet as party president he wielded considerable influence as a close adviser and confidante of Premier Bjelke-Petersen. To his great credit Sir Robert used his influence to warn against the extreme right forces within the party.
Bob Sparkes was a man of great intellect and he dedicated his party position to advance and drive Queensland forward. He seized on the issue of maintaining viable, larger primary production properties when the lands department was trying to cut down property sizes. He fought hard at the time against the Minister for Lands. Thankfully, he was successful, or there would have been a lot fewer viable properties in recent times with the onset of a severe drought.
Sir Robert was also a great advocate for freeholding grazing properties, converting them over from leasehold to freehold for grazing enterprises, and he used his considerable political clout to make sure the land could be bought out and utilised. He was a great believer that, as far as possible, services available in the metropolitan areas should be available in regional Queensland. One of the National Party’s great achievements under Sir Robert was to ensure that the power grid extended right around Queensland and that nearly every property was able to rely on a Queensland electricity grid rather than a diesel generator thumping away all night in the shed. Now, only the most remote areas in Queensland are not serviced by the central electricity grid. Premier Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Robert drove decentralisation in Queensland.
Sir Joh and Sir Robert were two very strong people in their own ways. One of the greatest achievements overseen by Sir Joh was a campaign to abolish death duties, which Sir Robert’s own family experienced upon the death of his father in 1974. In 1976, with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier and Sir Robert backing him as the party president, the Queensland government abolished death duties in the state, a move which was then replicated in every other state. Up until this stage, Queensland had been a cinderella state, but this gave impetus to Queensland to grow and continue growing.
In the 1960s and 1970s the coalfields in Central Queensland were developed, new train lines were put down, new ports were opened and Queensland as a state developed at a great rate. Of course, there was a downside for graziers. There was not proper compensation paid for the destruction of fences and houses, the loss of land or the inconvenience of having your enterprise financially disturbed. I can remember Sparkes arguing fiercely that proper compensation had to be paid, not only for the destruction of fences and other infrastructure but also for the inconvenience and loss of income. The relationship now between the mining and grazing industries has improved so much, and this is due largely to the intervention of Sir Robert Sparkes at the time.
His contribution to Queensland as a confidante of and adviser to the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, for 18 years should not be underestimated. It was a tremendous partnership. There was tremendous intent and wishes on both sides for a reconciliation of their long-time relationship. Unfortunately, both Sir Joh and Sir Robert became ill and, because of their incapacity to travel, this could never be achieved despite their mutual willingness. I know that Bob always regretted the differences that arose between them and that he wished to reconcile with Joh. Sir Joh and Sir Robert have been labelled as the titans of Queensland politics, and I acknowledge tonight Sir Robert’s political vision and contribution to the party, which he was a member of for longer than 50 years. Bob always did what was best for the state. He was knighted in 1979 for services to state and local government. Lady Sparkes passed away in 1999 and Sir Robert is survived by his two sons, Doug and Peter, and his four grandchildren.
Recently we have heard an announcement by the federal government that they plan to significantly increase the total number of people serving in the Australian armed forces. I, personally, am not convinced that that is desirable or necessary. Certainly the extra $10 billion cost that has been flagged could be put to better use in other areas. But, regardless of that opinion—I think there would be varied opinions around this place and in the wider community about whether or not that is a good idea—what I would hope would be a universally shared view is that, however large our Defence Force is and however many Australian men and women serve in it, those men and women should be properly treated, particularly when they suffer harm as a consequence of serving in the armed forces.
It is no secret that there is a difficulty already in meeting the recruitment and retention targets for the current number of people serving in the Australian Defence Force. I think there is absolutely no chance of successfully increasing the size of our Defence Force to the level that is suggested or of increasing the recruitment and retention rates up to that level unless we—and the federal government—do a lot better in the way we assist people who have come to harm as part of their service in the Australian Defence Force.
Any of us in this place who have any dealings with veterans—war veterans or service veterans, let alone ex-service personnel from other areas of activity within the Australian Defence Force—would know that veterans can be cantankerous people from time to time. They often have very good reason to be cantankerous, but we need to be much more cognisant of the fact that this is not a bunch of grumpy people who are just naturally inclined that way. Whilst there will always be a component that will never be fully satisfied and there will always be people with exaggerated grievances, having dealt with veterans and ex-service personnel for a number of years now—indeed, I have been the Democrat spokesperson in the veterans area since I came into this chamber in 1997—I am convinced that the vast majority of concerns and complaints raised with me have a substantial foundation in fact.
Whether it is from the point of view of needing to meet our recruitment or retention targets or from the more general principle of recognising our special responsibility for assisting people who have served their country in the defence forces—either way—I think we really need to work a lot harder at improving our game. I recently put a piece on my website basically expressing the views that I have just mentioned—that we need to do a lot better with the treatment we provide for ex-service personnel. I received a lot of feedback from the public. One email I received, after mentioning similar views through the media a few weeks back, was from a person or a family in my own state of Queensland. I will quote their story:
My partner was medically discharged from the miliary after nineteen years service last year. He has been to hell and back in the last two years and he still has not received the support he needs.
We as a family have been through so much. But to see a strong vibrant career soldier reduced to tears day after day in pure frustration is heartbreaking. The system has let my partner down and he feels so frustrated, hurt and angry.
This is a man that served his country in 1999 in East Timor and has done over twenty years of service if you include the time he was in cadets while at school and army reserves. He adored his career as a soldier and would still be in—if only the military had fought for him—if he was offered the best medical services and specialists he deserved and was promised he could have still been in the army doing what he loves, there would have been no reason to discharge him. The army just placed him in the too hard basket and broke a good man.
That soldier was medically discharged due to injuries. He then faced an uphill battle to have them recognised before he could commence treatment. He is facing several operations and rehabilitation. He and his family feel that he was effectively thrown on the scrap heap when he became injured and then was accused of being a malingerer and a drain on the military.
The story I have just read out came directly from a Queensland family. It is a story I have heard time and time again. A couple of the themes repeat themselves: firstly, the continual recognition that it is not just a trauma for the ex-soldier or ex-serviceperson but also for their partner, their families, their parents and their children. They often end up having to carry the burden and having to live with the damage caused. So it is not just harm done to one person; often large numbers of people are directly affected.
The other aspect is the problem of needing to get various injuries recognised as being due to military service before treatment can commence or before payment for treatment will be covered. Often they are the same thing because people cannot afford or are unable to quickly access medical treatment. There have been improvements in recent times in some aspects of the delivery of compensation, I do acknowledge that—just as there are starting to be some improvements in the military justice system. But we really do need to make further improvements, not just in the criteria but also in the manner of administration. From the comment about the soldier feeling as though he had been thrown on the scrap heap or put in the too-hard basket when the military just does not know what to do with people, we need to realise that we are not talking necessarily about wartime injuries. Very serious injuries can happen during any part of day-to-day activity in the Defence Force, as they can in any job; but in the Defence Force it is multiplied significantly.
