Debate resumed from 23 June 2005, on motion by Senator Patterson:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, welcome back for the new year. It will be an interesting one, I am sure. I want to address the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006], which makes disparate amendments to four maritime acts. I want to highlight some of the amendments and comment on how this bill addresses, or more accurately fails to address, deficiencies in the Howard government’s stewardship of Australian maritime policy.

Firstly, the bill amends the Lighthouses Act 1911 to provide for maintenance of maritime navigational aids and higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage. Labor generally welcomes these amendments.

The bill makes a significant number of amendments to the Navigation Act 1912, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to the safety of ships. Among other matters, these amendments revise pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, revise provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements, revise provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allowing for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs, provide immunity from civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers, remove the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit and increase penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. This act implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. The bill amends the act to require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a noxious liquid substances plan, to provide that security paid by the owner or master in the event of a pollution breach must cover the maximum amount of penalties that may be payable by all members of the crew, and to clarify that documents that may be served on a ship’s agent include documents that may be served on the owner, the master or any member of the crew.

The Shipping Registration Act facilitates the registration of ships in Australia, grants ships Australian nationality and provides for the registration of mortgages over ships. The bill amends the act to provide that mortgages can be removed from the register at the request of the mortgagee, to allow the minister to delegate his or her powers under the act to a staff member of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and to provide for access to the Australian Register of Ships by electronic means.

Section 286 of the Navigation Act provides that the minister for transport may issue a single voyage permit or a continuing voyage permit to an unlicensed ship to engage in trade between Australian ports. A permit may only be issued if there is no licensed ship available or the service provided by the licensed ships is inadequate and the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. As already noted, the bill amends the act to remove the requirement for the minister to give six months notice of the intention to cancel a continuing voyage permit.

On 18 July last year, the Australian newspaper revealed details of an internal audit of the Howard government’s administration of coastal shipping under the Navigation Act. The audit of the administration was obtained under freedom of information laws by the newspaper’s freedom of information editor, Mr Michael McKinnon. The report is one of many documents obtained by the Australian despite fierce resistance from the Howard government. I have had some experience with the Howard government’s approach to freedom of information. Let me tell the Senate that, as far as the government is concerned, all the public are entitled to expect is freedom from information, and even then they should think themselves lucky. It is little surprise that the government resisted the release of this particular audit report.

This compliance review of coastal shipping permits was conducted by KPMG for the Department of Transport and Regional Services. It was completed in October 2004. It delivered a damning assessment of the government’s performance, finding that the administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels is a shambles. The audit revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits is granted without a signed application form, which according to KPMG means:

... the department risks granting a permit based on a bogus or unauthorised application.

The audit revealed: that inadequate financial controls mean that the government may be unaware of fraud, errors or other irregularities related to the licence and permit applications; that poor record keeping means data relating to more than one in five approved licence and permit applications is ‘absent or incorrect’; and that existing regulations are, in KPMG’s words, ‘out of date’ and ‘do not reflect current operating procedures’.

As if that was not enough, the report also found that the Department of Transport and Regional Services has breached the Navigation (Coasting Trade) Regulations 1937 and ministerial guidelines on the regulation of coastal shipping by failing to establish if a licensed ship is available before issuing a permit. Single and continuous voyage permits are only supposed to be issued when a licensed ship is unavailable and the minister for transport is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Unlicensed foreign ships granted single or continuous voyage permits are not required to pay their crew Australian wages when trading on the Australian coast—that is, foreign ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels, can undercut Australian wages and conditions when plying their trade on the Australian coast. And the Howard government has presided over the near destruction of the Australian coastal trading fleet while giving a leg-up to foreign shipping that uses substandard vessels and engages cheap foreign labour.

According to documents attributed to a spokesperson for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Truss, the government has addressed the deficiencies identified in the audit report. It took the release of the report under freedom of information for Mr Truss to publicly acknowledge the shambolic state of coastal shipping administration. The department expanded on Mr Truss’s concession in the form of an answer to a question on notice from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee was told:

The recommendations have been addressed through changes in procedures for processing permits and licences, changes in records management practices and as part of a broader rewrite of the Coasting Trade Regulations. These amendments are close to finalisation.

We have not seen those rewritten regulations yet. But Mr Truss’s comments at the AusIntermodal 2005 conference in Sydney last year foreshadow a rewrite that has little relationship with the recommendations of the KPMG audit. You will not find Mr Truss’s remarks on his ministerial website, I might say, but a Lloyd’s List report published on 25 July reveals that Mr Truss believes that too much regulation exists in relation to coastal shipping. On the face of it, Mr Truss’s solution to his department’s administrative failings is the abolition of the few rules that regulate coastal trading activity—that is, Mr Truss cannot be sure he has got the capacity to enforce the rules, including his own ministerial guidelines, so he is thinking about getting rid of them altogether.

It is important to understand why the government’s failure to properly administer the cabotage system matters. First, it is clear from the findings of the audit that the lax administration of foreign ships on the Australian coastal trade places Australia at a heightened risk of maritime terrorists. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has been issuing permits in response to unsigned applications which, in the restrained words of the audit report, means it has risked granting a permit based on a ‘bogus or unauthorised application’.

It is no secret that the international shipping industry has a dark side. During the course of its inquiry into the introduction of maritime security identification cards, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee received this evidence:

International Maritime Security agencies accept that Osama Bin Laden owns a fleet of cargo ships all flagged under the ‘Flag of Convenience’ system. This system evades taxes, and most other regulated costs but more importantly provides the beneficial owner with the most effective veil of anonymity available in international trade.

There is no more effective veil of anonymity than a blank application form. In fact, I can hardly think of a way to make Australia more vulnerable to terrorist attack than by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port without the inconvenience of lodging a signed permit form. It may come as a surprise to the minister for transport that foreign ships authorised by his government to trade on our coast carry things more explosive than navy beans; they carry things such as oil, chemicals, LPG and other goods, including ammonium nitrate.

The latest Australian maritime transport compendium commissioned by the Australian Shipowners Association contains a telling statistical tale about the growing use of foreign ships to transport goods around Australian ports. It reveals that since 1991-92 the number of permits issued to foreign ships has grown by over 325 per cent. In 2003-04, the last full year subject to the report, foreign vessels were permitted to carry 27.5 per cent of the Australian interstate and intrastate sea freight trade—up from eight per cent when Labor last held office. Foreign seafarers are not subject to the same rules that apply to Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are foreign seafarers denied Australian pay and working conditions; they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers.

The soon to be implemented maritime security identification card regime does not impose additional requirements on foreign seafarers. Under the delayed maritime security identification card regime, truck drivers delivering goods to our ports will be subject to much more stringent background and identity checking than foreign seafarers.

Labor says the carriage of high-consequence dangerous goods like ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now if Australia is serious about minimising the threat of terrorism. It should be clear to everyone that the safest way to transport high-consequence dangerous goods around Australia is on Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women subject to appropriate security screening. Secure ships and secure seafarers mean better protection for the Australian community. It is bad enough that the Howard government has facilitated an explosion in the number of continuous voyage permits issued for foreign ships. It is worse that the government is leaving Australia vulnerable because it will not or cannot regulate coastal trade according to the rules.

It is not just a matter of supporting Australian shippers and Australian maritime workers and it is not just a matter of keeping dangerous substances like ammonium nitrate out of the hands of terrorists; the increasing carriage of sea freight around our coast by foreign ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels subject to minimal regulation, puts our natural environment at risk. It is a matter of good luck, not good governance, that Australia has not seen a major environmental disaster associated with the carriage of chemical or petroleum products by one of the ships of shame. The Howard government’s neglect of shipping policy threatens our economy, it threatens our national security and it threatens our natural environment. It is time the Howard government ceased abusing the cabotage system. It should be enforcing the rules, not talking about walking away from them altogether.

There are other things the government should do to secure our maritime borders. The first concerns the enforcement of crew and manifest advance reporting. The government has a 48-hour rule in place—meaning that the manifest and the crew should be notified 48 hours before the vessel docks in Australian ports—but it does not adequately enforce that rule. Ships are turning up alongside wharves that have not lodged their crew and manifest details—in other words, no part of the 48-hour rule is being enforced. It is past time that this rule was enforced.

Labor calls on Mr Truss to do more than his predecessor, Mr Anderson, and fix the known deficiencies in maritime security. He could do worse than start by reading the report of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entitled Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. This report was arrogantly dismissed by Mr Anderson, but Mr Truss has an opportunity to do better. He needs to do better because, as noted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

A terrorist attack on Australia’s maritime interests is a credible scenario. We have high dependence on shipping and seaborne trade, and are adjacent to a region where terrorist groups have maritime capabilities.

In light of this, it is a shame that an attack on cabotage was among Mr Truss’s first comments on the transport portfolio. It was not a good start by Mr Truss and, unfortunately, his performance has not improved.

I conclude by starting the debate for this year by moving a second reading amendment standing in my name. I urge the Senate to give it support. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but the Senate condemns the Government for:

             (a)    failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security, Australian jobs and the natural environment;

             (b)    failing to ensure adequate security in relation to the shipping of dangerous goods and hazardous material, including explosives precursors such as ammonium nitrate; and

             (c)    failing to ensure ships comply with the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival”.

I rise to speak in support of the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006]. Normally, this would involve a fairly unnotable series of processes that every good government would move to enact. We have consulted widely through a whole range of processes with the national bodies: AMSA, the AMSA Advisory Board, the National Maritime Safety Council and a whole range of other bodies. As a result of that, we have moved amendments, as the member opposite identified, to the Lighthouses Act 1911 and the Navigation Act 1912. These acts are regularly revised—certainly, by this government—and they have been looked at before. It is interesting to note that on previous occasions those opposite have taken the opportunity to attempt to debunk issues that are associated only in the vaguest possible way with what I think are some very credible pieces of legislation.

We are making changes in, I think, some pretty significant areas. Obviously, the Navigation Act of 1912, which is a principal Commonwealth act, provides very sensible exemptions to operations like the military. We would have seen in recent events, both in our humanitarian aid and in providing transportation for troops, that the military have to not only own but lease vessels and ensure that those vessels have an exemption. The special survey requirements and standards—very rigorous standards, I might add—provided by military organisations should stand. It is a very sensible amendment to the Navigation Act.

We also have to amend the act in a way that ensures that the survey reports issued by classification societies are now authorised by AMSA. This reflects the greater movement in shipping around the world and the great work that this government has done in ensuring that Australia is exposed as a tourist destination. I have to commend the leader of the National Party, Senator Boswell, for the wonderful work he has done in your home state of Queensland, Senator O’Brien, with regard to superyachts. They operate under a class system which ensures that, once again, the government allows the seamless transfers of men and shipping around the country, because we are about looking after the economy.

I note, Senator O’Brien, that you seemed fairly fixated on single voyage permits.

Continuously.

Indeed. If you are into this particular area, you would be well aware that it is under constant review. You are probably not aware, Senator, but effectively those opposite in this place have prevented the implementation of what is widely known in the industry as the 500-tonne rule. If those opposite decided to play the game on single voyage permits, particularly for domestic operators who were forced by your reluctance to accept some principal changes to this act like the 500-tonne rule, we would all be a lot better off.

You said the single voyage permit is somehow used to take jobs away from Australian workers. I have listened to a lot of rhetoric from the MUA over the years. You paint a picture of these ships that come over here as being substandard. Let me tell you: first of all, they come here on a SOLAS voyage. They have to meet MARPOL regulations. They are inspected by AMSA. It is easy to paint a picture of the rust bucket, things falling apart.

Let me tell you, Senator O’Brien, it is misleading to stand in this place and say, ‘We’re allowing these flag of convenience vessels. They’re going to sink here. They’re a risk to shipping.’ You need to be very careful about saying that because we are supposed to be educating the public about what we are doing in this place. You have to be very careful about those sorts of things, remembering that these are not flag of convenience vessels; these are vessels that are unlicensed in Australia. The implications that they are unregulated and unsafe are unsustainable.

Why do we use these vessels? We use these vessels principally, as you pointed out, Senator O’Brien, when a licensed Australian vessel is unavailable for that voyage. You will say, ‘Oh no, they’re available.’ But there is an implication regarding time. And what you did not say about the audit—and I understand that the audit was done at a time when there was a transfer to the transport office—is that the recommendations were acted on very quickly. And that is why we do audits. This government says, ‘We need to be transparent.’ It says, ‘We will not just say that we know what we are doing. We will give it to another organisation, we will take some recommendations and we will act on them.’ We acted on them quickly, because that is what this government is about—providing good government and ensuring that essential transportation processes are covered effectively by regulation to ensure that continued free trade, which is an essential part of keeping the economy going, is maintained.

It is not maintained in the way that Senator O’Brien has suggested—that we just let this sort of stuff fly through and that we have boats all over the place. Senator O’Brien, I suspect I have spent an awful lot more time at sea than you. I pass these vessels with quite some degree of safety and I can assure you that I am not concerned about things like being bumped by a ship in the middle of the night. If we look at history over the last 10 years—that is right, Senator, over the time this government has been in power—we find that one of the most notable events was that of the Sea Star. Whilst it is not covered in the amendments in the legislation being debated, immediately after that happened we went out and fixed it. And we continue to do that.

The whole presentation you made here today, Senator, on what I think is pretty uncontroversial legislation was pretty tragic. It is tragic because it misleads people. We are talking about maritime security; suddenly we are talking about terrorist threats and this country not taking them seriously. It is a pathetic misrepresentation of the facts. This country continues to assess terrorist threats. We are talking about precursors to explosives. In another life I was an explosives expert and I can tell you now, Senator, that ammonium nitrate in bulk is not used for explosives. It is actually used to grow things. I would have thought that you might have learnt about that in your previous shadow portfolio. People in Australia depend on ammonium nitrate to arrive in a timely fashion. If there is a gap in the transportation system and it cannot arrive, jobs and industry are not created and agriculture does not continue. In that event we need to act quickly, which we have done. We need to provide to the minister some flexibility to ensure that the minister can continue to provide some sort of licensing regime that comes under the scrutiny of AMSA.

AMSA is seen by the International Maritime Organisation to have the leading role regarding such legislation, particularly regarding the flexibility of the legislation, in that it continues to allow trade and ensures that the country, which I am very proud to say is Australia, is completely free of terrorist threats. On any complete assessment we are leading the world, Senator, in ensuring that we have maritime border security. If anybody questions that, perhaps they should saunter down to a wharf, because any movement around the seafront today would indicate immediately that there has been substantial change. Wherever you go on the waterfront now—thanks to this government’s hard work, continuous review and continuous introspection about getting it right—you will find substantive changes made over the last two years. They have accelerated and, now, if you are around the wharf, as you have indicated you have been, Senator O’Brien, you will see there are processes in place to identify exactly who you are and what you are doing. The implication that we allow ships in with people on them who we do not know, that we just let them in on boats that we have absolutely no control over, is an absolute furphy and is misleading.

In summing up, the senator opposite said that this is an issue of national security. As I have indicated, the amendments to both the Lighthouses Act and the Navigation Act are quite simple. They are not difficult concepts to grasp. It seems that those opposite have started off the year with a bit of a roar. This is the big issue: we have amendments to the Lighthouses Act which are ensuring that the penalties go up for stealing food out of the tin at the bottom of a lighthouse, so that when someone goes there who is in trouble, they can have a drink and a bit to eat while they wait to be rescued. That is serious stuff. But no—it is terrorism! It is not in the national interest to ensure we provide flexibility and a legislative framework so that essential items for our farmers and our industry right across this country are provided in a timely fashion.

With our wonderful economy, I know why you look sad, Senator O’Brien. It is because with such an economy and with a government that has its finger on the pulse, it must be pretty tragic sitting over there. But I think it is pretty sad when you come into this place and show your frustration in this manner. This is a place in which there are people listening. They want to be educated. They want a few facts on the plate. He says, ‘Jobs are at risk.’ Without these legislative changes, of course they will be at risk because they would be under the original system in which agricultural industries in this country were at the mercy of the MUA and other unions. Now we have a process whereby they have woken up to themselves around the waterfront. We have had waterfront reforms and now we are doing well and the economy is booming. So do not talk to me, Senator O’Brien, about this being about jobs.

The last thing I would like to ask is: did you hear Senator O’Brien talking about the environment? We have substantive legislative changes that involve the identification of a threat at sea. It is not only about a damaged ship; it may be a ship, for example, that has come from a port that we suspect has black-striped mussels. The changes now give us the capacity to act in our national interests to ensure that we can detain that ship, to ensure that it leaves and to ensure that it does not leave some little present behind that we do not want. This is significant. It is sad that you did not bring that up and share it with the parliament today, Senator O’Brien.

This is not a particularly controversial piece of legislation. We are not proposing any particularly radical changes. We are just tightening up shipping safety and pollution prevention regimes. I would hope that those on the other side who have seen this as an opportunity to effectively mislead Australia about what we are really doing would see fit to support this legislation. It is really important legislation in a whole range of ways. But most substantially, it allows for continued transportation in a system that effectively continues the mantra of the Australian government—seamless transfers of ships and men around Australia. It allows us to have a transportation system that ensures that those people who rely on it can get up every day and not have to worry about the ship not being there to transport their agricultural product or whatever other products they might be carrying. At the end of the day, those on the other side should support this legislation. I hope they do. I certainly hope that their performance in regard to non-controversial legislation in this place improves.

Senator Scullion, listening to your speech my first thought was, ‘What a courageous senator Senator O’Brien is to come into the chamber and debate someone like you, who clearly has such an in-depth knowledge of the bill and such life experience.’ As you mentioned, probably no-one on this side of the parliament has been to sea more than you. We learnt about your views on explosives, with which you mentioned some experience. As your excellent speech went on—Senator O’Brien, I did not think I would ever have to say this in the chamber—I thought, ‘Senator O’Brien has shown some courage in standing up and trying to debate Senator Scullion on these issues.’ It was more than a TKO, in a metaphorical sense. I think that all of us have learnt a lot from Senator Scullion, and the Senate is indebted to him for the excellent contribution that he has made.

I will make a few brief comments. My understanding is that the Labor Party will be supporting the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006]. Some people may not have appreciated that from listening to the debate, but my understanding is that the Labor Party will be supporting the bill as it stands. In recent years, industry and other stakeholders have pressed for changes in a number of areas of shipping regulation to address what they see as outdated safety and environmental protection legislation. I think it is true to say that this bill addresses those concerns. In amending four acts, the bill will strengthen the legislative regime surrounding shipping safety and maritime environment protection and will modernise and enhance penalties for safety and environmental offences.

A number of amendments were specifically referred to in the second reading speech and during the debate on the bill. The only amendments which I will mention now are the new subsections 386A(2) and (3) to be inserted into the Navigation Act. These subsections set out offences analogous to dangerous driving offences. There will be an offence under the new subsections only under exceptional circumstances. Such an offence will occur if a seafarer is under the influence of alcohol or another drug, is in breach of his or her duty or operates a ship in a dangerous manner and as a result there is actual or likely death or injury to a person or damage to a ship. There are graduated maximum offences depending on the consequences of the action, with the highest offence applying where a person dies.

In proposing these amendments the government wishes to reassure all concerned that there is no intention that there be criminalisation of seafarers’ actions such as has happened in some other countries where, I am advised, on a number of occasions crew members have been arrested and held in prison following incidents which have resulted in accidental pollution. In the government’s view it is not appropriate that seafarers be held in prison in such circumstances, and this government does not support actions where seafarers are treated unfairly. The bill continues this government’s efforts to update the legislation which governs shipping. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that it can have a speedy passage, because my understanding is that it has very widespread support.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

Debate resumed from 7 November 2005, on motion by Senator Colbeck:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005.

Senator Kemp interjecting—

Senator Scullion was not here for the third reading of the previous piece of legislation; I thought he supported it but I did not actually see him in the chamber and putting his hand up to support it. As Labor supported the last piece of legislation we will be supporting this bill. Mr Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman, is Labor’s resources spokesman and has carriage of this legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill establishes the mandatory energy efficiency opportunities assessments announced in the government’s energy white paper entitled Securing Australia’s energy future, which I think was launched in June 2004. Labor supports the passage of this bill, but I will move a second reading amendment highlighting the government’s failure to address the urgent need for greater energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, not just business. There is a pressing need for Australia to generate greater efficiency in our transport fuel use, and this means having a national focus on the long neglected policy area of public transport. Congestion in our cities means hundreds of thousands of Australians waste time—and fuel—just getting to work each day.

Electricity system meltdown due to the escalating use of household airconditioning is now a predictable element of an Australian summer. We cannot pretend any longer that non-business energy use does not matter, nor can we pretend that our energy supplies are infinite or that greenhouse implications can be ignored. We have to become smarter about our domestic and transport energy consumption. These important policy challenges are not addressed in this bill.

The bill also fails to take up the challenge of diversifying our energy supplies. This government is still not doing enough to clean up coal and fast-track the development and uptake of alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies. The government has also missed an opportunity to take up the bipartisan recommendations of the House of Representatives environment committee report on sustainable cities, many of which deal with energy efficiency initiatives that would make our cities more liveable.

Labor welcome the government’s initiatives to address energy efficiency opportunities in the business sector. However, we say they do not go far enough. The bill requires large energy-using businesses to register with the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; it requires these businesses to undertake an assessment of energy efficiency opportunities; and it requires them to report publicly on the outcomes of the assessments.

The bill is targeted at large energy users to address a perceived energy efficiency gap. In Australia, the level of energy efficiency—and the rate of improvement over the past three decades—is lower than in major industrialised countries. While the relatively lower price of energy in Australia may explain some of the difference, Australia has a lower rate of energy efficiency improvement than countries with similar energy prices, such as Canada and the United States.

Of course, some technically feasible energy efficiency improvements are not yet economically viable, but there is evidence that many businesses do not take up energy efficiency opportunities that are cost-effective. This is known as the energy efficiency gap. The decision to introduce a mandatory assessment measure is aimed at addressing this gap and responds to the fact that previous government programs have shown that a significant number of privately cost-effective energy efficiency improvements have been overlooked by the participating firms.

Based on data from the ABS, around 250 companies are likely to be covered by this measure in a range of sectors, including mining, petroleum and general services. While business use accounts for over 80 per cent of Australia’s primary energy consumption, a relatively small number of businesses are responsible for the majority of this energy use. ABS data suggests that the 250 largest business energy users account for around 60 per cent of all energy used by business. While satisfied with the bill’s initial proposed business coverage, Labor urges this government to consider extending the program, in the longer term, to cover a larger proportion of emitters.

With rapidly rising energy costs, increasing concern about the implications of climate change and the extraordinary expansion of economic activity in China and India, it has never been more important for us to conserve our energy resources. The best way we can do this is by getting the most out of our of existing resources, and that means using better technology and developing cleaner energy sources. Total energy consumption for Australia is about 3,000 petajoules per annum which costs about $A40 billion. Industrial energy consumption is about 40 per cent, representing an energy bill of about $A16 billion a year. While some Australian businesses have embraced efficient energy use and are reaping the benefits, much more can be achieved.

In relation to business energy use, experience in Australia and overseas suggests that energy bill savings in the order of 10 to 15 per cent can be achieved over five years. Savings of up to $2 billion annually could be achieved, with obvious benefits for business and our national economy. There are economic and environmental imperatives driving the push for more efficient energy use by business. Labor support that push, but we do lament the failure of the government to address greater efficiency in relation to other sectors of the economy.

I conclude by moving the second reading amendment standing in my name and commending it to the Senate:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but the Senate:

             (a)    calls on the Government to introduce energy efficiency to all sectors of the community, including transport and housing, as well as business;

             (b)    condemns the Government for failing to support the alternative fuel and renewable energy industries; and

             (c)    condemns the Government for not adopting the bipartisan recommendations put forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in its report on Sustainable Cities”.

I rise today to support the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 but, as Senator O’Brien has just indicated, the bill does not go nearly far enough.

It is quite clear that around the world, for the last 20 years, the growth in energy demand has been escalating way beyond the rate of capacity to produce energy to meet that demand. So the debate seems to have always centred on, ‘How do we provide more energy? How do we build more power stations?’ Hence, we have had the debate about extending the life of Hazelwood, we have been talking about the nuclear debate and so on. The very poor cousin in all this debate has been demand-side management. I can remember in Tasmania, less than a decade ago, Hydro Tasmania was advertising extensively on television encouraging people to use more power.

It is very hard to imagine any energy utility doing that these days, because they are struggling to be able to produce the power that people need, and the more they produce the more people want to use energy. You only have to look at the number of appliances, particularly in the residential context, to see just how many more appliances people are using. The tragedy is that most people do not realise that energy efficiency is the cheapest and the quickest way of reducing energy use and therefore it also cuts down on greenhouse gas emissions—an imperative that is absolutely urgent for the world to respond to.

With regard to the average consumer’s understanding, most people do not know that when they use their electrical appliance in the course of the day it makes a difference to how much they are charged. If people understood that, they would consider putting on their washing machine at 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock at night and not during peak hour, for example. That is why the announcement in today’s media about the introduction of smart meters to cut power use is a good initiative. I support that and am delighted to see it. It was part of the Greens’ policy platform for the 2004 federal election that smart meters be rolled out across the country so that consumers can have a look and see how much power they are using at what cost and adjust their activities accordingly. Just the simple introduction of those meters will be hugely educational for people right across Australia. They will be able to see how much power they are using and how they can reduce their power bills, take away the stress on the existing energy grid and structure and, at the same time, delay the need for the introduction of new energy facilities.

The problem we currently have is that, with all the talk of the greenhouse gas abatement schemes, we still have state governments saying that they want to commit to a national emissions trading scheme and that they want the federal government to go further—and I applaud them for doing that—but at the same time approving brand new coal-fired power stations when we should absolutely not be approving any new coal-fired power stations in this country. In fact, we should be implementing energy efficiency to a degree that means that we can avoid and delay building new infrastructure until we can get to the new generation technology post coal-fired power stations. This is a critical debate for Australia—that is, that we get involved in a massive national effort on energy efficiency.

On the consumer side of things, again, I do not think that most people realise the extent of the active stand-by consumption of power. I do not think that most people realise, when they buy almost all appliances—whether it is heating, airconditioning, TVs, DVD players et cetera—that they are going on active stand-by consumption of power. People are absorbing all that power when they have their television turned off, and I do not think that they are aware of just how inefficient many of those appliances are in terms of energy use. If the government were serious, it would have a proactive strategy to reduce stand-by power consumption in the next few years. In fact, I think we need to establish a one-watt minimum stand-by standard and prohibit the production and import of products that exceed that limit because, unless we have such a standard, we are going to continue to have appliances being sold in Australia that have a high active stand-by consumption of power. I understand that some appliances can use up to 30 watts while they are on stand-by. This is just a ridiculous waste of power. If people knew how much power they were using when their appliances are effectively turned off with the remote, I think we would have a change in behaviour patterns. I am looking forward to the roll-out of smart meters, and I certainly hope that the Commonwealth is going to match the states or make them available so that they can be taken up across Australia. I think that the increased energy literacy that will result from it will be important.

To return to this particular bill, the problem I see with it is that, once again, it asks business to look at energy efficiency but then does not go any further. All that this bill requires is for big business—and we are talking about the huge energy users here; we are not talking about medium- or small-scale businesses—to conduct an audit of energy efficiency measures that might be taken and then publish the report. One of the first lost opportunities of this bill is that it simply goes for those industries that are using 0.5 petajoules, whereas, in my view, there should be a sliding scale over the next few years to bring that down to industries that use, say, 0.2 petajoules so that we incorporate more and more businesses across Australia into the scheme. As I said, all this bill does is ask business to conduct an audit of energy efficiency measures that might be taken and then publish the report. Then it stops. There is no requirement for those businesses to implement the findings of the report. In other words, we have yet another example of the government pandering to big business and saying, ‘Do your energy efficiency audit, publish it and then consider whether you might do something about it,’ whereas the best way to encourage innovation and competition and not hold back progressive businesses is to require that those audits be implemented, provided there is a reasonable payback period. If an industry gets a report to say it can make X amount of savings over four years, it is a no-brainer for it not to implement that. Because of short-termism and externality issues, companies will choose to go and spend money on other things and not necessarily implement the energy efficiency recommendations and reports. In my view, we need to ensure that this legislation not only requires a report but also requires that the findings of the energy efficiency audit be implemented over a period of time where there is a reasonable payback period to that business.

I also think there needs to be a national energy efficiency target. I know that the Productivity Commission has come out and rejected the target. Frankly, I think that is because it is taking the old economic view that anything beyond the production of energy, if you like, is free as an externality. For example, with regard to the use of fossil fuels, it does not take into account the greenhouse gas emission costs to society of producing all that power. It has a view that there is not an economic case to save energy. It should go and talk to all the state governments who are now challenged with having to either put in new supply or somehow achieve energy efficiency. I think the Productivity Commission needs to look at sustainable development, not just development at any cost. Ecologically sustainable development requires that the externalities of the production of energy, as in greenhouse gas emissions for a start, need to be internalised into the cost. I wonder if the Productivity Commission would draw the same conclusions—that it is not economical to save energy—if we had a price on carbon in this country, which is the next thing we should be doing in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

What I am suggesting is that we need a national energy efficiency target and then a strategy to achieve that target which not only goes across big business, as this bill does, but takes into account transport and residential sectors as well. We need to have a national plan. Interestingly, when the first task force for the National Framework for Energy Efficiency looked at this, they explored the idea of a target but they dropped it, and I would not mind betting that they dropped it because they were under some pressure in terms of government policy. But, if you look at what the Europeans are doing, you will find that in fact national efficiency targets are incorporated in greenhouse gas mitigation plans in most countries. The European Commission, for example, asked member states to save nine per cent of the energy supplied to end users in the nine years following the directive’s entry into force, and some of the states in Europe set themselves even higher targets. They are saying that the European target could save Europe 20 per cent in energy consumption by 2020 and slash its energy bill by €60 billion every year.

There are some pretty amazing figures also being talked about in Australia in terms of what could be achieved if we went for a serious energy efficiency policy with a national energy efficiency target. We know that Australia has a very poor record on energy efficiency. For example, energy efficiency improvements in Australia have occurred much more slowly than in other countries—just a three per cent improvement between 1973-74 and 2000-01. In other words, Australia’s energy efficiency has improved at less than half the rate of other countries. That is appalling when you consider what we could achieve: the National Framework for Energy Efficiency issues paper in 2003 said that an investment of $12.4 billion over four years would yield energy savings valued at $26.9 billion, create 9,000 jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nine per cent.

So why won’t the government engage energy efficiency and demand-side management just as readily as they seem to be embracing the coal industry’s pleas for ongoing support for the fossil fuel industry? It is an absolute no-brainer for Australia in a world which is saying, ‘We want to reduce greenhouse gases, we want to get away from fossil fuels, we want to move to a low-carbon economy.’ For Australia to be redirecting its major scientific effort at CSIRO away from renewable energy, away from next-generation energy, to one that is almost entirely focused on the coal industry is like saying, in a world that wants to give up smoking, that Australia is going to focus its competitive advantage on healthier cigarettes. It is complete nonsense.

What I am saying is that, whilst I support the government’s initiative in putting forward an Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill that brings in large energy users and requires them to do an audit, it lacks any accountability because it goes along with the government’s priorities—that is, it is all voluntary. It says to business, ‘We’d like you to do this, but we don’t expect you to have any accountability.’ When you ask the government, ‘Where is the accountability?’ the government’s response is, ‘Oh well, these reports will be made publicly available and there will be public pressure for these companies to act in the right way.’ Well, there has been public pressure on Australia businesses to act on greenhouse gas emissions and energy guzzling for the last 20 years and they have taken no notice whatsoever. Look at that appalling performance by Australia—half the rate of equivalent countries. We now have a situation where, over the last few years, even countries like the Philippines, Peru, Colombia and Brazil have all moved on energy efficiency laws which have some level of compulsory requirement, but Australia is still behind the eight ball.

Let us see this bill, which I am happy to support, as the beginning. But I would like to hear from the minister an explanation of why the government is so against requiring companies to implement the findings of these energy efficiency audits within a time frame that has a reasonable payback period for business. That is why I will be moving a number of amendments when we get to the committee stage. The first amendment would incorporate a national energy efficiency target and recommends setting up a task force to work out how that target would be implemented. Secondly, the target would work on a sliding scale to make sure that it captured not only big business but also businesses that produced 0.2 petajoules. My amendments also require the setting-up of an energy savings fund. The purposes of that fund are:

(a)

to encourage energy savings; …

(b)

to address peak demand for energy; …

(c)

to stimulate investment in innovative energy savings measures; …

(d)

to increase public awareness and acceptance of the importance of energy savings measures; …

(e)

to encourage cost effective energy savings measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of energy; and

(f)

to provide funding for contributions made by the Commonwealth for the purposes of national energy regulation.

So this fund is not about providing money for the development of renewable energy, although that is important and needs to be part of other government programs. This energy savings fund would provide the finance to allow the government to move forward on some of these energy efficiency measures—because what I think we will see with this bill is a degree of window-dressing and yet more corporate reports at the end of each financial year saying: ‘Aren’t we good? We’ve just done our energy efficiency audit. We’ve identified these possible cost savings, but in the scheme of things we are going to move on this expansion’—or that expansion, or whatever else—‘and not necessarily implement those.’

The government cannot say how it is measuring these energy efficiencies. What is the target? What does the government expect to achieve through this bill from big business—what level of savings over what period of time? That is where I think this bill totally fails, and that is why I will be putting before the Committee of the Whole a series of amendments which would put in place a national energy efficiency target, a mechanism for implementing that target, an energy savings fund and a requirement for business to implement the findings of any of their reports on energy efficiency.

I would like to speak to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005. This is a bill which introduces a program under which Australia’s largest industrial energy users will be required to assess their capacity to make improvements in energy efficiency. They will also be required to report publicly on the assessments that have been made. As the Senate has already heard, the opposition broadly supports the bill—as far as it goes. Labor have moved a second reading amendment to highlight our concerns about the inadequate response of the government in regard to these important policy questions.

Let me enlarge on our concerns and the reasons we have moved this second reading amendment. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee produced a bipartisan report on this piece of legislation. Both opposition and government senators have broadly supported the intentions that underlie this particular bill, which of course will oblige Australia’s largest energy users in industry to focus their minds on energy conservation. Senator O’Brien has already quoted the figures that business and industry use over 80 per cent of the energy consumed in Australia and that 250 of our largest industry users account for 60 per cent of the total business use, which is of course almost half of all primary energy use in the country. Anything that will require large energy users to look at ways to reduce consumption and improve efficiency is a laudable policy goal.

If companies act on the findings of their energy audits, this program will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in turn to a reduction in Australia’s contribution to global warming. The program, if successful, will contribute significantly to a change in the mind-sets of key industry decision makers. It will lift energy conservation up the priority list in regard to business investment and business planning. Where the program leads to efforts to reduce energy consumption, it will also benefit companies’ bottom line, adding to efficiency and, in my judgment, to profitability. These are of course outcomes which, in policy terms, are desirable.

What the Senate legislation committee also found, however, was that the bill had some very serious shortcomings. The overriding concern of Labor is simply the fact that this bill does not go anywhere near far enough. For a start, it does not require industry to do anything to actually cut its energy use. All that affected companies will have to do to comply with the new regime is to make periodic assessments of their potential to make reductions and improve efficiencies. They do not actually have to act on the information that they gather as a result of these assessments. Of course, we hope that sensible organisations would so act and obviously take benefit from the decisions that would flow. We hope that that is in fact what they would do. But they do not have to as a result of this legislation. This is in stark contrast to the regime in place in Victoria, for instance, where clear requirements for reduction in consumption are actually specified.

To put it simply, this bill lacks teeth. It does not go far enough in terms of its scope. The bill will do nothing to address the urgent need to cut energy consumption and, with it, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in the domestic sector. It does not address energy use in Australian homes. Nor does this bill deal with the carbon emissions caused by private cars—the greenhouse gases we belch out into the atmosphere as we drive to work, to school and to shopping centres.

The figures here are again very clear. More than half—almost 53 per cent—of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia are caused by the generation of electricity. These big power stations produce a lot of smoke. Almost 30 per cent of electricity generated by the power stations is actually for domestic use. Transport is another big emitter of carbon dioxide: some 24 per cent of the total. According to an ABS survey back in 2004, over 65 per cent of total kilometres travelled by Australian motor vehicles were by private motor vehicles—mostly by cars. How we use energy in our homes and how we use it in terms of transport, particularly in our cars, has a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

As shadow minister for housing and urban development, these issues are obviously matters of deep concern to me and fall within my bailiwick. The discussion paper that the Labor Party issued last December, ‘Australia’s future cities’, was part of a process the Labor Party embarked on for a public debate about a range of policy options that are open to us as a nation in regard to urban development and housing. The aim of the paper was to stimulate debate and to invite contributions and comments from stakeholders in regard to cities policy.

Since most of us—around 80 per cent of us—live in our 40 largest cities, the stakeholders in this debate are in fact all Australians who participate in those cities. The stakeholders here are Australians as workers, as students, as retirees and as people engaged in recreational and cultural pursuits. They are all of us in our daily lives. For those who live in rural areas, there is plenty at stake as well. People from the bush visit the city or town. They benefit directly from the goods that cities produce. They also directly benefit from good cities policy by a national government. Poor policies on energy conservation in the city, for example, lead to climate change that may well affect country areas and country people even more starkly than those in towns. The cost of inefficient energy use is borne by everybody. In one way or another, we all contribute to the overall level of energy consumption in Australia.

All Australians have a big stake in getting these policies right. And the 80 per cent of us who live in urban areas can and should contribute to getting it right. Given the statistics I have quoted about domestic energy use, it matters how efficiently our homes use electricity, gas and water. Our everyday decisions about transport are equally important. What we have as alternatives to private cars—public transport, bike paths and safe and pleasant walking environments—are matters that contribute as well. They are therefore fundamental issues in regard to urban development.

Labor’s discussion paper looks at all of these things. It is about how we live in cities and ensure that they are pleasant, liveable places while also meeting our economic, environmental and social objectives. It is about urban development and renewal as potent symbols of commitment to social justice and to improving the nation’s economic and environmental health. Therefore, this is a policy that touches daily lives.

Because Labor are well aware of these facts and we have also been very aware that everyone has a keen interest in policies such as this, we do not set out to try to tell people where they should live or in what houses they should live; nor are we about lecturing people about cars versus public transport. We are about finding policy options that will encourage Australians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. This means looking at policies that will improve housing affordability while at the same time giving priority to energy efficient design. It also means paying attention to the broader issues of urban development and renewal. We are talking about policies that will enable people to make the choice about walking, riding or catching a bus or train rather than driving their motor car. That means increasing flexibility of Commonwealth transport funding, including AusLink. The bottom line here is that Labor believe that the Commonwealth has a role in urban development. Under the Howard government we have seen nothing but 10 years of neglect in housing and urban policies.

Let me talk about this housing question particularly. Under the Howard government, housing costs have spiralled out of control. That is fine if you already own a house but it is bad news for young people and for families trying to enter the housing market. It is also bad news for those whose incomes do not allow them to aspire to owning their own homes at all and for people who rely upon the private rental market. A Labor government would want to ensure that the increased costs of housing are contained by seeking to enforce appropriate energy conservation measures in the building of houses and the use of energy by householders.