Another person whom I have met, Michael Andrews, lives in Hervey Bay, as does his family. His story was covered along with a number of others in an article in the Bulletin last year. I visited him and his family at Hervey Bay towards the start of this year. Mr Andrews was an elite serviceperson who was injured while training as part of moving across to the SAS. He suffered a severe stroke through heat stress while training in extreme heat conditions.
I think we can all imagine how difficult that must be. It is always difficult for any person to suffer severe injuries and to be permanently disabled, but to have to then continually argue that each ongoing medical ailment stems from activities or events related to service in the Defence Force just adds an extra level of stress at a time when people should not have it. Mr Andrews is another example of shifting from being an incredibly fit and active member of the armed forces when his injuries first happened to being permanently disabled and in a hospital somewhere. He literally got lost and had nobody looking after him. It is a crucial time, when people most need support and help through the maze of what to do next in their dramatically altered lives; what do they do with their families; what are the future economic prospects; what sort of treatment might they need; what the rehabilitation options are; where the income will come from and how to apply for it; shifting from Veterans’ Affairs to the Military Compensation Scheme and then out of the ADF. Sifting through all of those sorts of bureaucratic mazes is the very time when they need support, but it is often the time when they do not have it.
That is unacceptable in any circumstance. I think it is doubly unacceptable for people who are in the armed forces. Many of those comments were made on my website after I put up this piece. It is not only the injustice of what these people are going through; you can add to that the record we all know about of governments dragging the chain on recognising war related injuries, whether they be trauma and stress related, due to Agent Orange or a million other things. The net effect has not only harmed lives; all those families are saying to everybody they know: ‘Whatever you do, don’t join the defence forces. You’d be crazy. If you get hurt, they won’t look after you.’ Unless we deal with that problem—(Time expired)
I rise to speak tonight about a great South Australian, a man who gave so much, who opened our eyes and led so many of us as children on journeys we may have missed had we not turned that first page of one of his books. I speak of renowned author and poet Colin Milton Thiele, who died on 4 September at the age of 85.
Colin was a man who walked two roads: one as an author and one as an educator, providing inspiration, encouragement and insight to those who knew the man and those who came to know him and know of him through his writing. Born on 16 November 1920 near Eudunda, in South Australia’s Barossa Valley, Colin attended school at Julia Creek and Eudunda primary schools, and did his secondary schooling at Kapunda. He completed a degree at the University of Adelaide in 1941, followed by a course at Adelaide Teachers College in 1942. He served with the Royal Australian Air Force in the Northern Territory and in New Guinea from 1942 to 1945, completing a Diploma of Education on his return.
In 1945 Colin married Rhonda Gill, also a teacher, and they had two daughters, Janne and Sandy. From 1946 to 1955 he taught English at Port Lincoln, on the Eyre Peninsula, wrote for ABC radio, and presented Regional Magazine on radio 5LN. He later taught in Adelaide for a year, at Brighton High school.
Colin joined the staff at Wattle Park Teachers College as a lecturer in English from 1957 to 1963 and during this time he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship to study teacher education. In 1964 he was appointed as vice principal; and from 1965 to 1972 he served as principal of the college. In 1973 Colin became principal of Murray Park College of Advanced Education; and from 1974, until his retirement in 1980, he served as director of Wattle Park Teachers Centre.
An author, poet and educator, Colin was awarded Australia’s highest award, the Companion of the Order of Australia, in 1977 for eminent and meritorious services to literature and education. In the words of his close friend, Walkley award winning journalist and much admired South Australian author, Max Fatchen:
Colin Thiele illuminated our lives, generations of us, with the joy and warmth of his prose, the humour and images of his verse and his own character as strong and productive as the paddocks of Eudunda where he spent his boyhood ...
… … …
It is not too extravagant to say his mind was a magnificent mansion which we entered when we turned the first page of one of his books. He engaged us, entertained us and often enchanted us.
Colin Thiele was the last surviving member of the Jindyworobaks—a literary movement which aimed to revive a particular kind of Australian nationalism through exploration of images of the landscape and an affinity with Aboriginal culture. They turned for inspiration to Aboriginal art and to the stories of the Dreamtime.
Colin’s best-known work is his children’s book, Storm Boya tale about a young boy who saves a pelican, which he names ‘Mr Percival’. The boy forms a friendship with it and the Aboriginal character, ‘Fingerbone Bill’, in the sea setting of the Coorong in South Australia. In the author’s words:
Storm Boy teaches something of grief and joy of life, of beauty of natural places and preserving our precious heritage; the richness of the life of the Aboriginal people.
Storm Boy was published in 1966 and adapted to film in 1976. It won the Jury and Best Film awards at the 1977 Australian Film Institute awards. Other works by Colin Thiele include: The Sun on the Stubble; Magpie Island; The Fire in the Stone; Blue Fin; Poems in My Luggage; Gloop the Bunyip; Uncle Gustav’s Ghosts; and The Hammerhead Light.
Colin wrote about the Flinders Ranges, the Barossa Valley, the Coorong and the River Murray, as well as the hard life on the land, living as children with the seasons, the environment, castaways on islands, dramatic bushfires, lighthouses and lonely magpies. He won numerous awards, including the Dromkeen Medal and the Centenary Medal. He wrote his first book at the age of 11 and continued writing up until a few weeks ago. His final book, The Fiery Salamander, will be published in 2007.
Colin wrote and edited well over a 100 books on poetry, fiction, drama, history, biography, education and the environment. He was a great storyteller, and now his story forms part of the history of our nation. He has left an imprint on our society, among the people and the land he loved and portrayed so well through his imagination, insight and love for the written word. In Eudunda’s Memorial Park, South Australia’s famous son sits in bronze, with notebook and pen in hand and Mr Percival, the pelican, by his side.
I rise tonight to speak about the Parliament and Civics Education Rebate. I do so not merely to praise this important program—which affords the opportunity to Australian students to visit the national institutions in Canberra—but to defend it from an attack made by Senator Robert Ray on 9 August. His remarks were brought to my attention recently and, and after looking at them, I am quite astonished by what he said.
I think it is important to put the facts about this rebate on the record and to explain the background to it. Until recently, there were two programs that offered rebates to students who visited Canberra, which was done through the organisation of one of those programs in conjunction with a particular student’s school. An education travel rebate was available to students travelling less than 1,000 kilometres to the national capital, and those students were eligible for a rebate of $15 on their travel costs. The rebate was standard whether a student was travelling for 200 kilometres or 950 kilometres and was available to students who visited a number of institutions in the national capital.
The other program, the Citizenship Visits Program, was operated by, or it was at least under the auspices of, the Presiding Officers of the federal parliament. It was available to students travelling more than 1,000 kilometres. Students who took part in the program were required to visit the Parliament House building and to attend a program operated by the Parliamentary Education Office. It is an excellent program, and I am sure that many members of this chamber have had the opportunity of seeing those students passing through this building.
There were a number of serious problems with two parallel rebate schemes operating in respect of visits to the national capital. One was that the criteria for the rebates were quite different. If you took advantage of the education travel rebate, you were required to visit six national institutions or attractions while you were in the national capital, and two of them had to be related to Australian democracy, such as Parliament House or the Old Parliament House. If you took part in the civics education program, however, you had an obligation to come only to this place, and you could literally spend the rest of your time enjoying yourself in Canberra, visiting the snow or whatever it might be. The amounts, as I have mentioned, were different, depending on which program you took part in.
The other problem with the Citizenship Visits Program particularly was that you needed to get access to the Parliamentary Education Office program to justify your access to the rebate, but the program is very popular, and some schools wishing to visit the national capital were unable to make a booking with the program because there were not enough available slots at the time they needed to come to allow them to justify obtaining the rebate. So a number of schools simply were not eligible to obtain the rebate or came here without the benefit of the rebate, which was a great pity.
A number of members of parliament—senators and members of the House of Representatives—have been lobbying for some little time to have that rather unsatisfactory state of affairs resolved. It was a great relief to me, as one of those senators involved in that process of lobbying, to see a decision a few months ago to consolidate those two programs into a single program: what is now called the parliament and civics education rebate. Under that new Parliament and Civics Education Rebate, or PACER, program, it is now possible for a rebate to be paid to students who take part in the program. The rebate is organised under a number of zones. So, for example, if you travel between 150 and 500 kilometres to come to Canberra, you get a rebate of $20, compared with the previous rebate of $15; if you travel 2,500 to 3,000 kilometres, you get a rebate of $150, compared with the old rate of $110; and there are more gradations in that arrangement, so it is more proportionate to the distance that you need to travel to get here. The arrangements for what you need to do when arriving in Canberra have been standardised. It is now compulsory to visit three sites—that is, this building, Old Parliament House and the Australian War Memorial. It is preferred that people take part in the Parliamentary Education Program, but it is not compulsory, so the bottleneck that that program represented for some schools has been removed. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible development for which a number of members of this parliament—as far as I am aware on both sides of the chamber—have been lobbying for some time.
So it was particularly puzzling to see Senator Robert Ray attack this rationalisation, this change, in his speech on 9 August. In that speech, for example, he accuses the government of stripping the parliamentary departments of program funding that had previously been available. For the record, I think Senator Ray needs to be aware that in fact the total funding available for the program has been increased and will increase for each of the next four years. There is no question of this being done on the cheap or of the amount of money available to fund students to come to Canberra being reduced.
He describes the previous education travel rebate, which as I mentioned provided rebates for travel of less than 1,000 kilometres, as having primarily a ‘tourism focus’. That is also simply not the case. The program was designed to bring students to Canberra for an educational experience, and students who came here visited national institutions such as the National Library, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Australian War Memorial, the National Museum and Questacon—national institutions that those students undoubtedly benefited from visiting.
Senator Ray goes on to describe what I think can best be called a conspiracy to in some way turn this education program into some kind of propaganda tool for the federal government. He goes on to say:
... we really should explain to the kiddiewinks what Friedman-like economics is about, what accrual accounting is about and what great savings they have made by amalgamating—
that is, amalgamating the two programs. He says this is ‘about politics and it is about campaigning’. The new program, he says, should have been about the working of parliament, not the working of government, and he suggests that the Prime Minister’s intervention in this matter was a mysterious change of heart on the Prime Minister’s part to effect this change.
The fact is that there is no element of propagandising about these changes. The new arrangements are administered by a consortium which is operated jointly by the National Capital Authority, by the National Capital Attractions Association, representing those institutions and attractions in the national capital, and by the ACT government, which I need not remind members is presently a Labor government. That consortium operates this program to bring students to the national capital. There is no question of propagandising in any of this program. The only vaguely political requirement of the program is that schools which receive the rebate are expected to acknowledge that they have received a rebate from the Australian government—no requirement to publish a picture of the Prime Minister, no need to mention any government programs or anything of that kind; simply to acknowledge that the program has been funded by the Australian government. That seems to be perfectly fair enough.
What we have here is a very sensible reorganisation of what was a cumbersome and somewhat unsatisfactory duo of schemes in the past. It operates on a purely apolitical basis. It is administered at arms-length from the Australian government. The Australian government is one-third, through the NCA, of the consortium that operates the scheme. It is a very effective program which has done some brilliant things in bringing students to Canberra and helping them to understand the working of government and of course the national parliament. This scheme deserves praise and support. I sincerely hope that Senator Ray has the opportunity to reconsider his attack on this program.
I want to make some comments about the Queensland election. I do not want to comment on the result—we have had enough statements about that—although I do want to congratulate the Beattie government. Tonight I want to talk about the process and the figures I am going to mention have been taken from the Queensland Electoral Commission website. At this stage I really want to give a great deal of credit to the staff of the Queensland Electoral Commission, both the permanent full-time staff and the amazing number of volunteers that are brought on board for the period of the election, election day and also now. As I speak, they are still working because at this time the polls have not been declared as to every one of the 89 seats; rather, people are continuing to work, and my understanding is that the Queensland Electoral Commission website is a very popular site for people who are interested in the process.
As we all know, Queensland is a very large state, and there were 89 seats up for election on election day, last Saturday. On that day over 1,600 booths were staffed and people had the opportunity to cast their vote for one of the 329 people—Queensland citizens who put themselves before their community and said, ‘I have qualities that I think could be of value in leading and governing Queensland.’ I am very proud to say that my own party was able to put up a candidate in each of the 89 seats. Including those candidates, a total of over 300 Queenslanders were contesting those seats. That is a really impressive figure, given the number of people who felt that they wanted to have a role to play in the electoral system.
But for each one of those people who were candidates there were so many people behind them. Naturally, there were their families. The people in this place would understand that, when you are a candidate for election, you rely so strongly on your family to give you the support and understanding to help you with a very difficult career decision. I think it is important to note that every candidate who is involved in an election process at some time makes a public declaration of acknowledgement and appreciation of their families. It is something that we in this place can do at other times to acknowledge that it is not just a single decision to go through this process; it involves a family. That must be acknowledged, and we all know that more than other people.