I recall that just last December the Australian Building Codes Board made a decision to enhance the existing provisions of the Building Code of Australia to include a nominal five-star energy performance level of housing, a decision which has led to some controversy. Some say that the requirement to meet the five-star standard will increase the cost of new houses by many thousands of dollars. Others say that the costs are, in fact, minimal. I support the decision for the inclusion of the five-star standard in the BCA as a sensible means of promoting national consistency in building regulations while recognising that it is not mandatory for states to adopt the performance level. Queensland has already indicated it will not do so. It is appropriate to understand that we require different housing conditions for different parts of Australia. It is no good trying to build a particular housing estate to meet the conditions of Melbourne or Hobart when we are talking about the tropics. Quite clearly, different standards are required. I believe that the buildings codes allow for that.  However, it is the situation that some states are now seeking to withdraw from that nationally consistent approach.

The Howard government’s response to the ABCB’s decision, by contrast, could only fairly be described as absolutely hysterical. Despite the fact that the Commonwealth government had representation at the meeting and, I understand, voted for the decisions to establish the five-star rating system, Ministers Macdonald, Campbell and Macfarlane issued a joint press statement predicting disaster for the timber industry and even the demise of the Queenslander house. Their hysteria flies sharply in the face of the facts. The standard, in fact, allows for a wide range of construction types. It is also already in place in four states and territories, including in my own state of Victoria, where it is seen as promoting sensible energy conservation. In so doing, the five-star performance levels add to the sustainability and liveability of our cities and towns.

At the same time, households benefit from savings on gas and electricity bills because passive heating and cooling reduce their energy costs. The fact is that electricity generation is responsible for more than half of all carbon emissions in Australia. As I have indicated, that fact alone ought to be something that the government is looking at. Our home airconditioning is a significant factor in domestic electricity use. If domestic electricity consumption falls, everyone stands to benefit. So the question of housing design and urban development becomes critical in these debates.

I turn now to transport, where we can see a similar argument applies. While road transport represents a lower level in terms of the total amount of energy consumed—I understand some 28 per cent of energy use—the majority of kilometres travelled on our roads each year—65 per cent, as I said—is accounted for by trips in private cars. Any sensible policy approach to urban planning and development must tackle this question by encouraging people to use alternative transport modes—not by forcing people out of their cars but by offering them real choices in their modes of transportation. A national government must take a lead on these questions. While several states and territories have made quite laudable gains in all of these areas in recent years, often assisted by local government initiatives, much needs to be done.

As highlighted by the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage titled Sustainable Cities, many new outer suburbs in our largest cities are almost entirely without public transport. The cost of public transport infrastructure is substantial. The bipartisan approach taken in that House of Representatives committee report concluded that a national government should be helping to meet the cost of that infrastructure. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth boost its funding for public transport, particularly light and heavy rail, in Australia’s major cities. It also recommended that the Commonwealth provide funding specifically for public transport infrastructure for new developments on the fringes of our cities.

Unlike the Howard government, Labor remains committed to this type of nation building activity—to building a better future for communities. This means not only public transport but also bike paths, safe and pleasant streets to walk along, and concerted efforts to renew and improve intermodal connections. It also means giving councils greater scope to use Commonwealth transport funding in ways that best suit their communities, rather than restricting the use of this funding to building and maintaining roads.

The Howard government has, in the 10 years of its regime in this country, had a consistent policy of neglect when it comes to the question of housing policy. It has no minister; it has no commitment to national urban development; it has failed to develop any kind of coordinated approach—which is so urgently needed—to the rejuvenation of our cities; and it has not sought to protect the environment but has in fact promoted a series of other policy goals which seem, to me, to actually undermine the policy objectives of environmental sustainability.

My argument is this: we need policies that will lead to cities and towns that are socially just, inclusive and liveable and that encourage and support participation in social, economic, educational and cultural activity. We also need policies that provide for economically efficient cities, which would benefit both businesses and citizens in a globally competitive national economy. Further, we need to ensure that there are policies which are designed to encourage diversity in terms of urban planning and architecture which would cater for the varying and changing needs of all citizens. We also need to be environmentally sustainable in the approach that we take on these questions.

As I said at the outset, this bill does not go anywhere near addressing those questions, and our second reading amendment highlights that fact. This bill concentrates on industrial energy use when a significant proportion of energy use and carbon gas emissions originate in the home and from the use of private transport. I acknowledge that industry and businesses are significant energy users and are, of course, very important with regard to carbon gas emissions. This bill is aimed very largely at those very big consumers of energy and, to that extent, it is a step in the right direction. But what we need is a more fundamental reorientation in the culture and the political priorities of this country and of those companies. If that were to occur, it would be highly desirable.

This is a small, totally inadequate step by a very tired and out-of-touch government. The aims of this bill should be supported, but the bill lacks teeth. This government has not done nearly enough to ensure the sustainability of these policy objectives. When it comes to big business, this government lacks the courage to stand up and insist that big business should come to the party, come to the table, and ensure that the whole community benefits from energy efficiency.

What we have here is like the government’s approach to bank charges. ATM fees are going through the roof, and yet the Treasurer, Mr Costello, refuses to move to regulate the banks in those sorts of areas. We have a Minister for Health and Ageing who, in the face of a crisis in childhood obesity, says no to regulation of children’s television advertisements for junk foods. He is not doing anything to encourage kids to improve their health, because he does not want to take on the vested interests—which would be required to do that.

The government will not ask the big companies the hard questions or move to ensure that they do more than assess their energy use. It will not make sure that they actually do make the changes that are required for them to improve this country. I understand that companies that are good corporate citizens will act, but I say that the government ought to provide much more regulation and incentive to ensure that that occurs.

The Labor Party want to do all in our power to ensure that our kids live in a world where they will be able to enjoy healthy, happy and prosperous lives. Labor are proud of our nation-building tradition; Australia desperately needs that nation building now. This bill is yet another example of how the Howard government has failed to look to the future. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 and to put on the record the Democrats’ great disappointment in this bill. We will support it, but we are distressed at the government’s complete lack of action in addressing global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. We welcome the program introduced in this bill, but we are dismayed that business will not be required to implement any measure that is identified in their assessment reports.

This is a lost opportunity, but it is more than that. It is also, I would argue, negligent on the part of the government with regard to climate change. Climate change is the most urgent problem faced by this country—or, in fact, the world. It is bigger than terrorism, it is bigger than Iran’s nuclear weapons program and it is bigger than solving world poverty. There is no more serious problem facing the world at the present time, and I do not think that is being sensationalist; I think that is the reality.

Climate change has been accepted as a reality by the world’s leading politicians and scientists. Just last week, a book entitled Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change was released. It argues that the consensus view among amongst scientists is that large-scale and irreversible disruption to the planet’s climate system will occur if temperatures rise by more than three degrees Celsius above the current level. By all accounts, we are heading well and truly in that direction. In the book’s foreword, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, adds his voice to the warning. He states:

It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought.

…            …            …

It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.

Given the hour of the day, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—On 24 January this year, the Prime Minister announced a number of changes to the ministry following the resignations of the Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Kay Patterson, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, the Hon. Warren Entsch MP. The swearing-in of the new ministry took place on 27 January 2006. For the information of honourable senators, I table an updated list of the full ministry with some minor changes to the Senate representation to that published in the list dated 30 January 2006.

by leave—I congratulate Senator Minchin on his appointment as Leader of the Government in the Senate, and I also congratulate Senator Coonan on her appointment as deputy Senate leader. I note that they are appointments, not elections, that it is a mandate from heaven rather than from their colleagues, as is more traditionally the process, and certainly the one that applies in the ALP. I also congratulate Senator Santoro on his appointment to the ministry, and note that I will try and get his name right in future.

by leave—I would like to announce that Senator Scullion has been appointed our whip.

Could I ask whether Senator Scullion is a financial member of the National Party, and whether they are then able to do that?

I think that is something you should ask the senator.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I hope this is not going to be the precedent for 2006. Come to order.

My question is directed to Senator Minchin in his capacity representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of reports of US government action as early as 2003 regarding potential kickbacks paid to the Iraqi regime? Was the Australian government informed of the US General Accounting Office finding in 2003 that kickbacks had been paid to the Iraqi regime through the oil for food program? Was the Australian government informed of the US Defense Contract Audit Agency finding that the AWB wheat contracts had been inflated by kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein regime? Did any US security agency convey these concerns about the rorted oil for food program to their corresponding security agency in Australia?

Can I say at the outset that it is not unexpected to have some questions on the issue of AWB, and it is proper. I say as a true democrat that it is appropriate for the opposition to ask questions about major public policy issues, but in this instance we are dealing with a very significant issue that is the subject of a full royal commission. Therefore, we need to be very careful not to compromise the conduct of that royal commission. The royal commissioner has made it clear that he regards his terms of reference as sufficiently wide to enable him to inquire into all matters pertaining to the oil for food program and AWB’s involvement in that program and give him full authority to investigate all the issues highlighted in the Volcker report. Insofar as the specifics of US attention being drawn to the possibility of the rorting of the oil for food program, yes, of course there were allegations being made in that period—2000 to 2003—about the oil for food program, which I remind the Senate was conducted by the UN.

In the case of allegations raised by and emanating from the United States, the context was a situation where Australia as a major wheat exporter faced its most serious and aggressive competition from the United States, and obviously that was a factor in the Australian government’s attitude to concerns being raised from that end. Nevertheless, it is the case that, whenever concerns were raised over this period by the United States, agencies from the United States or in one case Canada, appropriate inquiries were made by the relevant government authorities of AWB and of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. In no case—particularly, I am informed, in 2003—was any substantive evidence presented to support the allegations that were being made. In all cases, AWB strenuously denied any involvement in any kickbacks or rorting of the oil for food program.

I am satisfied and the government is satisfied that certainly in the lead-up to and in this period—2000 to 2004—all allegations of this kind were investigated. They were never really supported by any evidence. Indeed, the Volcker report says that there was no evidence before it of any culpability on the part of AWB. But, in the light of what the report said, we undertook—and I think quite properly—to set up the Cole royal commission with wide terms of reference to determine whether there was any breach of Australian law by AWB, and the commissioner has made clear that his terms of reference allow him to question government officials and inquire into the state of knowledge of DFAT. With great respect to the opposition, I think we should respect the Cole inquiry and await the findings of the Cole inquiry before we start the witch-hunt.

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note that the royal commission is not a full royal commission and that a whole range of areas are excluded from that inquiry. In terms of the minister’s answer, he referred to actions that were taken regarding these UN and US warnings. What action was taken? Was it more than just asking AWB if it was true, because that seemed to be the only indication in his answer for the action taken? More importantly, can the minister also inform the Senate if any ONA analysis and reporting took place on the corruption of the UN oil for food program?

Just on the first note that Senator Evans made, I refer him to the statement by Commissioner Cole in which he makes it clear that he sees no need for an extension of his terms of reference with regard to the government’s role at this point, but he will come to us if he feels that is necessary and, of course, we would consider it. We have already granted his request to extend his terms of reference to enable him to investigate BHP’s role in this whole matter.

In relation to the matter specifically raised in his question, I note that in June 2003 the US Wheat Associates made allegations but provided absolutely no evidence. The US General Accounting Office issued reports in May 2002 and April 2004 about problems with the oil for food program conducted by the UN but did not name AWB in its report. We are satisfied that the government took all appropriate action in relation to allegations made in that period.

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Minchin, representing the Treasurer. Will the minister inform the Senate of the results of the most recent update on the Australian economy and the government’s financial position?

I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for her very good question—a most appropriate question. Since the Senate rose last December, the government has released its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook for 2005-06, and that document confirms the ongoing strength of the Australian economy and the very healthy position of the government’s budget. Our underlying cash surplus was revised upwards to $11.5 billion, or 1.1 per cent of GDP, and we are now on track to eliminate altogether our general government net debt in the next six months. So the $96 billion debt we inherited from Labor will very shortly be completely eliminated.

While we project a budget surplus of around one per cent of GDP, the US is going to run a deficit of 4.2 per cent of GDP, the UK will run a deficit of three per cent of GDP and Japan, six per cent of GDP. While we are set to eliminate net debt entirely, the US has an accumulated debt of 47 per cent of GDP and the OECD economies have an average of 47½ per cent. It would have been very easy for Australia to have gone down the path that so many Western nations have gone down. In their last four years, Labor trebled our level of general government debt. It has been the decisions of the coalition government that will lead to the complete elimination of debt in the course of this financial year.

Of course it is not just the government’s budget that is in a strong position; the average family budget has benefited from 10 years of strong economic management. Unemployment is down to just 5.1 per cent. Real wages have grown by 15 per cent since we came to office. Income taxes have been cut, boosting real disposable income. Workers on average ordinary-time earnings are $7,000 a year better off in real after-tax income than they were when we can to office. Mortgage interest rates remain low.

The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook indicates that the economic performance that we have shown can be maintained into the future, but we have to continue to manage this economy as prudently as has been the case. The independent Treasury forecast is for real GDP growth of three per cent for this financial year, which if achieved will represent the 15th consecutive year of economic expansion in this country. Headline inflation is forecast to rise slightly. The Treasury expects underlying inflation to remain within the target two to three per cent.

Maintaining this very strong run of economic success does require us to maintain our efforts to reform the Australian economy. That is what the difficult debate that we had last year about improving our workplace relations arrangements was all about: improving the performance of our economy. That is why we are reforming the welfare system. It is the reason the Prime Minister will sit down with the eight state premiers and chief ministers on Friday to further a national reform agenda for infrastructure, energy, transport, training and the delivery of health services. It is why we have introduced legislation to create the Future Fund.

On this side of the chamber, we are very focused on getting on with the business of delivering real benefits to Australian families and Australian workers. Those opposite really do have a clear choice to make as we now enter the year before an election year. We wish they would join us in developing really good policy for this country to improve the lot of Australian families and the lot of Australian workers, and not engage in the cheap political stunts which are so much their want and which have kept them in opposition for 10 years.

My question is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Justice and Customs. Can the minister confirm his answer to my question on notice of 21 November 2005 that AUSTRAC was not aware of any suspicious transactions involving the Australian Wheat Board and that the agency had received no request to investigate all international transactions involving AWB? Given that AWB was making large payments directly to a Jordanian trucking company linked to Saddam Hussein, why weren’t these payments picked up by AUSTRAC? Can the minister indicate whether he has now demanded that AUSTRAC undertake a full search of all its records on the Australian Wheat Board? If so, what have been the results of that search? If not, why not?

As Senator Ludwig would know, AUSTRAC only looks at payments made within Australia and payments coming into Australia and out of Australia. If a payment is made overseas, AUSTRAC does not have the jurisdiction to bring that under its scrutiny. If Senator Ludwig is asking why AUSTRAC did not have those payments under its purview, that is the answer to that.

In relation to whether there has been any investigation of this matter, there is an inquiry, as Senator Minchin has pointed out, which is ongoing and it is inappropriate to comment on that. That is an inquiry to which I think all should pay respect and acknowledge that it is due process which is ongoing. I am not going to pre-empt its outcome in any way. In relation to the Cole inquiry, I respect that process, and we will be watching very closely the recommendations which come from that inquiry.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has avoided answering the question. Can the minister say, and give an absolute guarantee, that he has checked with AUSTRAC and that he has checked whether or not any payments have been made in or out of this country by AWB or affiliated companies? Or is it the case that that just demonstrates another complete and utter failing by this government in checking its records and that it is playing the old blind trick again? Isn’t AUSTRAC, as the minister knows, supposed to be one of Australia’s prime mechanisms in the fight against both money laundering and terrorist financing and shouldn’t it at least be consulted or checked?

The government has taken note of a request from Mr Cole, who is conducting this inquiry, in relation to the terms of reference. If there is any request from Mr Cole in relation to the terms of reference and assistance that is required then the government will consider that, but it is not up to me or any other minister to pre-empt this inquiry by conducting an investigation which is the subject of inquiry by Mr Cole. As I say, for the record, he has requested a variation to the terms of reference, and that has been done in accordance with a specific request made by Mr Cole. If Mr Cole wants further assistance that we are able to provide in any way then we will provide it.

My question is to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister inform the Senate how the Australian government is ensuring that older Australians have access to more aged care places? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

I thank Senator Adams for her question. Let me say that, in terms of the relevance of this answer, Senator Adams is very well qualified to ask questions in relation to ageing issues and aged care. In fact, honourable senators—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I just want to complement Senator Adams for the interest that she takes in aged care matters, because she was in fact the rural member of the Western Australian Aged Care Planning Advisory Committee for seven years, prior to entering the Senate, which certainly makes her better qualified than any of you to ask questions. I say thank you to Senator Adams for that.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I simply say: thank you to those opposite for their welcome today! The Howard government has been committed and remains committed to providing a world-class system of aged care which is high quality, affordable and accessible and which meets the need and choices of older Australians. In answering the question, I would like to compare the performance of this government with the performance of the previous government. In 1996, honourable senators will be interested to know, there were only 141,282 operational places, but as of June 2005—talking about performance and talking about the contrast in policies—there were 193,753.

Opposition senators interjecting—

They don’t want to listen, Mr President, just like they have never wanted to listen to anything that I have said, because the truth hurts. Today, over 161,000 older Australians can sleep in residential care beds, compared to less than 137,000 when you on the other side were in charge. Today there are 32,500 older Australians receiving care through community aged care packages compared to just 4,400 aged care places when the Labor Party was in power—an increase of 700 per cent.

Senator McLucas interjecting—

I hear Senator McLucas interjecting. Senator McLucas complains that somehow the residential ratio has decreased under our particular administration. Let me again inform Senator McLucas that what this government continues to do is to provide an increasing number of non-residential places—and you know that. But Senator McLucas is again devoid of a policy—3,000 days since the 1996 election without any real policy on the Labor side. You just keep on harping and carping.

You have never looked at aged care in your life!

I will take the interjection from Senator McLucas in terms of aged care experience.

Senator, if I were you, I would ignore the interjection and address your remarks to the chair. I know there is a lot of noise on my left—I ask them to come to order.

Mr President, I am outlining the achievements of the government. The operational ratio has increased from 93 places for 1,000 people aged 70 years or over in 1996 to 102.4 places this year. This clearly indicates that this government is achieving high-quality delivery in residential aged care.

My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs. Can the minister confirm that the report of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering found that Australia met none of the nine best-practice standards to combat terrorist financing while the AWB kickbacks scandal was occurring? Is this the reason why AWB’s corrupt payments to Saddam Hussein were not detected by Australian authorities? Can the minister confirm that, because of his negligence in failing to tighten Australia’s counter-terrorist financing laws to ensure compliance with the financial action task force best-practice standards, Australian companies have been able to channel funds to foreign dictators?

Senator O’Brien fails to advise the Senate that the report and evaluation by the financial actions task force found that, in relation to the nine special recommendations on terrorist financing, Australia is largely compliant with special recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In relation to 6 and 8, it said that it was partially compliant—and it said that in relation to 9 as well. So it was saying that Australia had done a great deal in relation to complying with those nine recommendations.

In the recent legislation that we passed we took further action in relation to terrorist financing, which was after the evaluation by the financial action task force. In that report, the financial action task force acknowledged the work that Australia had done. The former director of FinCEN, William Fox, recently acknowledged that AUSTRAC was world’s best practice in a financial intelligence unit. He acknowledged the work that was being done in Australia in combating money laundering, be it in the fight against transnational crime or in relation to terrorism.

Australia has a very proud record internationally. It is a co-founder and co-chair of the Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering. It is also a co-founder of the financial action task force. Australia was one of the first countries to be evaluated under the 40 recommendations and the nine special recommendations, and there are other Western countries now being evaluated. We look forward to seeing what FATF will say in relation to those countries. But what must be borne in mind is that Australia was among the first of the Western countries to be so evaluated.

This gives me an opportunity to advise the Senate of the progress we have made in relation to our anti money laundering regime. We have released an exposure draft of our anti-money-laundering bill, which was done in December last year, and I met with the financial sector in late January this year. They have acknowledged the very constructive approach this government has taken in relation to reforms dealing with anti-money-laundering. In fact, they have acknowledged that we are cognisant of the fact that, whilst we want to have security and measures in place against the financing of transnational crime and terrorism, we do not want to also provide an undue burden on the financial sector of this country which would make Australia uncompetitive in the international market. It is extremely important that, when we do this, we do so by having a balanced approach.

I said that I would welcome this exposure draft being subject to review by a Senate committee. Indeed, it was Senator Murray who raised that issue. I think it is a good suggestion; I think it is one that the Senate would do well to take up. Of course, when the bill is finalised, it will be subject to further scrutiny, and I am confident that in this process we have got the right balance between achieving security for Australia and an approach which accommodates the financial sector of this country in a very practical way.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister advise the Senate whether he considers almost, partly or somewhat meeting only some of the nine financial action task force best practice standards is good enough. Does the minister recall promising, as long ago as 2002, that Australia would update its laws to meet the nine financial action task force best standards? That was four years ago. Are you going to meet them all to counter terrorist financing? Wouldn’t these tougher laws have enabled Australian authorities to detect the AWB’s corrupt payments sooner? Doesn’t this mean that AWB—an Australian company—was able to go on channelling money to a terrorist regime unabated because of the minister’s negligence or, indeed, inaction?

Senator O’Brien fails to recognise yet again that the work on security is always a work in progress. It is always work which you are engaged in to make things better and also to meet emerging threats. This exposure draft which we released happened after the evaluation by the financial action task force. The financial action task force issued its report prior to the exposure draft, and I can tell you that we are confident that this bill will meet the requirements of FATF. But one thing we make very clear is that we are not going to bind up the financial sector of this country so that it remains uncompetitive internationally. We are going to approach this issue, which is a complex one, in a balanced fashion.

Mr President, may I congratulate our new leader, Senator Minchin, on his appointment, and our deputy, Senator Coonan. My question is to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Would the minister update the Senate on the Australian government’s progress and involvement in international climate change initiatives? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

I thank Senator Eggleston for raising what is an incredibly important policy question. I did catch the end, or possibly the middle, of Senator Allison’s most articulate contribution to a debate on energy efficiency measures that the government is bringing into the parliament at the moment, wherein she described this as arguably—and it is certainly an argument that is worth having—one of the most substantial policy challenges facing the globe.

Globally, since industrialisation of mankind occurred in around 1850 until about the year 2000 we have pumped just over a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. It is expected that with no change we will pump about another 2½ trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the next 50 years. This will see the amount of carbon significantly increase and the risk of serious damage to the climate, the risk of serious damage to ecosystems and the risk of damage to mankind and human settlement will become quite substantial. So it does require very high-level, high-quality policy internationally.

Since the parliament last sat, I have been to the United Nations framework convention conference in Montreal, where the world did get together, it did realise that what we have done so far under the Kyoto protocol is simply not good enough and not effective and that a lot more needs to be done. Australia took a positive and proactive role in designing a beyond Kyoto framework that I believe gives great hope to ensure that the foundations of Kyoto will be replaced with something that is far more effective and bring into place a framework and a pathway for action, particularly for developing countries like India and China.

Also since the parliament last sat—and Senator Eggleston’s question goes to this—we hosted the first meeting of the Asia-Pacific clean development and climate change partnership in Sydney in mid-January. It attracted senior cabinet level representation from the United States of America, China, Korea, India and Japan, and we resolved to establish eight new working groups. They cover areas as important as the fast tracking of renewable energy and distributor generation power. That task force will be chaired by the Republic of Korea. It will be co-chaired by Australia. That task force will see, under the Asia-Pacific climate change partnership, substantial new cooperation amongst those economies, including the rapidly growing developed economies of China and India, which are not covered by commitments under Kyoto, for more hard work, more investment and more involvement in new renewable energy technologies and deployment. Equally, the buildings and appliances task force headed by Korea and co-chaired by the United States is trying to roll out the technologies to ensure that we can have a strong economy and strong job security in countries like Australia and, of course, far more efficient buildings.

Senator Eggleston asked about alternative policies. We have seen over the summer period confusion amongst the Labor Party. On the one hand Mr Beazley and others described the Asia-Pacific partnership as just a bit of spin. Mr Beazley’s latest comment was that he would not even sneer at the AP6. They have had no new policy for what is coming up to 10 years in opposition, just the two birds and the parrot saying, ‘Let’s sign Kyoto.’ The only thing to have come out of the Labor Party is Mr Martin Ferguson, a senior opposition frontbencher, imploring the Labor Party to get real on this, to give up its political correctness on this, to stop following the Greens on this issue and to support technological solutions and a fair dinkum approach to climate change—the sort of approach that the coalition has shown leadership on over recent years. (Time expired)

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What representations has the Australian government made to either the Indonesian government or the United Nations in response to the comments in the last fortnight by the special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the prevention of genocide, Juan Mendez, who said that the West Papuan people are at risk of extinction?

I thank Senator Nettle for her question. Obviously this government takes very seriously matters that relate to Papua New Guinea and certainly looks to the UN where appropriate to ensure that actions such as Senator Nettle refers to and the allegations that have been made are not brought to fruition. I will find out from Mr Downer what the representations are in great detail, but I believe that reports that suggest that Mr Downer was persuaded by the Indonesian authorities to take a position in relation to these matters are incorrect.

The matter will be handled by independent decision makers in accordance with Australia’s international and domestic legal obligations in the normal manner. Mr Downer or, in fact, the Prime Minister—I will check which it is—said publicly that he made clear to President Yudhoyono of Indonesia on about 27 January that these cases will be handled by independent decision makers in accordance with Australia’s international and domestic legal obligations. What is important is that the United Nations is able to have a view on this if in fact the matters are made out. But my current information is that, while the Australian Embassy in Jakarta is following up on these reports, we do not have any clear information that there is anything to pursue in relation to comments made by Indonesian ministers.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for agreeing to take that question on notice to Minister Downer. I might note that it was West Papua, not PNG, to which the question related. I thank her also for the comments on the asylum seekers. Could the minister also answer whether the government has done anything in response to the studies released by Sydney University and Yale Law School that the repression of the West Papuans by the Indonesian military may fit within the definition of genocide as stipulated in international law.

I thank Senator Nettle for the supplementary question. As I indicated, the government has no information that those allegations are in fact true, so those inquiries, as far as I understand it, would not be pursued. But it certainly is a matter that I would be prepared to bring to the attention of the minister in the event that there is anything to add to my answer.

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. There have been some claims that the approval of Golden West’s sponsorship applications for new trade skills training visas is a letdown for rural Queenslanders. Minister, will you inform the Senate of the benefits that the new trade skills training visas will provide to Queensland?

I thank Senator Mason for his question. Being a Queensland senator, of course, he maintains a strong interest in things that happen right across the state, not just in the city of Brisbane. This issue of the trade skills training visa is very relevant to rural electorates around Australia. It has two key purposes. The first is to provide skills to businesses that need particular skills that they cannot get in Australia and to communities that need those skills. So the first thing this visa does is bring people in that are happy to do the work that a community and a business needs done.

The second thing that is addressed by this visa is that in some rural or remote areas where an apprenticeship is made up partly of full-time, on-the-job training and partly of training in a course or training institution, classroom based learning, there may not be enough students for a course to be run. The consequence of not having enough students for a course to be run is that a young Australian cannot do the apprenticeship. So the government has introduced a trade skills training visa. In order to get this visa the employer would have to show that they could not get an appropriate Australian to do the job.

Why should we stand in the way of businesses and communities that need skills when there are not enough people locally to fill the course? Why should we not allow companies to have people who come in from overseas to do that course? We have a sponsor in Roma in Queensland on behalf of a number of employers that cannot fill all their apprenticeship positions. Golden West Employment Solutions’ application was approved late last year. I am told they currently employ 413 local trade apprentices. This is not a company that is seeking to undermine Australian employment. Quite the opposite; it is seeking to build Australian employment and to build Australian training. I am told there are 188 vacancies waiting to be filled.

No suitable Australian will miss out on an apprenticeship position because of an overseas apprentice as before they can fill the vacancy an approved regional certifying body, which might be a state or territory government agency or a local government body, has to in fact certify that no Australian apprentice can be found to fill that vacancy. We have a situation where no Australian apprentice can be found so either the business does not grow and the community does not get those services or we bring someone from overseas, and that is what we are doing. The regional certifying bodies can of course ask for evidence of that, and I am sure they will.

This is the point: this government is reforming the immigration system to make it something that brings in the people Australia needs. The opposition understand the need for overseas students in universities and yet they will not let that happen in the trades area. That shows how unprincipled their opposition is. If it is okay to bring in overseas students for universities, why is it not okay for kids who want to do trade training to do that in Australia? When you can answer that question, you will see how fickle and two-faced your particular position is.

My question is directed to Senator Minchin, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the minister aware of the alleged actions of Senator Heffernan in abusing his Senate and coalition colleague Senator Nash at Canberra airport yesterday? Can the minister indicate whether the Prime Minister finds such behaviour to be acceptable? If not, can the minister explain what action has been taken to discipline Senator Heffernan? Given Senator Heffernan’s past record, does the Prime Minister believe that his apology is sufficient or does he agree with The Nationals MP Ms De-Anne Kelly that the actions constitute workplace harassment and should be treated more seriously? Wouldn’t the failure to take more serious action effectively condone Senator Heffernan’s repeated attempts to intimidate fellow coalition senators?

This really does demonstrate what a pathetic opposition we have. They have already run out of questions on what they said was going to be the big killer issue this week. They were going to come in here and really take the government to task on the whole AWB issue. Then Mr Beazley had to wave the white flag very quickly by saying, ‘We’re not going to get any scalps.’ Already, after a few questions, they have given up on AWB. They have taken their question from listening to the six o’clock news on the ABC this morning, which reported, on my information, in quite an exaggerated fashion a conversation that took place between Senator Heffernan and Senator Nash.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! This is a serious question and I ask those on my left to come to order.

I am trying to answer their question, but they are trying to drown me out. They are obviously not interested in the answer. I will try and answer the question if the opposition do not interrupt me. I am not sure that this is an appropriate form of question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister; nevertheless, I can inform Senator Evans that I undertook, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, to speak to both Senator Heffernan and Senator Nash this morning. They have both assured me that they were staggered by the extraordinary media focus upon this issue, that the matter was blown out of all proportion by the ABC and, of course, taken up by the ALP, which knows nothing other than to listen to the ABC for its—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senators on my left, there is far too much noise coming across the chamber. We are trying to hear what the minister has to say.

I have received assurances from both Senator Nash, who believes that she did not feel intimidated at all by Senator Heffernan, and Senator Heffernan, who wished to make it clear that in no terms was he seeking to intimidate Senator Nash. Of course we all know Senator Heffernan is quite a mild, meek and humble fellow, and we do not find him intimidating at all. Senator Nash certainly does not. I can assure the opposition that this coalition remains strong, united and determined to bring good government to this country and to repair the damage caused by 13 years of Labor.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister is dismissive of Senator Heffernan’s behaviour. That probably explains why you were so keen to accept Senator McGauran into the Liberal Party despite his actions recently. What message does it send if the government condones this sort of action? Aren’t Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce right when they say that Senator Heffernan ought to be held accountable for his behaviour? Shouldn’t the government treat this sort of behaviour more seriously rather than trying to dismiss it and to blame the media for the actions of a person who is a repeat offender, who tries to intimidate his colleagues and acts in an inappropriate manner? Surely the government must take some responsibility.

This is an extraordinary question from Senator Evans. He was not present when this alleged conversation took place. He has no idea what was said between the two parties. Both parties, as I have said in this place, have assured us—the government, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—that they had a conversation which was overheard by others but that Senator Nash took no offence and Senator Heffernan meant none. This is a facile question and it is a waste of question time.

I will begin by congratulating Senator Coonan on her appointment as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and will ask her a question in her new capacity representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade. I ask the minister: given the recent AWB case, does the minister now agree that it is time for Australia to introduce a corporate code of conduct to ensure greater regulation of overseas business practices exercised by Australian companies?

Thank you to Senator Stott Despoja for the question. It is not entirely clear from Senator Stott Despoja’s question what kind of regulatory regime she has in mind, or indeed how one would seriously go about introducing a corporate code of conduct in relation to such matters. But insofar as her question, by inference, relates to AWB, let me make it perfectly clear—and this has been said, I think, over the past couple of days—that, in relation to the particular contracts that are sought to be impugned by the opposition, these contracts were certainly not with the government. In fact, they were administered by the United Nations, and AWB was not a party to any contract with the government that might otherwise be the subject of the kind of regulation that Senator Stott Despoja seems to imply should apply.

The important issue in relation to AWB is that there is an inquiry, the Cole inquiry, and the real issue here is that the Cole inquiry can get to the bottom of these allegations. Certainly, on the available evidence to date, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that any minister of the government knew or was involved. Given the fact that the contracts were not with DFAT, with Mr Downer’s department, it is very difficult to see that they had any active knowledge of any of these matters. The code of conduct that Senator Stott Despoja refers to would probably not avoid, would not prevent—if indeed it is the case, and I am not suggesting this for one minute—any concerted action for deception.

Once again, while it is not entirely clear what Senator Stott Despoja has in mind, I do not believe that the matters surrounding AWB would have been either prevented, or indeed improved, by such a code of conduct—if in fact there was any fraudulent conduct involved. We have had this debate in this place for many months in relation to corporate conduct: that you can do what you like about codes but in the end it comes down to the actions that individuals undertake. There is an inquiry under way and it is appropriate for the Cole inquiry to run its course, particularly as it has access to all documents—and certainly the department did not.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer and ask the minister, given there is a precedent in place for enforcing Australian laws for offences that are committed overseas—in particular, in relation to child sex tourism and those particular crimes—is there now a very strong argument for extending that to include offences of bribery, and would that be one key component of any corporate code of conduct that could be implemented by the Australian government?

I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the supplementary question. As she knows, and indeed everyone in this place knows, this government has taken a very active part, where it was appropriate, in making certain conduct that takes place outside the jurisdiction of Australia unlawful for operatives of Australian corporations. But certainly facilitation payments as such under the current arrangements are not bribes. But, while AWB is accused of a number of things, nothing yet has been established in relation to what AWB did. In fact, the Volcker inquiry very specifically found that there was insufficient evidence to make any findings of that kind. The opposition should pause for a moment before continuing this line of inquiry when there is a proper inquiry constituted and affecting Australian farmers. (Time expired)

My question is also to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I also offer my congratulations on her elevation to Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to the deliberations within the government last year concerning the sale of Telstra. Does the minister agree that the fact that all government senators supported the sale bill is proof that there is no longer any real distinguishing policy or philosophical difference between The Nationals and the Liberal Party? And, given the minister’s experience in convincing National Party senators to sell out the bush for the sale of Telstra, does she agree with the recently expressed view that, for National Party senators, the role of representing country people would most effectively be carried out as a member of the Liberal Party?

Thank you to Senator Conroy for the question. I am not entirely sure how it really relates to any of my portfolio responsibilities, but in any event it is a fatuous question at best because there is no doubt that we have operated effectively as a coalition now for the past 10 years. The Liberal Party and the National Party have operated as an effective coalition for the past 10 years. What that means is that each party in the coalition brings to deliberations in this place, brings to the development of policy and brings to representation of the people of Australia, different perspectives.

The National Party, as well as the Liberal Party—which has, of course, many members and locally based senators throughout this country—look after the interests of rural and regional Australia, and that has been done very effectively in the arrangements that ran up to the approval of the full sale of Telstra. It has been very clear to this government, and very clear to those who were making representations to the government prior to the vote on the Telstra sale bill, that the interests of rural and regional Australia were absolutely critical to the passage of that bill.

I am very proud that this government has put in place a package worth over $3 billion to look after the interests of rural and regional Australia. That was achieved through the joint and mutual efforts of people on this side of the Senate and, of course, on the coalition side of the House of Representatives. It ill behoves the Labor Party—who have never spent a cent on the bush, who do not care about rural and regional Australia, who abandoned the bush without a single dollar for services—to criticise this government for a $3 billion package. It is a fatuous question. It deserves no further attention.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister name one telecommunications policy issue where the National Party has a different position to the Liberal Party? Given her rural background, will the minister be using her new role as deputy leader of the government in this place to recruit more National Party senators to the Liberal Party?

Thank you for the supplementary question. I can understand that the Labor Party, which is absolutely bereft of any policy on telecommunications, is always desperate to know how we so successfully develop policies for rural and regional Australia, but the policy development process is not something I am going to share with either Senator Conroy or those on the other side. The important point is that this party sticks up for the bush and it will continue to do so.

My question is also to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Will the minister advise the Senate how Australian phone users, particularly young users, are being protected from unexpectedly high bills? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

I thank Senator Ronaldson for the question and for his very keen interest in these matters. I always appreciate his perspective on these matters. The impact of unexpectedly high phone bills, particularly as a result of premium services, such as SMS and ring tone services, is of significant concern to the community, particularly to young people. That is why in August last year I wrote to the CEO of every major service provider, indicating that the government expected the industry to develop an effective registered code of practice without delay. In that letter, I made it clear that the government expected the industry to protect consumers, especially young people, from unexpectedly high phone bills. I am very pleased to tell the Senate that the Australian Communications Industry Forum, or ACIF, did release a new industry code at the end of last week in response to the concerns that had been brought to their attention.

The revised credit management code is an important achievement in ensuring the protection of all phone users through the flexible self-regulation framework. The industry has responded positively. I am particularly pleased that equal numbers of consumer and industry representatives have now come together to develop this comprehensive set of rules. I would certainly urge young people and their parents to be very cautious about what they sign up to and to be very clear about fees and charges that are attached to these services. I am referring to premium services that are promoted to young people, such as popular SMS and ring tone services, which can certainly rack up very high bills in a very short period of time.

The revised code requires for the first time that service providers put in place a financial hardship policy together with people who are appropriately trained to assist customers, who are often very young and inexperienced, who are having difficulty in paying their accounts. This is entirely appropriate, and providers must provide ways to help limit customer spending, such as caps on expenditure, call-barring facilities or prepaid facilities. Customers must also have access to current information on the unused credit on their accounts, which was another important matter brought to ACIF’s attention.

These and other provisions in the code will address the key concerns raised in the ACMA report entitled Preventing unexpectedly high bills. ACMA is currently assessing the code, which will become enforceable once it is registered. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate industry participants, consumer bodies and ACIF for their commitment to the development of the code and to protecting consumers. I also add that it could be instructive for those opposite who criticise consultation to look carefully at what can be achieved by working cooperatively with the industry for the good of the community. It is very easy in these matters of very complex policy to shoot from the lip but, by working constructively, there are practical solutions to be found if you are willing to do the work. Unfortunately, that is not very appealing if you are a policy-lazy group of people who are more interested in sound bites and stunts than solutions. This code is a very good outcome, particularly for young people.

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. I also congratulate her on her promotion to Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to the government’s plans to repeal the cross-media laws, as outlined in her recent speech to the National Press Club. Can the minister confirm that, under her so-called diversity test, cross-media mergers would be allowed in regional Australia so long as at least four major media players remained? Can the minister also confirm that the application of this test in Queensland would see the number of media owners in Cairns fall from seven to four and in Bundaberg from six to four? Why does the minister believe that this sort of increased concentration of media ownership is in the public interest, especially the public interest of regional Queensland?

I thank Senator McLucas for the question. What I have in fact said is that I will be releasing a position paper that will develop some options for consideration of how the diversity test and the cross-media and foreign ownership changes will work. The five-four test that I talked about in the Press Club address to which Senator McLucas refers does place a very clear floor under the level of ownership concentration that could take place within the regulated media categories—that is, commercial television and radio and associated newspapers. While it sets a floor in relation to cross-media limits, it certainly does not mean that the market will necessarily move to that floor.