Also there was that amazing group of volunteers. When you belong to a formal political party, as all of us here do, there is the party structure and there are people that have a role in that—people who are very skilled with lots of experience. But this evening I want to mention those people who, for whatever reason, get involved in the whole process of elections. They are so dedicated, they are so knowledgeable and they do so much work. They are the people who volunteer to do so much of that backyard work in terms of signage and working on campaigns—the almost unending doorknocking and letterboxing up and down the streets of Brisbane, the regional centres in Queensland and also out in the large rural electorates, trying to find every possible elector to have a discussion with, to talk about the value of their vote and to say, for whatever reason, that the person they are supporting is the best person for whom they can cast their vote. These people work tirelessly, as you know.
This time it was a short campaign in Queensland of several weeks. But the campaign never really ends. We have heard the term ‘continuous campaigning’. In fact, that is happening in many parts of Australia at the moment. Campaigning—that interaction between the elector and people who are trying to elicit their vote—happens continually, and it relies on the goodwill and hard work of people who are doing the handing out, the people who put themselves forward to go out and publicly label themselves as supporting a particular party and a particular candidate. All of us feel a deep appreciation for those people and sometimes wonder at their energy and commitment. Many of them go almost without acknowledgement. They do this work tirelessly.
As for the actual day, I enjoy election days. I think there is a certain atmosphere. Every election booth—and, as I said, there were over 1,600 booths in Queensland—has its own atmosphere, its own personality. On Saturday I was fortunate to visit a couple of them. They were totally distinctive. I want to share the atmosphere with you. I was pleased to be at one booth in regional Queensland on that day because the young woman working at the booth with me was going to be casting her first vote. She was involved, she was knowledgeable and she was excited—everything that we would hope people involved in an election would experience. She knew the policy. She supported and knew the candidate in her area, and had been volunteering for her. But, more than that, there was a genuine enthusiasm for the process. She wanted to know how the system worked. She had worked out how preferences operated. She was excited about knowing how the votes were going to be counted and what was going to happen next. She was involved in the system. In contrast, so many of the people who were turning up to vote had a different experience. Some knew the electorate in which they were living. Some were unsure of their registration. Some were disappointed or angry or frustrated about having to go through the process. But each of them had a role to play in the process; they were part of the system.
When I went to another booth that afternoon, I worked with a gentleman who had been volunteering as a booth worker at this one location for 35 years for local government elections, state government elections and federal government elections. This gentleman had never run for elected office himself. He had worked loyally for the ALP, his party of choice. He had such an interest in and commitment to the process. He felt proud of the work that he was able to do to support the party and to support the candidate on the day.
When I was talking with him, he was a little unsure about the candidates he had worked for in the early 60s but he tended to be able to give me the absolute details of what time of the year the elections were held—he had a personal preference for summer elections rather than those in the winter in Queensland—and he knew the names of more than 35 candidates that he had worked for over that time. It made me very proud that this gentleman, for his own reasons, had chosen to give such support to my party and to continue that support in 2006—and he is very hopeful that he will be able to continue that activity for many elections to come. Despite the contrast between these two people, both had chosen to work in the electoral system as volunteers. That shows how much they value our electoral system and it gives us hope that there is genuine involvement and knowledge.
On the other hand, I have some preliminary figures from the Queensland Electoral Commission website, which has a section detailing where people cast their votes. It tells you whether they voted at polling booths; in postal or special ballots; by prepoll, a valuable system whereby people can cast their vote in the week before an election if they are unable to vote on the day; by absentee vote; or by electoral visitor vote, a particularly valuable system that is only available at the state level—another anomaly, as it is a form of voting available at the state level but not at the federal level. Yet another form of voting is where, if a person is unable to leave their home on the day of the vote, an Electoral Commission officer can visit their home and collect their vote. There are also officers who visit declared institutions.
The sad thing is that many votes were cast but not counted, because they were informal. I have spoken before in this place about my disappointment and wonder in relation to the many people who do not have their vote counted. Being quite an experienced group, as I am sure many people in this place are, we do know that some people can be incredibly competitive and also incredibly creative about the methods they use and the comments they write on their ballot papers. They can give quite direct feedback to candidates and political parties without actually putting a number in any box at all. But I am wondering why, of the almost two million votes from polling booths, over 41,000 were informal. That is very sad. If people make a direct decision to cast an informal vote, that is one thing; but if they mean to vote and are not having it counted, that is very sad.
I want to acknowledge the candidates and volunteers from all parties and all the independents who took part in the Queensland election. I look forward to our next round in this exciting system.
On 8 August 2006 the leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, addressed the Senate about the need to protect the rock art located on the Burrup Peninsula in my home state of Western Australia. Madam Acting Deputy President, you may recall that Senator Brown waxed lyrical about his observations and opinions and entreated us all to ‘urgently acquaint’ ourselves with the matter and move to protect the Burrup rock art for the nation.
At the risk of appearing to have learned some facts from Senator Brown—which of course is not the case—I can report to the Senate that I am reasonably acquainted with this issue and have some relevant information to put on the record and, indeed, to correct the record. This is an important heritage issue and one that requires the Senate to be fully and accurately informed. I also agree with Senator Brown that the Burrup has extraordinary cultural values, extraordinary rock art and is a truly significant place. Unfortunately, and despite a personal visit to the area, it would appear that Senator Brown did little to verify the accuracy of the statements that he put before the Senate; statements which later formed the basis of Senator Siewert’s motion on 16 August.
First of all, let there be no misunderstanding. The Burrup Peninsula and the wider Dampier Archipelago, which is the subject of a proposed national heritage listing, is widely recognised as containing a significant concentration of Aboriginal rock art. More than 10,000 petroglyphs, or engravings, have been officially recorded on the Burrup itself, with some engravings scientifically estimated to be more than 3,800 years old. The area is also home to some of the country’s most important industrial development.
The Woodside-operated North West Shelf venture alone provides about one per cent of Australia’s GDP; about two per cent of our exports; tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs; and, in the past year alone, generated about $A1.3 billion in government royalties and excise. The question we need to ask ourselves is twofold: firstly, is the rock art adequately protected and are there measures in place to ensure its effective management; and, secondly, can this vital industrial development continue alongside this heritage asset? The answer, as Senator Brown is well aware, is that rock art in Western Australia has extensive legislative protection under the state Aboriginal Heritage Act. This act is also augmented by the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—a fact that I would hope Senator Brown is aware of, considering his address on the Burrup was made in relation to an amendment bill to this very act. The rock art is also protected by the WA Environmental Protection Act, which requires industry to obtain approval from the state minister for the environment before commencing any proposal that is likely to have a significant impact upon the environment. The definition of environment under this act includes cultural heritage. But what does all this mean for the Burrup?
As Senator Brown knows and as I know, current standard compliance with legislation and the North West Shelf venture commitment to minimise its impact on the Burrup means: firstly, the North West Shelf joint venture conducts heritage surveys and comprehensively consults the traditional Aboriginal custodians; and, secondly, it designs the footprint of its operations to minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage sites as far as is practicable. It is important to note that, if there is no way around avoiding disturbance of rock art, you must always seek permission under the state Aboriginal Heritage Act. The North West Shelf joint venture, Woodside, Rio, Dampier Salt, Burrup Fertilisers and Pilbara Iron all work this way. Under the processes of the act you must consult the appropriate local Aboriginal groups and have the matter considered by the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee. This advisory body includes scientists and senior Indigenous men and women from different parts of the state and aims to ensure that culturally appropriate decisions are made about sensitive material or sites.
The practical implications of this process mean, for example, that part of Woodside’s proposed Pluto development on the Burrup will be on what is known as industrial site A, where the company plans to construct LNG storage tanks and from which it will build an LNG loading jetty. During the archaeological heritage survey of site A, 1,240 rock art panels, or groupings of single or multiple engravings or motifs, were identified. The company estimates that 38 panels, or about three per cent of the total, lie within the project’s revised disturbance footprint. Within the 1,240 panels, Woodside and the Indigenous surveyors recorded 2,487 rock art motifs or engravings. Of this total, about two per cent or 60 motifs or engravings may be disturbed. As with many good corporate citizens in designing their facilities, Woodside’s objective is to avoid rock art. I am told that the company continues to refine its plan and footprint—just as the existing legislative and consultative processes envisaged—to determine if all 38 panels can be relocated.
On industrial site B, which is next to site A, Woodside proposes to construct LNG processing facilities for the Pluto project. Site B is about twice the size of site A, and contains between 300 and 400 panels. Woodside is continuing to refine its plant design for this site, in consultation with the Indigenous groups, and I am told the company expects that most, if not all, of the panels can be either undisturbed or relocated. On sites A and B, I am told that Woodside expects about 90 per cent of the rock art across all of its lease areas to remain undisturbed and that it intends to relocate the remainder.
Some of us may have seen Senator Brown’s media release in which he claims he ‘watched as bulldozers wrecked two hilltops containing ancient artwork and standing stones’. However, Senator Brown neglected to mention some key facts including that, firstly, during his visit he was personally briefed on the approval process for what was actually the widening of a road—done by bulldozers; secondly, the approval process involved surveying and monitoring by all the relevant Indigenous groups; and, thirdly, the earthworks did not require any disturbance of rock art or standing stones. The very example Senator Brown used to highlight the need for further protection is, as I understand it, a great example of how the system works effectively to protect such heritage.
In his address to the Senate Senator Brown also asserted that 40 per cent of the rock art was to be destroyed by development. Some background may have been useful. For the benefit of my colleagues, Senator Brown was referring to a comprehensive agreement entered into in 2003 by the Western Australian state government and all the native title claimants. This agreement resulted in the transfer of more than 60 per cent of the Burrup to Indigenous ownership and to be set aside for conservation. The agreement also allowed for industrial development to occur on the Burrup, established comprehensive heritage protection measures, and delivered significant economic and social benefits to the claimants. There are two key points I would like the Senate to take away from this speech. First of all, this agreement and the provisions for industrial development were freely arrived at with all the native title claimants. Secondly, industrial development will simply never cover the entirety of the industrial estate and, as such, considerable amounts of rock art in the industrial estate will not be touched or affected.
Even on historic leases such as the North West Shelf venture many sites remain undisturbed 25 years after development started even though the company has had permission to do so. This information is freely available to Senator Brown; sadly he has failed to convey it to the Senate. Senator Brown also asserted that there was a wide open industrial park ‘just down the way’—they were his words—where industry could be developed. As Senator Brown stated, this would also require the development of West Intercourse Island where a port would be required. However Senator Brown well knows, despite his glib answer to the chamber, that any port on West Intercourse would involve significant disturbance of rock art and especially rock art which has hitherto been relatively undisturbed—rock art that is recognised as being of a highly significant nature; as highly significant as any of that located on the Burrup.
Senator Brown also failed to acknowledge that although Maitland may be appropriate for some industries it could not accommodate a liquefied natural gas plant. The reason is simple: natural gas must be cooled to minus 161 degrees Celsius to liquefy it to 1/600th of its volume. To process the gas and then keep it cool in pipes all the way to West Intercourse Island vast amounts of energy would need to be generated by using the very gas we want to export and sell to customers. It is simply not a sensible or viable use of that valuable resource, and Senator Brown well knows this.
The fact is that the Burrup is a valuable place both for its rock art and for its economic contribution to our country. There is certainly much more to be discovered and much to be learnt. However it is a matter that requires more research and consideration than a visit by a couple of senators keen to find issues to hitch their election campaign to. I encourage all senators to better acquaint themselves with the facts and the truth surrounding the development of an industry on the Burrup Peninsula and the protection of vital Australian Aboriginal heritage.
Those of us in this place get invited to attend a weird and wonderful array of events. Indeed I got to attend one which was more wonderful than weird on Sunday. I attended the National Gynaecological Awareness Day, The Great Gynae Day Out, something that I am sure Senator Ferris has heard of. The Great Gynae Day Out was brought to us in Perth by an organisation called GAIN, the Gynaecological Awareness Information Network—a wonderful organisation of women pioneered by Kath Mazzella. She initially got together a petition highlighting the fact that we needed to know more about—and governments of all persuasions needed to do more to increase awareness of—gynaecological cancer. Between Kath’s petition and Senator Ferris’s personal endeavours we now have a Senate inquiry.
The Great Gynae Day Out was held on Sunday at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, a nice hotel in Perth. It was held, as it says on the invitation, to be a fun day for everyone celebrating National Gynaecological Awareness Day. Indeed for the small amount of time I was able to attend it was indeed a fun day. As I say, The Great Gynae Day Out is an initiative originally organised by Ms Mazzella. When asked by the organising committee to nominate a date for this year’s event, she said, ‘Well, I’m not very good at picking dates. The only date that I can remember is my birthday which is 10 September.’ So indeed The Great Gynae Day Out was held on 10 September this year. It was a mixture of serious and fun events. We had the traditional welcome to country, we had the serious talk from a politician about government’s role and the importance of the network, we had dance, we had song and we had some impromptu live theatre playing out women’s stories. It was a very important event. It is a very important strategy to highlight and increase awareness of the issues that confront many women.