I am very glad that Senator McLucas raises regional markets. But, first of all, I should say that in Sydney and Melbourne the limit on ownership of commercial radio licences to two per licence area, which is not proposed to change, means that the theoretical minimum of five set by the diversity test could not be reached in any event, because the effect of this would be a minimum of six separate groups. As you can see, it is quite a complex proposal, Senator McLucas, but in many regional markets the number of independent media groups is already at or below four and hence no further consolidation would be permitted under this approach.

In addition, ACMA, under the proposal, would have the task of ensuring that the ‘minimum voices’ requirement is approved, and of course any movement whatsoever would also be subject to the general competition principles that are to be administered by the ACCC. As Senator McLucas would be able to glean from this, it is not just a matter of providing a minimum limit and letting it rip; there will be significant safeguards, if indeed this is the proposal that the government adopts.

In addition, Australians would continue to have access to a large number of other sources of news, opinion and entertainment. As we all know, we are all able to get opinions of great diversity from now hundreds if not thousands of different sources, often unmediated by any local media group. So new technology and new opportunities mean that we can look very critically at what will continue to deliver diversity and choice to consumers when the media changes proceed.

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of a survey conducted by the ANU centre for social research which found that 81 per cent of Australians thought that media ownership was too concentrated among a few rich families? Will the minister listen to the overwhelming majority of Australian people and rule out changes that will bring about further concentration of media ownership in Australia? I further ask: can the minister confirm that the application of her test in Queensland would see the number of media owners in Cairns fall from seven to four and, in Bundaberg, from six to four?

What I can say is that what this government is doing is looking comprehensively at what needs to happen with media in view of changed technology and to move on from the absolute lockstep that Senator McLucas’s party put this country into, where you had nothing but the queens of the screen, the rajahs of radio and the princes of print. We have moved on from then, and this government will continue to look after the interests of consumers and continue to ensure diversity.

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

I take note of Senator Minchin’s failure to act as the newly appointed Leader of the Government in the Senate by his refusal to reprimand Senator Heffernan, who has yet again engaged in behaviour unbecoming of a senator and yet again publicly intimidated a colleague—yet again. It was only a fortnight ago that John Howard was at the Press Club bemoaning the decline of standards of personal behaviour in Australia. He complained that reality TV and vulgarisms were overtaking our television sets and that, as a result, and I quote, ‘We are not polite enough to each other.’ That was the Prime Minister. Well, how much Big Brother has Senator Heffernan been watching if he thinks that telling his colleague, and I quote, ‘Blow it out of your arse,’ is an appropriate way to speak in a public place? Telling a fellow senator to ‘blow it out of your arse’ with a raised voice, in public, is a new high-water mark—

Senator Conroy, I think you should withdraw that reference. It is unparliamentary.

It is a quote.

It might be a quote, but it is unparliamentary.

If that is your ruling, I withdraw.

Withdraw!

I just said I withdraw. So Senator Heffernan raising his voice in a public area is a new high-water mark for the Howard government’s arrogance and a new low for Australian politics. Speaking in this way is not ‘a robust early morning greeting’, as it was pathetically described by Senator Heffernan; it is appalling personal behaviour which demeans both Senator Heffernan and this chamber. De-Anne Kelly is right to label this type of behaviour as workplace harassment. This is especially so in light of the fact that this is just the latest in a series of incidents of intimidating behaviour on the part of Senator Heffernan. Before publicly abusing Senator Nash, he was stalking Senator Joyce through the corridors of parliament, gatecrashing his doorstop interviews and physically intimidating him on the floor of the Senate. Before that, he was accusing High Court judges of paedophilia. And John Howard is lecturing Australians—

Senator Conroy—

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That was the second time we heard Senator Conroy refer to the Prime Minister as ‘John Howard’. It is either ‘Mr Howard’ or ‘the Prime Minister’.

I was just about to say that. Thank you. Senator Conroy, it is ‘Mr Howard’ or ‘the Prime Minister’.

And Prime Minister John Howard is lecturing Australians about standards of decency! Maybe he should have a good look in his own party room. It is no surprise that Senator Heffernan does not think the Australian Wheat Board has done anything wrong by greasing Saddam Hussein’s palm to the tune of $300 million. A blithe acceptance of obscene behaviour like this fits perfectly with Senator Heffernan’s and the Howard government’s complete rejection of the norms of civilised society.

No wonder Senator McGauran, with his filthy finger, wanted to sit closer to the marauding Senator Heffernan—they are a pair together. Senator Barnaby Joyce was right to say that Senator Heffernan should wake up to himself. But the Howard government and leaders within the government, like Senator Minchin, have the responsibility to drag him into line and make him, if he will not wake up to himself. It is appalling that John Howard and Nick Minchin—

Senator Conroy!

Prime Minister Howard and Senator Minchin—are allowing Senator Heffernan to career around Canberra, terrorising the place like a rogue elephant. If the Prime Minister has a problem with vulgarisms on our TV, he ought to have a problem with them coming out of the mouth of one of his lieutenants.

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator opposite actually seems to be reading from a prepared text, which is against standing orders. I have never in my time in here since we have had the taking note debate ever seen someone taking note of an answer from a prepared text. They obviously prepared this in his office prior to the question being asked. The point of order is that he is breaking standing orders. He seems to be reading a speech—a speech on taking note. That is not only against standing orders; it shows a pathetic incapability of actually putting two thoughts together and trying to communicate them in the English language.

I am reading quotes and from copious notes.

Senator Conroy, you have 53 seconds left. There is no point of order.

We have Senator Julian McGauran, who has grievously broken the trust of the Australian public by misleading Victorian voters about which party he intended to represent. He has stolen a Senate position. And does anyone in this chamber really believe he thought of it himself? Does anybody really believe he came up with this idea himself? There are a few guilty faces on the other side, looking down at their papers as we speak! How are you, Senator Ronaldson? Senator Kemp is not here at the moment. Does anybody really believe that Senator Julian McGauran really thought this little scheme up himself? Really! The Costello forces are so desperate for any votes to add to the phone box that they recruited the village idiot. (Time expired)

Here we are back at the beginning of the year 2006 with all sorts of challenges facing Australia as a country—all sorts of major policy issues to ensure that Australia is kept economically secure, her borders are secure, the people have hope for the future, with a secure future, a good economy, a good health system and a good aged care system—and 38 minutes or thereabouts into question time, we get a question about a couple of senators and a conversation at an airport. It shows me, and I think it would show most people watching question time, a Labor Party that is so out of touch with the community and so devoid of any care about serious policy issues that 37 or 38 minutes into the first question time in a new year, in this new millennium, this is what they resort to.

Of course, who was the leading advocate of this tactic? It was one of the longest serving deputy leaders of a tired opposition, a tired Labor Party, Senator Conroy, who himself has an absolutely abysmal record of personal behaviour within the Australian Labor Party. In fact, I think there are reports of punch-ups in which Senator Conroy was involved on the floor of the Victorian state ALP conference last year. Of course, he is up to his neck in one of the biggest divisions within the Australian Labor Party in Victoria since the split. That is trying to see people like Mr Shorten unseat sitting members such as Mr Simon Crean, a long-serving member of the Australian Labor Party, a distinguished former Labor Party minister and in fact the former Leader of the Opposition. Of course, Senator Conroy is in it up to his neck.

The issues that confront Australia—the issues that the coalition are dealing with, that the Liberal Party are dealing with, that the National Party are dealing with and that Mr Howard, Mr Costello, the leadership team and Mr Howard’s ministers and all the party are dealing with—are: how do we ensure that the economy stays strong, how do we ensure that we build our exports, and how do we build our infrastructure through the AusLink project? We are focused on the main game.

Over summer, Labor were divided on issues like health care and climate change. You had Martin Ferguson out there talking about being sensible, about ensuring that the world has access to uranium and expanding nuclear power to ensure that we do not put emissions into the atmosphere. And you had Mr Beazley, only a few weeks later, saying, ‘No, we can’t have any nuclear power.’ You had Mr Ferguson out there saying, ‘Yes, it’s a good thing the coalition government are doing, pulling together half the world’s population in a historic meeting of nations to address climate change, to ensure that we have a strong economy, secure jobs in Australia, growing jobs in developing countries and yet lower carbon emissions.’ It is a historic agreement endorsed by one senior member of the Labor Party, who sits in the House of Representatives, Mr Ferguson, and of course slammed by other members, including the leader, Mr Beazley. Talk about reform fatigue when you are opposition leader! He has been opposition leader on and off for 10 years, with no new policies in key areas: no new policies in health, no new policies in aged care and no new policies in climate change. The best they can do after 38 minutes of coming into the premier legislative chamber in the Commonwealth of Australia is to start talking about conversations at airports.

This displays an opposition that has run out of puff. It has run out of enthusiasm. It has run out of ideas. All it can do is focus on things that are not relevant to the Australian people. The people of Australia do not want their government, their politicians, to focus on petty internal political issues or on personal issues; they want to ensure that their children have a good education, that they have access to a good health system and that elderly Australians have access to aged care. This is what the government is focusing on. On Friday the Prime Minister will lead the Council of Australian Governments meeting with the premiers and the territory leaders. They will be focusing, under his leadership, on improving Australia’s health care system and the aged care system and on coming up with a comprehensive Australian policy on climate change, with unprecedented cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth. These are the issues that matter to Australians. What matters to the Labor Party is petty politics. They should be condemned for that and, as Martin Ferguson says, get real!

The proposition that we hear from the government is that there are major issues confronting this country. I have to agree with that. But what is the government’s response? We see that within their own operations their preoccupation is the question of personal advancement. It really is all about who is going to be the next leader of the government. The unedifying spectacle yesterday was a dispute that arose as a result of the Costello forces in Victoria. We have a senator here who used to represent the seat of Ballarat clearly heavily involved in the poaching of Senator McGauran from the National Party to the Liberal Party. What reason was there? There has been none stated publicly, other than an attempt to shore up the Costello numbers within the Liberal Party itself.

Senator Nash responded by saying that never again would she put the interests of the government ahead of her party when voting in the Senate after the Liberal Party deliberately went out and purchased a vote within the Liberal Party room itself. We have a senator who was described by the former Premier of Victoria as the most useless senator for the state of Victoria. This is the man that they have purchased as a result of the intervention of the Costello forces within the Liberal Party to buy a vote. It boils down to a question of numbers. It is not a matter of deep principle.

Senator Heffernan, the Prime Minister’s attack dog, is let off the leash yet again and goes to the airport here in Canberra yesterday and tells Senator Nash that she may ‘blow it out her backside’—I use that word in deference to the ruling of the Deputy President on this matter. In this place today, we have seen Senator Minchin try to tell us there was nothing in it; it was only a question of the ABC blowing it up. What we have here is the coalition being blown up as a deliberate attempt has been made by one section of the Liberal Party to secure additional numbers in a forthcoming ballot for the leadership of the government. That is the fundamental question here—not the big issues facing this society but who is going to become the Prime Minister as a result of a forthcoming leadership ballot within the Liberal Party.

We have a senator who clearly is more interested in getting his tango lessons on the 21st floor in Collins Street than he is in representing the people of Victoria. We have got a senator here who has shown by his own personal demeanour and behaviour that he is not fit for service in this chamber. We have a senator here who should have resigned instead of taking the 30 pieces of silver from the Liberal Party for his transfer. What we have is new cannon fodder being provided by the Costello forces in this forthcoming battle. We have got the cannon fodder as we see that the National Party’s traditional role as the doormats to the Liberal Party is being fulfilled in its ultimate function.

We have Senator McGauran who says that the real truth of the matter is that the future is with the Liberal Party itself. Very rarely do I agree with Senator McGauran. I suppose you could say that a stopped clock is at least right twice a day. We have a circumstance here where Senator McGauran might have something; there might be something in it. The fact is the National Party is going from oblivion to oblivion as a result of the failure of its policy positions over many years. We have a situation where Senator Heffernan has been let loose to try to act as the attack dog for the Prime Minister to try to ensure the National Party fulfils its function as the doormats in this chamber.

We have seen in recent times that the National Party has failed to fulfil its obligations to its constituencies. As a consequence, it has lost seat after seat after seat in this parliament. Hume, gone! New England, gone! Farrer, gone! Kennedy, gone! Richmond, gone! Now a Victorian Senate spot, gone! The first seats were won in this place by the National Party in Tasmania. They have not had representation much ever since. We have seen that the National Party used to hold seats from the Gulf of Carpentaria right down to Bass Strait. Now look at the electoral map of this country. Because of the doormat policies of the National Party, Senator McGauran has led the way. He has shown what it really is to be in the Country Party, to always put pragmatism ahead of principle. He has been bought so incredibly cheaply. What has he got as a result of that? Disgrace for himself.

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Carr has used the term ‘bought’ on a couple of occasions during this presentation. I would ask you to consider whether that is parliamentary or otherwise.

Senator Carr, I do not think you should refer to a senator as being ‘bought’. I ask you to withdraw that.

I will withdraw any unparliamentary language. What I say is simply this: Senator McGauran has changed his political allegiance in this chamber as a result of the direct intervention of the Liberal Party, the price for which, I say, is far too low. (Time expired)

My children use the expression ‘gobsmacked’. It is an expression that I quite enjoy using myself. There would be a lot of people listening today—on their radios, driving the car, at home—on the first day that the Senate has sat this year who will be utterly gobsmacked by the total incompetence of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate. As one of my colleagues pointed out before, not only have the two senators had notes already prepared—this is a ‘take note of’; something that has come up during question time that the opposition wishes to take note of—but, as Senator Parry has said, they have got typed notes. So this was a deliberate strategy by the ALP prior to question time to make this their first take note.

If you go back through the newspapers over the last week and you listen to the Leader of the Opposition, you listen to the member for Griffith and you listen to Labor Party senators, they have been apparently talking about the Australian Wheat Board and other matters allegedly of importance to this country. Did we hear one word about that during the first opportunity the Australian Labor Party had to talk about matters of national interest when this Senate resumed sitting? No, we did not. We had the walking, talking doormat talking about the doormats allegedly in the National Party.

The reason why Senator Carr constantly grows his beard is so that we cannot see the scratch marks and the bite marks from Senator Conroy when he mauls him in the Victorian division of the Labor Party. For Senator Conroy to have the nerve to stand up here and talk about infighting and mauling quite frankly leaves me gobsmacked. If honourable senators look at today’s Age and look at the casualties of the infighting in the Labor Party and the mauling of the Left by the Right, and then look at that in the context of the rubbish we have heard today, they will see that that is a fairly clear indication that this Senate is going to have another 12 months of Labor Party incompetence.

There is one person in this chamber who does not need the help of Senator Conroy or Senator Carr, and that is Senator Nash. She is far smarter and far tougher than Senator Carr and Senator Conroy put together, and she does not need the Australian Labor Party to support her. I would think that if, at the end of this year, people were to look back at the start of this year and the discussions of the Labor Party, they would see that in some respects the white flag has been raised already. Look at Mr Beazley. Four days ago he was threatening to take out every single government minister, including the Prime Minister, in the first day of question time on the first day back. And last night he was saying that there would be no casualties.

Why is it that the Australian Labor Party is so totally incapable of giving its supporters any hope for the future? What will Labor Party members think about this pathetic attack today by the Labor Party on the first day of the Senate sitting? They will be as appalled as the people who are listening today. Again, the Labor Party branch membership has been let down by a totally incompetent opposition in the other place and a totally incompetent opposition in this place. Let us have some serious and genuine debate in this chamber. Let us actually meet some of the challenges that we were elected to confront rather than talking about a pathetic intervention by a pathetic opposition on a pathetic subject.

I can draw Senator Ronaldson’s attention to the Age as well. Michelle Grattan’s column talks about an incident which occurred between Senators Heffernan and Nash as they prepared to board an early morning flight from Canberra to Sydney. The article purports to quote the nature of the exchange, and it purports to quote Senator Nash, who confirmed the exchange and described it as ‘Bill being Bill’. She said, ‘I certainly wouldn’t expect quite such ill manners at 6.30 in the morning.’ When this matter was raised in question time a number of government senators asked, ‘Were you there?’ as though, unless senators on this side of the chamber were personally present they could not rely on the report in the paper, which quotes a senator who was involved and assures us that what is purported to have taken place did take place.

That is pretty typical of this government. When they said, ‘We weren’t told about children overboard,’ that was their excuse. Now we are hearing in relation to the AWB, ‘No-one told us that AWB was giving money to Saddam Hussein’—a typical hollow defence. I heard the answer of the Prime Minister in question time today when he was asked whether he thought to investigate the claims that AWB were paying money to the Iraqis. He referred to a press release of mine and quoted selectively from the last paragraph, which says: ‘In the absence of evidence to support allegations, Australian wheat growers are entitled to dismiss the claims as an attempt to promote the sale of US subsidised wheat in the Iraq market,’ and he used that as a justification for saying, ‘Therefore I had no reason to investigate the claims that AWB were diverting money to Saddam Hussein.’

What the Prime Minister failed to do in question time today, and Minister Vaile has also failed to do this, was to deal with the other eight or so paragraphs of the press release and the heading, which says: ‘Iraq kickback claims must be investigated.’ That is the dishonesty of this government’s approach to questions being raised about their actions: they did not know, they had not heard, they were not there to hear the exchange—and then they misrepresent what the opposition said in 2003 in relation to this in order to justify the Prime Minister not investigating what was clearly known to the government at that time.

We heard Mr Vaile in question time today in relation to the same matter. He said that he asked AWB and they said that nothing was wrong, so he did not take it any further. That is the sort of approach this government takes, and it is the same approach that Senator Minchin now takes to the behaviour of Senator Heffernan—behaviour revealed on the radio and in the Age today and not contradicted by Senator Nash in the report in the Age today. But the government is prepared to say, ‘Well, it is one of ours. We can’t have a casualty. We can’t apply to our own the standards that we expect everyone else to maintain. So we are going to say, “You don’t know what happened because you weren’t there.”’ That was the despicable standard of senators opposite in question time today. It is despicable, because the government and the Prime Minister have asked Australians to adopt a higher standard in their behaviour towards others. But when it comes to members of the government, when it comes to them trying to intimidate members of the National Party—that poor, sliding-into-oblivion party—then there is a double standard.

I can understand the National Party being upset. The Labor Party has had people rat on it and vote against it in this chamber. When former Leader of the Democrats Cheryl Kernot left the Democrats, she resigned from the Senate and ultimately contested a House of Representatives seat, which she won, on behalf of the Labor Party. Do we see that integrity from Senator McGauran when he rats on his party, joins the Liberal Party and takes a National Party seat into another party room? No, we do not. That is why the National Party is so upset, and I can understand it, but that is a standard that this government is prepared to accept, just as all their other double standards are acceptable when they seek to impose other standards on the Australian people. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Coonan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Nettle today relating to asylum seekers from West Papua.

It was a question about a genocide that is occurring in our backyard. The recent arrival of 43 West Papuan asylum seekers in Queensland should be a wake-up call for Australians and the government about what is happening in the land of our nearest neighbour.

West Papua is at a crisis point. Two recent reports, one by the University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies entitled Genocide in West Papua? and another by Yale University Law School, document the systemic destruction of the West Papuan people and their society. The report by the Yale University Law School says that since the so-called Act of Free Choice:

... the West Papuan people have suffered persistent and horrible abuses at the hands of the government. The Indonesian military and security forces have engaged in widespread violence and extrajudicial killings in West Papua. They have subjected Papuan men and women to acts of torture, disappearance, rape, and sexual violence, thus causing serious bodily and mental harm. Systematic resource exploitation, the destruction of Papuan resources and crops, compulsory (and often uncompensated) labor, transmigration schemes, and forced relocation have caused pervasive environmental harm to the region, undermined traditional subsistence practices, and led to widespread disease, malnutrition, and death among West Papuans. Such acts, taken as a whole, appear to constitute the imposition of conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the West Papuans.

The paper concludes:

The historical and contemporary evidence set out above strongly suggests that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the West Papuans as such, in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

In the last fortnight, the special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, Juan Mendez, commented that the indigenous people of West Papua were at risk of extinction.

Forty-three West Papuans bravely came to Australia on a traditional boat just over two weeks ago, and I flew to Christmas Island last week to meet with them. They are an incredibly generous, beautiful and healthy group of people, many of whom have come across the seas with their children. They are activists and students from the independence movement in West Papua, and they have come to Australia to seek protection. They told me about the way in which they are targets of the Indonesian military and about how every time they organise a peaceful protest they are up against the might of the Indonesian military—the tanks, the helicopters and the aeroplanes that they say are designed to make West Papuans afraid.

Herman Wainggai, who is a spokesperson for the West Papuan asylum seekers, has twice been imprisoned by the Indonesian military for being involved in peaceful protest. He has two beautiful young girls—his twins, who are just three years old—who were born whilst he was imprisoned for the second time by the Indonesian military for being involved in peaceful protest. Herman told me about the gradual genocide that is taking place in his country. He said:

If the international community is slow in giving support, then, every day, every week, someone else will be shot ... and that is genocide, gradual genocide.

He introduced me to the asylum seekers. He introduced me to a young man whose father had been imprisoned for 20 years for raising the West Papuan flag and then poisoned whilst in prison. He introduced me to a young man whose family member had been shot just two weeks ago—a 14-year-old boy walking through a marketplace in the northern highlands of West Papua—by the Indonesian military, who admitted firing on unarmed civilians. Herman told me:

If the issue of West Papua is not resolved, human rights violations will continue to occur.

These people are fearful of the Indonesian military, and rightly so. They have first-hand experience of having been repressed by the Indonesian military. They have been imprisoned. Their family members and relatives have been shot, beaten, killed and jailed by the Indonesian military for being involved in the independence movement.

When I showed Herman a copy of the newspaper articles with the comments by the spokesperson for the President of Indonesia that they would be safe if they returned home, he laughed. He said they had heard this many times before. When the comments continued to be made, he got angry and called the Indonesian government a lying government and a devil government. He talked about militia groups and jihadists operating in West Papua. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 2 February 2006, of the Hon. Sir Reginald William Colin Swartz, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Darling Downs, Queensland, from 1949 to 1972, and at various times a minister.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate record its deep regret at the death, on 2 February 2006, of the Hon. Sir Reginald William Colin Swartz, KBE, ED, former federal minister, Leader of the House of Representatives and member for Darling Downs, Queensland, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

Sir Reginald was widely respected for his service as a member of the Australian military, as a member of parliament and in his business career. Reg Swartz was born on 14 April 1911 in Brisbane, Queensland. He was educated at Toowoomba Grammar. At the age of 17, he joined the Citizens Military Forces and later enlisted in the 2nd AIF. He served with the 2/26 Infantry Battalion 8th Division in the Malayan campaign. After being captured by the Japanese, he was a prisoner of war for 3½ years, spending time in Changi and a period working on the Burma-Thailand railway. He returned to Australia in 1945. He re-enlisted in the CMF in 1947. He was Lieutenant Colonel and Assistant Quartermaster-General of Northern Command and he was made an honorary colonel of the Australian Army Aviation Corps in 1969.

Before entering parliament Sir Reginald had worked as an oil company executive. He was elected to federal parliament as the member for Darling Downs in 1949. He was the first member of the Liberal Party to hold that seat, winning it comfortably in the election which saw the coalition returned to office under Sir Robert Menzies. He held the seat for 23 years and served as a minister in a number of portfolios in the Menzies, Holt, McEwen and Gorton governments.

During his time in parliament he also led or participated in a number of overseas delegations and missions, including to India in 1957, the United Kingdom in 1965, South-East Asia in 1968 and New Zealand in 1971. Curly Swartz—which I gather was an acknowledgment of his baldness—was Leader of the House in his last two years in parliament. He was described by a journalist as the government’s ‘most unflappable character and its best diffuser of contentious issues’. Prime Minister McMahon described him as a master of tactics.

He was among 200 Australian former prisoners of war who accompanied Prime Minister Howard to Thailand in 1998 when he opened the Hellfire Pass Memorial Museum. The museum is a memorial to the 2,700 Australians who died building the Burma-Thailand railway in World War II.

Reg Swartz was created a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in June 1972 and had earlier been appointed Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire in 1948 for distinguished service in the south-west Pacific. In retirement, Sir Reginald pursued his many and varied interests, living a full life until his passing last week at the remarkable age of 94.

On behalf of the government, I extend to his wife, Lady Muriel Swartz, and children, Barbara, Graham and Rodney, and to other family members and friends our most sincere sympathy in their bereavement.

by leave—I join with Senator Minchin in supporting this motion and would like to speak on behalf of the Labor opposition. We offer our sincere sympathies to Sir Reginald’s family and friends at this time.

As Senator Minchin said, Sir Reginald entered the House of Representatives in 1949 as the Liberal member for Darling Downs, a seat he held for 23 years before retiring in 1972. He was re-elected to the seat on eight occasions, on two of which he was elected unopposed. Prior to entering parliament he had worked in the oil industry. Sir Reginald had quite a remarkable and lengthy ministerial career spanning the Menzies, Holt, McEwen and Gorton governments. In researching his career, it struck me that he had quite a remarkable career. Unfortunately, he is not a name known well to my generation. I guess he retired at about the time my political consciousness was developing. He obviously had a very senior and full career and led a very interesting life.

He was appointed Parliamentary Undersecretary for Commerce and Agriculture in 1952. He then served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade, Minister for Repatriation, Minister for Health, Minister for Social Services, Minister for Civil Aviation, Minister Assisting the Treasurer and Minister for National Development. There was not much he did not do. He was also Leader of the House of Representatives in 1971 and 1972. Clearly, he had a very distinguished and remarkable career. Before that time, he managed to fit in very good service for the Australian Imperial Force, and was unfortunately a prisoner of war for 3½ years. He was discharged from the military in 1946, re-enlisted in the Citizens Military Forces in 1947 and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel.

After retiring from parliament, he continued his career in business. He was chairman of the trustees of the Australian Army Aviation Corps. For his military service, he was made a Member of the Military Division of the Order of the British Empire in 1948 and was awarded the Efficiency Decoration in 1950. He was knighted in 1972.

In 1936 he married Hilda Robinson, who unfortunately passed away in 1995. He is survived by his wife of his second marriage, Lady Muriel Swartz, his three children and their families. Sir Reginald, who lived in Buderim in Queensland, passed away on 2 February aged 94. On behalf of the Labor opposition, I extend our sincere condolences to Lady Swartz and all of Sir Reginald’s family and friends. He truly lived a full and active life and made an enormous contribution to Australian politics and government.

I ask senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect for Sir Reginald Swartz.

Honourable senators having stood in their places—

I thank the Senate.

Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 8 February 2006, from 4.30pm, to be briefed by a panel of experts in relation to the committee’s inquiry into water policy initiatives.

Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:

That—

(a)

on Wednesday, 8 February 2006:

(i)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 11 pm,

(ii)

the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be general business order of the day no. 47 (Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005)––second reading speeches only, and

(iii)

at 11 pm, the Senate shall adjourn without any question being put; and

(b)

on Thursday, 9 February 2006:

(i)

general business order of the day no. 47 (Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005) have precedence over all other business till 1 pm and from not later than 3.45 pm to 5 pm, and

(ii)

at the conclusion of (i), the routine of business shall be:

(a)

consideration of government documents under general business,

(b)

consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1), and

(c)

adjournment.

Senator Fielding to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 be extended to 16 February 2006.

Senator Conroy to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate directs that the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra, Mr Sol Trujillo, appear and give evidence in relation to his administration of Telstra, at the estimates hearing of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, at a time specified by the committee.

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move:

That the Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243 and made under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, be disallowed.

I remind the Senate that these regulations amend the principal regulations to introduce new provisions concerning pilot operating procedures on and in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.

Leave granted.

The summary read as follows—

Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 243

These Regulations amend the principal Regulations to introduce new provisions concerning pilot operating procedures on, and in the vicinity of, non-controlled aerodromes.

New paragraph 166(2)(c) requires that the pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must conform with, or avoid, the circuit pattern. New paragraph 166(2)(d) requires that when the pilot joins the circuit pattern this must be done in a certain direction. The latter requirement is subject to subregulations 166(3) and (4). The relationship between paragraphs 166(2)(c) and (d) is not clear.

Regulation 166 prescribes a number of strict liability offences. New regulation 166A also prescribes a strict liability offence, but subregulation 166A(4) provides a defence of reasonable excuse.

The Committee wrote to the Minister seeking advice on the operation of these provisions. The Minister has responded providing information on these matters. The Committee appreciates this advice which addresses most of its concerns. The Committee has decided to seek further advice on the circuit pattern provisions to allow it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations.

Senator Milne to move on Thursday, 9 February 2006:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

the announcement by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) that it will redirect its energy research work away from renewable energy towards ‘cleaning up’ coal, a priority of the Australian Government,

(ii)

a breakthrough in solar energy technology, developed by the CSIRO and a private company, with a turbine that has the potential to replace coal-fired power stations in 20 years, and

(iii)

that the CSIRO has had to look offshore for investment funding to advance its work on the solar turbine technology; and

(b)

calls on the Australian Government to re-prioritise its policy and funding objectives to provide more support for renewable energy so that Australian breakthrough research is not forced offshore for further development and commercialisation.

Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

that elections for regional government in West Papua have again been delayed by the Indonesian Government,

(ii)

reports of increasing human rights violations by the Indonesian military and militias in West Papua,

(iii)

the recent arrival of 43 asylum seekers in Australia seeking refuge from persecution in West Papua, and

(iv)

the renewal of joint training and cooperation between the Australian Defence Forces and the Indonesian Kopassus special forces; and

(b)

calls on the Australian Government to:

(i)

suspend joint training and cooperation with the Indonesian special forces until a thorough and independent investigation of their involvement in human rights abuses in West Papua has concluded,

(ii)

not sign on to any agreement between Australia and Indonesia that requires Australia to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua and remain silent about human rights abuses that occur in West Papua at the hands of the Indonesian military and militias,

(iii)

work towards restoring human rights to the West Papuans,

(iv)

facilitate a meeting between the Indonesian Government and the West Papuan independence movement, and

(v)

respect the rights of the West Papuans to determine their own future.

I move:

That the following order operate as a temporary order until the conclusion of the 2006 sittings:On the question for the adjournment of the Senate on Tuesday, a senator who has spoken once subject to the time limit of 10 minutes may speak again for not more than 10 minutes if no other senator who has not already spoken once wishes to speak, provided that a senator may by leave speak for not more than 20 minutes on one occasion.

Question agreed to.

Welcome back, Senator Ferris.

Thank you. It is a great pleasure to be here. I seek leave to move a motion relating to leave of absence for a senator.

Leave granted.

I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kemp on 8 and 9 February on account of parliamentary business overseas.

Question agreed to.

The following items of business were postponed:

General business notice of motion no. 298 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, proposing the introduction of the Privacy (Equality of Application) Amendment Bill 2005, postponed till 9 February 2006.

General business notice of motion no. 360 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, postponed till 8 February 2006.

At the request of Senator Brandis, I move:

That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 7 February 2006, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Future Fund Bill 2005.

Question agreed to.

by leave—At the request of Senator Payne, I move the motion as amended:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 be extended to 14 September 2006.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table, no later than the conclusion of question time on 8 February 2006, all of the raw data submitted to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) for all applications for the genetically-modified foods or foods derived from genetically-modified organisms for:

(a)

insect-resistant corn MON810 from Monsanto Australia Ltd (Monsanto), FSANZ application number A346;

(b)

insect-resistant, glufosinate-ammonium tolerant corn line Bt-11 from Syngenta, FSANZ application number A386;

(c)

insect-resistant corn MON863 from Monsanto, FSANZ application number A484; and

(d)

glufosinate-ammonium tolerant canola Topas and glufosinate-ammonium tolerant canola with fertility traits, from Aventis CropScience Pty Ltd, FSANZ application number A372.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 13 which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard.

I also present various documents and responses to resolutions of the Senate as listed at item 14 on today’s Order of Business.

The list read as follows—

Committee reports

1.

Standing Committee of Privileges––125th report––Precedents, procedures and practice in the Australian Senate 1966-2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 19 December 2005).

2.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services––Report, together with Hansard record of proceedings––Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (presented to the Deputy President on 19 December 2005).

3.

Legal and Constitutional References Committee––Interim report––Administration of the Migration Act (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

4.

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee–– Additional information––Budget estimates (supplementary) 2005-06 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 23 January 2006).

5.

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee–– Additional information––Budget estimates 2005-06 (6 volumes) (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Murray, on 25 January 2006).

Government responses to parliamentary committee reports

1.

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee–– Report––Beyond Cole: The future of the construction industry: Confrontation or co-operation (presented to the Deputy President on 22 December 2005).

2.

Legal and Constitutional References Committee––Report––Legal aid and access to justice (presented to the Deputy President on 3 February 2006).

Government documents

1.

Government Co-contribution Scheme––Quarterly report: 1 July 2005 to 30 September 2005 (presented to the President on 9 December 2005)

2.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 15 December 2005)

3.

Legislation Review Committee: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002––Reports (presented to the Deputy President on 19 December 2005).

4.

National Blood Authority––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 20 December 2005).

5.

Private Health Insurance Administration Council: Operations of the Registered Health Benefits Organisations––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 20 December 2005).

6.

Medical Training Review Panel––Ninth report (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

7.

Department of Finance and Administration––Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

8.

National Health and Medical Research Council––NHMRC Licensing Committee–– Report for the period 1 April 2005 to 30 September 2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

9.

Natural Heritage Trust––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

10.

Department of Health and Ageing––Report––Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997 for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

11.

Treasury––2005 Tax expenditures statement (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

12.

Department of Health and Ageing––Biennial Review of the Medicare Provider Number Legislation (presented to the Deputy President on 22 December 2005).

13.

Australian Vocational Education and Training System––Annual report 2004––Corrigendum (presented to the Deputy President on 23 December 2005).

14.

Centrelink and the Data-Matching Agency––Data-matching program: Report on progress 2004-2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 23 December 2005).

15.

Classification Board and Classification Review Board––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 23 December 2005).

16.

National Native Title Tribunal––Annual report 2004-05 (presented to the Deputy President on 23 December 2005).

17.

Director of Public Prosecutions––Annual report 2004-05––Correction (presented to the Deputy President on 5 January 2006).

18.

Department of Defence––Schedule of special purpose flights––January 2005 – June 2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 5 January 2006).

19.

Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 2005-06 (presented to the Deputy President on 5 January 2006).

20.

National Rural Advisory Council––Annual report 2001-2002, including the Rural Adjustment Scheme annual report 2001-2002 (presented to the Deputy President on 12 January 2006).

21.

National Rural Advisory Council––Annual report 2002-2003 (presented to the Deputy President on 12 January 2006).

22.

National Rural Advisory Council––Annual report 2003-2004 (presented to the Deputy President on 12 January 2006).

23.

Private Health Insurance Administration Council––Annual report 2004-2005 (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Kirk, on 16 January 2006).

24.

Department of Education, Science and Training––Annual report 2004-2005––Correction (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Murray, on 25 January 2006).

Reports of the Auditor-General

1.

Audit report no. 21 of 2005-2006––Financial Statement Audit––Audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2005 (presented to the Deputy President on 21 December 2005).

2.

Audit report no. 22 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Cross portfolio audit of Green Office procurement (presented to the Deputy President on 22 December 2005).

3.

Audit report no. 23 of 2005-2006––Protective Security Audit––IT Security Management (presented to the Deputy President on 22 December 2005).

4.

Audit report no. 24 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Acceptance, maintenance and support management of the JORN system: Department of Defence, Defence Materiel Organisation (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Marshall, on 23 January 2006).

5.

Audit report no. 25 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) implementation of financial services licences (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 24 January 2006).

6.

Audit report no. 26 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Forms for individual service delivery: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Centrelink, Child Support Agency, Medicare Australia (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Crossin, on 25 January 2006).

7.

Audit report no. 27 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Reporting of expenditure on consultants (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Moore, on 30 January 2006).

8.

Audit report no. 28 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Management of net appropriation agreements (presented to temporary chair of committees, Senator Troeth, on 31 January 2006).

9.

Audit report no. 22 of 2005-2006—Corrigendum—Cross portfolio audit of Green Office procurement (presented to the Deputy President on 6 February 2006).

Responses to resolutions of the Senate received from:

Premier of Queensland (Mr Beattie), Premier of Victoria (Mr Bracks), Northern Territory Minister for Family and Community Services (Ms Lawrie) – Resolution of 29 November 2005 – Children in institutional care

Other documents:

Supplement to the 11th edition of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice – Updates to 31 December 2005

Business of the Senate: 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005

Questions on Notice summary: 16 November 2004 to 31 December 2005

Work of Committees: 1 July to 31 December 2005

Register of Senate committee reports: November 2004 to December

Leave granted.

The responses read as follows—

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO “BEYOND COLE- THE FUTURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: CONFRONTATION OR COOPERATION?”

BACKGROUND

The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee (‘the Committee’) tabled its report Beyond Cole - The Future of the Construction Industry: Confrontation or Cooperation? (‘the Report’) on 21 June 2004.

The reference was made in October 2003, following the Government's introduction of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill 2003 (BCII Bill). A number of matters were referred, including the provisions of the BCII Bill; whether the BCII Bill was consistent with international obligations; and the findings of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry (‘the Royal Commission’).

The Committee’s Report consisted of a Majority Report, a Minority Report and a report from the Australian Democrats members of the Committee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Australian Government has considered the Report put forward by the Committee and disagrees with a number of the Committee’s findings and recommendations. The Australian Government believes the recommendations contained in the Majority Report are unsubstantiated and do not adequately reflect the building and construction industry in Australia.

While the Australian Government contests the recommendations of the Majority Report, a number of recommendations in the Australian Democrats report have since been addressed by the passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Codifying Contempt Offences) Act 2004 and the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (see Democrat Recommendations 8, 10 and 16).

The Australian Government rejects the Chair’s assertion that it failed ‘to win the confidence of either most industry stakeholders or the Senate in pursuit of this policy.’ Following the release of the final report of the Royal Commission, the Australian Government engaged in extensive consultation with industry regarding the Royal Commission’s findings and recommendations. The Government’s response to the Royal Commission was developed in consultation with industry participants and governments. The Government’s reform package has the strong support of industry participants.

The Australian Government is committed to reforming this $50 billion industry. To that end, the Government introduced the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act) which received Royal Assent on 12 September 2005. The Government also introduced the Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Consequential and Transitional) Act 2005.

The BCII Act:

• establishes the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC), an independent statutory agency tasked with enforcing workplace relations law on building sites;
• uses the purchasing power of the Australian Government to drive occupational health and safety (OHS) improvements in the industry through the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC) and Australian Government OHS accreditation scheme;
• prohibits and penalises unlawful industrial action; and
• provides a means of referring matters to other agencies and bodies such as the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and State police, Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

The Australian Government’s response to the specific recommendations in the Majority Report and Australian Democrats’ Report is set out below.

MAJORITY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1:

The committee majority recommends that the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill be opposed by the Senate.

Response:

The Australian Government rejects this recommendation. The Australian Government is committed to reforming the building and construction industry.

The Royal Commission made significant findings of lawlessness in the industry, providing an unassailable case for reforming the building industry. The Royal Commission made 212 recommendations to improve the building and construction industry.

The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act) received Royal Assent on 12 September 2005. Unlawful industrial action provisions of the BCII Act took effect from 9 March 2005. The BCII Act:

• establishes the ABCC, an independent statutory agency tasked with enforcing workplace relations law on building sites;
• addresses unacceptable safety performance through the work of the FSC;
• provides sanctions for unlawful industrial action; and
• provides a means of referring matters to other agencies and bodies such as the AFP and State police, ATO and the ACCC.