The Gynaecological Awareness Information Network is a network of a few formidable women. As I say, it was initially established by Kath. It is now chaired by a formidable woman whose name is Natalie Jenkins. She herself has not been a sufferer or survivor of any of the gynaecological complaints but felt the need to do something. Then there is the lovely Kylie, who is their secretary and runs their website. The Gynaecological Awareness Information Network seeks to not only provide support for women but also increase our awareness of issues of infertility; vulval pain; endometriosis, a complaint that a lot of men in our community find difficult to pronounce let alone understand the experience of; menopause; polycystic ovaries; fibroids; some sexually transmitted infections; and gynaecological cancers, those being cervical, vulval, ovarian and uterine. GAIN’s aims are to foster community awareness of gynaecological issues, provide information to empower women to develop responsibility for their gynaecological health, promote preventative gynaecological health activities and attitudes, and have a positive impact on the psychosocial outcomes of gynaecological issues. These issues are all very difficult for us to discuss in an open forum. We all too often refer to those issues as issues ‘down there’ yet they are very threatening to the lives, livelihoods and happiness of many women—an increasing number of women in our society.
Initiatives like The Great Gynae Day Out, I think, are an important step in encouraging that open debate firstly amongst women—bringing them together so they realise they do not have to deal with not only the suffering but the fear of the potential of these diseases on their own—and also in increasing discussion across the dining room table between them and the rest of their families. Of course, some of us like to get information in a more secretive manner before we are ready for that discussion. Therefore GAIN have established, through the endeavours of the lovely Kylie, a new website: www.gain.org.au. It is organised by the energetic and creative women of GAIN and also supported by the Cancer Foundation in Western Australia. It is a website that I think any woman who has any concerns about gynaecological health or diseases or who needs information to support another woman should visit. It is full of innovative, fun ways of supporting people but also has some down-to-earth, sometimes confronting information that people need to know.
As with every fun event, there was a showbag—and GAIN did not disappoint. They had showbags with information packages on pap smears and other available tests that we need to know about and also on techniques for relaxation and looking after the whole person and the whole body. In their showbag this year was a little card produced by the Western Australian state government: the Women’s Health Check Card. It has a calendar on it, and it asks you to mark when you have had your check-ups and when they are due, from 2005 to 2012. It folds easily and fits in your wallet so you can always check when you had your last test and when the next test is due.
This is an issue I think everyone should take up. It is only by having open discussions and getting more people involved that we can start to win the fight against diseases like this.
Today in the Senate the Reserve Bank of Australia’s annual report was handed down. It is worth while noting that this report is the last report of the governor, Mr Ian Macfarlane, who is to retire on 17 September, having become governor when this government was elected some 10 years ago. Prior to that, he spent some 20 years in various positions in the Reserve Bank, including as the deputy governor. The report pays a fitting tribute to the Reserve Bank governor:
As Governor of the Reserve Bank in a period in which Australia has enjoyed remarkable economic stability and prosperity in the face of considerable challenges, his record is unsurpassed by any of his international peers.
Under this government, the Reserve Bank received unprecedented independence in monetary decision making. This was a product of the Reserve Bank’s independence being compromised under the previous Labor government. Its decisions were perceived to be under the direction of Treasury. After all, the Treasurer of this country at the time, Mr Paul Keating, boasted that he had the governor of the Reserve Bank in his pocket, so naturally the markets took it that the governor’s decisions were not independent but rather politically tainted at times. This reflected poorly on our economic credibility and our rating suffered accordingly.
The government’s determination to create an independent Reserve Bank was further propelled in our first term by the fiscal mess we inherited. The government’s finances were a mess. In 1996 we were left with a record $96 billion debt and a $10 billion budget deficit which was covered up at the time—that is, the markets and the Australian people were led to believe that the budget was in surplus. Therefore, one of this government’s Treasurer’s first acts was to introduce a Charter of Budget Honesty to restore the integrity of the government’s reporting. In short, the Australian people would not be misled as to the state of the accounts again. The charter spells out the state of the government’s finances in the most transparent of fashions and requires regular reporting of government finances, not just on a government’s whim. To ensure the independence of the Reserve Bank in 1996 the Treasurer and the governor jointly signed the statement on the conduct of monetary policy which confirmed the Reserve Bank’s independence in making monetary policy and endorsed the bank’s inflation target. Twice a year the Reserve Bank publishes a separate financial stability review which contains its assessment of the state of the financial system.
With these foundation stones in financial responsibility laid in the first term of this government, we were able to set about, at a hectic pace, fixing the present and reforming for the future. In our first term a debt reduction regime was put in place by disciplined surplus budgets and with the sale of government assets. Moreover, we locked in structural reform badly needed to modernise our economy—reforms like the 1996 industrial relations reforms, which were the catalyst to the waterfront reforms. Equally significant were the tax reforms of 1998—in particular the introduction of the GST, a revenue flow that today finances every state budget. We have not stopped reforming from our first term to our fourth term and we have been fortunate to have had Ian Macfarlane throughout this period as our Reserve Bank governor.
It is worthy to note that, in our first term, it was not long before the economy faced its very first test, with the Asian financial crisis. Had we not implemented those early reforms in a hurry, we could not have ridden out that crisis as well as we did, whilst our neighbours fell into recession. It was no accident but good financial management that led the OECD recently to refer to Australia as the ‘wonder economy’.
However, in the words of the Prime Minister, economic reform and management are an ever-receding horizon, and we must keep running towards that horizon. That is something I wish the state governments around Australia would take into account in the management of their own economies. Even with the bucket loads of GST they receive from the federal government, firstly, they have not reduced their major state taxes; secondly, they have run their budgets into deficit; and, thirdly, they have increased state debt. This concern was pointed out by the outgoing Governor of the Reserve Bank when he signalled to the states the danger of their lax fiscal policy—in particular, their growing move towards deficit budgets—and said that it would create upward pressure on interest rates. I quote what the governor said in the Australian:
I have been lucky—for most of my time, fiscal policy has consisted of small surpluses.
So the movement in the government account has not been big enough to be important in the consideration of monetary policy.
It might become an issue because the states are now part of the equation.
What he was referring to is that, collectively, the states and territories are forecasting fiscal deficits of almost $5 billion in 2006-07, compared to a surplus of $1.2 billion in 2005-06 and a $4 billion surplus in 2004-05. So it is quite obvious. You can see, typically, the trend of Labor governments cascading into deficit budgets. In addition, the states—in particular, my state of Victoria—are budgeting for a significant increase in borrowings. The state governments’ net debt is forecast to rise by about $43 billion between 2005-06 and 2009-10. Again, you can see the typical form of Labor governments falling into deficit budgets and high borrowings.
In fact, the greatest danger to the Australian economy today with regard to rising inflation and interest rates is the poor management of the state budgets. Again, I quote from an extensive interview with the outgoing Governor Ian Macfarlane which appeared in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 12 August. It said:
The Reserve Bank expressed concern in its statement on monetary policy last week that the burst of state government spending on infrastructure was stimulating inflation.
Mr Macfarlane said yesterday that the return of states to deficit spending was an issue that could affect monetary policy in future, with the bank using interest rate rises to contain inflation.
He said the Government’s fiscal policy had not been an issue for the bank in his time as governor, which ends next month when he hands over to deputy Glenn Stevens. “The movement in the government account has not been big enough to be important in the consideration of monetary policy,” he said. But he warned that “it might become an issue because the states are now part of the equation”.
In contrast, through good and strong economic management and by setting a direction from our very first term and our very first budget in 1996, the government has been able to return the dividends to the Australian people by way of tax cuts every year since 2000. While I am focusing on the Governor of the Reserve Bank Ian Macfarlane, who still has a few days to go, I will set the record straight on how the media grossly misquoted him on the government’s last set of tax cuts, which, in the judgement of this government, were reasonable and affordable. He was reported as saying that those tax cuts somehow put pressure on monetary policy. It was grabbed by the media with both hands, and by the opposition, as having some input to current interest rate rises, to which Ian Macfarlane responded, ‘I have been shamelessly misquoted.’ That is no surprise. He was referring to the more extreme attempts at greater tax cuts, which he called crazy ideas; rather, the government’s tax cuts in the last budget were reasonable, balanced and, most of all, affordable.
The state governments’ poorly managed budgets and high tax regimes to feed their wasteful spending are having a direct cost effect on businesses, land values and housing affordability. The Reserve Bank Governor this week had something to say about housing affordability. He made it clear that costs other than interest rates have more to do with housing affordability. In an ongoing conversation, he said:
That is caused more than 100 per cent by the fact that house prices have gone up, not because of interest rates going up. Interest rates are lower than they were 10 years ago and are obviously lower than they were 15 years ago.
… … …
The story is all about house prices. The story is not about interest rates.
Of course, he would be referring to the litany of state taxes, or part thereof—land taxes and stamp duty—particularly in my state of Victoria, where the land tax take has increased by more than 100 per cent and the stamp duty take has increased by more than 145 per cent. It was not easy for the government to make the hard decisions that were necessary in our first term and are necessary now. Sometimes, initially they are not popular. They require leadership at the top and conviction right through the whole government. But they are decisions that have to be made, and the economic rewards come and, ultimately, so do the political rewards.
Today, after 10 years in government, we can point to the good management of this government in tandem with the Reserve Bank governor and his board and their independent decisions and judgements on the economy. However, if the Australian economy is to maintain its strong growth, it is incumbent upon state governments to pull their weight and not be the weak links in the economy.
Of all the ways in which the Howard government has betrayed the better interests of this country, few are nastier than the corrupting nepotism with which it has manipulated senior appointments to the boards of Commonwealth statutory authorities. The Howard government has ruthlessly stacked many of these boards with political cronies and hacks. The main qualification is not merit; it is political empathy and a willingness to toe the government’s line. The public interest in the efficient and proper working of statutory authorities that have been specifically established to operate with significant degrees of independence from ministers has been subverted by this government’s determination to exercise direct or indirect control.
This is a program of jobs for the boys and girls that is unprecedented in the history of the Federation, and we are all the poorer for it. In few places has it been worse than the ABC, an organisation in which independence from political influence is critical. Here, the elevation of the self-proud, right-wing political warriors Janet Albrechtsen, Ron Brunton and Keith Windschuttle is particularly odious. But there is more to object to than mere political partisanship in the case of this unholy trinity. Prior to their appointments, they all distinguished themselves by anti-ABC campaigns that went well beyond mere criticism and betrayed a sourpuss dislike for the organisation, a dislike bordering on contempt. For example, last year Mr Windschuttle said that he thought the ABC should be commercialised in order to break what he thought was its ‘Marxist culture’—whatever that might mean. Such views sit ill with the responsibilities of members of the ABC board, as set out in the enabling legislation of the ABC. But, of course, there is more. Apart from their strong partisan politics and their extrovert antipathy towards the ABC, this trio has had no apparent previous experience in the administration of large organisations. So that is three strikes against them—an unfortunate trifecta in more ways than one.
But the ABC is just the tip of a dirty iceberg. The politicisation of statutory appointments under the Howard government has become widespread, and it stretches well beyond the ABC. Take, for example, Professor Flint’s time on the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the disastrous appointment of Mr Gerard to the board of the Reserve Bank. As Pamela Williams wrote in the Australian Financial Review in 2004: ‘This is Howard’s empire, and the men and women appointed to positions of power and influence across the country form a conservative river as deep as it is wide.’
Things have not improved in the last couple of years; they have got worse. Still, the government has largely got away with it. That is because the Howard government has cloaked the procedures for making senior appointments in the utmost secrecy. Still, the Prime Minister makes the extraordinary claim that his is the most accountable government in Australia’s history. We all know, to the contrary, what the government’s record on the appointment of statutory officers shows. It shows that the Prime Minister is not interested in accountability and proper public administration. Rather, he is interested in what he can get away with.
What can and should be done by a government prepared to put the national interest ahead of its partisan desire to maintain control by stacking its administrative agencies with political proxies capable of continuing to advance its interests long after electors have given it the thumbs down? Some clues are to be found in a recent paper by Professor Meredith Edwards of the University of Canberra entitled Appointments to public sector boards in Australia: a comparative assessment. In the paper, Professor Edwards, who has been a deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, provides an outline of developments in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, where, she says:
… governments have recently felt the need to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the political processes around public sector appointments.
Among other things, Professor Edwards considers the response of the government of the United Kingdom to various reports of that country’s Committee on Standards in Public Life. What a mountain of work such a committee would have in Australia as a result of the various injuries the Howard government has visited upon ordinary decency and honesty in public affairs. Perhaps some of this could be outsourced to the United Kingdom committee to take up any possible slack in its own work schedule.
As a result of her survey, Professor Edwards concludes:
... in terms of public board appointment processes, there is an anomaly as Australia clearly lags comparator countries.
That is to say, not only are the Howard government’s habits crook; they are worse than those in other countries that we would usually judge ourselves against. In the United Kingdom, Professor Edwards reports, some of the findings of the Committee on Standards in Public Life led to the creation of a Commissioner for Public Appointments. The commissioner monitors, regulates and oversees senior appointments processes for positions akin to those on statutory authority boards in Australia.