Recommendation 2:

The committee majority recommends that the increased powers for royal commissions, recommended in the final report of the Cole Royal Commission, be resisted in the Senate should amending legislation be introduced.

Response:

The Government will take into account the views expressed by the Senate Committee when considering any proposals for amendment of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

Recommendation 3:

The committee majority recommends, in view of its concerns regarding natural justice, that the Senate refer to its Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee the question of whether amendments should be made to the Royal Commissions Act 1902, to ensure that procedures of royal commissions accord with principles of natural justice and give due protection of the reputations of people whose prosecution is recommended but against whom no charges are laid.

Response:

The Government will take into account the views expressed by the Senate Committee when considering proposals to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Any additional views expressed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee would also be considered by the Government at that time.

Recommendation 4:

The committee majority recommends that the Government promote cultural change throughout the industry by encouraging states to institute tripartite industry councils at state level. The Victorian model could be used as an exemplar. Associated with this, the committee majority also recommends the establishment of an overarching tripartite national body, working to a ministerial council, to implement a broad program of agreed reform in the building and construction industry.

Response:

The Australian Government strongly disagrees with this recommendation.

The Royal Commission found this model ineffective in the past in facilitating the cultural and structural changes needed to reform the building and construction industry. In his final report, Commissioner Cole cited the need for a separate body, that ‘if the culture in the building and construction industry is to change … there needs to be an independent properly resourced entity which will vigorously uphold the law.’

The assertion that the Victorian building and construction industry model could be used as an exemplar is not reflected in a better workplace relations environment, as indicated by Australian Bureau of Statistics industrial disputes data. In 2004, the Victorian construction industry recorded 338 working days lost per thousand employees (WDL/1000E), compared to 224 WDL/1000E for the national construction industry; and 46 WDL/1000E for all industries nationwide.

Recommendation 5:

The committee majority recommends that corporations law be amended to enable more effective prosecution of perpetrators of phoenix companies; and that in association with this, the Government work with state governments to negotiate their legislating for stringent registration laws applying to partnerships and trusts.

Response:

On 12 October 2005, the Government announced an integrated package of reforms to improve the operation of Australia’s insolvency laws. The package proposes a number of reforms, including the establishment of a fund to finance preliminary investigations of ‘assetless’ companies to curb fraudulent phoenix activity.

The Government will allocate $23 million over four years to establish an ‘assetless administration’ fund and complementary enforcement programme by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The fund will finance preliminary investigations by expert liquidators of companies, selected by ASIC, that have been left insolvent with little or no assets.

Implementation of the Assetless Administration Fund will commence immediately, with applications for funding by liquidators being accepted from early 2006 when the fund becomes operational.

To support the assetless administration fund, it is also proposed that the privilege against exposure to a penalty be abrogated in proceedings where ASIC is seeking disqualification or banning orders and no other penalty. This would restore the longstanding interpretation of the applicability of the privilege, which was overturned by the High Court of Australia in the 2004 Rich case (Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 209 ALR 271). This will allow ASIC to move quickly to disqualify directors engaged in phoenix activity, to protect creditors and legitimate competitors.

In addition, administrators’ reports will be required to include ‘any other matter material to the creditors’ decision’. This would assist in ensuring that creditors, when making their decision at the second meeting, are made aware of matters such as a right of recovery against the director(s) of the company for insolvent trading.

Exposure draft legislation will be prepared in consultation with industry groups. It is anticipated that legislation will be circulated for public comment in early 2006 and a bill introduced later that year.

The Government has also implemented a number of the Royal Commission’s recommendations regarding phoenix company activity, including:

• an increase from 10 to 20 years to the maximum period of disqualification of persons from managing corporations for insolvency and non-payment of debts implements recommendations from the Royal Commission and will offer investors greater protection from those who operate fraudulent phoenix companies; and
• a working party established by the Government to closely examine privacy issues that have been raised by the Royal Commission regarding greater information sharing between ASIC, the ATO and State and Territory revenue authorities.

Recommendation 6:

The committee majority recommends that in view of the impending abolition of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, state construction industry councils, whose establishment is recommended in this report, be asked to give priority to continuing the development of national safety codes for the construction industry.

Response:

In October 2005 the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC) was replaced by a new advisory body - the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC). The ASCC will continue the work on a national approach to OHS and establish a national approach to workers’ compensation. Although the ASCC is an advisory body, it will retain the power, through legislation, to develop and declare national OHS standards and codes of practice.

At its April 2005 meeting, NOHSC declared the National Standard for Construction Work [NOHSC:1016 (2005)]. This national standard is intended to be adopted by the Australian, state and territory governments in their OHS legislation. The Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council (WRMC) endorsed the declaration of the standard and agreed to an implementation timeframe of two years for commercial construction and three years for the housing sector.

The implementation of the National Standard for Construction Work will be supported by a series of national codes of practice that provide further guidance in achieving the standard. ASCC is currently developing national codes of practice for:

• the prevention of falls in construction work: this work is being drafted as two codes, one for general construction work, and one specific to housing construction;
• construction induction training; and
• tilt-up concrete construction work.

In addition to the construction industry-specific codes, ASCC is also responsible for a number of other national standards, codes of practice and guidance materials which contribute to improving safety in the construction industry.

These include:

• national standard for certification of users and operators of industrial equipment (under review);
• national standard for plant (under review);
• national standard and code of practice for workplace chemicals (under review);
• national codes of practice for labelling (under review) and safety data sheets;
• national standard and code of practice for noise;
• national standard for manual tasks, and code of practice for manual tasks relating to prevention of workplace musculoskeletal disorders;
• asbestos prohibition, codes of practice; for the management and control, and the safe removal, of asbestos, and guidance on atmospheric measurement of asbestos;
• Silica National Exposure Standard (recently revised); and
• revised national exposure standards for three forms of crystalline silica.

Following declaration of the national codes of practice for falls, construction induction training and tilt-up concrete construction work, WRMC will be asked to endorse the codes of practice. It is expected that the Australian, state and territory governments will adopt these codes of practice into their occupational health and safety legislation, and thereby move towards a nationally consistent regulatory framework for health and safety in the construction industry.

DEMOCRAT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Right of Entry

Applicants for right of entry permits to be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the rights and obligations associated with the permit;

• The Registry be requested to develop, in consultation with union and employer bodies, a code of practice governing the right of entry;
• Implement a two tiered approach where on serious industrial issues or where there is dispute about the right of entry, an independent third party, such as an inspector, is called to arbitrate the matter;
• Increase penalties to right of entry provisions under the WR Act 1996, to act as a deterrent.

Response:

The right of entry provisions of the BCII Bill 2003 are not included in the BCII Act 2005.

The Government has introduced a single, more effective right of entry regime under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005.

These amendments to the WR Act include:

• providing for tighter requirements for granting an entry permit, including the introduction of a ‘fit and proper person’ test;
• requiring a union official to provide the employer with particulars of the breach that is intended to be investigated;
• allowing for entry permits to be suspended or limited by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) as an alternative to outright revocation for less serious instances of improper behaviour; and
• limiting occurrence of systematic abuse of right of entry laws by enabling the AIRC to revoke or suspend all permits that may have been issued to an organisation if the AIRC is satisfied that an organisation, or one of its officials, has engaged in such conduct. Given the gravity of this sanction, only the President of the AIRC, a Presidential Member nominated by the President or the Full Bench will be able to exercise this power.

With respect to increased penalties, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Codifying Contempt Offences) Act 2004 increased the penalty provisions relating to right of entry.

Recommendation 2: Secret Ballots

• Require trade unions to have within their rules secret ballot provisions which the members can activate when the members think it appropriate

Response:

The secret ballot provisions of the BCII Bill 2003 are not included in the BCII Act 2005.

Secret ballots have been introduced under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005.

This amendment to the WR Act requires a secret ballot be conducted before protected industrial action can be taken. Employees or their union(s) will apply to the AIRC for a secret ballot order.

An application for a secret ballot will only be able to be made:

• after the expiry of the existing agreement;
• if a bargaining period has been notified to the AIRC; and
• the proposed industrial action is not for the purpose of supporting or advancing claims to include prohibited content in the proposed agreement.

The Australian Electoral Commission and other authorised ballot agents (which may be unions but in that case the appointment of an authorised independent advisor will be required) will conduct the secret ballots. The Australian Government will cover 80% of the cost of the ballot. The other 20% must be covered by either the employees or their union(s) who made the application for the ballot.

Recommendation 3: Dispute mechanisms

• Amend the WRA to require all agreements to provide effective dispute resolution mechanisms, which allow the AIRC to arbitrate disputes.

Response:

The Australian Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Australian Government believes employers and employees should resolve workplace disputes themselves. To support greater flexibility and choice for workplace dispute resolution the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 introduces new dispute resolution processes, and clarifies roles and responsibilities for the participants in dispute resolution processes.

Among the key reforms, the amendments to the WR Act provides for a model dispute resolution process for use when a workplace agreement is lodged without specific dispute resolution arrangements. The model dispute resolution process also applies in relation to awards and particular statutory entitlements.

Under this model process, the disputing parties may agree that the AIRC should provide assistance in resolving a dispute. Alternatively, the parties may agree to use a private dispute resolution provider. If the parties are unable to agree about dispute resolution assistance within a reasonable timeframe, the AIRC would be the ‘default’ provider of dispute resolution assistance.

In addition, the parties may agree about whether it is appropriate for their particular dispute to be arbitrated. However the WR Act does not presume that arbitration is the best outcome. The WR Act accommodates other dispute resolution techniques like mediation or conciliation, as chosen by the parties to the dispute.

If the parties include specific dispute resolution arrangements in their workplace agreement, these arrangements may confer the dispute resolution powers on the AIRC. The parties may agree that it is appropriate for the AIRC to finally determine a dispute, but the WR Act does not require arbitration of disputes.

The focus of the new provisions in the WR Act is to encourage parties to attempt to resolve the dispute between themselves, either at the workplace level or with the assistance of a third party of their choice.

Recommendation 4: Agreement making

• Reject provisions to ban pattern bargaining in the building and construction industry and instead amend the Workplace Relations Act to enable genuine project agreements to be reached and certified for major projects.

Response:

The Government is committed to ensuring employees and employers have genuine choice in agreement making.

The BCII Act provides that project agreements are unenforceable, to the extent that they relate to building employees, unless certified under the WR Act. The BCII Act does, however, allow a transition period for project agreements created under State jurisdiction. The transition period is three years from the date the BCII Act commenced (i.e. 12 September 2005).

The WR Act allows multiple business agreements where two or more businesses are carrying on the same type of business and wish to offer their employees the same working conditions, such as franchises. Under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, the OEA will assess and authorise each multiple business agreement, prior to lodgement, to ensure that it is not contrary to the public interest.

Recommendation 5: BCII Bills

• Oppose the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bills.
• Response:
• See response Majority Report Recommendation 1.
• Recommendation 6: Regulator
• Oppose the creation of the Australian Building Industry Commissioner.
• Establish an independent National Workplace Relations Regulator.

Response:

The Australian Government does not support these recommendations. The Government considers arrangements for the enforcement of workplace relations laws generally are adequate.

The Royal Commission found that the Australian building and construction industry is unique in that it is characterised by a failure to uphold the rule of law. To address this, the Royal Commission identified the need for a single, dedicated regulator to ensure industry participants operate within the law.

The BCII Act provides for the establishment of the ABCC which commenced operations on 1 October 2005. The ABCC enforces federal workplace relations laws on building sites with inspectors (ABC Inspectors) regularly and proactively visiting building sites to ensure the WR Act and the BCII Act are not being breached.

The ABCC also works with the building and construction industry to encourage, inform and advise industry participants on their rights and obligations under the workplace relations and building laws, the consequences of breaching the law and the benefits of abiding by the law.

The ABCC is tasked with:

• enforcing the provisions of the BCII Act and WR Act, including investigating reports of unlawful practices and behaviours;
• maintaining an active presence on construction worksites;
• providing advice and assistance on the application of the BCII Act, WR Act, and federal awards and agreements;
• acting promptly on unlawful industrial action, including seeking injunctions;
• commencing court proceedings in response to breaches of the BCII Act and the WR Act;
• providing representation where appropriate to employers and employees to promote enforcement of the law; and
• protecting employee entitlements, combating tax evasion and fraudulent phoenix companies by referring matters to other relevant agencies and bodies such as the AFP and State police, ATO and the ACCC. The ABCC has offices in major capital cities and these key offices service nearby regional areas.

Recommendation 7:

• Merit based appointment provisions be included in any legislation created to establish a National Workplace Relations Regulator.

Response:

The Australian Government does not support this recommendation as it does not support the recommendation for the establishment of a National Workplace Relations Regulator.

Recommendation 8:

• Increase penalty provisions 3 fold in the Workplace Relations Act to act as a deterrent to facilitate greater compliance.

Response:

This recommendation has been implemented with the passage of the Workplace Relations (Codifying Contempt Offences) Act 2004.

Recommendation 9:

• Provide the AIRC with powers to make 'good faith' bargaining orders;
• Increase the capacity for the AIRC to resolve disputes on its own motion and increased resources to ensure timely resolution of disputes;
• Remove limits on the subject matters on which the Australian Industrial Relations Commission can make determinations.
• Response:

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The WR Act is based on the principle that employers and employees (and, where appropriate, unions) are in the best position to agree on appropriate terms and conditions of employment and the appropriate process for making agreements, provided the parties act lawfully. Similarly, employers and employees should be primarily responsible for settling any dispute that may arise in their workplace.

Enabling the AIRC to make orders in relation to good faith bargaining, or to resolve disputes at its own initiative, would generally be inconsistent with the principal object of the WR Act. Provided the parties agree, the AIRC may continue to assist through dispute resolution during collective bargaining, or in relation to the operation of an award, workplace agreement, or statutory entitlement that applies to their relationship. It will be up to the parties to decide the type and extent of assistance they need from the AIRC (or any other dispute resolution provider).

The AIRC will also continue to have an integral role supervising industrial action. The AIRC may prevent or stop unprotected industrial action, or protected industrial action that is threatening to endanger life, personal safety, health or welfare, or to cause significant economic damage.

Further, removing limits on the subject matters is contrary to the Government’s commitment that the role of the award system is as a safety net of minimum wages and conditions.

Recommendation 10:

• Insert Whistleblower provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Response:

This recommendation has been implemented with the passage of the Workplace Relations (Codifying Contempt Offences) Act 2004.

Recommendation 11:

• The Government consider legislating a definition of employee into the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Response:

The Government considers that the current common law based definition of employee in the WR Act should remain, as it provides flexibility that cannot be gained from a statutory definition. This accords with the view that abandoning the common law in favour of a statutory definition will only serve to generate another area of litigation concerning who is and is not an employee. This would add further complexity to this area of the law.

Recommendation 12:

• That the Building Industry Task Force play a more active role in pursuing under-payment of employee entitlements;
• That section 178, imposition and recovery of penalties of the WR Act 1996, relating to breaches of awards and agreement should be better enforced; and
• That section 178 of the WR Act 1996, should be increased three fold to act as a greater deterrent.
• Response:

The Australian Government does not support the view that there is inadequate enforcement of the recovery of employee entitlements.

The Government recognises that the majority of employers who breach their industrial obligations do so out of ignorance, rather than deliberately. The emphasis of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) in dealing with these issues is therefore on voluntary compliance. Around 95 per cent of compliance cases with at least one identified breach were settled in 2003-04 without the need to litigate – the vast majority by voluntary compliance. Of the remaining five per cent, most were settled by small claims actions, with the residual being approved for prosecution by the Department. There is no monetary limit for investigating or prosecuting employers.

The Department also initiated an employee entitlements education and compliance campaign in the building and construction industry in June 2004 in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. The education phase has been finalised. It included newspaper advertisements, letters to employer organisations and letters to 34,000 individual employers. The compliance phase entailed an inspection of the time and wages records of over 300 employers. Of those employers who were in breach of their award, agreement or the WR Act, the great majority were of a minor technical nature, relating to pay records and payslips. Where monetary breaches have been found, they have been minor. DEWR has followed-up these breaches, and only one employer to date has failed to voluntarily rectify the breach. Given most of the breaches can be attributed to poor record keeping, DEWR will run a national education campaign, in consultation with employer groups, on the keeping of records in the building and construction industry. In addition, record keeping information on WageNet will be enhanced.

In relation to the proposal to increase penalties, this was implemented with the passage of the Workplace Relations (Codifying Contempt Offences) Act 2004.

Recommendation 13:

• Implement recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into Australia's Insolvency Laws.

Response:

The Government tabled its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC) inquiry Corporate Insolvency Laws: a Stocktake on 13 October 2005.

Further to the response to Majority Report Recommendation 5, the proposed ‘assetless administration’ fund and the proposed amendment to the requirements for administrators’ reports implement PJC recommendations 28 and 17 respectively.

Recommendation 14:

• No entity or individual may donate more than $100 000 per annum (in cash or kind) to political parties, independents or candidates, or to any person or entity on the understanding that it will be passed on to political parties, independents or candidates.
• Additional disclosure requirements to apply to Political Parties, Independents and Candidates:
• Any donation of over $10 000 to a political party should be disclosed within a short period (at least quarterly) to the Electoral Commission who should publish it on their website so that it can be made public straight away, rather than leaving it until an annual return;
• Professional fundraising must be subject to the same disclosure rules that apply in the Act to donations.
• The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 should specifically prohibit donations that have ‘strings attached’.
• The Corporations, Workplace and other laws be amended so that either:
• Shareholders of companies and members of registered organisations (or any other organisational body such as mutuals) must approve a political donations policy at least once every three years; or in the alternative
• Shareholders of companies and members of registered organisations (or any other organisational body such as mutuals) must approve political donations proposals at the annual general meeting.
• Where the AEC conducts elections for registered and other organisations, the same provisions governing disclosure of donations for political organisations should apply.

Response:

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) is currently conducting an inquiry into the disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates. The Government will consider its response to that Committee’s inquiry once it has been finalised and the report has been tabled.

Recommendation 15:

• That the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Workplace Relations Act be amended as appropriate to ensure democratic control remains vested in the members of political parties. Specifically with respect to registered organisations to:
• Prohibit the affiliation, or maintenance of affiliation, of a federally or State registered employee or employer organisation with a political party unless a secret ballot of members authorising the affiliation has been held at least once in a federal electoral cycle;
• Require a simple majority of members voting to approve affiliation to a political party, subject to a quorum requirement being met.

Response:

The JSCEM is currently conducting an inquiry into the disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates. The Government will consider its response to that Committee’s inquiry once it has been finalised and the report has been tabled.

Recommendation 16:

• Establish a national unitary industrial relations system.

Response:

The Australian Government believes that Australia will benefit from having a national unified industrial relations system. The concurrent regulation of workplace relations by Federal and State laws can make it difficult for industry participants to know their rights and obligations, and can lead to laws being disregarded or flouted. Progress towards a unified national system is vital to address these complexities and inefficiencies affecting both direct stakeholders and the economy at large and has been substantially addressed by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005.

The problems associated with multiple regulation by Federal and State laws of workplace relations matters, such as union right of entry, were recognised by the Cole Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended that entry and inspection provisions in building-specific federal legislation be implemented to the full extent of the Commonwealth’s Constitutional power. To that end, the Government has introduced a single more effective right of entry regime under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (see response to Democrat Recommendation 1).

These measures are consistent with the general approach the Government has so far taken to achieve a more unified national system. In the absence of agreement and referral of powers by the States, the Government has so far pursued its objectives through incremental legislative amendment reliant on a range of constitutional powers including the corporations power.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

To The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry report Legal aid and access to justice 2004 And the Minority Report by Government Senators

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY INTO LEGAL AID AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE INTRODUCTION

The terms of reference of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry Legal aid and access to justice were:

The capacity of the current legal aid and access to justice arrangements to meet the community need for legal assistance, including:

(1)

The performance of current arrangements in achieving national equity and uniform access to justice across Australia, including in outer-metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas;

(2)

The implications of current arrangements in particular types of matters, including criminal law matters, family law matters and civil law matters; and

(3)

The impact of current arrangements on the wider community, including community legal services, pro bono legal services and levels of self-representation.

There are many issues raised in the report that are not new. The recommendations for changes to Australian Government policy on legal aid funding are not supported for reasons that are well documented. The Government’s policy of ensuring that its funds are used by legal aid commissions to provide assistance in Commonwealth law matters is well founded and ensures that disadvantaged Australians with legal problems arising under Commonwealth law, such as family law matters, have access to assistance.

Before the Australian Government introduced this policy in 1997, there was no effective mechanism available to the Government to ensure that priority was given to using Australian Government funds to assist people with matters which arise under Commonwealth law, primarily in family law matters. Anyone seeking assistance with a Commonwealth law matter had to compete for available legal aid resources with an increasing pressure of demand for assistance in State and Territory criminal law matters.

The Government has been working to improve the provision of legal assistance services for disadvantaged Australians for matters arising under Commonwealth law and to improve services to Indigenous Australians.

The Government draws particular attention to the following initiatives.

• The 2004-05 Budget provided a substantial increase in resources for legal aid commissions for Commonwealth law matters, predominantly for family law services. An additional $52.7m is to be provided over four years, which includes $1.3m for program administration. This brings the total funding for family, criminal and civil matters arising under Commonwealth law to $599m over four years. The annual allocation of funding to legal aid commissions has increased by nine percent overall from $127.48m in direct funding in 2003-04 to $138.47m in 2004-05.
• The new funding includes a component to provide a new duty lawyer service to assist those people who seek to represent themselves in family law matters before the Family Court of Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court.
• The new funding also contains a component to assist some legal aid commissions to pay a minimum rate of $120 (GST exclusive) per hour to private solicitors.
• The Government has announced that it will be making significant changes to the family law system which aim to reduce conflict and litigation and encourage more separating parents to reach agreement over parenting arrangements. The proposed reforms include a new network of Family Relationship Centres and an expansion of other services assisting families going through separation. While some cases will still need the courts, especially where violence or child abuse is involved, in most cases the new system will provide better ways of dealing with family law matters than litigation.
• The Government funds a network of specialist legal services for women across Australia under the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program. In the 2004-05 Budget the Government announced an additional $22.7m over four years to double the number of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from 13 to 26 services located predominantly in rural and remote areas. These services work to improve the access of Indigenous people, particularly women and children at risk, to legal services.
• The Government is introducing a range of reforms to ensure that Indigenous Australians have access to high quality, professional and culturally appropriate legal aid services. The Government is committing $120m over three years for the tendering and contracting out of these services and will allocate funds to providers on the basis of relative need using a new funding allocation model. This will provide both increased certainty for service providers and an enhanced ability to distribute resources to those in most need of legal aid services.
• New contracts for legal aid services in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory have all been finalised. Tenders have been released for the provision of legal aid services in New South Wales and Tasmania.
• The reforms include the introduction of a simple means test to ensure funds are allocated to those who need them most; a requirement that prospective tenderers respond to a range of criteria including their ability to provide Indigenous leadership and culturally sensitive legal services; and maintaining the current service priorities that address Indigenous incarceration.

SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO EACH RECOMMENDATION OF THE REPORT

Recommendation 1 —The Committee recommends that the Government reform the funding model for legal aid, taking into account concerns raised by legal aid commissions in the recent review of the model. The Committee is not satisfied with the justifications that have been offered regarding the ‘suppressed demand factor’ and the ‘average case cost’ factor, and recommends that they be removed.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The legal aid funding model was reviewed before new funding offers for the provision of legal services for Commonwealth law matters were made to the States and Territories and legal aid commissions in May 2004. This review was undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department with the assistance of staff of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and in consultation with National Legal Aid (NLA).

Concerns expressed by legal aid commissions about the legal aid funding model were taken into account in the review of the model. The ‘suppressed demand factor’ is not used in the revised funding model. However, the ‘average case cost’ variable has been retained in the model because it has a demonstrable influence on the amount of demand for legal services that can be met from within the funding available. Commonwealth Grants Commission staff advise that, when tested, the cost per case variable is statistically significant and its inclusion in the model improves the ‘goodness of fit’ achieved and hence the reliability of the model.

Recommendation 2 —The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government develop a new funding model to ensure a more equitable distribution of funding between the State and Territories. This model should be based on the work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission model, but with increased funding for the Northern Territory to account for the special challenges it faces in light of its high Indigenous population and remoteness.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

As part of the review of the legal aid funding model, an alternative model was developed at NLA’s request by the staff of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. NLA and the Attorney-General’s Department did not support this model as the distribution achieved did not reflect the operational circumstances of a number of jurisdictions.

The 2004-05 Budget provided additional funding for legal aid commissions for Commonwealth law matters under new agreements to operate from 2004 to 2008. This includes a substantial increase in funding for the Northern Territory.

The Government recognises that Indigenous Australians and people living in rural, regional and remote Australia face separate and different challenges in terms of access to legal services. A new funding allocation model has been developed for Indigenous legal services and applies from 1 July 2005. This model allocates funds on the basis of relative need.

Recommendation 3 – The Committee recommends that the State and Territory legal aid commissions conduct an assessment of current applications to ascertain what increase in successful applications would occur if the following changes were made to the merits test:

          extend eligibility to those earning less than $30,000 after tax; and

          in criminal matters, where a person passes the income test, disregard home equity.

The Government notes that this recommendation is a matter for State and Territory legal aid commissions.

The recommendation relates to the means test applied by legal aid commissions when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for assistance. The components of the means test are set individually by each legal aid commission and apply to applications for assistance for Commonwealth and State or Territory matters.

Recommendation 4 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth introduce a duty solicitor service for the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Government notes that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is working with certain legal aid commissions on pilot duty lawyer schemes, which commissions have the capacity to do under current legal aid agreements.

In January 2004, the AAT and the legal aid bodies in New South Wales and Victoria voluntarily established pilot duty lawyer schemes in the AAT’s Registries in those states. The legal aid bodies agreed to make a solicitor available to attend the Tribunal one half-day each week. A similar pilot scheme was introduced in the Queensland Registry in May 2004. The establishment of similar pilot schemes in South Australia and Western Australia is the subject of discussion with the legal aid commissions in those states. A duty lawyer scheme is not currently required in Tasmania because of the high level of advice and representation provided by the local community legal centre.

The Government has also been active in the area of legislation to ensure that AAT proceedings are as accessible as possible. Section 32 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) provides that an applicant before the AAT may be represented by any person, not just a lawyer. The AAT has procedures and practices designed to assist self-represented applicants and reduce the need for lawyers, including a telephone outreach program. Conferences also serve to assist self-represented applicants in AAT proceedings. Approximately 80 percent of proceedings in 2003-2004 were resolved before hearing.

Amendments to the AAT Act passed in March 2005 further reduce the formality of the procedures of the AAT. Among other things, the range of alternative dispute resolution processes available to the AAT has been expanded.

Recommendation 5 —The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth remove the restriction on the Environmental Defenders Office from using Commonwealth funds for litigation purposes.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

In 2004-05 the Government provided $695,612 to nine specialist Environmental Defenders Offices across Australia. In contrast, the States provided a total of $325,281 to Environmental Defenders Offices.

In determining the most cost-effective use of Australian Government resources available in the legal aid field, the Government made a decision in 1997 to focus the resources of environmental legal services more clearly on priority areas of work. The changed arrangements preclude environmental legal services from using Australian Government funds for litigation related work. The policy ensures that Government funding provided to support the general work of Environmental Defenders Offices is not diverted into supporting expensive one-off litigation at the expense of general services to the community.

Priority areas for environmental legal service delivery under the Community Legal Services Program are the provision of community legal education; information about legal rights and responsibilities; the development of resource materials; liaison; promotion; law reform; research; and legal advisory services for people dealing with environmental matters, including urban planning and heritage protection.

Environmental Defenders Offices are not precluded from using funds from other sources to maintain a litigation practice.

Recommendation 6 —The Committee recommends that the Government fund the establishment of a national forensics institute to provide forensic opinions for defendants in serious criminal matters facing forensic evidence.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government considers that the proposal is primarily an issue for consideration by State and Territory governments as forensic opinions are predominantly required for investigating State and Territory offences.

The Government would require further evidence of the merits of this proposal in relation to Commonwealth criminal law matters before committing any funding to the initiative.

The Australian Government already contributes to the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) which was established, as a National Common Police Service, under an agreement signed by the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council in 1991. NIFS’ role is to:

• sponsor and support research in forensic science
• advise on and assist with the development and co-ordination of forensic science services
• gather and exchange forensic information
• support, co-ordinate and conduct training programs in forensic science
• conduct relevant quality assurance programs, and
• raise the profile of forensic science.

Recommendation 7 - The Committee recommends that Commonwealth and State/Territory governments should provide legal aid impact statements when introducing legislation that is likely to have an effect on legal aid resources.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government agrees that all governments need to consider the impact of the laws they make on the demand for legal aid services.

The Attorney-General’s Department has arrangements in place to consider and advise the Government on possible legal aid implications arising from relevant Cabinet submissions and proposed Commonwealth legislation. The Government considers these arrangements address the need to consider the legal aid impact of new legislation and that the additional administrative requirements involved in the Committee’s proposal would not be warranted.

Recommendation 8 —The Committee recommends that Commonwealth and State and Territory governments engage in consultations with legal aid commissions when introducing legislation that may increase demand for legal aid. If such an increase is identified, governments should provide corresponding increases in funding to compensate legal aid commissions for this increase in demand.

The Government does not accept this recommendation given the confidentiality requirements of Government legislative and Cabinet processes.

Recommendation 9 —The Committee recommends that the current purchaser/provider funding arrangement be abolished, and that Commonwealth funding be provided in the same ‘cooperative’ manner as existed prior to 1997.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government’s policy of ensuring that its funds are used by legal aid commissions to provide assistance in Commonwealth law matters is well founded and ensures that disadvantaged Australians with legal problems arising under Commonwealth law, such as family law matters, have access to assistance. Before the Australian Government introduced this policy in 1997, there was no effective mechanism available to the Government to ensure that priority was given to using Commonwealth funds to assist people with matters which arise under Commonwealth law, primarily family law matters. Anyone seeking assistance with a Commonwealth law matter had to compete for available legal aid resources with an increasing pressure of demand for assistance in State and Territory criminal law matters.

Information provided by legal aid commissions indicates that since the Australian Government’s introduction of the policy of directing its funding to Commonwealth matters, State and Territory governments have increased their contribution to legal aid commission funding. The Government notes that it is the responsibility of State and Territory governments to ensure adequate funding for matters that arise under their own laws.

Recommendation 10 – If the current purchaser/provider funding arrangement is retained, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government amend the funding agreements to allow the legal aid commissions to use 10 per cent of Commonwealth funding at their own discretion.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The implementation of this recommendation would be contrary to Government policy on Australian Government legal aid funding for Commonwealth law matters. The existing legal aid funding agreements for legal aid commissions provide legal aid commissions with discretion, within the priorities and guidelines set by the Government, to determine the most appropriate mix of assistance to provide to clients seeking assistance for Commonwealth law matters.

The agreements also provide for the review and amendment of the priorities and guidelines where the need arises. The Attorney-General’s Department has regular discussions with legal aid commissions about the provision of services under the agreement, including discussions on the operation of the priorities and guidelines.

Recommendation 11 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government should fund a national survey of demand and unmet need for legal services, to be undertaken in cooperation with State legal aid commissions and community legal centres. The objectives of the survey should be to ascertain the demand and unmet need for legal services across the country, and to identify obstacles to the delivery of such services, particularly to the economic and socially disadvantaged.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government does not agree that there is value in a national survey of unmet legal need or the demand for legal services. The funding of such a national survey is not a matter that falls to the Australian Government alone as the provision of legal assistance is a responsibility it shares with State and Territory governments.

In meeting its responsibilities under Commonwealth law, the Government has undertaken a significant amount of work to ensure that the funds it provides for legal aid services are distributed equitably across the States and Territories, using relevant demographic factors.

The Government announced in the 2004-05 Budget that an additional $52.7m is to be provided over four years for Commonwealth legal aid, including $1.3m for program administration. This brings the total funding for family, criminal and civil matters arising under Commonwealth law to $599m over four years. The Government will

continue to set priorities and guidelines for the provision of assistance in Commonwealth law matters.

Governments and legal aid bodies should ensure that available resources are used efficiently and cost-effectively to provide services. The emphasis is to target services appropriately; for example, to ensure that they are located correctly and that disadvantaged clients who require assistance are identified.

Recommendation 12 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government address discrimination against the circumstances of women in the application of the current family law legal aid funding guidelines and priorities, by commissioning national research into the perceived gender bias in legal aid decision-making.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Commonwealth legal aid funding guidelines and priorities apply equally to men and women in Commonwealth law matters, including family law.

Legal aid commissions are independent statutory bodies and decisions about grants of aid are the responsibility of the commission. In order to ensure that assistance is provided to those who are most in need, the Australian Government has established priorities and guidelines for assistance for Commonwealth legal matters. Applicants for assistance are also subject to means and merits tests.

Legal aid statistical data for the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003 show that, nationally, the highest number of applications approved for grants of legal aid in Commonwealth matters was in the family law area. In addition, statistics for the same period show that, nationally, the highest number of applications approved for grants of legal aid by gender was for women.

The Government notes that Legal Aid Queensland and Griffith University are currently undertaking a long-term study of women’s access to legal aid services. The study is being funded by the Australian Research Council and is led by Professor Rosemary Hunter, Dean of Law at Griffith University. The study should provide further insight into women’s access to legal aid services. The Attorney-General’s Department is represented on the advisory group for the project.

Recommendation 13 – The Committee strongly endorses the recommendation made in the Committee’s Third Report that legal aid expenditure be closely scrutinised by the Commonwealth Government to determine generally if disproportionate expenditure in certain priority areas is having the effect of depriving other areas of appropriate funding.

The Government notes that in its response to recommendation 6 of the 3rd report, the Government advised that:

Under the new legal aid agreements, legal aid commissions provide detailed performance information to the Attorney-General’s Department. This information is analysed and compared to predetermined performance targets,

with commissions being required to advise on variations and discrepancies in the services provided. Any such variation or discrepancies are the subject of discussion at regular meetings with commission representatives (p 8, Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry into the Australian legal aid system 3’rd report, nd).

The Government supports the need for proper scrutiny of expenditure of public funds in providing services to the community. Existing requirements will be strengthened under the reporting arrangements in new legal aid funding agreements which will operate from 2004-05. The new agreements provide enhanced transparency in accounting for the use of funds.

In consultation with legal aid commissions and other key legal aid stakeholders, the Attorney-General’s Department will continue to monitor the provision of services by legal aid commissions to legal aid clients seeking assistance for matters arising under Commonwealth law. Revised and updated priorities and guidelines are an integral part of the new legal aid agreements. They are the result of a process which includes the consideration of issues raised by stakeholders in relation to the availability of legal aid for matters arising under Commonwealth law. The Department will continue to monitor and review the priorities and guidelines under the new agreements.

Recommendation 14 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government increase as a matter of urgency the level of funding available for family law matters.

The Government has announced that it will be making significant changes to the family law system which aim to reduce conflict and litigation and encourage more separating parents to reach agreement over parenting arrangements. The proposed reforms include a new network of Family Relationship Centres and an expansion of other services assisting families going through separation. While some cases will still need the courts, especially where violence or child abuse is involved, in most cases the new system will provide better ways of dealing with family law matters than litigation.

The Government has provided a substantial increase in resources for legal aid commissions for Commonwealth law matters, which will predominantly go to providing additional services in family law. In the 2004-05 Budget, the Australian Government announced that an additional $52.7m, which includes $1.3m for program administration, is to be provided over four years for Commonwealth legal aid. This brings the total funding for family, criminal and civil matters arising under Commonwealth law to $599m over four years. The annual allocation of funding to legal aid commissions has increased from $127.48m in direct funding in 2003-04 to $138.74m in 2004-05, an overall increase of nine percent.

The new funding includes a component to provide a new duty lawyer service to assist those people who seek to represent themselves in family law matters before the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court.

The new funding also contains a component to assist some legal aid commissions to pay a minimum rate of $120 (GST exclusive) per hour to private solicitors undertaking Commonwealth family law matters.

The new funding is in addition to the funding of $4m over four years provided by the Government in the 2002-03 Budget to support the use of primary dispute resolution services in legal aid commissions. The funds were provided as part of the Government’s ‘Keeping people out of courts’ initiative. In December 1999, the Government provided an additional $63m for Commonwealth matters over the period 2000-04.

Recommendation 15 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments, in conjunction with legal aid commissions, the courts and relevant women’s organisations, give priority to an urgent and comprehensive review of legal aid services to women with the aim of formulating more appropriate and wide-reaching services to meet their specific needs. In particular, the Committee considers it imperative that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments recognise and address the gender-specific barriers to justice that women face in order to better structure and tailor the legal aid system to meet their particular needs and experiences.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government funds a network of specialist legal services for women across Australia under the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program. During 2004-05, 18 centres throughout Australia received a total of $4.74m to provide specialist legal services for women. This included generalist women’s legal assistance and referral services, legal services for women in rural and remote areas and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s projects to address the particular legal service needs of Indigenous women.

The Government funding model, which in part determines the funding distribution for legal aid in Commonwealth matters, takes demographic factors into account to ensure equity across States and Territories.

In the 2004-05 Budget, the Government announced an additional $22.7m over four years to double the number of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from 13 to 26 services located predominately in rural and remote areas. These services work to improve the access of Indigenous people, particularly women and children at risk, to legal services, and to provide holistic and culturally appropriate responses to family violence in Indigenous communities.

Recommendation 16 – The Committee repeats the recommendation in its Third Report that the Commonwealth Government should act to ensure the necessary data on the operation of the ‘cap’ in family law matters is collected, analysed, published and acted upon to ensure that capping does not deny justice in particular cases.

The Government accepts the recommendation in part.

The Government agrees that collecting and analysing data is an important function but considers that there are adequate measures in place to monitor the operation of the family law cost caps.

Family law is one of the priorities for Commonwealth matters. In order to ensure that the greatest number of applicants can be assisted, the family law costs management guideline sets a limit on costs for a family law matter. The guideline also provides discretion to a commission to increase the costs cap if, in its opinion, undue hardship would otherwise be caused to an applicant for assistance. Other factors must also be taken into consideration in exercising the discretion. The amount of the cap has been increased in the context of grants made under the new legal aid agreements.

The guideline also requires commissions to provide quarterly reports in relation to cases in which the costs cap is exceeded.

The Attorney-General’s Department will continue to monitor the operation of the guideline under the new legal aid agreements and consult legal aid commissions and other stakeholders over issues which may arise.

Recommendation 17 – The Committee recommends that a pilot project similar to the Magellan Project be adopted where the usual legal aid guidelines are altered in cases involving allegations of domestic violence. In effect this would mean removing the ‘cap’ on legal aid funding so that women who are victims of domestic violence would be guaranteed unlimited legal aid funding. Similarly to the Magellan Project, the usual means and merit tests should be maintained. Pending wider application of that principle, the Committee recommends that the ‘cap’ should be indexed annually for movements in the Consumer Price Index.

The Government accepts that there should be further consideration of this recommendation in consultation with legal aid commissions and other relevant stakeholders, and notes that resources for any project would have to be considered in the context of budget priorities.

The Government agrees that family law matters which involve allegations of domestic violence require careful treatment. The Commonwealth legal aid guidelines make specific provision to ensure these matters are treated as urgent matters and are given priority for assistance. The existing guidelines also allow legal aid commission directors discretion in the way the legal aid cost management guidelines are applied to individual cases. This means that there is flexibility within the existing Commonwealth guidelines for managing cases involving allegations of domestic violence cases.

The Government also notes that any waiving of the cap for family law matters would not provide an entitlement to unlimited legal aid funding. Legal aid commissions are required to ensure that legal aid funds are used efficiently and effectively so that costs are managed appropriately.

The direct responsibility for funding assistance in relation to domestic violence matters remains the responsibility of State and Territory governments. There would be implications for legal aid funding for assistance in other legal aid matters if funds were to be quarantined for a pilot project along the lines of that proposed by the Committee.

The Government does not accept the recommendation to index the cap for movement in the consumer price index (CPI). The CPI is not part of the indexation provisions for funding provided under the legal aid program and does not provide a useful measure of changes in legal costs.

Recommendation 18 —The Committee repeats the recommendation made in its Third Report that the Commonwealth Government should: either

• provide an adequate level of funding for legal assistance in matters arising under State/Territory law against domestic violence and child abuse (which are clearly aligned with the Commonwealth family law legal aid priority of providing assistance to spouses and children who are the victims of domestic violence); or
• enhance the remedies currently available under Commonwealth law for domestic violence and child abuse and then ensure that adequate funding is provided to enable victims of domestic violence and child abuse to access those remedies.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government’s position as set out in its response to the Third Report has not changed:

Laws relating to domestic violence are usually the responsibility of State or Territory governments. Those governments have enacted laws to ensure that people are able to obtain redress against domestic violence. In the Commonwealth’s view, it is the responsibility of the jurisdictions that enact those laws to support legal aid funding, where it is required, for people to assert and maintain their rights under the law. Any shortfall in funding for matters arising under State and Territory law is a matter for the State or Territory concerned.

[2] Under Commonwealth legal aid guidelines, victims of violence who seek protection pursuant to an order of the Family Court can receive Commonwealth funded legal aid. Moreover, the guidelines provide assistance in urgent family law matters to seek an interim order or injunction where the applicant’s safety is at risk. A ‘special circumstance’ provision has been included in the guidelines. This enables commissions to treat, as a Commonwealth priority, family law matters where there is, or is a likelihood of, domestic violence (especially if allegations of domestic violence have been made). Guidance for legal aid commissions in relation to the handling of domestic violence considerations is provided. The intention of the latter is to ensure consistency of treatment for domestic violence matters, whether State/Territory or Commonwealth, rather than to arrogate to the Commonwealth matters which are properly classed as State or Territory matters. Additionally, a specific provision that addresses domestic violence considerations in the context of family law property matter has also been included (Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry into the Australian legal aid system 3rd report, nd).

Domestic violence injunctions are remedies already available through sections 68B and 114 of the Family Law Act 1975. There is also provision to preserve the operation of the relevant State and Territory laws where they have been invoked. The Government considers the current system where the majority of domestic violence orders are obtained under State and Territory laws to be appropriate. It does not consider that the problem as defined by the Committee would be best addressed by amending the Family Law Act to provide greater access to domestic violence orders. There are potential constitutional problems for the Commonwealth if it were to attempt this. The current provisions in the Family Law Act are clearly linked to the break down of the marriage or the impact on children, about which the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to legislate.

Recommendation 19 —The Committee recommends that victims of domestic violence not be required by legal aid commissions to participate in primary dispute resolution processes as a condition of access to legal aid.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government agrees that it would be inappropriate to require victims of domestic violence to participate in primary dispute resolution (PDR) if the person’s safety or ability to negotiate effectively is in jeopardy. However, that does not mean that PDR is inappropriate in all domestic violence cases.

It would be restrictive to determine that all victims of domestic violence cannot participate in PDR. Suitability for PDR has to be considered on a case by case basis and legal aid officers need to be able to make an individual assessment.

The Government acknowledges that it is critically important that legal aid commissions have screening procedures in place to identify those matters which involve allegations of domestic violence. Under the Commonwealth guidelines, a commission will only make a grant of legal assistance requiring an applicant to participate in PDR services if it considers that this is appropriate. The commission must give an applicant for assistance the opportunity to give reasons if the applicant is strongly opposed to participation in PDR services.

The guidelines set out factors where participation in PDR services is usually inappropriate, and these include where a party’s safety or ability to negotiate effectively is jeopardised by behaviour of the other party such as violence, intimidation, control or coercion. If there are or have previously been any reported allegations, investigations or court proceedings relating to violence against the other party, or child abuse in relation to a child of the parties, and the commission determines that participation in PDR services is appropriate in that matter, the commission must endeavour to ensure that the party’s safety or ability to effectively negotiate will not be jeopardised, and that it is reasonable to proceed with participation in PDR services at the current time.

Under the Family Law Regulations, community and private mediators must conduct an assessment of the parties to the dispute to determine whether mediation is appropriate. Factors that can affect the ability of the parties to negotiate freely are considered and include any history of family violence, the likely safety of the parties and the equality of bargaining power, the risk that a child may suffer abuse, the health of the parties, and any other relevant matter.

The Australian Government arranged and funded the development of a resource manual and training for staff of legal aid commissions working in PDR programs in August 2002. The training addressed awareness amongst intake/screening staff of issues surrounding, and the dynamics of, domestic violence in the PDR context. Aims of the training included developing staff skills in making assessments about the appropriateness of PDR services for legal aid clients and increased consistency between legal aid commissions with respect to screening/intake processes and the way domestic violence issues are managed.

Recommendation 20 —The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government adopt appropriate guidelines and procedures in relation to grants of legal aid for women whose circumstances are not suitable for participation in primary dispute resolution.

The Government accepts this recommendation, qualified by its response to recommendation 19.

The current Commonwealth legal aid guidelines in relation to primary dispute resolution were developed in consultation with legal aid commissions specifically to ensure that issues relating to domestic violence are adequately addressed in determining the appropriateness of PDR for each case. If a legal aid commission determines that participation in PDR services is inappropriate in a particular matter, the commission may make a grant of legal assistance for litigation services if the matter is eligible for assistance.

Recommendation 21 —The Committee recommends that the Family Court and legal aid commissions closely monitor the new Family Court guidelines on child representatives to determine what impact, if any, they have on legal aid budgets for family law matters generally.

The Government notes that this recommendation is a matter for the Family Court and legal aid commissions.

The Government understands that National Legal Aid was represented on the Court Committee that developed the Family Court guidelines on child representatives. It notes further that Family Court guidelines are not practice directions; that is, they retain flexibility and are not strictly binding.

Recommendation 22 – The Committee recommends that a separate pool of funding for child representation ultimately be established so that decisions made by the Family Court and/or the Federal Magistrates Court to appoint child representatives do not impact on the availability of legal aid funds for parents in family law proceedings.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

Quarantining Commonwealth legal aid funds specifically for child representatives in family law matters would reduce the flexibility of legal aid commissions to manage their budgets to meet clients’ needs. Under the Commonwealth guidelines, a commission may make a grant for the separate representation of a child in court proceedings if a court makes an order for separate representation and asks the commission to arrange for a child representative to provide the separate representation, and the commission decides that it is reasonable to provide a grant of legal assistance for the separate representation. A court order does not impose an obligation on the commission to make a grant of legal assistance for the separate representation.

Recommendation 23 – The Committee strongly recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide legal funding to enable legal representation to be available to all parties in family law disputes where there are allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, or other serious allegations.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

Under the Commonwealth legal aid guidelines, in deciding whether to make a grant for legal assistance for family law matters, a legal aid commission must give the highest priority to urgent matters. These matters include where the applicant’s safety is at risk.

The provision of assistance needs to operate within the existing legal aid framework which includes a means and merits tests for legal aid applications. Providing assistance to all parties in a family law dispute in the circumstances set out by the Committee may lead to assistance being given to those who have the capacity to fund their own assistance. Providing assistance to persons financially able to fund their matter would decrease service levels in other areas.

The Government also notes that the issue raised by the Committee – that of women being forced to deal directly with a self-represented former partner where there is a history of domestic violence – will not necessarily be prevented by automatically funding all parties in such matters. The Committee itself also draws attention to the issue of vexatious litigants and, in chapter 10, to other reasons apart from legal aid funding for litigants to represent themselves.

The Government will continue to work with legal aid commissions and other stakeholders to ensure that family law matters involving issues of violence or abuse continue to be given a high priority and to explore measures that may improve the operation of legal aid arrangements for providing assistance in these matters.

Recommendation 24 – The Committee recommends that appropriate coordinated schemes to deal with domestic violence be implemented in those States and Territories where they do not presently exist, as well as in the Family Court, and that such schemes be modelled on successful schemes already in place. The Committee also considers that current schemes could be usefully expanded to include a greater emphasis on community education with the aim of removing the stigma often associated with domestic violence.

The Government supports the implementation of effective schemes to deal with domestic violence as recommended by the Committee.

A number of coordinated schemes have successfully been implemented in some jurisdictions through joint Australian Government and State government funding under Partnerships Against Domestic Violence. The coordinated schemes trialled under Partnerships reflect the Australian Government’s leadership role in identifying and funding national approaches to prevent and reduce domestic violence in Australia. While these projects have been successful, funding under Partnerships ceased in the financial year 2004-05. The ongoing funding of services in this area remains a State and Territory government responsibility.

The Australian Government supports the idea of including community education as part of the role of these coordinated schemes.

Recommendation 25 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission research to determine the particular needs of women living in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia in recognition of the fact that improved and coordinated services to women living in those areas are urgently required.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Australian Government recognises the importance of providing women access to legal aid services in rural, regional and remote communities, particularly in relation to family violence and family law matters.

In 2004-05, the Government provided $4.74m to specialist women’s, rural women’s and Indigenous women’s services. Nine services received a total of $0.6m to provide specialist rural women’s legal services. There are a further eight services receiving a total of $0.9m to provide specialist legal services to indigenous women. In addition, two women’s legal services receive Commonwealth funding to provide outreach services to women in outer metropolitan and semi-rural areas outside two major cities.

In the 2004–05 Budget, the Government announced an additional $22.7m over four years to double the number of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from 13 to 26 services located predominately in rural and remote areas. These services work to improve the access of Indigenous people, particularly women and children at risk, to legal services, and to provide holistic and culturally appropriate responses to family violence in Indigenous communities. Areas of greatest need, including relevant research, will be a relevant factor in determining the location of new services.

The Regional Women’s Advisory Council was established in 1999 by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to provide women’s perspective on issues that affect communities in regional, rural and remote Australia. The Council provides advice directly to the Deputy Prime Minister.

Recommendation 26 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission research in relation to the delivery of legal services and community education for women in areas other than family law, such as immigration and refugee law, human rights law, civil law and administrative law, and in relation to women prisoners, with a view to improving the delivery of services and education.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Australian Government provides funding through its existing programs which provide access to a range of non-family law legal assistance services.

The Government funds State and Territory legal aid commissions to provide information through means such as telephone, email, website or video link; legal advice and minor assistance, which includes substantive advice provided by telephone, email or video link; and community legal education. This includes a range of services designed to provide information about rights and responsibilities under the law. Assistance is not limited to family law issues. The Commonwealth legal aid priorities and guidelines provide for the provision of grants of aid for family, criminal and civil law matters. Assistance in civil law matters is available for social security and other Australian Government benefit matters, migration cases in limited circumstances, equal opportunity and discrimination cases, war veterans and their widows in relation to war-caused disability pensions, and other general Federal Court and High Court proceedings where there is a strong prospect of substantial benefit to the applicant for assistance in relation to the matter.

Under the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program, funded organisations are required to provide a range of core service activities including community legal education. Community legal centres are able to allocate their generalist funding to address the priority needs they identify in their local community, both in service delivery and community education activities. These can include the areas of law identified by the Committee but the most common areas of law in which clients seek assistance are family and civil law. Moreover, community legal centres are required under the program’s service standards to evaluate their activities on the basis of stakeholder feedback and identify improved ways of delivering community legal education.

Some of the funding under the Community Legal Services Program is directed to specialist sub-programs and projects that are specifically targeted to special needs groups. These include child support services; Disability Discrimination Act 1992 services; Environmental Defenders Office services; welfare rights services; women’s legal services; Indigenous women’s projects; rural women’s outreach projects; youth legal services; civil litigation projects; and clinical legal education.

In addition, the Government funds a community legal centre in Queensland which specifically provides services for people in prison.

The Australian Government places great importance on the role of human rights education in protecting and promoting human rights. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has a major focus on education. This includes programs aimed at ensuring that women are aware of their rights.

Recommendation 27 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government should urgently increase the level of funding to Indigenous legal services in order to promote access to justice for Indigenous people. In doing so, the Government must factor issues of language, culture, literacy, remoteness and incarceration rates into the cost of service delivery.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government recognises that Indigenous Australians and people living in rural, regional and remote Australia face separate and different challenges in terms of access to legal services.

A new funding allocation model has been developed for Indigenous legal services, and will apply from 1 July 2005. This model allocates funds on the basis of relative need.

In the 2004-05 Budget, the Government announced an additional $22.7m over four years to double the number of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from 13 to 26 services located predominately in rural and remote areas.

Recommendation 28 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government’s ‘Exposure Draft of a Request for Tender for the Purchase of Legal Services for Indigenous Australians’ should be withdrawn and its underlying policy reconsidered.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

An open and competitive tendering process is consistent with standard Government procurement guidelines. Tendering is aimed at achieving the highest quality service and providing value for money.

• The Exposure Draft was a draft document, made available for comment from interested parties. The Government considered all submissions received before developing the final Request for Tender (RFT), which was released on 13 November 2004 in relation to services in Victoria and Western Australia. New contracts for legal aid services in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory have all been finalised. Tenders have been released for the provision of legal aid services in New South Wales and Tasmania.

Recommendation 29 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission a comprehensive national study to determine accurately the legal needs of Indigenous women.

The Government will give further consideration to this recommendation.

The Government agrees that information on the legal needs of Indigenous women is limited and acknowledges that there is merit in examining issues surrounding perceived gender bias in regard to Indigenous women’s access to legal services and issues surrounding the legal needs of Indigenous people generally.

In June 2004, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a National Framework of Principles for Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Australians. The Framework will guide bilateral discussions between the Australian and State and Territories governments on the Australian Government’s new arrangements for Indigenous affairs and on the best means of engaging with Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples to address priorities at the local and regional level. A key element of the Government’s new administrative arrangements for Indigenous affairs is the development of Shared Responsibility Agreements and Regional Partnership Agreements between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These agreements will be informed by the priorities identified by the Indigenous communities themselves and will provide a framework for all governments to respond in a cooperative way to these priorities.

As part of the implementation of these COAG initiatives, the Government will consider whether to conduct a legal needs analysis for Indigenous people, including an analysis of the legal needs of Indigenous women.

Recommendation 30 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments address the needs of Indigenous women as a matter of urgency by improving, developing and promoting appropriate legal and community services, community education programs, domestic violence support networks and funding models to ensure that the experience of Indigenous women within the justice system is fair and equitable. In implementing this recommendation, the Commonwealth Government, State/Territory governments, legal aid commissions and other key stakeholders should consult widely with Indigenous women, so that the impetus for change comes from Indigenous women themselves.

See recommendation 31

Recommendation 31 – The Committee recommends that the Government allocate sufficient funding to Indigenous legal services and Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Legal Services to enable adequate provision of effective legal services for Indigenous women in family law and family violence matters, including funding for additional culturally sensitive services in areas of highest need.

The Government notes that it is working to address the needs of Indigenous women.

The Government agrees that improving legal and related services for Indigenous women is a priority area of need. In the 2004-05 Budget, the Government announced an additional $22.7m over four years to double the number of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services from 13 to 26 services located predominately in rural and remote areas. The location of these additional services has been determined on the basis of highest need.

Under the Government’s funding arrangements for the provision of legal services to Indigenous Australians, providers are also required to give priority to applicants who fall into one or more of five priority categories, including where there is a real risk to the person’s physical safety, and where the person’s cultural or personal well-being is at risk.

As set out in response to recommendations 29 and 33, a key element of the Government’s new administrative arrangements for Indigenous affairs is the development of Shared Responsibility Agreements and Regional Partnership Agreements between governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These agreements will be informed by the priorities identified by the Indigenous communities themselves and will provide a framework for all governments to respond in a cooperative way.

Recommendation 32 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments address the serious problem of lack of access to justice for Indigenous people in remote areas by providing resources to support the expansion and development of available services.

The Government notes that it is working to address a range of service delivery issues through the Council of Australian Governments.

The National Framework of Principles for Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Australians will provide a framework to guide bilateral discussions between the Australian and State and Territories governments on service delivery arrangements. The Government is implementing new service delivery arrangements for its programs and services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the establishment of Indigenous Coordination Centres in rural and remote areas. These new arrangements build on the whole-of-government service delivery trials sites across the country and will be underpinned by the development of a range of trilateral service delivery agreements between the Australian and State and Territory governments and Indigenous community organisations representing their respective Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

The Government acknowledges that the provision of legal services to Indigenous Australians in rural and remote areas of Australia raises unique challenges. Under the Government’s funding arrangements for the provision of these services, providers are encouraged to locate close to areas that have a high Indigenous population, and special attention must be paid to the needs of clients from remote communities not serviced by mainstream providers.

Recommendation 33 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government conduct a legal needs analysis for Indigenous people throughout Australia through a national strategy involving all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, legal aid commissions, community legal centres and other key stakeholders.

See recommendation 29

Recommendation 34 – The Committee recommends that technological initiatives such as videoconferencing and telephone advice services should be used by the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments, legal aid commissions and community legal centres as part of an integrated approach to providing services in rural, regional and remote areas. The use of technology can potentially provide practical solutions to those living in such areas, in conjunction with face-to-face legal services.

The Government accepts this recommendation with qualifications.

The Government supports and encourages the use of technology in appropriate circumstances to improve the availability of services to people living in regional, rural and remote communities.

In May 2005, the Government announced the establishment of a new Family Relationship Advice Line and website as part of a package of reforms to the family law system. The new telephone and online services, available from July 2006, will enable families in all parts of Australia to access information and advice about family relationships and separation. The telephone service will include simple legal advice about family law-related issues by qualified legal practitioners. This will be particularly helpful for families in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia who are unable to access face to face services.

Legal aid commissions and most community legal centres also offer free telephone legal information or advice. Legal aid commission assistance lines are available to regional and rural callers through 1300 and 1800 numbers.

The Government recognises that services must be appropriate to the needs of people living in rural and remote communities. The Government would support further research into the acceptance of video conferencing by potential clients in rural and remote communities, including the issues of maintaining the anonymity of clients using services in small communities and of cost. During 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004, community legal centres reported that 23 clients had been assisted by using video-conferencing facilities.

Recommendation 35 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments provide additional funding to State/Territory legal aid commissions and community legal centres to allow them to expand their services, including outreach services, to rural, regional and remote areas which are currently seriously under-funded. Additional funding must take into account the significant resources that are required by legal aid commissions and community legal centres in undertaking resource-building initiatives in rural, regional and remote areas.

See recommendation 36.

Recommendation 36 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments allocate additional funding to enable legal aid commissions, at their discretion, to open and maintain new regional and rural offices throughout Australia to provide legal services in those areas which legal aid commissions assess as being under-serviced.

The Government does not accept these recommendations.

The Government agrees that providing access to legal assistance services to people who live in rural, regional and remote areas is an important priority. Since coming to office the Government has funded 11 new community legal centres in Broken Hill, Nowra, Morwell, Albury-Wodonga, Mt Isa, Port Pirie, Mt Gambier, Berri, Albany, Kalgoorlie and Kununurra and has increased funding for extended outreach from the Darwin Community Legal Centre. From July 2006, the Government’s new Family Relationship Advice Line will enable families across Australia, including in rural, regional and remote areas, to obtain information and advice about family relationships and separation. This includes simple legal advice about family law related issues by qualified legal practitioners.

Recommendation 37 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments, in conjunction with the law societies in each State/Territory and the Law Council of Australia, fully investigate the viability of providing a subsidy (or any other relevant incentives), and developing a coordinated national approach, aimed at attracting and retaining lawyers to live and work in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges the concerns identified in the report over the availability of lawyers in rural, regional and remote areas. Subsidies and other incentives would be costly to administer and the Government does not consider that incentives administered at a national level would be effective. The issue is one that would be most effectively addressed by each State and Territory taking into account local considerations. The subject raises a broader range of issues than could be dealt with under the terms for reference for this Senate inquiry.

Recommendation 38 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government conduct research to determine the particular needs and services required by people living in rural, regional and remote areas of Australia. The Committee urges the Commonwealth Government and the State/Territory governments to develop mechanisms, in conjunction with legal aid commissions in each State and Territory, to ensure that people living in rural, regional and remote areas are not disadvantaged, nor denied basic services and access to the legal aid system, simply because of where they live.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

Details of additional legal assistance services for regional, rural and remote communities that the Government has funded since coming to office are set out in the Government’s responses to recommendations 34, 36 and 39.

Recommendation 39 – The Committee recommends that any increase in funding for rural, regional and remote areas should not be at the expense of funding for metropolitan areas. Additional funding is urgently required to address the problem of lack of legal and related services in rural, regional and remote areas.

The Government accepts this recommendation in part.

The Government agrees that funding for legal assistance services in rural, regional and remote communities should not be provided at the expense of funding for other services.

The Government supports the provision of legal and related services in rural, regional and remote areas. Since coming to office, the Australian Government has funded 11 new community legal services in regional, rural and remote Australia. Funding for the new services came out of new budget initiatives and did not involve any diversion of funding from other community legal centres.

Many metropolitan community legal centres provide outreach services to their surrounding communities by way of toll-free telephone advice, and in many cases, by bringing the legal services to the clients in their own areas when they require face-to-face advice and would not otherwise be able to access the service.

The Government has also allocated new funding to establish the Family Relationship Advice Line, including simple legal advice on family law matters. The Advice Line will be available from July 2006.

Recommendation 40 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments ensure that thorough consultation takes place with rural, regional and remote communities in order to determine the most appropriate legal and associated services required in particular communities. All consultations should occur before any establishment of any new services.

The Government accepts this recommendation with qualifications.

The Government agrees with the need to consult with relevant stakeholders in the development of Government policy. Such consultation needs to be undertaken within realistic limits, and not at the expense of programs and service provision and delivery. The Government notes that existing regional networks such as the Area Consultative Committee network are available for undertaking community consultations on possible changes to existing arrangements and the needs of various regions.

The Government has pursued a more equitable distribution of resources for the delivery of community legal services through a series of joint Commonwealth/State reviews. The reviews of community legal services undertaken since 1997 have been aimed at identifying how access to services can be improved. They have looked at statistical indicators of comparative socio-economic disadvantage between local government areas and regions and population trends to identify where need is likely to exist and to determine future funding priorities.

Recommendation 41 —The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Priorities and Guidelines relating to the provision of migration assistance be amended such that assistance is available to those applicants meeting the means and merits tests, for preliminary and review stages of migration matters, including challenges to visa decisions and deportation orders.

See recommendation 42

Recommendation 42 —In implementing Recommendation 41, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide the necessary funding to legal aid commissions to meet the need for such services.

The Government does not accept these recommendations.

These matters have been subject to ongoing review in regular reports by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee (SLCRC) and the Australian Law Reform Commission. However, the current SLCRC report does not present new perspectives on the need for, or the nature of, legal assistance in migration matters in arriving at Recommendations 41 and 42.

Visa decisions are often challenged in tribunals and courts. In 2003-04, over 20, 900 migration matters were finalised in the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), including 4, 709 finalised cases in the courts.

Migration applicants thus have the opportunity to have their case considered at two levels —at the primary decision stage and by administrative review in the MRT, RRT or AAT. If applicants choose to pursue their case further by way of judicial review, this should generally be at their own expense, subject to the current exceptions in the Commonwealth legal aid priorities and guidelines.

The SLCRC report recognises that there is specialist funding under the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme. The Government does not consider there is a need for the Commonwealth legal aid priorities and guidelines to be amended.

Recommendation 43 —The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth and States/Territories should jointly fund a $100,000 pilot program in each jurisdiction to assess the viability of a ‘one-stop-shop’ interpreter service for community legal centres and legal aid services, to be administered by the legal aid commissions.

The Government notes that there may be advantages in the use of interpreters with experience or skills in specialist areas, and that the level of demand across a range of languages would be a factor in assessing the viability of a ‘one-stop-shop’.

The Government also notes that funding for a pilot program would be a matter for the individual jurisdictions to consider in the context of their budget processes.

Recommendation 44 – The Committee recommends that if the IAAAS scheme is to continue as the main source of assistance for migrants and refugees, this program should be administered by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department as opposed to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, to avoid any conflict of interest.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government accepts that the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) should continue. It does not agree to the transfer of the scheme to the Attorney-General’s Department as there is no conflict of interest in the management of the scheme by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).

DIMIA decision makers have a statutory obligation to assess whether applicants satisfy the criteria for grant of a visa. DIMIA has no vested interest in visa outcomes and visas are granted where the relevant criteria are met.

The protection visa process has been structured to obviate the need for asylum seekers to retain professional assistance to pursue their claims. However, in recognition that some visa applicants are disadvantaged and may need assistance, a number of independent, professional, registered Migration Agents have been selected through a formal tender process to administer the scheme. These service providers represent a wide range of legal and community organisations, not under the influence of the Department.

Recommendation 45 – The Committee recommends that if the IAAAS scheme is to continue as the main source of assistance for migrants and refugees, the funding periods should be extended from 6 months to 12 months to allow specialist services and community legal centres to engage in longer term planning.

The Government notes that as general practice, DIMIA allocates funding for IAAAS community work on an annual basis. Service providers are notified of their funding allocation in advance. The provision of IAAAS services in detention centres is funded on a per unit cost basis.

Recommendation 46 – The Committee recommends that the Migration Agents Registration Authority cooperate with specialist migration advice services and community legal centres to minimise the costs of complying with the continuing professional development requirements that it administers.

The Government notes that the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) continues to work closely with community legal centres and others to ensure that the costs of complying with the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program that it administers continue to be fair and reasonable.

The CPD program is an important means of ensuring that migration agents keep their knowledge of migration law and policies up-to-date. The CPD program is one of a number of initiatives to better protect consumers from the minority of migration agents who do not live up to the standards expected from this profession.

The MARA is keenly aware of the issue of costs for migration agents, particularly those from the non-commercial sector which provide a valuable no-cost service to clients. The MARA will continue to work with non-commercial organisations to expand their understanding of the concessions already provided to that sector, to assist with meeting regulatory costs. Existing concessions include:

• agents are allowed to claim four points (40 percent of the annual CPD activity requirement) for pro bono work, and 32 percent of non-commercial agents do so,
• the MARA pays a grant of $50 per agent to the organisation, to compensate organisations which participate in the CPD pro bono program for their related administrative costs, where the agent claims four CPD points with the one organisation for repeat registration, and
• the CPD assessment fee (of $99) is waived for a non-commercial agency where the activity will be provided for no charge by their organisation.

In addition, the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), which was appointed to act as the MARA in 1998, provides members from the non-commercial sector with a range of benefits at concessional rates. For example, annual membership is only $55 for community organisations, about 10 percent of the rate applied to commercial agents. Membership provides access to all MIA CPD activities at significantly reduced rates.

Recommendation 47 - The Committee recommends that the Government consult with State and Territory legal aid commissions about the need for increased Commonwealth funding to youth legal services.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government funds a number of services through the Community Legal Services Program which are targeted at meeting the legal needs of young Australians. In 2004-05 the Australian Government provided funding of $0.53m to six youth law centres, including the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre.

The Government notes that assistance for young people is also a priority for legal aid commissions, with some having specialist youth legal services. The Under 18s Hotline is a legal advice line which has been set up by Legal Aid NSW. Qualified, experienced criminal lawyers with expertise in juvenile justice are available to provide advice to all young people who have committed, or are suspected of committing, a criminal offence. This service operates Monday to Friday, 9 am to midnight, and provides 24 hour coverage on weekends and public holidays.

Legal aid commissions in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia provide specialist services for children and youth who have to appear before the courts or are involved in legal cases.

Recommendation 48 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide additional funding to the National Pro Bono Resource Centre to enable it to encourage and provide support to law firms, community legal centres, pro bono referral schemes and legal aid commissions in recording and reporting statistics on pro bono service provision.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government will liaise with the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the best way to record and report statistics on pro bono service provision, taking into account the work the National Pro Bono Resource Centre is already proposing to undertake within existing resources.

Recommendation 49 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government commit ongoing funding to the National Pro Bono Resource Centre past 2006 to enable it to continue its work to improve the provision of pro bono legal services.

A new agreement has been signed to provide funding to the National Pro Bono Resource Centre for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2009.

Recommendation 50 – In conjunction with Recommendation 11, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide additional funding to allow community legal centres, clearing houses and other pro bono services to collect detailed information on the community need for legal services.

The Government does not accept this recommendation. The Government’s preference is to direct any additional funding, should it become available, to the provision of services.

Recommendation 51 – The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General issue binding directions to federal government agencies that the fact that a legal service provider has acted or is likely to act against the Commonwealth Government or its agencies in a pro bono matter is not to be taken into account to the detriment of the provider when decisions relating to the procurement or purchasing of legal services are made. The Committee urges State and Territory governments to issue similar directions.

The Government does not support this recommendation.

A binding direction is unnecessary, because the Government imposes no barrier to the purchasing of legal services from firms that also act pro bono against the Commonwealth, subject to the usual conflict of interest rules.

Recommendation 52 – The Committee recommends that all courts consider amending their rules to allow lawyers who provide pro bono legal services to recover their costs in similar circumstances to those litigants who pay for their legal representation.

The Government notes that this recommendation is a matter for the courts.

Recommendation 53 – The Committee recommends that all Federal courts and tribunals should report publicly on the numbers of self-represented litigants and their matter types, and urges State and Territory courts to do the same.

The Government notes that this recommendation is a matter for the courts.

All federal courts keep some statistics relating to the numbers of self-represented litigants and provide some information about these litigants in their annual reports. The new information technology management system, Casetrack, which has been adopted by the Family Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court, will assist with the collection of data, including numbers of self-represented litigants in the courts. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has implemented changes to its Administrative Appeals Tribunal Case Management System to more effectively capture information about self-represented litigants.

Recommendation 54 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments commission research to quantify the economic effects that self-represented litigants have on the federal justice system, including the costs these litigants impose on courts and tribunals, other litigants, community legal centres and the social welfare system.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

Federal courts are progressing many initiatives to address the impact of large numbers of self-represented litigants on the courts.

The High Court has revised its Court Rules. The High Court Rules 2004 took effect from 1 January 2005. The High Court has made a number of changes to the Rules to simplify their drafting and to make them easier to follow and use. The High Court has also changed the procedure for special leave applications, noting in the Explanatory Statement which accompanied the Rules:

In order to deal with the increasing number of applications by unrepresented applicants, many of which applications are unmeritorious, and put respondents to needless expense, new procedures are established by which the applications of unrepresented applicants are first considered on the papers.

In August 2002, the Federal Court adopted a Self-Represented Litigants Management Plan which identified a number of management practices to address the needs of self-represented litigants. Implementation of the Plan during 2003-04 resulted in arrangements to improve the nature and quality of statistical and other information collected by the Federal Court on self-represented litigants and their needs; a rewriting of the Federal Court’s brochures and guides to ensure they use clear language and are simple to understand; the provision of further staff training on giving appropriate advice and assistance to self-represented litigants; and the development of rules and practices that will allow the Federal Court to more effectively deal with self-represented litigants who are considered to be vexatious, frivolous or of a repeat kind with clearly hopeless cases. The Federal Court has also enhanced the content and location of information on its website to provide greater assistance to self-represented litigants, including details of possible sources of legal advice and assistance.

In September 2004, the Federal Court and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration co-hosted a Self-Represented Litigants Forum on how courts and tribunals are responding to the issues raised by self-represented litigants.

In 2003-04 the Family Court established the Self-Represented Litigants Working Group to consider issues relating to self-represented litigants. The group includes representatives from key external bodies including legal aid, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, other courts and the legal profession, with whom the Family Court will work in partnership to deliver better services for self-represented litigants. This builds on the Family Court’s Self-represented litigants – a challenge project which was established in December 2000 to look at strategies to assist self-represented litigants in the Family Court. The Family Court has also developed and continues to maintain a website which provides access to step-by step guides to proceedings in the Family Court and do-it-yourself kits in relation to consent orders, parenting plans and general information on family law.

In 2003-04, the Federal Magistrates Court conducted a research project specifically aimed at identifying the needs of self-represented litigants. The project, among other things, was designed to measure the performance standards of the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to self-represented litigants; establish an ongoing mechanism to monitor performance and measurement standards across the court, identify areas that are working well in relation to self-represented litigants and to adopt those practices and procedures on a national basis; and address deficiencies and implement improved court and other associated services available to self-represented litigants.

Following from this project, the Federal Magistrates Court has released plain English and user friendly publications, which are available in all registries of the Federal Magistrates Court and on the Court’s website.

The Federal Magistrates Court has a Self-Represented Litigants Committee. The role of this Committee is to address and monitor issues affecting self-represented litigants. The Committee meets on a regular basis and considers issues affecting self-represented litigants across all jurisdictions of the court. The Committee will continue to develop and monitor a number of projects including statistics of self-represented litigants, website links for self-represented litigants, national duty lawyer services and identify new target areas or issues concerning self-represented litigants in the Federal Magistrates Court.

Recommendation 55 - The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government fund and publish an evaluation of the legal information services that it funds, in order to determine the extent to which those services assist in resolving self-represented litigants’ legal problems.

The Government does not accept this recommendation. See the response to recommendation 56 below.

Recommendation 56 - The Committee urges providers of legal information services to evaluate the contribution that those services make in resolving self-represented litigants’ legal problems.

The Government notes that this recommendation is a matter for providers of legal information services and that action to address it is likely to depend on the objectives of the particular service.

The legal information and advice services provided by legal aid commissions, community legal centres and other legal assistance organisations form an important and integral component of Government funded legal assistance services. These services complement the other assistance services, including duty lawyer and legal representation, by providing people with access to information and advice to assist them to resolve their legal problems at an early stage in the litigation process, and in appropriate instances avoiding the need to resort to costly litigation.

To date, funding arrangements with legal aid commissions for services in relation to Commonwealth law matters have included performance measures for outputs which require compliance with practice standards and timeliness of service delivery. There would be scope therefore to look more broadly at the effectiveness of legal information and advice services in Commonwealth law matters in addressing client needs.

Community legal centres provide a range of services to disadvantaged Australians including assistance for self-represented litigants. Community legal centres undertake biannual client satisfaction surveys of a random sample of clients, some of whom may include self-represented litigants. The results of the surveys help community legal centres to assess the value of services provided to a broad section of clients and to continuously improve those services. The Government will encourage community legal centres to continue to evaluate the contribution that their services make in resolving legal problems.

Recommendation 57 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and the State/Territory governments provide funding to establish a comprehensive duty solicitor scheme in all states and territories of Australia. The scheme should offer, at the very least, a duty solicitor capacity in courts of first instance (criminal, civil and family) and should provide legal advice and representation on all guilty pleas, not guilty pleas in appropriate matters, adjournments and bail applications, and assistance for self-represented litigants to prepare their evidence and narrow the issues in dispute.

The Government does not accept this recommendation.

The Government is satisfied that legal aid commissions already provide an effective duty lawyer services program in criminal courts in Australia. Legal aid funding agreements for Commonwealth law matters include a funding component for the delivery of duty lawyer services for criminal law matters in all States and Territories.

The Government’s response to recommendation 4 of this report provides information on duty lawyer services available in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In the 2004-05 Budget the Government allocated $3.3m a year for a national family law duty lawyer scheme to assist people who represent themselves in family law matters before the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court.

Recommendation 58 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, State/Territory governments, legal aid commissions and community legal centres should engage in collaborative research to accurately determine the extent to which current legal aid funding arrangements impact upon the work and operations of individual community legal centres.

The Government supports this recommendation in principle but implementation will depend on resources.

The Government notes that the view expressed in the report, that current legal aid funding arrangements have impacted on the work and operations of community legal centres, is based on anecdotal evidence presented to the Committee rather than on data regarding service levels of legal aid commissions and community legal centres. The Government also notes that the information provided by legal aid commissions to the Attorney-General’s Department indicates that the grants of legal aid for Commonwealth family law matters are higher now than when the Government came into office in 1996.

The relationship between services provided by community legal centres and those provided by legal aid commissions has been considered in some State-based reviews of the Community Legal Services Program and the Government would see merit in undertaking further research work on the coordination of legal services between service providers, should resources permit.

Recommendation 59 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government urgently consult with State/Territory governments, legal aid commissions and community legal centres to determine the needs of individual community legal centres and develop strategies for addressing these needs.

See response to recommendation 62

Recommendation 60 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government should take a lead role in recognising and overcoming the diminishing capacity of community legal centres by, for example, providing increased levels of funding to enable community legal centres to better perform their core functions, and establishing new community legal centres to ease some of the burden on existing community legal centres and to address unmet legal need.

See response to recommendation 62

Recommendation 61 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments should provide additional funding to enable community legal centres to recruit, train and retain staff, through adequate remuneration, skill development programs and improved employment conditions.

See response to recommendation 62

Recommendation 62 – The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government and State/Territory governments should provide additional funding to enable community legal centres to overcome existing operational difficulties, such as inadequate premises, facilities and resources, and enable them to better plan for such requirements in the future.

The Government does not accept these recommendations.

The Australian Government’s contribution to community legal centres is indexed each year and the Government does not expect them to operate at a level outside their funding. In 2004-05, recurrent funding for the program was $23.3m while State contributions to the joint Community Legal Services Program totalled $12.2m. The States and Territories may also provide funds for community legal centres separate to that provided under the Community Legal Services Program.

As part of its support for community legal centres the Australian Government also provides funding to the National Association of Community Legal Centres for various projects to assist community legal centres to implement new program requirements, improve service delivery, improve the dissemination of information and materials to centres and develop training materials for financial management.

Over the past several years, the Government has also funded community legal centre staff training in accrual accounting and use of a new data collection and financial information system.

Recommendation 63 – The Committee recommends that any legislation in relation to the definition of charities ensure that organisations involved in the provision of pro bono legal services are not prevented from providing advocacy policy services.

The Treasurer announced in the 2004-05 Budget that the Government would not proceed with legislation to codify the common law definition of a charity, but would instead retain the existing common law definition of charity for the purposes of all Commonwealth legislation.

Under the common law, advocating a political cause, or having a political purpose, will not prevent an organisation from being a charity provided that cause or purpose is only incidental or ancillary to the organisation’s dominant charitable purpose.

It is not expected that the status of community legal centres in relation to their current definition as charities will be altered.

Ordered that the reports of the Standing Committee of Privileges and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, and Business of the Senate for 2005 and Work of Committees be printed.

by leave—On behalf of Senator Crossin, I move:

That the final report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on its inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958 be presented by 27 February 2006.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee relating to hearings on the 2005-06 budget estimates.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the responses from the Premier of Queensland, the Premier of Victoria and the Northern Territory Minister for Family and Community Services regarding the Senate resolution calling on the state and territory governments to respond to the recommendations outlined in the Community Affairs References Committee’s reports Forgotten Australians and Protecting vulnerable children.

As the Deputy President will recall, those reports received a government response, and the government response indicated that many of the matters that the Senate committee had attended to were the province of the state governments. I am pleased to see that the state and territory governments have indicated that they regard these matters as very serious ones requiring further and detailed consideration, and that they intend to come back to the Senate with a much more detailed response.

The motivation behind the motion requesting this response from those governments was initiated by me, Senator Humphries and Senator McLucas, so it was a cross-party motion. The response we had as a group of people to the federal government’s response was one of disappointment. We were disappointed, and I am disappointed, that sufficient had not been done with respect to those reports. In my opinion, the federal government failed to take the lead and failed to avail itself of the opportunity to show leadership on the widespread problem of child abuse and its consequences.

We know that, constitutionally, child protection is a states and territories responsibility. Nonetheless, on a matter of such national importance to do with our nation’s most precious resource, its children, the coalition government let a golden opportunity pass by. I find it difficult, when faced with a government which is determined and quite forceful in implementing a national workplace relations system, to understand why it is timid and backward with respect to a national approach to child protection. That sort of attitude beats me. The only answer I can ever come up with is that the cabinet as a whole, unlike many members of the parties that represent the government, just do not get it. They do not get that if you hurt and break the spirit of a child, you will have decades of a harmed adult to deal with. By not getting it, by not doing the hard yards now, federal governments will continue to confront the long-term social and economic costs of child abuse, because an abused child results in decades of cost to the community.

I note that the government plans to discuss mental health at the next COAG meeting. This is important and very encouraging news, but it is far better to tackle the problem at its source. There is enough research available that tells us the mental health system is filled with survivors of prolonged, repeated childhood trauma. Judith Herman, in her book, Trauma and Recovery, wrote:

... abuse in childhood appears to be one of the main factors that lead a person to seek psychiatric help as an adult.

My fellow committee members—and I remind the Senate that those reports were unanimous—and all others involved in these inquiries know full well the tragic outcomes of abused childhoods. It is not an exaggeration to say that, of the hundreds of submissions received from those who had experienced out of home care as children, an overwhelming majority wrote of adulthoods plagued with mental health problems. Depression, post traumatic stress disorder and suicide attempts are common amongst those people.

Not surprisingly, such disorders have meant many ruined adulthoods and ruined relationships. Quite apart from mental health problems, there are a myriad of other associated problems which can follow on from abuse as a child, such as homelessness, welfare dependency, substance abuse, criminal behaviour and relationship problems. Even more tragic is the tendency for some of these people to produce yet another generation of victims. And I can assure the Senate that I have read submissions which indicate that such a generation will go back to great-grandmothers in some circumstances, so you have to break the cycle.

This leads me to another level of disappointment with the government’s response to, in particular, the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report. Essentially, its general shrugging of the shoulders response means that the forgotten Australians feel that they are to remain just that—forgotten. There was the token acknowledgement that what occurred was tragic and that:

The suffering experienced by so many children placed in institutional care is a matter of shame for this country.

It is not just a matter of shame; it is one that needs to be remedied. It certainly warranted more concrete action by the federal government than the somewhat paltry response that they put up. Instead, time and again any responsibility was, on constitutional grounds again, handballed across to the states. The states have lots of areas of concern that the Commonwealth still takes leadership on, such as water, property rights, workplace relations and defamation law. There are numerous recent instances, and they should do the same on child protection.

Rather than taking up the recommendation to establish a national reparations fund, as exists in Canada, Ireland and even Tasmania, that measure was not considered necessary. How wrong the government has been on this issue. Having been denied justice for decades, such a fund would have meant so much to so many, and it would get us away from a litigious and open-pocket approach to one which is manageable and has a finite limit. But nowhere was the government willing to put its hand in its pocket. What a contrast when you consider the millions it splashes around on things that matter, like advertising IR! It has spent more on its advertising campaign on obesity alone than it has been willing to spend in this area. I look forward to hearing from the various states and the territories regarding this Senate resolution. I am glad of their interim response. I trust that the states and territories will end up showing a more dynamic, generous and perceptive response than in my view the federal government has. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in the name of Senator Stephens for today, proposing the reference of a matter to the Economics References Committee, be postponed till 8 February 2006.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Chair of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and a related bill, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Senator Payne, I present the report of the committee on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2006 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Patterson

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Patterson

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Santoro

Appointed—Senator Patterson

Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—

Appointed—Participating member: Senator Patterson.

Question agreed to.

Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General and His Excellency the Administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia were reported informing the Senate that they had assented to the bills.

I move:

That Schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 221 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

This motion, for which notice was first given, I think, in late November last year, seeks to address one schedule amongst a range that were put forward in the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8 ) from October last year. This schedule changes the criteria in regard to remaining relative visas. Currently, prior to these regulations coming through, an applicant could apply for a remaining relative visa if they, together with their spouse, did not have any overseas near relative residing in the same country as them, did not have more than three overseas near relatives and had not had contact with those relatives within a reasonable period before they applied for the visa. The effect of the schedule, which the Democrats seek to disallow, is to restrict eligibility for the remaining relative visa to people who have no other near relatives living outside Australia at all. It is said that this needs to occur to address so-called integrity issues associated with the visa category and ensure that only applicants left in genuinely isolated situations overseas will be eligible.

This is not an earth-shattering, world-changing regulation overall. It is not going to affect a massive number of people, but if we look at the total numbers of our migration intake with permanent visas—and indeed the even much larger number now coming in on temporary residents visas—we see more and more that a component of the intake is being tilted further towards business and skilled visas. The family component as a proportion of the total has certainly shrunk dramatically in recent years. As I said, this individual change in itself will not affect huge numbers of people, but it is a further tightening of family migration for people wanting to reunite with remaining relatives. I do not believe that is desirable in terms of the balance of the migration program nor from the point of view of multiculturalism.

I do not want to range too broadly in this contribution as I want to keep my contribution reasonably short, but the broader issues of multiculturalism and ensuring a harmonious, well-integrated society in Australia with migrants from a large and diverse number of backgrounds are not helped if we unnecessarily restrict family intake. Family migration, having relatives living together in Australia, is a significant glue that helps to maintain the fabric of multiculturalism and I believe that this change, while small, will be to the detriment of that. I do not wish to overstate the case and to say that it will have monumental impacts of a negative type, but I believe that we are unnecessarily restricting family intake when there are people wishing to migrate to Australia to join other near relatives—and near relatives are defined in the regulations—and that we should not be making that unnecessarily hard for people.

This restriction, which comes in through the schedule of this regulation, makes it unnecessarily hard for people to shift from having three near relatives in other countries who they have not had contact with for ages to having no other relatives overseas at all and those near relatives being normally resident in Australia. That makes it unnecessarily tight. It might address the so-called integrity issues but it does that by basically making the purpose of the visa unnecessarily restricted in the process. All of these things are a balance, and I believe we have things out of balance in regard to family intake in the migration area.

That is not to criticise skilled migration and it is certainly not to criticise migration in general. Some time many years ago, at least some in the Democrats had a very strong anti-migration viewpoint and sought to dramatically reduce the amount of people allowed into this country. That is not a view held by any Democrat senator now—indeed any Democrat senator who has been in this place for quite some time—and it is not a view reflected in our party’s policy. We need to have a migration intake that allows our population levels in Australia to be sustainable. I believe the current levels of migration combined with the current fertility rate enable us to establish a sustainable population level in Australia. But part of it is also about ensuring that the mix within that intake is a balanced one.

Whatever size you think our migration program should be, it is always going to need some limits put on it. We certainly cannot at this stage have an open-slather approach. We need to put criteria in place in regard to eligibility for migrating. But I believe it is undesirable to tilt that, as has happened, too far towards skilled and business visas. Further restricting the ability of family to reunite and for people to migrate and contribute to Australia in conjunction with relatives they already have here does not help our national self-interest. It will unnecessarily lead to more isolation with people spread out over different parts of the world when they do not want to be in that situation.

So the Democrats believe this change is not a desirable one. As I said, it is not a massive component of the entire migration program, but it reflects a wider trend that we have concerns about. We believe in this instance it is appropriate to disallow this change and allow the remaining relative visa to apply more widely than it will under the schedule contained in these regulations. I urge those senators who support the concept of a reasonably broad family intake in our migration programs to support the Democrats’ motion to disallow this unnecessarily restrictive change.

I suspect this disallowance motion moved by Senator Bartlett will not be successful. I am unsure how those on the other side of this chamber are going to vote, but I have a feeling they are going to vote it down. Senator Bartlett has raised a number of points, but if you look at the overall effect of this regulation it seems to be a cut that is based on cost—in other words, the department has come to a view that these are costly issues and that, as a consequence, it wants to revamp the visa system. It is not appropriate criteria in all events to look only at cost and I think in this instance that has been the main driver behind some of these changes, particularly this one.

Senator Bartlett has made a couple of particularly interesting points which I think can be supported by the opposition. Those points really go to the fact that there has been a long history of support for family migration, particularly the type provided here, for a range of reasons. Those articulated by Senator Bartlett go to issues of multicultural policies, which Labor has supported and pursued vigorously and which I think this government has abandoned. But when you dissect this particular initiative of the government, you could then say that on balance it may be a constructive regulatory change. While it will restrict a percentage of people from being eligible to apply, the basis for the amendment is to address integrity issues around the visa, so it seems sensible on face value. The amendment to this regulation reduces the number of other remaining relatives an applicant may have from three to none. Prior to the amendment, an applicant could have three other remaining relatives and be eligible for the visa, as long as they were estranged and had not been in contact with them for a certain period of time.

In many cases the department of immigration was thus forced to prove a negative—that is, the department had to prove the relatives had not been in contact. Of course, that can be a costly and difficult exercise. For the special concession visa, it would appear to be an unnecessary and inappropriate use of departmental resources and time to prove that negative.

On that basis, at first glance the opposition considered that there might be merit in the amendment. When we looked at it in a little bit more detail we expected to find that the government had mounted the case. Labor understand that if people miss out on this concessional visa, due to this new regulation, they do not necessarily miss out on being able to come to Australia. It is a special concessional visa targeted at a specific group of people with special circumstances. But, when we lifted the skin from the custard, when we looked a bit more deeply, it was obvious that the minister has not made an argument to say that the regulation is better policy than that which is currently in existence. The minister at no stage in the argument being used to defend the regulation has argued that there will be fairer outcomes or more just outcomes. In fact, there is a policy vacuum in terms of what would be a better or more just outcome.

The argument about the difficulties in verifying the rules that applied before this regulation was introduced is not an argument about the policy or the reasons for the concessional visa. It is an argument about cost. These are costs associated with having to check that a number of relatives have had no contact with each other. But we are dealing with what is very much a concessional visa. It is not unreasonable for the minister to want to take those issues into account—that is, the reasons why the concessional visa should or should not be granted—and not balance those simply by saying that the costs far outweigh the position. Of course there will always have to be a balance. We are not saying that there should be no consideration of compliance costs with this sort of concessional application. But we would expect the government to argue its case more fulsomely. I suspect we would not be debating this now if the government had been able to make the case as to why, in terms of both the policy and the compliance costs, this concessional visa should be removed and dealt with in another way.

Labor, of course, does not object at all to compliance costs—they are a necessary part of the department—and the integrity of the system being matters taken into account in relation to visas. It is reasonable, in fact, to undertake due diligence and due examination to make sure that people are obeying the rules. But it seems that the balance here has tipped to the other side. In other words, the evaluation of how this concessional visa has worked has not taken into consideration (a) the number of people who would be affected and (b) how you will then deal with those people in a much fairer or more just system. They are simply saying that compliance costs seem to be prohibitive and as a consequence we can remove this type of concessional visa.

When we look at it, there are cases where we have some sympathy for wanting to reduce the compliance burden on the department. But we also have some sympathy for the point of view that was articulated by Senator Bartlett. There has to be, as I have said, that balance struck. If you have other relatives out there somewhere in the world but you are genuinely isolated and have had no contact with them for a substantial period of time, then the reasons for having this concessional visa do apply to you.

If we are going to knock out the people in this situation because of the administrative burden, we need to know how many people are going to be affected. We need to ask for the information and the department needs to provide it. Information from this department to enable us to make those assessments as to whether there are alternative ways to deal with this has been scant. We can only reach the conclusion that the department does not examine these issues in great detail but makes administrative decisions based on costs rather than on the actual issues themselves.

The balance that we as legislators have to make is between, in this instance, the compliance costs that they say are burdensome—as I understand their argument—and need to be reduced, and the number of people who will be affected and who may have to find some other mechanism and could genuinely use this concessional visa. It is impossible, in some parts, to make that assessment, when much of the information to base the argument on should come from the government and they are not providing it in a way that provides a sound reason why this regulation should be removed. Until such time as they can produce that evidence—produce the reasons, produce the costs and tell us how many of these people there are and that they will be dealt with in a more humane or different way—then Labor is not in a position to support this regulation.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on this motion of Senator Bartlett’s in relation to schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8)—Remaining relative visas. I note the remarks of both Senator Bartlett and Senator Ludwig and perhaps, in some small way, can add to the discussion, particularly to expand on the observation Senator Ludwig made in relation to this step being based primarily on cost. It is important to place on the record that there are broader reasons in relation to this matter than just cost, and the department has explored those. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss them this afternoon.

The changes that have been made to this remaining relative visa subclass, which has previously had the intention of enabling Australian citizens and permanent residents to bring to Australia a remaining relative who would otherwise be left in an isolated situation overseas, are addressing some broad concerns around the use of that visa class. The origins of the remaining relative category go back to those times when the ease of international travel and communication facilities, such as telephone and internet, were not as readily available as they are today, so communications and contact were far less easily facilitated than they are in many instances today. Also, as Senator Ludwig acknowledged, this is in fact a concessionary category of visa subclass. It has no skills or age criteria either.

Before 1 November 2005, the then extant regulations allowed an applicant and their spouse, if they had one, together to bring to Australia up to three overseas near relatives who did not reside in the same country as the applicant and spouse, provided there had been no contact with those overseas near relatives within a reasonable period prior to the application. One of the problems with the visa subclass was that the provisions which allowed an applicant to bring up to three overseas near relatives were in fact, as far as the department was concerned and as far as their examination of several key cases showed, resulting in fraudulent claims. I know that, notwithstanding the observations of Senator Ludwig and Senator Bartlett in relation to the importance of the family migration category, no-one in this chamber supports the existence of a regulatory environment which gives some succour, if you like, to the making of fraudulent claims. This would be one example of that.

As I understand it, the three principal areas of fraudulent claims were the concealment of the existence of overseas near relatives, the misrepresentation of the usual country of residence of the overseas near relatives, and the concealment or misrepresentation of the nature of contact with overseas near relatives. These areas of fraud were borne out by a refusal rate on this subclass which averaged approximately 50 per cent, so not an insubstantial amount. In addressing these integrity issues, the category was reviewed and, in the contemporary environment to which I alluded earlier—particularly in relation to communications and travel—it was decided that having up to three overseas near relatives in the subclass category was no longer appropriate. The new regulations now require an applicant and their spouse, if they have one, together to have no near relatives other than those near relatives who are both usually resident in Australia and are Australian citizens, permanent residents or eligible New Zealander citizens. I understand that no other country has a category of ‘remaining relative’ within their migration system, but Australia retains this category. We did wish to retain this category for those relatives who are genuinely left in an isolated situation overseas. It has been suggested that the regulations should allow one overseas near relative in a third country—and that would take up some of the points made by Senator Bartlett in his earlier remarks—but there is a concern that this would still give rise to the integrity issues that I have outlined in my comments.

I want to stress to the chamber this afternoon that these changes are really about addressing integrity issues and not about reducing the family stream of the migration program. While I think the department probably expects a reduction in applications that have fraudulent claims, there is not any expectation of a significant reduction in the actual number of persons qualifying. Importantly—and I think it is important to note this, because there was an emphasis from Senator Bartlett on the importance of the family migration stream—if there is a general reduction in the family stream, additional places will be provided for other uncapped categories within that stream. I hope that that will go some distance towards addressing those concerns.

As far as the numbers are concerned, in 2004-05 the department received 2,461 applications for remaining relative visas. The major source countries for those visa applications in that calendar period were the PRC, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Cambodia and Pakistan. In that same period, 1,154 of those visas were granted and 1,122 applications were refused. That gives rise to the refusal rate I indicated earlier of close to an average of 50 per cent. It is worth noting that, in the two months prior to the changes, there was an increase in the number of applications for remaining relative visas, followed by a comparable reduction in applications during the next two months. With regard to the numbers—and this is a matter that Senator Ludwig raised—the long-term effect on application numbers and refusal rates will not be evident for some time. I think the changes to the remaining relative visa subclass in this regulation go to issues of greater significance than perhaps Senator Ludwig gave the government credit for. I think it is important to have placed those on the record this afternoon.

Question negatived.

I move:

That item 2 [Division 1.4E—Sponsorship: trade skills training (incorporating Subdivisions 1.4E.1 to 1.4E.4)] of Schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 240 and made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed.

Schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9) is the government’s new trade skills training visa—at least, it was in November. However, I did note from today’s Australian that Senator Vanstone intends to cut back skilled visas—so there is obviously a new one, but it may be overtaken shortly by another plan that Senator Vanstone is hatching in the skills area. I think it only indicates that skills training in Australia is being planned by Senator Vanstone. Senator Vanstone is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, not the minister for training or for trade skills—or for education, for that matter. I might allude to this later in this contribution.

The trade skills training visa will, according to the government, allow noncitizens ‘to undertake apprenticeships in regional areas of Australia in trade occupations experiencing skills shortages where no Australian has been found to fill the position’. In reality, however, this regulation is another attempt by the Howard government to apply yet another bandaid to Australia’s skills shortage—a skills shortage all of the government’s own making. The Howard government has failed to adequately train Australians and instead has continued to turn to the option of importing skills. We all know we have a skills shortage in Australia and in some areas it is, indeed, at crisis point. However, it is not a recent phenomenon. It did not happen last year or this year; you can at least trace its early signs, I think, back to when this government got into office in 1996 and started slashing spending on training and education—particularly vocational education and training.

Skills shortages in the medium to long term are best addressed through education and training initiatives. Since 1996, however, TAFE, other vocational education and training, and university funding have declined while skilled migration has increased. During a skills shortage—this is a little bit staggering, really—under this federal government, education and training have declined and skilled migration has increased. It has been a long-term failure by this government is to invest in our own people. This is not a policy that will take Australia into the future. It is not about building Australia for the future. This government is looking for a short-term political fix. This government has been critical of Labor for expressing so much alarm at the cuts to Commonwealth funding of universities. It has even claimed that the Labor Party, which established TAFE, has no interest in apprenticeships. I can say that I do have a vital interest in apprenticeships. I was up in Toowoomba on Friday supporting Kim Beazley’s plan for no TAFE fees for apprentices. It is a good initiative; it is a pity the government has not got an initiative equal to it.

When you look at the government’s policies on universities, however, turning thousands of qualified students away from universities does not miraculously increase the numbers of those seeking to learn a trade. The government does not seem to understand that there are different markets—particularly if you have cut funding to TAFE at the same time. Quite simply, this government has failed, for quite a long time now, to turn its mind to training Australians in TAFE courses and trade courses and to encouraging them to go to university—in other words, this is right across the board. This government’s reliance on skilled migration to address the skills shortage has itself failed. This government is now importing unskilled workers and getting Australian businesses to train them. This government does not understand the problem.

There are two basic impacts of a skills shortage. One seems blatantly obvious to me—I think the government should see it as well, but they have certainly demonstrated no inclination to understand it: that business cannot get the people they need. That is one; it is quite simple. The second is that there is the potential for wages growth in those certain occupations where there is a shortage, without there being any increase in productivity. The net effect is that it costs business more; it can lead to increased costs to business. It costs consumers more because businesses will endeavour to pass those costs on, and it can have an inflationary impact. These are the downsides; if you have a skills shortage and you do not look at the long-term needs, then you can quickly get yourself into a position where those issues start to hurt small and medium sized business.

But let us not downplay skilled migration. Skilled migration is a valuable component of Australia’s cultural and economic development, but it should not be a primary means of addressing our skills shortage. It should not be the only policy left. Senator Vanstone is starting to look more like the minister for vocational education and training than like the immigration minister, but that is not the main way you are going to address and deliver adequately skilled labour to this country. It is clear that there is a skills shortage, but it is not an immigration issue. This government is using immigration, but it can only be a bandaid. The government is treating the skills shortage as an immigration problem, as I said. It is moving the debate over there. This government is good at that—at shifting the debate away from where it really is. The debate is about skills shortage in this country, not about using migration to fill that void. The skills shortage is not an immigration problem; it is actually an education priority. That is where this government’s mind and work should be.

So we can ask whether Senator Vanstone is the only one in charge of fixing the problem. She is not here in the chamber, but I am sure the news will be passed on to her that it seems that she is the only one seeking to fix the problem of skills shortages in Australia. That is in itself the real question: why is the immigration minister leading the government’s campaign to address the skills crisis in Australia? We know that the Treasurer, Mr Peter Costello, is pleased with this approach. Training is long term; it takes time, resources, commitment and money. Those words—time, commitment and money—do not sit well with the Treasurer. Without significant investment in education and training, however, the skills shortage will become a permanent feature of our economy. Many of the occupations on the in-demand list for skilled migration have been on the list for almost a decade. If you want to see how bad this government’s neglect has been, have a look at the migration occupations in demand list for professions and trades from 1999 to 2005. In 1999 there were five trades and vocational occupations on the list. In 2002 there were three. And in 2005 there were 27 trades on the migration occupations in demand list. That trend looks like continuing through 2006.

Now the Howard government wants to import unskilled labour under a skilled migration program—has it really got that bad? Clearly, investment in domestic training has been woefully inadequate. The Liberal Party and National Party—I will keep referring to those separately because the coalition is starting to fray and they might want me to use the two different names—have been hoarding taxpayers’ money and refusing to invest in skills, and they need to start to address this with policy initiatives. We know that employers prefer to train people from their regional area in order to help the community build and grow. Those people stay as tradespeople in the community and commit to long-term investment in the area. That is how rural communities have lived and supported themselves over many years. This government, of course, is abandoning rural voters. It is abandoning rural areas and saying, ‘There is a skills shortage in rural communities and we are going to fix that by skilled migration,’ rather than investing in those communities with training and education opportunities for the young people in those areas—and not only the young people but also the 18- to 35-year-olds, the people who can be retrained and helped back into the labour market.

Instead, in 2004, the number of apprentices and trainees enrolling took a four per cent hit and the number of students enrolled in VET took a seven per cent hit. So what is the government doing to address that? Very little. The result is, firstly, that we are now turning to overseas fee-paying students to meet the government’s skilled migration program and, secondly, we are getting a new visa class to support the use of unskilled apprentices—unskilled, untrained labour—under a skilled migration program. The bulk of the government’s skilled migration program includes overseas fee-paying students and unskilled, untrained foreign nationals. That seems to be the policy initiative that this government is pursuing. It should turn itself to how it can effectively help regional and rural Australia rather than pursue the course it has set.

There are two significant problems with this visa. The first relates to the fact that the apprenticeship is less likely to contribute to Australia’s skilled workforce in the long term than if you trained people from a rural and regional area. A person who completes their apprenticeship under the trade skills training visa is more likely to take that skill away from that regional and rural community to a capital city or offshore. The skill would then be an export from Australia rather than an import to it. The second problem is that the trade skills training visa is simply another avenue for those seeking to immigrate to Australia to obtain a visa. That is not a bad thing. This is a great country and we always encourage people to come to Australia. But the argument is about committing and investing in regional and rural Australia to ensure that people in those regions get the opportunity to train and work in those communities—because that is what they want to do. Neither of these two problems are part of that, and nor is the government investing in them. In each case, it is going to make it in any instance harder for people to obtain apprenticeships and remain in rural areas. This visa will drag people from overseas into regional and rural apprenticeships, which could be at the sake of young and not so young people in the community having that opportunity themselves.

The government claims that its trade skills training visa requires a potential employer to demonstrate that there are no local people prepared to take the job. I have to say, that is hard to accept when nowhere among the 50 questions on the employers’ application form does it require them to have even advertised the job. It is pretty basic that you might want to require them to advertise it to make sure that, in the first place, it is well known that there is in fact a job there. You have not exhausted all avenues when you have not even taken the time to advertise in a local newspaper that you have vacancies for apprenticeships. In the meantime, businesses are being forced to fill the skills gap with short-term measures.

As a nation, we must look beyond short-term fixes like skilled migration. They are part of but not the solution. They cannot replace the competitive advantage of training our own young people from rural and regional areas to work in those areas. Labor’s concern is simple: under this federal government we are importing our present and future requirements rather than training our own. The government’s answer of importing unskilled labour under a skilled migration program is not sound skills planning. It is not sound immigration planning and it is not sound population planning either. Unfortunately, with its new trade skills training visa, the government is undermining the competitive advantage we really have. This government needs to understand that sound policy is much more than an announcement.

Going back to Senator Vanstone, she is floating her new ideas again. The plan seems to be to cut back skills visas, which goes to considering measures to cut the number of less-skilled technology workers entering Australia. That is based not on work by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations but, it appears, because the minister disagreed with them, on data generated from within her own department, which she commissioned. It seems that sometimes you might commission a report because you disagree with the area that might be actually trying to help with and work through the issue. One can see provided in that a worrisome example of short-term fixes for what are really long-term problems that need to be addressed. And the best time to start addressing those is now.

I rise to speak on the disallowance of item 2, schedule 7 of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9). I would like to commend, as I usually do, Senator Ludwig, my colleague from the other side, for an excellent contribution—though it is unfortunate that the issues that were left out of his contribution were more significant than the issues covered in it. He made reference to the Treasurer and said that the Treasurer is somehow to blame for this situation, and I have to say that our Treasurer would probably agree with him. An interesting consequence of having a good economy and good growth is that it causes low unemployment—fewer available people to turn up for jobs. That is a consequence of having a good, strong economy, an economy that is sustainable in terms of growth. Of course, the senator opposite is right: that has been happening since 1996—and the government takes full blame for having a strong and growing economy. But, of course, there are consequences. As the senator opposite has pointed out, there is now a skills shortage. We can call it a skills shortage or a jobs dearth. There are different ways that you can look at it.

The comments the senator opposite made with regard to regional and rural Australia were interesting. I represent, as does the senator opposite, plenty of places in regional and rural Australia. I think regional and rural Australia has every right to share in this growth and this opportunity. This particular aspect of the migration program, the trade skills training visa, is targeted particularly at regional Australia, because those issues are particularly acute there. The senator opposite would recognise that regional and rural Australia do have the right—as do other Australians—to share in the growth in our economy and the benefits that spring from that.

It is interesting that Senator Ludwig indicated that Amanda Vanstone is now the minister for vocational education and training. I can assure Senator Ludwig that this area is not unlike any of the other issues in this government, and we have to deal with a suite of complex issues: the answer is never in a single bolt of lightning. These are very serious issues, and the government takes them very seriously in ensuring that there is equitable growth in each of the portfolios to ensure that all of Australia shares in the growth. Obviously, it is not only about vocational educational and training, investments we have made in universities or the recent investment we made in the TAFE colleges in Australia; clearly, there is a need right now for this growth to be sustainable—and it is; people have confidence in that. Particularly in regional areas, if there is not an answer found to this in the short term, there simply will not be that sustained growth and, frankly, regional Australia will miss out—and I do not think that is good enough.

Interestingly, the Australian of 15 April last year quoted ACTU President Sharan Burrow as saying:

She did not oppose fee-paying overseas students taking up apprentices in regional Australia “as long as it was not at the expense of local students getting their opportunities”.

So, in a lot of ways, she has reflected the view of the senator opposite, Senator Ludwig, in saying, quite sensibly, that there are some concerns; that we do not mind the benefits of such a sensible policy but we need to ensure that there is a policy framework behind that to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and that local people do not miss out on opportunities. I would like to assure this chamber that this is a government that thinks through in a very comprehensive sense every possible scenario with respect to these issues—and we spend a lot of time doing so.

I can assure this place that our policy framework ensures that no suitable Australian will miss out on an apprenticeship position because of an overseas apprentice. That is not just a statement: before an overseas apprentice can fill a vacancy, an approved regional certifying body, an RCB, must certify that no Australian apprentice can be found to fill that vacancy. That is a fact. From recollection, I think there are nine current applications, one of which has been approved and one which was seen to be invalid. It is not appropriate that I talk about the details of those applications, but one would assume that the validity or otherwise of that was simply that they found an apprentice for that particular task. It has to be demonstrated that there is no-one there who can fill that role as an apprentice.

I can assure this place—and I am quite sure that I do not have to give too many assurances to those senators who get around in regional and rural Australia—that this is a real issue in a number of places in Central Queensland and in the places I visited during the break. There is a mine near Borroloola which has spent quite a lot of money recruiting bodies and putting advertisements in the Australian. When they need tradespeople, there is a huge competition for them and it is very difficult to get them.

The approved regional certifying bodies have to certify that no Australian apprentice can be found to fill the vacancy. I know from personal experience that that is the case in many areas of regional and rural Australia. In Roma in Queensland, in Senator Bartlett’s area, Golden West Employment Solutions had a sponsorship application that was approved in December last year. I understand that they employ 413 people. That is not an insignificant number; it is a very serious number. Unfortunately, they have 188 vacancies. That is in Central Australia—in regional Australia. They have 188 vacant positions. Senator Ludwig, I accept some of your criticisms—and it would be great to have more apprentices. We have incentives to provide for that, but it is about the speed at which these things can happen so that places like Roma and Central Queensland and other areas can get the benefits of our growing economy—and filling 188 vacant positions is not going to just happen overnight. This need we have to meet is not on an exponential growth curve, but it is very steep.

The government’s analysis is that we need to provide extra people in these positions through a migration program. I would remind Senator Ludwig that this is not a one-off line; this is part of a comprehensive approach to our migration program. In the 2005-06 budget there was an increase of some 20,000 skilled places. So we have already recognised that there are quite a lot of areas where we cannot meet the demand of the workplace. We have seasonal harvest workers, who basically increase the flexibility of holidaymakers; we have the trade skills training visa, which we are discussing here today; we have the industry outpost positions; and we have the two-staged skilled designated area sponsored visa. It is quite a comprehensive part of the migration program.

I have to say that we have developed this visa very carefully. I think there have been some concerns that, if you have overseas apprentices, there is some possibility that they can be exploited. I can give you the assurance that the overseas apprentices will have exactly the same protections as the local apprentices. They will work under the existing award conditions or under the same conditions, in accordance with our apprenticeship scheme. Obviously, we all need to be concerned about that, Senator Ludwig, and I am glad you are concerned. I hope I have addressed some of your concerns because this is very important. This is about sustainability. It is not about using people. We are about ensuring that everybody gets the benefit of our economy, particularly in regional and rural Australia. That has to be done in a sustainable sense.

We have to monitor the activities that are going to be undertaken. We have to do that in cooperation, of course, with those people closest to that. The Commonwealth does not want to try to manage Roma. In relationships with state governments—in the case of Roma, with the Queensland government—we ensure that they are responsible for the apprenticeship training. That is going to ensure that both the employers and the sponsors are abiding by their obligations. That is a very important aspect of this. They have to abide by their obligations and that includes Australian awards and conditions.

Here we have a need. We know that need cannot be provided for under the current arrangements or in the foreseeable future. We can talk about the history of all of that sort of stuff, but, as a pragmatist, Senator Bartlett, I know that regional Queensland and other areas like that have a need right at the moment. We need to ensure that, in fulfilling that need, we are not excluding other Australians from opportunities. We have a board that gets up every day to ensure that we are not excluding Australians. That is very important. We have someone who gets up every day to ensure that does not happen.

As I said, we have received nine sponsorship applications so far. Only one has been approved. This is not going to be a huge rush. This is part of a suite of programs to ensure that every single Australian can get a benefit from what I think is our excellent management of our economy. For that to continue to be sustainable, and particularly to equitably and in a very just sense ensure that every single Australian can enjoy the benefits of this government’s good work, these sorts of visas are needed. I entreat senators opposite not to support this disallowance motion because it certainly is not in the interests of Australians or of regional Australia.

There have been some useful points made by both speakers in this disallowance debate thus far. Certainly the Democrats concur with a lot of what the Labor Party said in relation to criticisms of the government’s record on investing in training. The number of apprentices and trainees has declined. The number of students enrolled in vocational education and training in 2004 declined. We have had a reduced overall public investment in universities and TAFEs as a proportion of GDP. That is a poor record. The Democrats have been critical on many occasions of the government’s failure to adequately invest in skills training, whether it is in universities, TAFE or other vocational education.

But, as Senator Scullion said—and I think he even faintly perhaps acknowledged that there is some substance to that concern—we are dealing with what the reality is now. Complaining about what the current circumstance is does not help to solve the problem. There is no doubt that there is a shortage and an inability to fill some of the places that are around. Simply complaining about the government’s failure to adequately invest in this area does not actually fix the problem, related though it may be, of inability to actually fill some of the places.

The point could be made—and, in fact, I think the point has been made by the government—that we have a lot of people coming here on student visas and doing studies at university, so having them come in on another visa to do skills training is somewhat comparable. The Democrats do not oppose student visas at universities. We do have concerns—and, again, I think they are very valid concerns—that the lack of adequate government investment in universities has made those universities too dependent on the income from overseas students. I think that is undesirable. But that is not a criticism of overseas student visas themselves; it is a criticism of the inadequacy of the public funding contribution from the government. I think it is important not to get those things mixed up.

The example that Senator Scullion gave—and it was very kind of him and useful to use examples from my own state of Queensland—was a valid one. Of course, even when there are places available and there are Australians available to take some apprenticeships up, it is more difficult in regional areas. Indeed, it depends on what you call regional. During the last election campaign, actually, I visited a machinery workshop in Maroochydore or Caloundra on the Sunshine Coast just north of Brisbane. It is not normally thought of, certainly, as the outback. It is sometimes called regional, depending on where you draw the line. They were having great difficulty in getting apprentices for some of their places there. I and the Democrats do not have a problem with using our migration system to assist in getting some of those places filled. It will assist in generating wider flow-on jobs. It will assist regional communities in particular through generating wider economic and social benefits for those communities. I think that is an important point to make.

As I said in my contribution to the previous disallowance debate—on the disallowance motion that I moved—the Democrats do have strong support for a healthy migration intake. Whilst there are certainly issues that have to be addressed in managing the environmental impacts of population growth, nonetheless we as a country can do an enormous amount better at being more efficient in how we use resources in order to counterbalance the fairly mild increase in population that is coming as a result of our migration program.

The overall number that we are bringing in at the moment, which is quite high even by historic standards in Australia, should be emphasised because it still needs to be made part of the migration debate. The fertility rate, if it continues to decline in the sort of trend that it has over the last 10 to 15 years, will lead to us having a stabilised population by the middle of this century. I think that is an appropriate thing to aim for in terms of environmental sustainability and to ensure that the economic and social benefits that come from a well-managed migration program and a sizeable migration program continue to occur.

I believe it is important to make some of those wider comments about the migration program during debates like this. In recent times there has been debate, certainly following the disturbances in the Cronulla shire prior to Christmas and, indeed, in the last few days following some of the absurd overreaction overseas to the publication of some cartoons in newspapers, originally in Denmark and then elsewhere. Those sorts of incidents always spark up debate again about multiculturalism: who we should bring into this country, how many people, where from, what the mix of them should be and, for some people, whether we should have people coming at all, certainly with regard to the sorts of numbers that we have coming at the moment or from particular regions.

There is an understandable sensitivity about engaging with some of those topics, but I believe that we—certainly people like me—need to engage with them. For a number of years, the position of the Democrats—the party as a whole—has been to support a sizeable migration intake and that we should be more strongly promoting the benefits of it. We should not be shy about that. We need to actually confront head-on some of the apprehension in the community, because it is quite understandable.

The concerns raised in the context of just this visa include whether or not apprenticeships that Australians could have will go to people coming from overseas. The government speaker, Senator Scullion, I think adequately addressed that concern, but it is understandable that people would have it. We need to confront that and reassure people about that. Of course, people would feel resentful if they thought, ‘My kids can’t get a job and they can’t get an apprenticeship, and we’re bringing in people from overseas to take the jobs.’ That is not the case and we need to make it clear that that is not what is happening and that is not what this visa is about. We need to confront that directly and acknowledge that that is a legitimate concern, not just dismiss it as coming from people who are anti-migrant. I do not think there is enough of that in the migration debate. I appreciate that this disallowance motion is about a specific visa. I am certainly not accusing the movers of it in the Labor Party of having that motivation. To some extent, we confine our comments in this debate to the nature of the specific visa, as we did with the last disallowance.

I think we cannot compartmentalise these issues too much, because there does need to be a greater engagement with the community concerns about our migration program as a whole and about the size of the intake, particularly when you consider the very large intake of people on temporary residency visas. If I remember correctly, that is a point that Professor Hugo from South Australia has made. For all the focus on how many people come here as migrants—and, as I said, the number is quite large currently, even by historical standards; it is around 140,000 in this financial year—the number of temporary residents coming in is, I think, likely to be 450,000 in this financial year. So they are quite large numbers.

I believe the evidence is very clear that Australia has benefited enormously—socially, economically and culturally—from the sizeable migration intake over the last 50 to 60 years, but it is also clear that there is still sizeable community concern about aspects of it and that aspects of it need to be engaged with fully. We cannot just have large numbers of people coming here and not accept that there are management issues to deal with about that. There are certainly environmental issues to deal with that we do not manage adequately. We do not manage adequately environmental and resource management for the people who are here, let alone the ones who are coming next.

A related issue is the failure of governments at state and federal level to adequately invest in infrastructure in general—not just education and training but wider community infrastructure. Bringing in more people at a time when we are failing to adequately put public investment in that infrastructure is a problem, but it is a problem with the failure of the policy of the government. I believe it should not be reversed around to say: ‘We can’t take migrants in because we don’t have enough of this or enough of that.’ Those aspects need to be acknowledged.

Another aspect also needs to be addressed. It is a concern that I have with this visa. It is not a sufficiently big enough concern for me to support the disallowance, but it is a concern that still needs to be raised, and that is the overall amount of settlement assistance that people get. If we want to get maximum benefit for our country, our communities, our regions, our economy, our society and the multicultural nature of Australia, we need to assist people in every possible way when they first come to the country. Whilst we have done well in various areas with settlement programs, we have not done perfectly. We are getting some more gaps and some more failures in that area. That applies to the humanitarian intake. I will not divert by repeating the concerns that I have raised many times about the absurd refusal to adequately help refugees on temporary protection visas, but I think we are also not doing as well as we need to with our other humanitarian intake.

We are also not doing as well as we need to with people in the skilled area coming in. The fact is that people coming in on this visa have to have the financial capacity to meet not just their course fees but also their living expenses, travel and other costs for themselves, their spouses and dependent children, and adequate health insurance. They are people who have a bit of money to back themselves up. They have to have the educational qualifications and skills background.

The fact that people might have a bit of money and education and are not a refugee from a camp in the middle of Africa does not mean that they do not need settlement assistance. We need to do better with that. It is an investment from the public and government side of things. Early on it is of course a cost, but it is a cost that should be seen as an investment that will pay off much more significantly in the long term. I believe with regard to this visa—and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—that people getting it will not have access to government settlement services. We are talking about people coming in to get trained in skills. They will still be basically unskilled immigrants, under the age of 35, I believe, moving to a different country and into regional areas—hopefully into areas quite remote from the capital cities—with no broader settlement support services other than what the employer might provide. That is not ideal, and that is an aspect that needs to be looked at, both with this visa and others more widely. Nonetheless, people getting this visa are required to have vocational English. As I said, I understand that they need to be less than 35 years of age and already be sponsored by an Australian employer or organisation which has to have approval as a trade skills training visa sponsor.

There are clearly benefits to areas that come from these visas being filled. People regularly comment—partly in response to environmental concerns and other issues to do with adequate distribution and viability of services—that we need to be trying to get a higher proportion of our migration intake into regional areas. That is easy to say; it is not so easy to do. But one piece of moderate credit I have to give the government is that they have made some advances in recent years in finding formulas—to some extent in cooperation with the states—that have meant that more migrants are going to regional areas, to states other than New South Wales and to places other than Sydney, reducing some of the pressures there, and are assisting in improving the economic and social viability of other communities. That is a positive aspect that I think still has a lot of room for further gains, but wherever there is an opportunity for that to be done, whether it is through this visa or others, it is one we need to seek to undertake.

In some ways it is fair enough to call this visa a bandaid to meet some of the skills shortages, but a bandaid is still better than no bandaid, and it does goes some way to addressing the problem. The problem is, in significant part, of the government’s making. Senator Scullion said that it is ‘of the government’s making’ in generating a good economy. He forgot, I am sure inadvertently, to mention the Democrats’ contribution to having that good economy through our cooperative approach over the last nine years in the Senate, enabling most legislation to go through and, indeed, improving some of the government’s legislation, not least their workplace relations legislation that enabled a more harmonious and effective employment market. Unfortunately, I think we will soon see the consequences of us not being able to do that with the most recent workplace changes. However, apart from the cause of the overall operation of the economy generating this, there is no doubt that inadequate investment by the government in some of these areas of skills development is also part of the reason. But that does not mean that we should not try and address the situation that confronts us at the moment.

So whilst the Labor Party raised some valid concerns, I do not believe they are sufficient for us to support removing this visa altogether. The clarification Senator Scullion gave did address some of those concerns, although not all. Some of the other concerns that Labor expressed are totally valid, but they are still nonetheless separate from the specifics of the visa itself. I nonetheless reinforce my concern about the need, wherever possible, to provide broader settlement assistance to people. We need to be looking at that—even with people coming in on temporary visas—and perhaps call it something other than settlement assistance. It is in our interests as a country to make sure that people do have as much support as possible in those early stages when they move here from overseas, particularly if they are going to regional areas and particularly if they are younger. That will help them, but I think it helps us as well—and that is a concern that I have. It is one that I think will help alleviate not all but more of the community unease about aspects of migration. You will never address all of those concerns, and you would not want to with some of them, because they are concerns that I believe are inappropriate. But there are some valid aspects to community concerns about aspects of the migration program. We need to more positively promote and sell the gains to the entire community from large components of our migration program. I do not believe we do that enough, and we need to look at ways to do it more and more.

That does not mean that any sized migration program is desirable. The calls from some in the business community to massively ramp up our migration intake are simply unrealistic and absurd. Suggestions of doubling our migration intake, of aiming for a 40 million population or things like that, are unsustainable in all sorts of ways. But a good healthy intake is a positive for the country and is clearly workable, and the benefits that it has produced are there for all to see. However, that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to some of the potential negatives that need management, and I think we can do a better job there.

I have raised a few side issues in addressing this disallowance motion, but I believe from what has been put on the record that, on balance, this visa is worth supporting. That is not to say that other problems do not need addressing, but I think the visa itself is worth supporting and I think it will be a net positive to many communities and to Australia—like, I might say, so much else of our migration program.

Question negatived.

Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Senator Marshall:

That the following matter be referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2006:

The role and performance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in the light of current Government policy, and the organisation’s attempts at refocusing its research endeavours, taking into account the following:

(a)

the evolving role of CSIRO as a public research institution, and the ability of CSIRO to initiate and manage change;

I rise today to wholeheartedly support this reference to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee of a full and thorough investigation of the research priorities of the CSIRO, how it is organised, how it is managed and what its management culture is. I have to say that there are many Australians who I am sure feel exactly as the Greens do. The CSIRO used to have a fantastic reputation around the world as a leading research institution, and as one that was independent. When the CSIRO worked on an issue, people felt quite proud of the work that was done. They felt that it was authentic and legitimate and that it was not driven by government policy and not biased in its outcomes.

Progressively, that has changed over the last 15 years as the government has cut back funding to this very important flagship research organisation, to the point where it now has to kowtow to government policy in relation to its response to climate change. We have seen the appalling announcement in the last week or so that the CSIRO is now virtually abandoning its work in renewable energy and cutting-edge technology and is going to focus on the government’s priorities—which are, of course, coal, coal, coal and coal. It is about the export of as much coal as possible to China, India and anywhere else. As long as it can pour fossil fuels into a global energy market, this government is determined to do that and to drive the CSIRO into being complicit in that arrangement.

They have actually put themselves in the position of saying that Australia’s contribution to attending to global warming will be to put as much government money as possible—which is effectively corporate welfare—into the coal industry to see if it can develop carbon capture and storage, otherwise known as geosequestration. It is completely unproven technology. What happens if it does not work? In 20 years time, we will be left with a far worse situation on greenhouse gases and more immediate outcomes in terms of climate change and less capacity to deal with them.

The world wants to get beyond a carbon economy. The world wants to get beyond fossil fuels. Australia had the capacity to do that. We have cutting-edge researchers in this country, particularly in solar energy and photovoltaics. We now have good research and good outcomes on the ground in terms of wind energy. We have seen the renewable sector in Australia start to blossom because of some incentives due to the mandatory renewable energy target, and now that has been left floundering at just two per cent. The investment in the renewable sector is drying up, and everyone in that sector acknowledges that it is because of the government abandoning an increase in the mandatory renewable energy target. That means that we are not attracting the money we need to invest into those technologies.

In the same week as the CSIRO announced that it is warming to coal research, its chief executive said:

... industry and consumers depended heavily on coal to fire electricity and that was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

CSIRO’s deputy chief executive, Ron Sandland, said that we can have more impact by focusing more of our energies on clean coal. What a load of rubbish! They must have felt like washing their mouths out after they had said that because they know as well as I do that the future lies in cutting-edge renewable energy technology.

At the very same time, we have CSIRO scientists, having developed solar technology that they believe could replace coal fired power stations in 20 years, being forced to go overseas to tout for business. There was a UNEP conference in Dubai. They have just been there to tout for business and to seek partnerships with anyone they can get from overseas in order to commercialise the technology and to leapfrog coal. The biggest contribution Australia could make to the world would be to use our scientific expertise to leapfrog coal. That is what China needs, that is what India needs and that is what the whole world needs in order to deal with climate change. Whoever develops that technology will write its own cheques in terms of employment, investment in research, capability and so on. You only have to look at what has happened in Germany. Germany decided to get out of nuclear power. They had a proactive government policy and went straight into solar technology. In the last five years, Germany have had a huge expansion in solar. They are now a world leader in solar technology. They have eclipsed Australia in terms of research in solar and have created 25,000 jobs in solar alone. More jobs have been created in the solar industry in Germany in five years than are in the whole coal industry in Australia. And Japan is following suit.

Here are we, with some of the best research in the world, such as that which happens at the University of New South Wales, but also here at the CSIRO—

Don’t forget the University of Adelaide.

And Adelaide. All round the country there is excellent work being done in solar. As I said, the CSIRO developed the solar turbine technology at the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology and we are now not going to be able to spend the money in Australia that we need to make sure that we get that technology right and get it commercialised and on the market.

It is about time that the Australian people had an opportunity, through a Senate inquiry, to have a really good look at what is happening with the CSIRO and to see how it has moved from being an organisation for all Australians that was recognised for doing public interest research—and public interest research is the key thing—to being virtually the puppet of government policy, begging industry for partnership money to try and get some of its project work up. As a result, almost all of this work is not in pure research but is designed for industry outcomes, not necessarily for public interest outcomes. That is what Australians will lament.

Look at the response from the agricultural community seeing the cutbacks in research to the agricultural sector. That, of course, was part of it. The CSIRO chiefs are trying to defend it by saying that they had consultation with industry groups when in fact the NFF and others are saying that they had virtually no consultation in relation to the strategic decisions about research in agriculture. So I think this is an extremely timely opportunity for this Senate committee to have a really good look at what is happening with the CSIRO. I certainly welcome that and I think people around Australia would certainly welcome that. It must be so demoralising for the scientists working in the CSIRO when they recognise that suddenly there are going to be substantial job losses from the current workforce and that the shift in research priorities is going to take us back and lock us into a future based on coal and not on innovation.

The government’s absolute pact with the coal industry means that it is actually costing Australia jobs in the long term. Whether Australia likes it or not, staying out of the Kyoto protocol will not make an iota of difference to the rest of the world community. They will move on. Carbon will have a price and when it does have a price all the externalities from fossil fuel generated energy and fossil fuel mining will come home to roost and the competitiveness of modern technologies will outstrip coal. Meanwhile, Australia will have locked itself in and hitched its wagon to an industrial age instead of getting beyond that into the tertiary industries sector that can take us into the future. The CSIRO moved into the Newcastle area to start looking at transitions into a green energy future. It has all come to nought as there is this concession that the CSIRO has to go to partnerships, that it has to go to industry for its money because it lacks funding from government.

We have seen the demolition, if you like, of the reputation of the CSIRO. I think it is incumbent on this parliament to restore the image of the CSIRO, to inject back into it the support of the parliament for increased funding for its futuristic objectives in climate change research. There should be an injection of support for the notion that the CSIRO belongs to all Australians and that it should undertake public interest research funded through the Commonwealth. We must stop this huge concession in our universities and in the CSIRO where we are losing some of our brightest young people to overseas research institutions where they can do public interest research, where they can pursue pure research for the sake of it instead of having to be locked into the priorities that industry set, which may or may not be the priorities for the future, the priorities for the country or the priorities for public interest. I am very passionate about seeing this research organisation put back on its feet to achieve the objectives people in Australia expect of the CSIRO. I congratulate the committee on bringing forward this motion.

I rise to support this reference of a matter to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee proposed by Senator Marshall. I believe that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO, is an important institution that has played a critical role in developing and maintaining a culture of excellence in research and technological development in Australia. It has been central to the advancement of Australian industry and plays a fundamental role in ensuring the innovation that is critical to developing a place for Australia in the emerging knowledge economy.

If we are concerned about the future of our nation, if we want to look at developing beyond our economic reliance on exploiting our infinite primary resources and develop a more sustainable and value added economy, and if we want to maintain an international competitiveness then we need to take the issue of science and technology policy seriously and ensure that we are investing in both research and innovation and also fostering a culture of private investment in its development and application. We need both—public and private. The degree of excellence and expertise contained within CSIRO in research leadership makes it an essential and cost-effective part of our efforts to invest in national R&D.

If we are concerned about the long-term sustainability of Australia we need to be investing more in R&D and education and encouraging the development of new industries that make the most of Australia’s unique resources, expertise and position in the world. If we are concerned about the long-term sustainability of our environment we need to continue to back CSIRO’s world-leading research in environmental, ecological and agricultural science. CSIRO as a research institution has punched, in the past, well beyond its weight on the international stage. It is ranked in the top one per cent of world scientific institutions in 12 of the 22 research fields. For example, it is ranked sixth worldwide in plant and animal science and in agricultural science. It is ranked eighth in environmental and ecological science. It is a partner in international research activities in more than 85 countries in over 740 ongoing international collaborative research projects. At present it is the largest employer of scientists in Australia and the role that it plays in supporting professional development is critical in maintaining our R&D capacity and in keeping our technological edge. Through a pivotal role CSIRO plays in industry partnerships such as the cooperative research programs, commonly known as CRCs, it plays a catalytic role in the development of new industries and technologies.

I am concerned that funding for Australian R&D in general, and for CSIRO in particular, is not keeping up with the needs for the development of our future economy. I am concerned that the need to balance restricted funding is forcing CSIRO to make bad decisions as it attempts to balance the need for ongoing R&D programs and areas of excellence with the need to develop into new areas of innovation. With limited resources and increasing demands, something has to give. The need to balance these tensions and the culture of research leadership was clearly demonstrated by the recent strategic planning process that CSIRO has undergone. This has led, on one hand, to the identification of six national research flagships and a four-stage plan to take CSIRO up to 2012. On the other hand, the need to develop new areas on limited and diminishing resources has meant some difficult decisions have had to be made, including the announcement of significant job cuts in some established areas.

The budgetary problems were highlighted during estimates, with indications that CSIRO has sought permission to run a $14.5 million budget deficit in 2005-06. Then we heard late last year the announcement of 200 jobs being cut in research support areas with the potential for up to 400 positions going. We have heard talk of a brain drain, with a number of brilliant researchers recently being made redundant on very short notice. These include international climate expert Dr Graeme Pearman, leading wildlife ecologist Dr Jeff Short and federal pest control expert Dr Roger Pech. All are leaders in their field, undertaking high-quality research of truly national significance.

Now we have just had the release of the research investment direction paper. We are hearing more signals of job losses and funding cuts to agriculture, manufacturing and renewable energy. There have been rumblings from a number of areas that increased emphasis on external earnings has meant that more time is being spent chasing money than undertaking research and there is a move from doing public good research to being a client-driven research consultancy. The research investment direction paper confirms the real impact that the need to chase external funding is having. Quite simply, the philosophy of ‘partner or perish’ means in practice going where the money is rather than pursuing Australian innovation.

CSIRO no longer has the luxury of being able to think strategically or to plan for the long term because of the imperative to chase external funding to make up for the shortfall in government appropriations. Despite the rhetoric about the Australian economy being in transition from extractive industries towards those based on knowledge, technology and innovation, the new focus in the new paper is on mining, mineral resource development and clean coal. We are going back to Australia as the international mine. At a time when we should be building our future and making the most of our diminishing technological edge, CSIRO is being forced by the short-sightedness of government priorities to hitch its wagon to the fate of 20th-century energy dinosaurs, abandoning its lead in renewable energy. Once again, as reported just recently in the Canberra Times, the developers of the next innovation in solar energy are having to go overseas for funding. How many times has Australia lost major innovations and the major leading edge in industry because we have not been able to find finance in this country?

Make no mistake: as we are all aware, our neighbours know that the future is in building technology and are investing heavily in building knowledge based industries. Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea and China are all focusing heavily on building their capacity and producing science and engineering graduates. Our government’s inability to provide a supportive and nurturing environment for science and scientists in our universities and premier research institutions paints an unenticing picture for our school leavers contemplating a career in science or in engineering. CSIRO’s latest transformation has all the hallmarks of an inability to listen to the scientific community and a failure to take a long-term visionary approach to Australia’s research and development strategies. It is based on a naive belief that a growing reliance on private sector funding will not have adverse impacts on our research capacities. At the very same time CSIRO’s value as rated by its external investors has decreased steadily over the past year. The very people it is chasing for more money are saying that they feel that they are getting fewer bangs for their buck.

Government expenditure levels on R&D are at their lowest levels for 25 years as a percentage of GDP. There is no sign of a nation that is powering forward. Not only are our government’s social policies taking us back to the 1950s; their science policies are heading back that way too. Science once had a world-class institution in climate change research. According to climate experts it is now falling so far behind that it is not even on the international radar. Management is so caught up with lapping up the propaganda of the coal industry about how good the new clean coal is going to be that it has all but abandoned its vision for a new national energy model based on distributed renewable energies and sources. Energy efficiency technologies and demand reduction strategies have dropped off the scope just like our climate change commitments. Rather than pursuing, as has been reported extensively in the past, big hairy audacious goals—as CSIRO’s then new chief executive urged a few years back—researchers are now being urged to follow the big hairy mining industry and coal executives to hit them up for a few extra bucks.

All these factors are raising very real concerns in the R&D sphere and in the public arena about management and culture within CSIRO. CSIRO is an important national institution which has played a critical role in developing and maintaining a culture of excellence in research and technology development within Australia. I believe that there are very good reasons for us as a Senate to look at the evolving role of CSIRO, its place in the wider issues of competition and collaboration in the research sector, the challenges of R&D commercialisation, the management and exploitation of intellectual property and the wider culture of research and development within Australia. If Australia is to maintain its leading edge in technological development and innovation, it is critical that we have a strong CSIRO. That is not the way, unfortunately, that our national research organisation is heading. It is a tragedy for this country, one that I believe needs to be averted and one that this Senate needs to take a careful and close look at so that we can reverse this unfortunate trend.

This feels a bit like Groundhog Day, because I believe we were due to deal with the issue of referring the CSIRO’s role and responsibilities to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee last year. I preface my remarks with one of the concerns that I and others have raised in this place, and that is that there is a perception—and I think the numbers back it—of a diminishing number of references to committees. I guess it reflects a general concern that the committee system in the Senate has not been used in the way that was originally intended in this place. That is, proposals for committee references have been quashed. Certainly that was the case towards the end of last year. I hope the government is prepared to allow and support this committee reference, not only because it is a legitimate committee reference but because this is, I think, the bread-and-butter work of committees and the Senate. Indeed, this is an obvious reference for a committee such as the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee.

The Australian Democrats do support this reference. We believe there is a critical need for the role and the performance of the CSIRO to be referred to the committee for inquiry. As other speakers in this debate have mentioned, the CSIRO’s recently released research priorities for 2006-07 give some indication of the direction that the CSIRO appears to be taking. There are elements of that proposed direction that are cause for concern. I acknowledge that the CSIRO faces the challenge of balancing long-term research that is to the public benefit with the imperatives of commercialisation. The CSIRO’s internal mantra—that notion of ‘partner or perish’—provides us with a telling indication of the impetus for the CSIRO to pursue funding from private sources to augment the inadequate government funding it receives. A consequence of this need for CSIRO to engage with business is that many CSIRO scientists’ expertise is being used for private consultancies, to the detriment of their own research work.

The 2006-07 research priorities signal a change in research focus. The increased focus on advanced materials, including polymeric materials, has been welcomed by scientists. Another new research focus—the development of the water resources observation network, designed to give a national view of our current water situation and predictions for the future, along with ideas on maximising water use—has also been welcomed by scientists. We recognise that some of those research priorities have been warmly received.

Not so welcome, however, is the shift from renewable energy to clean coal technology, with CSIRO explaining, ‘We should reduce our effort in renewable energy restricting our activities to those in which we have a competitive advantage and can have significant impact.’ This dumping of critical research which would be of much public benefit is of great concern—and you have heard comments in this place today from a number of parties reflecting that concern—particularly, and obviously, at a time when we are experiencing the frightening impact of climate change thanks to excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Medical Association predicted 8,000 to 15,000 Australian deaths every year by the end of the century as a result of heat related illnesses if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced. Australia once did have a competitive advantage in renewable energy back in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, Australia’s research into renewable energy was on the international cutting edge—thanks in part, of course, to the CSIRO. I wonder why this critical area of research has been neglected or at least diminished when it is clearly needed now. And, given that Australia has the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita and that the threat of climate change is already impacting upon us, the CSIRO could have a huge impact in this area with its potentially groundbreaking research. Instead, the CSIRO appears to be bowing to the influence of coal powered energy. CSIRO’s chief executive has been reported as saying that, like it or not, industry and consumers remained heavily dependent on coal to fire electricity and that reality was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So the CSIRO will shift its focus to low greenhouse emission so-called ‘clean’ coal.

Surely, as the nation’s peak science body, the CSIRO has an obligation to pursue scientific developments, such as renewable energy, that stand to benefit the public good. This has been one of the great factors of the CSIRO as an institution: its recognition that public good is integral to the work that it does. The CSIRO should be leading the way in conducting innovative research to develop renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While some of CSIRO’s research priorities for 2006-07 show innovation and indeed forward thinking and will help the agency to stay ahead of the times, emphasising our reliance on fossil fuels will not. If the CSIRO does not conduct this kind of critical research, we cannot rely on private companies to do it.

We should not be too surprised, however, at the CSIRO’s change in research direction. It is clearly responding to the demands of industry as opposed to research in the interest of the public good. The CSIRO has diminished government investment. For some years, government funds for the CSIRO have been waning in real terms. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies reported that, over the past six years, the CSIRO’s share of Commonwealth investment in research and development declined from 12.4 per cent to 10.7 per cent. Indeed, government spending on research and development is at its lowest level for 25 years as a percentage of GDP.

This need to scramble for funding has resulted in the flagging of job losses to conserve money. This is a likely outcome of the 2006-07 priorities. I acknowledge that Senator Siewert made reference to job losses or impending job losses, including specific people who have gone from the agency. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic loss from the CSIRO of many highly regarded scientists. These include climate change expert Dr Graeme Pearman, wildlife ecologist Dr Jeff Short and ecologist and feral pest control researcher Dr Roger Pech, who have been made redundant. This loss of experience and knowledge can only further erode the CSIRO’s reputation as a research body, and I think the reasons CSIRO saw fit to make these three redundant warrant investigation.

Meanwhile, the CSIRO strategic plan, including the six research ‘flagships’ launched three years ago, has not been the economic boon that was expected. In fact, the CSIRO had a $9.2 million deficit in its most recent annual report and has a projected deficit of $14.5 million for the 2005-06 financial year. Given that the flagship program attracted a large injection of federal funding and the research priorities for 2006-07 include an increase of funding for the flagship program of 24 per cent from 2005-06, its role in the CSIRO’s budget deficit must be placed under rigorous scrutiny. A Senate inquiry is an opportunity to do that.

CSIRO research is in danger of being compromised by the need for it to ‘partner or perish’—this mantra. The drive to secure external funding to supplement its government funding is threatening the reputation of the CSIRO’s research. Perhaps the same argument could be launched for a number of our key, innovative education institutions. That scramble for funding, that desperate need for funding, in order to make up for government shortfalls does have an impact on quality and on the way the institution is regarded.

The nature of the CSIRO’s role in Australia seems to have been lost in the scramble for funding, be it public or external. The science agency is stuck between a rock and a hard place, trying to maintain its reputation as a source of quality research for the public’s interest, while operating in many instances as a private consulting agency. Some of the CSIRO’s research priorities for 2006-07 add further impetus to the call for an inquiry to examine some of the concerns that have been outlined by people in the chamber today and some of the concerns that I have noted. An inquiry must be conducted before the situation at the CSIRO worsens and its reputation is potentially irreparably damaged. The amount of public investment in the CSIRO over the years and its groundbreaking work, its innovative work, must not be compromised. It must not be lost. This is an excellent opportunity for the Senate to play a role in ensuring that that is not the case—that is, to ensure that there is rigorous scrutiny of some of the decisions that have been made and to look at the funding imperatives for the CSIRO in the present and the future.

If no other senators are seeking the call, I will close the debate and make a few brief comments. I thank Senators Carr and Stephens for their contribution in supporting this reference last year. The debate has been interrupted by the Christmas break. I thank Senators Milne, Siewert and Stott Despoja for their contributions today in support of the reference. All the senators have made different contributions. Each one of them has in fact made the case for this reference, this inquiry into the CSIRO. Collectively the case has been well made and it is worthy of support.

Senator Troeth’s was the only opposing voice to this reference. I want to briefly respond to the reasons Senator Troeth gave on behalf of the government for not allowing this reference or for voting against it. The reference will clearly be blocked without government support, the government having the numbers in the Senate. I will quote from Hansard. Senator Troeth said:

The government, in relation to CSIRO’s performance, as Senator Marshall well knows, has absolutely nothing to hide. The government believes that anything that the opposition would want to know about the achievements and performance of CSIRO can be achieved through the estimates proceedings.

Senator Troeth then went on to talk about what an important institution CSIRO is to Australia. I generally agree with all those following comments that Senator Troeth made. But, clearly, Senator Troeth does not understand the scope of the proposed inquiry that the opposition have put before the Senate. I should go through that, just for the record. I will not go through all the arguments that I made in my previous contribution. I will not delay the Senate in that respect. But, to put it into some perspective, we seek to inquire into the following:

The role and performance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in the light of current Government policy, and the organisation’s attempts at refocusing its research endeavours, taking into account the following:

(a)

the evolving role of CSIRO as a public research institution, and the ability of CSIRO to initiate and manage change;

(b)

the challenge of commercialisation, enhancement of the CSIRO ‘brand’, and the dilemma of choosing a national or global approach to research development;

(c)

intellectual property concerns, including the rewarding of researchers;

(d)

managing competition in the research sector, including competition between public research bodies, between the CSIRO and the private research sector, and the obligation of CSIRO to cover the research spectrum; and

(e)

management culture within the CSIRO, including its corporate profile, communication performance and community engagement, and its capacity to instil a modern research culture and to recruit and retain research personnel.

Those terms of reference cannot be adequately covered in any meaningful way through the estimates questioning process. We cannot get a proper inquiry and answers to all those questions or do any sort of serious inquiry when we are questioning the hand-picked executives and the minister before an estimates committee. We would not be able to hear from the end users of the CSIRO institution; nor would we hear from the people who participate in the development of those roles. As I have just outlined, the terms of reference go well beyond the scope of anything that we would be able to uncover in estimates.

In conclusion, I say that the case has been well made. I am surprised that the government will not seek to assist the Senate in doing the very job that the Senate should do, and that is to inquire on a regular basis into Australia’s very important scientific institution. My understanding is that there has not been such an inquiry in the past. There should be one. It should be held accountable to the parliament. Simply because the executive arm of the government does not want an inquiry into those matters that I previously raised is no good reason for the government to use its numbers to stop such an inquiry.

The opposition will pursue the issues before us in various forms. Given the contributions of the minor parties today, it is obvious that they hold the issues to be very important and will also pursue them. The issues will not go away. We hope the government has a change of heart. I will continue to negotiate with the deputy chair of the references committee, Senator Troeth, to see if there is some ability in the future to conduct an amended form of inquiry that might meet with the satisfaction of the government. We believe it is necessary and, as I said, it is something we will continue to pursue. I certainly urge the Senate at this late stage to support the reference.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion () be agreed to.

Debate resumed.

I continue my remarks on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 and point out that there has been a multitude of climate records broken in 2005 which starkly illustrate how global warming is already affecting many parts of the planet. Despite the fact that reducing wasteful energy is the cheapest and quickest way to address global warming and make Australia more competitive, unless companies are required to implement savings there is no incentive for them to change and the vast majority will continue to ignore efficiency in favour of quick bucks elsewhere.

The library’s Bills Digest notes that the Warren Centre study found that total energy consumption for Australia is 3,000 petajoules per annum and is estimated to cost $A40 billion annually. Industrial energy consumption is 40 per cent of that, giving an energy bill of $16 billion a year. Although many firms are achieving impressive economic returns by using energy more efficiently, numerous studies continue to point out that there is significant potential for doing better. In fact, experience in Australia and overseas has demonstrated that it is possible to save 10 to 15 per cent of this over a five-year program. Such savings would result in reduced costs of up to $2 billion a year, strengthening Australian industry and making it more competitive in world markets. But it requires investment in infrastructure to do so. Business needs to be actively encouraged to achieve these targets, or else there is no guarantee that Australia will achieve them.

The Democrats note that the Victorian government has conducted a program for greenhouse gas emission and energy efficiency in industry. Unlike the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program that we are discussing in this bill, the Victorian program requires certain operations that operate under the Victorian Environment Protection Agency statutory approvals to examine and implement measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse emissions. Victorian companies will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 1.15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

So it seems odd that the government would require business to undergo a cost based exercise to identify potential measures to improve energy efficiency and then not have some expectation that businesses should implement them. Presumably the government is assuming here that business is just ignorant and that it has not thought about energy efficiency or the prospect of saving energy and that if it did think about it it would see the light. I think that is rather insulting and also a little naive. It is also quite unlikely. Even the Energy Users Association, who in its submission opposed legislative non-commercial obligations on large users, recognises that implementation is critical and suggested that an incentive should be provided to implement opportunities identified by the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program.

As noted in our minority report to this bill, a viable approach the government could take is to require business and the Australian Greenhouse Office to reach an agreement on individual binding targets as a way of ensuring that measures are introduced. Individual binding agreements would provide the flexibility to take into account business circumstances. The Democrats are disappointed that this program does not do this, and also that it only extends to roughly 250 companies. While ABS data suggest that the 250 large energy users account for 80 per cent of energy used by business in Australia, this is no reason—in our view—why we should not be targeting all of business; clearly the imperative is there to do so.

Before I turn to the ALP’s second reading amendment, I would like to briefly express concerns on behalf of the Democrats at the failure of the minister to take into account a number of the recommendations made by the majority government report to the Senate inquiry into this bill. The bill provides for the enactment of unspecified regulations and, potentially, for unspecified and unlimited additions to the regulations in the future. In our minority report, the Democrats urged the government to either delay the passage of the bill until regulations were drafted and appropriate consultation and scrutiny had occurred or, as the majority report recommended, include this information in the statute itself. We are disappointed that neither of those recommendations has been taken up. Also put aside were concerns about the lack of safeguards with respect to the exercise of power under part 8. Again, concerns were ignored. The failure of the government to implement recommendations made by its own members is concerning although perhaps consistent with a government that has the numbers.

Turning to the ALP’s second reading amendment, I would like to put on the record our support for that amendment. As Labor points out, more needs to be done to introduce energy efficiency in all sectors of the community and to encourage greater use of and access to alternatives fuels and renewable energies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that, to stabilise the earth’s climate, we need to cut emissions by between 50 per cent and 60 per cent from ‘business as usual’ by the end of the century. Australia’s chief scientist recommends that Australia cut its greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent by the end of the same period.

In May 2001, the Democrat-chaired inquiry report entitled The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future reported on the progress and adequacy of the Australian government’s policies to reduce global warming. The report was critical of the lack of action to date and made 106 recommendations in the areas of transport, emissions trading, carbon and the land, energy use and supply, climate change and Kyoto. Three years later, the government released its energy white paper, which set out the government’s strategy for Australia’s future energy development, or lack of it. As with white papers in general, it was a declaration of intent, or a blueprint, on how future energy goals will be met. However, it did not contain effective planning for the future needs of the Australian community in energy supply. It did not contain anything that will deal with greenhouse gas emission reductions, especially on the sort of scale required, or with alternative renewable energy development. Specifically, it argued that energy related emissions are increasing at an alarming rate, yet there are no express policies in the white paper that will address this issue and rein in emissions. The report made a small number of achievable recommendations none of which, again, have been implemented.

Four months later, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage tabled a bipartisan report on sustainable cities, outlining 32 recommendations covering such themes as transport, water, building design and management and energy research and development, but, again, the government has yet to adopt any of those measures. So, rather than heed the warnings, this government is embarking on a go-slow strategy with a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude, which is leaving many scientists and environmentalists perplexed. Let’s talk about what needs to be done and set about doing it.

The recent announcement by the CSIRO that it will have a greater focus on cleaner coal-friendly technologies at the expense of renewable energy research is alarming, as is the report I read this morning, Minister Campbell, about your delay in supporting a number of wind farms around the country—one is at Bald Hills in Victoria—under the EPBC. The government is not using the EPBC to protect the environment, except when it comes to renewable energy projects it seems. The so-called alternative to Kyoto is a farce. The six-country Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is focused on developing cleaner methods of power using the world’s existing coal resources. The only aim, as we all know, is to prop up the coal industry to protect our export dollars. But, at the end of the day, the world are not going to want our coal; they are not going to be able to use it if there are sensible measures in place to get massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Minister Nelson recently announced that he wants to see the government investigate nuclear power generation in Australia, knowing that nuclear power production results in very substantial greenhouse emissions—much more than with renewable energy. I think it is a great shame that this government has failed to urgently act in the face of overwhelming evidence, upon the presentation of achievable solutions that are very well thought through, and upon very carefully considered and articulated suggestions that have been made in at least three reports that I have mentioned, which have been ignored. It is time, we say, for the government to act to protect Australian citizens from economic and environmental disaster that we are facing as a result of climate change. We call on the government to make the 2006 budget about the future of Australians and Australia, and to invest in energy efficiency schemes, renewable energy, water and so many more areas in which energy efficiency can be found.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber today.

I feel the need to place on the record that, despite my office contacting Minister Macfarlane’s office with regard to the proposed amendments, the government was unable to see its way clear to supply the amendments to the opposition. I do not know whether anyone else received them before they were tabled during the conclusion of the second reading debate on this legislation this morning. If that is an indication of the approach that the government intends to take to this chamber when it is proposing to amend legislation—on the basis that it believes it has the numbers to do those sorts of things—so be it, but I make the point that the minister’s office can do a lot better.

If we are about scrutinising legislation and getting a proper outcome, the opposition ought to get copies of proposed amendments before the debate commences in the chamber, unless it is impossible to do so. If the amendments are, as I hear across the chamber, minor and technical, there is even more reason for the opposition to receive them early, for an understanding to be gained about them rather than needing to ascertain that during the course of the debate in the chamber. Minor and technical they may be, but I think courtesy ought to be shown by the minister’s office—not the minister in this chamber but Minister Macfarlane’s office—and the amendments should be circulated or some indication of intention circulated before the event.

I think it is entirely appropriate that I apologise to senators for the late circulation of these amendments. I think that Senator O’Brien makes an entirely legitimate point. The unique nature of the situation as explained to me by the minister’s office is that these amendments, as I understand it, did flow from the Senate committee report. It is a very good process when a Senate committee inquires and we find alterations that can improve the legislation. As most senators know, this is the first day back. There are, I think, processes in the government parties similar to those in the opposition parties in terms of party procedures. We all know that it is important that all members of the Senate and, from the government’s point of view, members of the government have a chance to have a say on these things. We did in fact have a government members committee process and a government members meeting. I think in the opposition they call them caucus meetings. I think the Greens probably have party meetings these days now they have a few members. I think the Democrats still meet as a party. So that is the reason—they had to be cleared by our processes. The government is often asked to respect the caucus processes when we are seeking agreements on things. I do apologise to all senators who feel they have been disadvantaged due to the late circulation. But I know that the minister and I both sought to have the amendments circulated as soon as they had cleared all of the government processes.

I rise to draw attention to the Greens amendments that have been circulated. I hope that people have the amendments in front of them. In my speech in the second reading debate I spoke about the need to have an energy efficiency target. We currently do not have a national target. It is one way of ensuring that we have a benchmark against which to measure any appreciable changes in terms of energy efficiency. It also gives us the opportunity to bring in measures that will allow us to meet the target.

As it stands, the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005 simply asks companies to do their audit but does not require them to implement any of the findings that they might achieve as a result of their report. So they report, essentially, and then do nothing. There is no requirement, no enforcement, no compliance and no accountability. The only thing with the government’s legislation is that they report publicly. Then the hope is that, by osmosis, after they report they will be somehow inclined to implement the changes.

What I am doing with these amendments is facilitating the establishment of a national energy efficiency target by amending clause 3 so that the object of the bill will be not only to promote the identification and implementation of measures to reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency but also to facilitate the establishment of a national energy efficiency target. The second part of the amendment to the object of the act will require corporations to not only undertake an assessment of their energy efficiency opportunities to a minimum standard and report but also implement their identified energy efficiency measures.

In order to do that, what I propose is that the minister establishes a task force of experts to report on the implementation of a national energy efficiency target. So the amendments are not actually establishing the target at this particular time—the object of the first amendment that I am moving is to facilitate the establishment of a national energy efficiency target through the establishment of a task force of experts to report on that. I have set out in further amendments the actual nature of the task force to be established and the make-up of the task force. The amendments would require that the task force report to the minister within 18 months of the commencement of the act and that the task force then lodge that report in both houses within 12 months. So it would actually set up a parallel process. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill would come into effect but, parallel with that, there would be a task force established to look at setting up a national energy efficiency target. That is the first objective of the amendments which are going to be moved in a moment.

The second objective of the amendments to be moved in this discussion relates to an energy savings fund. What we are proposing is to set up an energy savings fund to encourage energy savings, address peak demand, stimulate investment in innovative energy savings measures, increase public awareness and acceptance, encourage cost-effective energy savings measures and provide funding for contributions made by the Commonwealth for the purposes of national energy regulation. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, the purpose of the fund is not to provide money for the renewable energy industry but, rather, to help to promote this whole idea of energy efficiency.

Given the announcement that the proposal for smart meters will go to the COAG meeting this week, clearly the Commonwealth is intending that the states fund the roll-out of the smart meters. It is unlikely that the states will agree to that. No doubt some compromise will be reached. But specifically one way to do it would be to establish an energy savings fund which was partly funded by the Commonwealth but also where the minister was able to require corporations to make a contribution to the fund. Then there would be a pool of money to assist in the roll-out of national strategies to in fact harvest the energy savings through energy efficiency.

The problem I have with the government’s bill is not the principle of it but the fact that it requires no implementation. That is why I am moving for that. That is probably all I need to say on that. I take it, from the way that the amendments have been set out, that the amendments to clause 3 and after clauses 20 and 38 will be put as one.

Could I just clarify that what you are moving at present is amendments (1) and (5) to (7) on sheet 4784.

That is right. That is what I am speaking about at this point in time and, accordingly, I move Greens amendments (1) and (5) to (7):

(1)    Clause 3, page 2 (lines 4 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:

3  Object

        (1)    The objects of this Act are to:

             (a)    facilitate the establishment of a national energy efficiency target; and

             (b)    promote the identification and implementation of measures to reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency.

        (2)    In order to achieve its objects, this Act:

             (a)    requires the Minister to establish a taskforce of experts to report on the implementation of a national energy efficiency target; and

             (b)    requires corporations to undertake an assessment of their energy efficiency opportunities to a minimum standard in order to improve the way in which those opportunities are identified and evaluated; and

             (c)    requires corporations to publicly report on the outcomes of that assessment in order to demonstrate to the community that those businesses are effectively managing their energy; and

             (d)    requires corporations to implement identified energy efficiency measures contained in their energy assessment; and

             (e)    establishes an Energy Savings Fund.

(5)   Page 15 (after line 24), after Part 6, insert:

Part 6A—Implementation of identified energy efficiency measures

20A  Requirement to implement identified energy efficiency measures

        (1)    A registered corporation required to lodge an assessment plan in accordance with Part 5 must identify as part of the plan a program of energy saving capital improvements (the energy audit) which have a payback period specified in subsection (5).

        (2)    A portion of the saving identified in the energy audit required by subsection (1) must be made within three years from the commencement of this Act.

        (3)    The regulations shall include provision for a registered corporation to delay the implementation of an energy audit lodged under subsection (1) if the registered corporation provides satisfactory evidence of an intention to implement the energy audit.

        (4)    A registered corporation must provide an annual summary of the implementation of the energy audit of the previous year and a summary of the proposed implementation of the energy audit for the following year for the register to be maintained by the Secretary in accordance with section 12.

        (5)    The regulations must set a sliding scale to progressively lower the duration of the energy payback period from not more than two years in the financial years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 to not more than four years by the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

(6)   Page 29 (after line 28), at the end of Part 8, add:

Division 7—Energy Efficiency Target Taskforce

38A  Establishment of Energy Efficiency Target Taskforce

The Minister must before the expiration of 3 months after the commencement of this Act establish an Energy Efficiency Target Taskforce to inquire into and report on the establishment of a national energy efficiency target.

38B  Membership

The Minister will appoint 4 members to the Energy Efficiency Target Taskforce with  the following expertise:

             (a)    one member representing industry;

             (b)    one member representing conservation interests;

             (c)    one member representing the Commonwealth who shall convene and chair the taskforce;

             (d)    one member with expertise and qualifications in energy conservation.

38C  Report of the Energy Efficiency Target Taskforce

        (1)    The Taskforce is to report to the Minister within 18 months of the commencement of this Act.

        (2)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the Taskforce to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 5 sitting days of receiving it.

(7)   Page 29 (after line 28), after Part 8, insert:

Part 8A—Energy Savings Fund

38D  Establishment of Energy Savings Fund

The Energy Savings Fund is established by this section.

38E  Purposes of Energy Savings Fund

        (1)    The purposes of the Energy Savings Fund (the Fund) are to provide funding:

             (a)    to encourage energy savings; and

             (b)    to address peak demand for energy; and

             (c)    to stimulate investment in innovative energy savings measures; and

             (d)    to increase public awareness and acceptance of the importance of energy savings measures; and

             (e)    to encourage cost effective energy savings measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of energy; and

              (f)    to provide funding for contributions made by the Commonwealth for the purposes of national energy regulation.

        (2)    It is not a purpose of the Fund to provide funding for investment in low emission power generation, or any other kind of power generation, where the primary purpose of the generation is to generate energy for sale into the power grid.

38F  Payments into Energy Savings Fund

There is payable into the Fund:

             (a)    all money received from contributions required to be made to the Fund under section 38H; and

             (b)    all money appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the Fund; and

             (c)    the proceeds of the investment of money in the Fund.

38G  Payments out of Energy Savings Fund

        (1)    There is payable from the Energy Savings Fund any money:

             (a)    approved by the Minister to fund all or any part of the cost of any energy savings measure that the Minister is satisfied promotes a purpose referred to in subsection 38E(1); and

             (b)    approved by the Minister to fund all or any part of the contributions that the Commonwealth is required to make for the purposes of national energy regulation; and

             (c)    required to meet administrative expenses related to the Fund; and

             (d)    required to meet administrative expenses of the Minister in connection with the Minister’s functions under this Act.

        (2)    In exercising the Minister’s functions under paragraph (1)(a) (but without limiting the generality of that paragraph), the Minister may:

             (a)    approve selection criteria from time to time to be applied to determine the kinds of energy savings measures that will be eligible for funding from the Fund; and

             (b)    require a person or body seeking funding for an energy savings measure to do either or both of the following as a precondition to applying for or obtaining funding:

                   (i)    to submit an energy savings action plan that includes details about the measure;

                  (ii)    to provide any other information requested by the Minister about the measure; and

             (c)    obtain and have regard to any advice, recommendations or other information provided to the Minister by a committee appointed by the Minister, or by any other person or body that the Minister considers relevant.

38H  Minister may require registered corporations to make contributions

        (1)    The Minister may by regulation require registered corporations to make an annual contribution for a specified financial year to the Fund.

        (2)    A regulation made for the purposes of subsection (1):

             (a)    must specify the annual contributions payable by each registered corporation to which it applies (being an amount that does not exceed the maximum amount, if any, prescribed by the regulations); and

             (b)    may specify that an annual contribution may be paid by instalments during the financial year to which the regulation applies; and

             (c)    must specify the time or, in the case of an annual contribution that is payable by instalments, the times at which any contribution required under the regulation is to be made; and

             (d)    may be made before or within the first 3 months of the financial year to which it relates.

The proposal is to set up a task force in parallel with the bill in order to work towards an energy efficiency target and to put in place an energy savings fund.

I thank Senator Milne for running through the background to the amendments. The senator has outlined a fundamentally different approach to that taken by the government. Quite frankly, I think we are both aiming at the same direction. I think all parties in this place agree that climate change caused by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is an incredibly serious problem for Australia and for the world. All parties would agree that urgent action is required to address that.

The government would reject the allegations made or propositions placed in the speeches of a number of senators in the second reading debate that the government is not acting. The record shows that under the leadership of John Howard—and, quite frankly, three successive environment ministers and resources and energy ministers—the government has taken actions across a portfolio of emission sources and through a number of programs to provide in many areas leadership to the whole world and to create a framework that sees the levels of emissions as a proportion of GDP significantly reduce. That is the first thing you need to do if you want to address greenhouse issues within a growing economy. The major parties would agree at least that you need to keep the economy strong and expanding to keep job security, jobs growth and prospects for people who are coming into the workforce within Australia and within developed countries and, at the same time, to see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

From a global point of view, there is a moral imperative to see strong economic growth continue and to see the benefits of that growth go to developing countries so that the very many millions of people on our planet who live in a situation of poverty, malnutrition and susceptibility to disease receive the benefits of strong worldwide economic growth. Opportunities such as getting an education and access to good health care and nutrition to keep us alive are things that we take for granted, but they are things that people in many parts of our own region and many parts of sub-Saharan Africa cannot dream about or even contemplate. In fact, mortality for many people in those parts of the world is still at an age of only five.

All of us would want to make sure that the measures that we put in place to save the planet from dangerous climate change do not harm the prospects of a strong economy. Simply put, that means that the measures that we put in place to deliver energy efficiency or greenhouse gas abatement—any of the measures that we put in place to effect a policy—need to obtain a dual objective. That was the very clear message of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his G8 colleagues. A very strong theme throughout the Montreal meetings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first meeting of the members of the parties to the Kyoto protocol and the 11th meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN framework convention was that the measures that we put in place must address those realities.

The Australian government, by any sort of objective assessment—and I cannot be objective because I am a part of it; I am clearly quite biased—across a whole range of areas, including energy efficiency, is providing a lot of leadership that many other countries are following. That is why Australia, particularly through the Australian Greenhouse Office—which is a part of my portfolio that I am particularly proud of—is sought out around the world for policy advice and assistance for so many things: energy efficiency, particularly the programs to do with appliance labelling; much of the work that we have done in terms of measurement and design of tools to measure efficiency in buildings; and the work we have done with water efficiency labelling, which has a significant greenhouse benefit. All those programs are things that Australians should in fact be proud of.

I do not think there is any difference between our position and the position of Senator Milne and the Greens on achieving the outcome. What she has described in her amendments is a more interventionist approach—one that would have significantly larger costs to industry and therefore to the economy and, more specifically, to consumers, but with potentially much lower benefits.

The way I explain how we should be going about this policy is that, with the money that is available in the government sector and in the private sector—be it within the corporate sector or the household sector—we should be achieving the greatest greenhouse gas reduction outcome for a given level of investment. We do not need to set up under legislation, as Senator Milne has proposed, a whole new energy efficiency target task force structure to guide us in how to design a new energy efficiency measure. We have actually done the homework over a period of years to create what we believe is a sensible energy efficiency framework for the country—and it does build on work that is being done in the states. A lot of the state governments, to their great credit, have done work with varying degrees of success in building energy efficiency into their own regimes through legislation, regulation or a mix of voluntary measures.

Of course, at this week’s meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, where climate change cooperation is on the agenda, a number of quite specific measures will be discussed by first ministers on Friday. This is an incredibly important step forward for Australia, because although I think all governments have been putting in place many constructive and positive measures, trying to get more uniformity, cooperation and information exchange across governments, a clearer guide for industry—a clearer set of policies where they can be agreed where there is a coming together of the policies—means that there will be more efficiency from a government point of view. Our proposition applies to larger companies. It targets 250 companies, but these companies consume about 60 per cent of business energy use, so it is incredibly efficient if we can address the activities of these companies.

We often have what I think is a slightly surreal debate with Labor and the Greens. We had a debate last night on a television program that will go to air down the track. The opposition and the Greens’ spokesperson, Senator Milne, accused us of having everything that we are doing as voluntary. She said that we are relying on the goodwill of business in our greenhouse measures. That is simply not true. This measure is a mandatory measure. We are requiring for the first time, and in many cases for the first time anywhere in the world, that companies go through an incredibly expensive process to identify energy efficiency and to put into place plans. We have also put in place a whole range of other mandatory measures which are part of our greenhouse strategies. The mandatory renewable energy target scheme was one of the first of its type in the world, and it remains our policy. There is nothing voluntary about it. It requires energy producers to buy renewable energy certificates or to produce a certain percentage of their energy output from renewable sources. It is far from voluntary. It was one of the first mandatory renewable energy programs in the world, and many others have been copied. This is another mandatory measure.

What the Greens and other critics of this bill are saying is that we need to enforce on companies some overall efficiency measure. This of course ignores the fact that all of the companies that we are targeting have very different operations. What, no doubt, the implementation of this bill will show, when all of these companies go through the mandatory efficiency audits, is that the capacity for efficiency improvements from company to company is likely to be quite different. The bill’s effects are similar to those of the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program, which allows companies voluntarily to sign up to a greenhouse strategy, to report their greenhouse gas emissions, to report on plans to reduce those and to report performance against those plans—and, again, that is a world-leading program for corporations; I think we have signed up about 770 companies to that program. Under this bill it will be mandatory for companies to go through this process of identifying their operations and energy efficiency using sophisticated tools and, quite often, sophisticated online reporting tools.

Of course, under the implementation of this legislation we will be harmonising the company energy efficiency reporting with that under the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program. So we are not putting more red tape on companies; we are ensuring that their energy, effort and financial support go into reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy efficiency and are not spent on just compliance and red tape. We are trying to make it a lot easier for companies to go through their reporting.

However, what we have found in pursuing the Greenhouse Challenge program, and now the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program, is that when companies go through that process and identify where the emissions are coming from—and, in this case, where the energy efficiency is—they find it to be very much in their best interests to reduce emissions. There are huge financial benefits to companies from reducing waste and reducing emissions they do not need to make. In the case of energy efficiency, the department believes, through previous experience and investigation, that there are savings of 10 to 30 per cent across many companies. On average each of these companies spends around $3 million per year on energy. If you can get a 10 to 30 per cent saving, that is up to nearly $1 million a year. I am sorry to sound like a Treasury person again, but if you do the net present value of a $1 million a year saving it is a huge increase in the value of the company.

I heard Senator Milne and others talking about the importance of having a price signal in carbon to get companies to reduce their carbon emissions, a proposition that is quite right. I have always agreed that a price signal and ultimately a broad based market trading system would be a desirable way for the economy to invest in reducing greenhouse gases. It is just a matter of designing a system that is efficient, that has low transaction costs and that does not adversely affect employment and the economy in Australia. That is the challenge—that has always been the challenge.

What we have here is a price signal to companies to improve their energy efficiency. We are requiring them to do an audit and find what they can do in terms of improving energy efficiency. As a result of this bill, they will be able to put a price on it and calculate exactly what the financial benefits to them will be. I do not accept the criticism that this will not create a good outcome. Companies will find it in their best interests, just as they have done under the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program, through which Woodside have reported savings of 350,000 tonnes a year, Cement Industry Federation have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 million tonnes a year, Queensland Rail have achieved greenhouse gas abatement of approximately 229,000 tonnes a year and Godfrey Hirst Australia have achieved a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through recycling initiatives. These companies have done this under a regime where they analyse their emissions, look at how they can reduce them and then report on them. It is about transparency and customer advice and it has proved to be effective.

I should be even-handed in the way that I deal with these amendments. I was critical of the minister’s office for not circulating the government’s amendments to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005. I must say that the opposition had no knowledge of and did not sight the Greens’ amendments until well into the second reading debate on this bill which, given the nature of and the detail in the amendments, makes it extremely difficult for the opposition to embrace the proposals in the amendments—not least because they propose to set up another fund under the control of a government minister.

We know what this government has done with funds that it has taken from industry or consumers. I am thinking of Dairy RAP, for example, through which $70 million, give or take a couple of million, found its way into all sorts of projects which were supposed to help the dairy industry—like wine appreciation courses at one of the private schools in Toowoomba, or a polocrosse field which seems to be nothing more than a fence and a gate and a shed. That field, which is also in southern Queensland, got many thousands of dollars.

We have had all sorts of inquiries into that sort of funding. We have had inquiries into a variety of successor programs through which millions of dollars have been used by this government to pork-barrel electorates around the country to try to shore up the haemorrhaging National Party vote in parts of the country. In those programs the National Party minister or, indeed, parliamentary secretaries assisting the minister had the sign-off and  final approval for millions of dollars. So for the Greens to propose an amendment which requires us to put more money in the hands of the government—money that seems to be under the control of a minister on first glance at the amendments—is something that we are concerned about. We would require some convincing before we were prepared to support that.

As I represent the member for Batman, Martin Ferguson, in this chamber, the first point I make is that the advice from his office is that there has been no consultation about these amendments. The amendments arrived just before one o’clock today. The fact that there has been no consultation puts Mr Ferguson’s office in a difficult position of making a call on behalf of the Labor Party in relation to these substantial and not inconsequential amendments. It is quite unfair for Mr Ferguson’s office to be placed in this position. I entreat Senator Milne and her colleagues to seek to consult about any serious amendments they want to put, rather than drop them on the table during a debate and expect a meaningful contribution from other senators and other parties in relation to them.

Progress reported.

Order! It being after 6.50 pm, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a review by the Legislation Review Committee of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, often known colloquially as the stem cell legislation. That legislation passed through this chamber in 2002 by way of a conscience vote. I think it was the last chamber-wide conscience vote we had. This review was tabled back in December.

Firstly, I want to note the very tragic passing of the chair of that committee, Mr John Lockhart, who died not long after the report was presented. That is certainly a great loss and I acknowledge his contribution not just in this report, of course, which was probably the very last major piece of public work he performed, but also his significant contribution in many other areas.

It is a very comprehensive report. I cannot speak to it in detail in five minutes. It goes for 250 pages and it deals with some very complex and controversial issues. As we recall, the stem cell debate in this chamber those few years ago was controversial, and it shows the value of this process. I understand that the process itself is a requirement of the act and I am fairly sure it is a requirement that was placed in there as a result of an amendment moved by my Democrat colleague Senator Stott Despoja and Senator McLucas, who moved a number of joint amendments to improve that legislation.

There is a lot about this debate that is misunderstood, not surprisingly because the science is so detailed and complex. Certainly I do not profess to have a full understanding of it, but I recommend that people and senators that have an interest in this topic try to peruse this report. I think it is available online as well. The report does attempt to present the concepts and the issues in as accessible a way as possible given the complexity of some of the science. I note that despite some of the controversy in this area there was consensus in some aspects, and the committee heard strong agreement between all groups that human reproductive cloning should continue to be prohibited on ethical grounds. That was clearly strongly recommended by the committee. The committee also recommended that the use of embryos created by methods not involving fertilisation of eggs by sperm for reproductive purposes should remain prohibited. They also recommended continuing the prohibition of placing any human embryo into an animal or the body of a human apart from in a woman’s reproductive tract or placing a human embryo into the body of a human for any period of gestation.

It is important to emphasise the commonality of view in maintaining those prohibitions. Where there was some controversy was in the recommendations dealing with the approval of creating human embryos by methods of somatic cell nuclear transfer to generate embryonic stem cells not for the purposes of reproduction but for the purpose of generating stem cells. That is sometimes called therapeutic cloning and therefore people think we are allowing cloning and that is terrible. It is not reproductive cloning; there is a clear distinction. The report recommends that distinction and I think that debate should be had on face value and not confused. There is a clear prohibition on reproductive cloning and it is recommended that that continue, but the other method of creating embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells is a different issue.

I believe this is an important debate that needs to be advanced and considered in a measured away. I urge the government to respond to this report in that way and do so as promptly as possible. Given the complexity and importance of the issues we cannot expect an instant response but I do hope that they maintain the momentum on this. I know that there are a number within the government who are supportive of what the committee has put forward but there are some who are not. We need to keep the momentum going and get a strong response quickly and keep the necessary developments in this important area of research continuing.

I acknowledge the contributions of my colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett on this particular report. It is a report that I have certainly commented on publicly on behalf of the Democrats but this is the first opportunity to comment on the finished reports in the parliamentary sphere. I also want to add my condolences to the family of the former Federal Court judge, the Hon. John Lockhart AO QC. Unfortunately, he died on Friday, 13 January this year, so soon after the completion of this committee’s reports and their recommendations. I want to pay a tribute to Mr Lockhart for his general contributions to Australian life and the legal world, but in particular for his work and contribution to what was quickly dubbed the Lockhart review.

The reports that this committee produced are a comprehensive and innovative review of our laws governing stem cell research and cloning. They contain insightful recommendations and have been welcomed by many—in particular, those in the scientific and research communities. I do note the respect and esteem in which Mr Lockhart was held by the review committee members and, indeed, the wider scientific committee. All members of the Lockhart legislative review committee deserve our thanks for their time and their commitment in conducting the review. We all wait for a response from the government and I hope that we do not have to wait too long for that.

Many people in their submissions revealed their frustration particularly those with diseases or disabilities who desperately hope that our laws will be relaxed to allow the exploration of stem cell technology including somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. One of the committee’s 54 recommendations was that somatic cell nuclear transfer be allowed so that Australian scientists can explore the potential benefits of this technology in treating a number of conditions and diseases from Parkinson’s to spinal injuries. Indeed, one of the recommendations to which my colleague referred was in fact the establishment of a stem cell bank and, yes, it was an amendment moved jointly by Senator McLucas and me back in 2002 to that legislation that called for investigation into the applicability of the establishment of a national stem cell bank in this country. I am happy to see that the committee recognised the importance of this concept and recommended its establishment to give researchers access to stem cell lines as well as to expert advice.

The Lockhart panel also strongly recommended public education to improve the community’s understanding of research and stem cell work as well as ART research generally. While there is a degree of public knowledge and support out there, there is a lot more work that could be done. I strongly supported the 2002 legislation, in particular the research involving the embryos act which regulates the use of excess assisted reproductive technology embryos in research. As well, of course, I supported the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. I believed then as I do now that there are sound reasons to encourage research that may alleviate disease, and that there is an intrinsic value in understanding biological processes such as cell differentiation and regeneration independently of whether or not it yields direct medical applications, and also that a national sound, consistent regulatory framework is required to provide publicly accountable oversight of research on excess ART embryos that otherwise would be allowed to succumb.

Nonetheless, our current regulation is quite conservative in comparison to many other countries, particularly the UK, Israel, Singapore and certainly the US, if you look at private funding which allows so-called therapeutic cloning. I hope that the government will look realistically at these recommendations and I strongly urge them to consider not only responding positively but bringing in legislation to this parliament that will relax legislation to a degree so that we can keep up with the rest of the world in this extraordinary field of science and technology. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

The following government documents were considered:

Treaty—MultilateralText, together with national interest analysis and annexures—Amendments, done at Nairobi, Kenya on 25 November 2005, to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, done at Bonn on 23 June 1979. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.

Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003Quarterly report on the Government co-contribution scheme for the period 1 July to 30 September 2005. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.

Natural Heritage Trust—Report for 2004-05. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Milne. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Milne in continuation.

Centrelink and the Data-Matching Agency—Data-matching program—Report on progress 2004-05. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Stott Despoja. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Stott Despoja in continuation.

National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2004-05. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Stott Despoja. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Stott Despoja in continuation.

National Rural Advisory Council—Report for 2001-02, including a report on the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Stott Despoja. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Stott Despoja in continuation.

National Rural Advisory Council—Report for 2002-03. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Stott Despoja. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Stott Despoja in continuation.

Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 2004-05. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Stott Despoja. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Stott Despoja in continuation.

Order! There being no further consideration of government documents, I propose the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I rise tonight to talk about the recent elections held in Canada. Canada as a nation has a lot in common with Australia. We are both Commonwealth countries, we are both physically large countries with relatively small populations and we are both nations comprised primarily of immigrants. However, one area where we have differed over the last decade is that Australia has been governed by a centre-right government whereas Canada has been governed by the centre-left Liberal Party.

The twenty-third of January 2006 saw Canadians elect a minority Conservative government for the first time in 13 years. This is especially remarkable when you consider that, in the 1993 elections, the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats in a 295-seat legislature. One thing to note immediately here is the volatility displayed by the Canadian electorate. I believe this massive swing highlights one of the differences between the Australian and Canadian electorates. I do not believe Australia would ever dump a government quite so harshly, and likewise neither would a party recover so quickly from such a rejection. Electorate volatility is nevertheless still an issue for Australia and is certainly one of the lessons to be learned from Canada.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is an economist who has spent most of his life in politics. At 47, he will be one of the youngest Prime Ministers Canada has ever had. I would like to make some comments tonight about his political career and make a few observations about Canadian politics in general.

Stephen Harper was born in 1959 in Toronto. He moved to Alberta in Western Canada, and he received his BA in Economics from the University of Calgary in 1985. He then received his MA in 1991. Elected as the Member for Calgary West in 1993, Mr Harper has been involved with centre-right parties for his entire political career. He started his career as an MP with the Reform Party of Canada but left the party in 1997, when he declined to stand for re-election.

In 2002 he was elected as the Member for Calgary Southwest, as the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party. He oversaw the merger of the Canadian Alliance Party with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003 to form the Conservative Party of Canada. This merger ameliorated the vote-splitting effects of having two major centre-right parties. In the 2004 general election the Conservatives increased their percentage of the vote by nearly 10 per cent.

The year 2005 saw the Martin Liberal government finally undone by the Adscam corruption scandal. The Canadian federal government ran a ‘sponsorship program’ from 1996 to 2004 in the province of Quebec, ostensibly to promote Canadian patriotism to counter Quebecois separatism. Advertising companies that secured government contracts paid kickbacks to the Liberal Party in Canada. This disgrace that came to light in early 2004. The scandal, however, was not enough to convince voters to dump the Liberals in the 2004 general elections. In fact, the Liberals ran an effective scare campaign against the Conservatives’ so-called hidden agenda, insisting that Mr Harper would transform Canada into ‘North Texas’.

The 2004 election saw the Conservatives make some gains and cost the Liberals majority government. They were able to form minority government but continued to be dogged by the sponsorship scandal and internal unity issues. On 28 November 2005, the House of Commons passed a vote of no confidence in the Liberal government of Paul Martin. All three opposition parties—the Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party—voted for the motion.

Before I speak about the 2006 election, let me speak for a moment about Canada’s main political parties. The Conservatives and the Liberals make up the traditional centre-right/centre-left pairing common to most liberal democracies. The New Democratic Party, or NDP, holds a third-party role equivalent to somewhere between the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens. They are certainly to the left of the Liberals, differing mainly on fiscal policy. The Bloc Quebecois’s main platform is the secession of Quebec from Canada. They are essentially a one-platform party, but formed Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the years after 1993 when the Conservatives held only a handful of seats. Generally centre-left on social and fiscal policy, they consistently gain just shy of 50 per cent of the vote in the province of Quebec.

As I mentioned earlier, the 2006 general election saw the Conservatives win minority government. Specifically, the Conservatives won 124 seats, with 36.3 per cent of the vote; the Liberals, 103 seats; the Bloc, 51; and the NDP, 29; with one independent rounding out the tally. This result, whilst giving the Conservatives government, puts Mr Harper in a tricky position. He has no natural allies in parliament, so any legislation that passes will have to be amended to meet with the approval of at least one of the opposition parties. Mr Harper has announced to parliament his intentions for the new government, which include combating the aforementioned government corruption, tax cuts, toughening up the criminal justice system and working more closely with the provinces.

What is perhaps most interesting for Australians about this election are the comparisons between Mr Harper and our own Prime Minister. Followers of Canadian politics are calling for Mr Harper to emulate John Howard—not Ronald Reagan, not Margaret Thatcher, not George W Bush and not David Cameron but John Howard. Howardism, they say, combines self-confidence and awareness with a keen understanding of the politically possible. It will be interesting to see how Mr Harper and the Conservatives do in government and how they tackle the many challenges ahead. I wish them well and look forward to following Canada’s progress.

The Cronulla Sutherland Rugby League team entered the first-grade competition in 1967. Naturally, as a young teenager I spent many a Saturday and Sunday—as I am sure you did, Acting Deputy President Hutchins—barracking for our local team the ‘Sharks’, at Shark Park. It took a few years, but by 1973 we had a team that could challenge for the premiership. We managed to get some of our locals back from St George, promoted a number of outstanding local juniors and signed up a couple of English great imports in Tommy Bishop and Cliff Watson.

In 1973, a young 18-year-old local junior who was playing in Queensland at the time joined the Sharks. His name was Steve Rogers. In that same year he went on to play in the grand final against Manly—probably the toughest that has ever been played—and at the end of that year was selected to be in the Kangaroos touring team. His opponent in that grand final was the legendary Bob Fulton, one of the game’s recognised ‘Immortals’. Bob Fulton said of Steve Rogers, or ‘Sludge’ as he was nicknamed:

Sludge was one of a very rare breed in the game—the player who could do everything. I rate him the most naturally gifted player I played with or against.

Steve Rogers was the complete football genius. In over 40 years of avidly watching Rugby League he was one of the greatest players I ever saw. To the Sharks fans he was our local hero, our local legend. The statistics are impressive: 232 first-grade games, 202 of them played for the Cronulla Sharks. Total points scored: 1,374. He still holds the club record at Cronulla of 1,253 points. Steve Rogers played 21 games for New South Wales, including the first ever State of Origin match. He represented Australia in 21 tests and three World Cup matches. He captained Australia. He won the prestigious Rothmans Medal and the Dally M award. He was named as one of the three Sharks inaugural Immortals.

But, as impressive as these statistics are, they do not do justice to his life and career. Steve Rogers had natural talent and class that was simply a pleasure to behold. He had the speed and acceleration of Reg Gasnier, he tackled like John Raper and Ron Coote and he kicked goals like Keith Barnes. He could change the course of a game in an instant, like a Wally Lewis or an Andrew Johns. But he also played the game as it should be played: fairly and decently, with skill and class and enjoyment and sportsmanship, both on and off the field.

Steve Rogers was one of those rare individual footballers who mesmerised the opposition and crowds alike. He brought joy and pride to the Sharks and to the shire and entertained the wider Rugby League world. Johnny Raper, arguably the greatest ever Rugby League player, said:

He was a terrific guy and a freak of a footballer. He was more than a champion; he goes into the Immortal status.

Sadly and tragically, Steve Rogers passed away on Tuesday, 3 January this year. He was only 51 years old. In the days that followed, the circumstances and the cause of his passing have been written and speculated about at length. Two days after Steve’s passing, his son Mat Rogers, himself a dual Rugby League and Rugby Union international and another Cronulla legend, publicly acknowledged that his father had been suffering from depression. I intend to speak at another time about this important issue, particularly in my capacity as a member of the current Senate Select Committee on Mental Health. Many have spoken of how they never saw any indication of Steve’s difficulties. Rather, they saw a person who loved life and enjoyed a good time. His nickname of ‘Sludge’ apparently came from his first experience of the delights of beer!

While Steve Rogers experienced the joys and accolades that go with playing sport at an elite and international level, he also had more than his fair share of personal sorrow and tragedy. His career was seriously interrupted in the first game of the 1985 season when he was injured in a vicious head-high tackle that left him unconscious and with a broken jaw. It took him a year to recover. He never played for the Sharks again. He went to play out his career in England the following year but only played one game before breaking his leg. He never played Rugby League again. Even more sadly and tragically, both his parents passed away from cancer. In 2001 his wife, Carol, also died after a long struggle with cancer. Despite these setbacks, Steve Rogers continued his association with Rugby League, most recently as general manager of the Sharks team. He also started an annual golf day to support cancer research by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Sydney Children’s Hospital. He was an ambassador for the Breast Cancer Foundation and helped to raise over $200,000 in recent years for that worthwhile cause.

Like thousands of people living in the shire and elsewhere, I was privileged to have met Steve Rogers on a number of occasions. One of the highlights of my many years of following Rugby League was two years ago when I spent an evening over dinner with Steve Rogers, Steve Mortimer, Russell Fairfax and a small group, listening and discussing the game and their careers. Steve happily and generously did the same with scores of fans. He was always delighted to give his time to the old fans down at the club who had seen him play for the Sharks or to the young kids who came to the games and who dreamed of wearing the black, white and blue.

A memorial service was held for Steve Rogers at the Sutherland Shire Christian Centre on Saturday, 7 January. Over 1,000 people packed the centre. Thousands more lined the streets as the funeral procession passed by. Legends of the game, including the Immortals, Reg Gasnier, Johnny Raper, Bob Fulton and Graeme Langlands, stood alongside the fans as they paid their respects and openly shed tears. Steve Rogers died tragically and much too soon. But he brought joy to those who saw him play and were privileged to meet and know him.

After the reputation of Cronulla and the Sutherland Shire was so severely damaged by the cowardly racist violence of last December, the people of the shire came together on 7 January and paid tribute to a person who represented what is best in our society—dedication, excellence, courage, leadership, fairness and respect for others. Many wonderful tributes have been written about Steve Rogers, but I want to refer to just two that I believe stand out. Firstly, in the Australian, on 4 January, Ian Heads wrote:

So Steve ‘Sludge’ Rogers didn’t get the nickname his talent deserved, didn’t get the golden ending in football he deserved—and as of yesterday’s jolting news didn’t get the long life he had undoubtedly looked forward to.

But within the game, as the seasons pass, he will be long remembered with great affection. His mate and centre partner Cronin yesterday called him “the complete footballer”, which succinctly summed him up.

The tributes will come best of all in the quiet words of fans who can say with pride: “I saw Steve Rogers play.”

Most appropriately, there was a poem in the tribute booklet for Steve Rogers that was provided at the service held on 7 January. The poem was titled Friends and was written by his late wife, Carol, before she passed away with cancer four years ago. The poem is just four verses, and I will read it because I think it is such a fitting tribute to Steve Rogers.

I often sit in my world alone

then I think for hours.

I think of life and the things it brings

my friends, their love and flowers.

I sometimes cry when I am sad

if things start going wrong.

I’m glad my friends are there to help

they help me be strong.

But one by one friends they leave

they all seem to be going away.

There’s so many things we haven’t done

and so much I wanted to say.

I like to sit in my world alone

to think of my friends in the past.

I look at their smiles in photographs

and hope that my memories will last.

The life and career of Steve Rogers and the pleasure and support he gave to so many will long be remembered.

I rise tonight to acknowledge the death of internationally acclaimed and renowned feminist, Betty Friedan, who died on Saturday, 4 February, which was coincidentally her 85th birthday. Betty Friedan is mourned by all women who know that their present degree of choice in life was hard won. She is mourned by those who know that the longest revolution, women’s fight for equality, is still half won. It is immeasurably sad that we have lost her guidance, though never her influence.

She was not the first feminist to put in words the question, ‘Is that all?’ when women reviewed their lives of household responsibilities and measured their satisfaction against that of men and the rules set by men. Great women throughout the ages have tried to make a world in which women could express their intelligence and personality in ways as free as men. After Betty Friedan came waves of women writers and scholars who analysed why women are not equally represented in making the decisions humanity must face. But Betty Friedan made a riveting and timely arrival in the early sixties, when the revolution had faltered after the great achievements of the suffragists. She was a housewife and mother who rose up from the community to provide a focus for the problems women were then struggling to face alone or in small, half-embarrassed groups.

Betty Friedan spoke directly to the grassroots because she was asking the questions of herself, as well as those she wrote for. She, too, was struggling to understand the dissatisfaction women felt when assigned to suburban ghettos and the boredom of those who determined that all their satisfaction should come from being wives, mothers and housekeepers. She wrote:

There was a strange discrepancy between the reality of our lives as women and the image to which we were trying to conform, the image that I came to call the feminine mystique. I wondered if other women faced this schizophrenic split, and what it meant.

And so I began to hunt down the origins of the feminine mystique, and its effect on women who lived by it, or grew up under it.

She found, among other things, impotent rage, depression, guilt and the recurring question, ‘Who am I?’, which came with the realisation of, in her memorable phrase, the woman’s forfeited self. There can be no doubt at all about the shock and recognition millions of women found in her words and ideas. Her book, The Feminine Mystique, was received quietly at first, but soon women realised they had been crying out for her message. Our mothers were the ones who felt inspired by Betty Friedan to examine their lives and the ideals foisted on them. I suspect—I know—that many of our mothers are the ones who today have a sense of personal loss.

Young women today in our society may need a determined act of the imagination to understand exactly what Friedan grappled with that led so many women to change their lives for the better and make a future in which these very young women have a sense of equality. I say ‘a sense of equality’ because real equality still eludes us. Betty Friedan not only gave new heart to the women’s struggle but also foresaw the backlash—a backlash which continues, fierce and unrelenting.

We would not be having the debate we are having now about women’s control of their fertility—the absurd denial to women of the drug RU486—if that equality had actually been achieved. There would be greater representation of women in this chamber, in the government ministry and in the higher echelons of business and industry if the longest revolution was actually complete. So I urge people, especially young women, to think about Betty Friedan’s legacy and how she inspired women to speak to each other about the issues that limit their lives and happiness. I hope that many others in this chamber tonight, men and women, will also pay their tributes, privately or otherwise, to Betty Friedan, who was a truly great woman.

I rise tonight to talk about a particular group of unsung heroes in our community: carers. Carers are people who give up their time to look after a child, parent, spouse, relative or friend with a disability. The disability may be temporary or permanent and may have been present from birth, acquired through an accident or as a result of ageing. Many people do not realise the extraordinary contribution that these carers make to our community. They make huge sacrifices to care for the people they love, often to the detriment of their own health and welfare. My Nationals colleague in the other place, Kay Hull, has raised this issue on many occasions, and I commend her commitment and dedication to having this important issue heard. For us to understand even a fraction of what these carers go through, I am going to highlight just some of the life differences that can be experienced. I will do this by comparing a family that has two healthy children with a family that has a child with a disability.

In family A the husband and wife have two children. They watch their children crawl, walk, talk and, over time, develop into mature adults. One of the children has gone on to study a trade, while the other has decided to go on to university. Over time, both children have married and have had children of their own. When the children were younger, the wife spent some time at home looking after them. She later rejoined the work force and was able to focus on her own career. Both husband and wife have reached retirement age and they are thinking about their future as retirees. They have sold the family home and bought something smaller, and they spend their time playing golf, occasionally looking after the grandchildren and doing a bit of travelling. They are enjoying life, doing the things they planned they would do once they retired.

In family B the husband and wife have one child. The child was born with a physical and intellectual disability. It is not possible for both parents to work, as their child needs help with the normal everyday things that come so naturally to other children as part of their development. The father continues to work and the mother makes the choice to stay at home and provide the care required. Life becomes financially more difficult; there are ongoing visits to the doctor, specialised equipment is needed and then there is the cost of medication. Eventually the strain of caring reaches the first breaking point and the husband and wife, through no fault of their own, decide to divorce.

Every day the mother cares for her child. As much as she would like to work, she has no choice but to stay at home. There is no break, no holiday and no reprieve from the constant care requirements. There are respite facilities that she is able to access, although this is only for a limited number of weeks each year. As both mother and child age, the mother begins to worry about how she will continue to provide her child with ongoing care requirements. There is no thought of retirement, planning for a future, playing a game of golf or taking a holiday. The future holds only the unknown: fear and concern about what will happen, particularly if she becomes too old or sick to continue to care for her child.

Based on the ABS 2003 disability, ageing and carers survey, there were 677,700 people aged under 65—that is 3.9 per cent of the total population aged under 65—with a disability that is classed as profound or severe, meaning that they are restricted in their ability to perform everyday tasks that we take for granted. These people need assistance to perform one or more tasks associated with self care, mobility and communication. In total, 3.9 million people—that is 20 per cent of the population—are affected in some way by impairment, limited in performing tasks associated with self care, mobility and communication, or have a disability which causes schooling or employment restrictions. The majority of people experiencing such disabilities live in the community. This means they have family or friends who are their carers. ABS figures show that 2.6 million Australians identify themselves as carers; 474,600 of these identify as primary carers. Many of these carers are unable to participate in the work force due to their carer responsibilities.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that the amount of unpaid assistance provided by these carers is the equivalent of almost one million full-time employed persons. The value of this work is estimated to be around $19.3 billion. Carers are so focused on their responsibilities that they often neglect their own health. They often suffer from depression, have low self-esteem, have anxiety problems and are chronically tired. They also often suffer from physical injuries obtained from the physical strains of their carer responsibilities. There are carers at breaking point—those who have felt that they have no choice but to surrender the person they love and have been caring for by not returning to pick them up from respite. These crisis situations lead to respite beds becoming blocked, meaning they are no longer available for respite purposes.

One of the consequences of the inability to meet the rising needs of carers is people with disabilities being placed into inadequate and entirely unsuitable accommodation. Take for example the estimated 6,000 people across Australia aged less than 65 who are housed in residential aged care facilities. We need to keep in mind that people vary greatly in the extent of their disabilities and so do their needs and level of care. This is why it is important for disability services to be flexible in the types of accommodation and support that are offered. What is required for the situation of young people in nursing homes are strong measures to prevent premature admission, particularly while there is a deficiency in accommodation places. It would be a tragedy to move these people out of the nursing homes only to have them placed in accommodation which is equally inappropriate. Younger people currently residing in aged care facilities should be provided with the option of moving into the community with adequate and appropriate support.

The increase in life expectancy means disabled people are, and will in increasing numbers become, part of our ageing population. Although these people are part of our ageing population, the difference is they have additional needs associated with their disability. Their disability should not be ignored simply because these people now fit into a category of ageing; nor should the fact that they are ageing be ignored because they have a disability.

At this stage I would like to point out that carers are not always adults. There are young carers out there who are still children themselves but have the huge responsibility of caring for a mother, father or sibling with a disability. We need to acknowledge that there are unmet needs of carers and people with disabilities, and we need to do something about it. There is a crisis. Urgent help is needed to bring peace of mind to carers and to bring about a better quality of life for both carers and the loved ones they care for. We need to be wary of quick bandaid solutions that may be implemented to address this crisis. They do not replace the need to take a long, hard look into how best to plan for the future.

The issues which should be addressed immediately include finding appropriate accommodation for those disabled persons under 65 who currently reside in nursing homes, and clearing the currently blocked respite beds by placing those using these beds in appropriate long-term accommodation. The funding required to meet these issues must be found, and found now. The issues which will also need to be addressed in the immediate future include determining suitable and sustainable long-term supported accommodation options, improving and expanding respite care options which can sustain future requirements, and ensuring that future funding is available for more adequate data collection processes to be put in place in order to better identify needs.

The groundwork is being done by various disability organisations in gathering information about ways in which we can best help carers and the people they care for. Their recommendations should be given consideration. There are many real stories out there, like the one I told earlier tonight, that highlight the hardships faced by carers. Many more remain untold. It is for the sake of those carers that we need to work effectively together with the states in making sure that we deliver appropriate, efficient and effective services.

My remarks will support Senator Nash’s comments, because the issue that I want to speak about tonight is something that is relatively hidden but is certainly growing. It is a growing and complex policy dilemma that we as legislators must address and come to terms with. I am referring to the phenomenon of the growing number of people who have survived and are living with extreme brain injury and degenerative neurological diseases. I particularly want to focus my remarks on something that I know you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, are very interested in and supportive of—that is, the circumstances of young people who are still in nursing homes. I understand from the Senate inquiry into aged care, which you chaired, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the issue of young people who are ‘parked’—for want of a better word—in nursing homes because there are simply no other resources to support them is an issue that is close to your heart.

This is an issue that we in this place have considered several times, but adequate solutions are still not there. As Senator Nash said, we have an opportunity: we have the Council of Australian Governments meeting on Friday and we have a commitment from the Prime Minister that he is going to address this issue. What we are really hoping to see out of Friday’s meeting is a genuine commitment to the needs and circumstances of these young people.

We have a lot of information that comes from the work of an organisation that has been established called Young People in Nursing Homes. Information from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that close to 339,000 Australians have suffered from an acquired brain injury. Around 160,000 of those were severely or profoundly affected and need daily support. The issue here is: what happens to those young people? Where are those people who suffer an accident or some kind of circumstances leading to a degenerative illness and end up not in our communities? They are hidden from us, and their complex care needs are hidden from us too. We have to make sure that that is not the case anymore. We have to