Shortly after its establishment, the commissioner’s office promulgated a number of principles to govern ministerial appointments to public sector boards. Professor Edwards summarises these: ministers remain ultimately responsible for making all appointments; all appointments should be based on merit and equal opportunity; no appointment should be made without it being scrutinised by a panel independent of the ministers and their departments; members of public boards must be committed to public service values and principles; there should be openness and transparency in the processes for making appointments; and the appointment process should be appropriate for the nature of the posts being filled. As a consequence, Professor Edwards says, the system in the UK:
... requires appointments to be advertised and a shortlist to be compiled by a panel that includes or is overseen by an independent assessor. While the final decision on appointment still lies with the relevant minister, the processes that have been established reduce the scope for cronyism by increasing the probability that such decisions will be publicly exposed.
Of course, public exposure is not enough in itself. The Howard government’s appalling record on appointments is forever being exposed, and the standards of public life are further degraded. I acknowledge that few seem to care about this—but they should. Political patronage is no way to see that citizens get the best from their agencies of government.
In 2005 a further report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that the system introduced in the 1990s was working relatively well but there were significant weaknesses, including ministerial intervention, in the assessment processes and problems associated with conflicts of interest. Despite these weaknesses, Professor Edwards says:
... the UK appointment system has provided a framework for change that is generating more robust and transparent processes. It deserves closer attention by the Australian Government ... as it offers a means of enhancing accountability and rigour in public processes which could assist in improving the performance of, and building confidence in, government institutions.
Here, then, is an opportunity for the Howard government to do something unmotivated by the usual gamut of base political instincts. It is a chance for it to show a bit of genuine leadership. Sure, it might mean sacrificing the present scope for political patronage, but a broadly applicable system that would enhance the prospects of merit appointments through the use of open and accountable methods, and so promote the better working of its agencies, surely has something going for it.
In some cases, vacancies in statutory positions are now advertised and ministers are provided with merit based advice on who should be appointed. This happens, for example, with positions on primary industry statutory authorities—a legacy of John Kerin, when he was the Minister for Primary Industries in the Hawke government. Unfortunately, such open processes are not generally used for positions where independence is more critical—like the ABC. So here is a chance for the government to put merit and the better working of government agencies ahead of the temptations to reward the political faithful, a chance to do the country as a whole a favour. It would not take much. It would be a good start if, firstly, all vacancies on statutory authority boards could be advertised, unless there were compelling reasons for not doing so—that is to say, the present limited arrangements could be broadened; second, applicants could be considered by an advisory panel, independent of ministers’ departments, including the claims the minister wished to have assessed; third, ministers or the cabinet remained responsible for final decisions on appointees, after receiving advice from the advisory panel; and, fourth, if an appointee was not included on a list of candidates who were assessed as suitable, the relevant minister could explain why such a selection had been made.
Why should this be too much to ask? The present arrangements are just not good enough. They lag far behind those of the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. We deserve a system that will better minimise the appointment of the unsuitable, like Professor Flint and Mr Gerard, and those who undermine confidence in the much-needed independence of authorities, like Ms Albrechtson and Messrs Brunton and Windschuttle at the ABC. There might not be many votes in this, but we have come to a pretty pass if that is to be the only basis upon which governments are to act. I urge the government to turn from its present lamentable habits and give us a scheme for the appointment of public officials that is worthy of the importance of the role of those public officials.
The following government documents were tabled:
Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC)—Statement of corporate intent 2006-07.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Corporate plan 2006-07 to 2008-09.
Crimes Act 1914—Authorisations for the acquisition and use of assumed identities for 2005-06—Australian Federal Police.
Defence Housing Authority—Statement of corporate intent 2006-07.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Implementation of the recommendations of the Palmer report of the inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau—12 month progress report, dated September 2006.
Housing Assistance Act 1996—Report for 2004-05 on the operation of the 2003 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.
Migration Act 1958—Reports for the period 1 March to 30 June 2006—
Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days.
Section 440A—Conduct of Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) reviews not completed within 90 days.
Reserve Bank of Australia—Report for 2005-06.
Witness Protection Act 1994—Report for 2005-06 on the operation of the National Witness Protection Program.
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]
Australian Research Council Act—Special Research Initiatives—Variation to Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2006 [F2006L02926]*.
Christmas Island Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 22 March to 1 September 2006.
Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—Airworthiness Directives—Part 105—
AD/A320/178 Amdt 1—Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator [F2006L02989]*.
AD/A320/192 Amdt 1—Main Fuel Pump System—Airworthiness Limitations and Modifications [F2006L02988]*.
AD/B737/24 Amdt 1—Forward Galley Doorway Upper Corners [F2006L02990]*.
AD/B737/29 Amdt 2—Window Belt Skin Doubler [F2006L02991]*.
AD/TBM 700/45 Amdt 1—Nose Landing Gear Actuator Hinge Pin [F2006L03003]*.
Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 22 March to 1 September 2006.
Corporations Act—ASIC Class Order [CO 06/709] [F2006L02985]*.
Customs Act—Tariff Concession Orders—
0609665 [F2006L03021]*.
0609942 [F2006L03023]*.
0609945 [F2006L03024]*.
0609980 [F2006L03025]*.
0610217 [F2006L03027]*.
0610218 [F2006L03028]*.
0610262 [F2006L03029]*.
Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations—
2006/47—Navy completion bonus and health support allowance.
2006/48—Senior officer completion bonus, aide-de-camp and hardship allowances—amendment.
2006/49—Overseas conditions of service—post indexes.
2006/50—Overseas conditions of service—amendment.
Federal Court of Australia Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 234—Federal Court of Australia Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02968]*.
Federal Magistrates Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 235—Federal Magistrates Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L02967]*.
Fisheries Administration Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 233—Fisheries (Administration) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02996]*.
Higher Education Support Act—
Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 10 of 2006)—Insearch Ltd [F2006L02997]*.
Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 11 of 2006)—International College of Management, Sydney Pty. Limited as Trustee for the ICTHM Trust [F2006L03002]*.
List of maximum amounts of all grants paid in 2006 for each purpose of grant specified in section 41-10 [F2006L02978]*.
Lands Acquisition Act—Statements describing property acquired by agreement for specified public purposes under sections—
40.
125.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 237—Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02998]*.
Payment Systems (Regulation) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 239—Payment Systems (Regulation) Regulations 2006 [F2006L02980]*.
Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation Report 06/06.
Telecommunications Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 236—Telecommunications Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02964]*.
Governor-General’s Proclamations—Commencement of Provisions of Acts
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2006—Schedule 1—11 September 2006 [F2006L02947]*.
Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Act 2006—Schedule 1—1 October 2006 [F2006L02999]*.
* Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument.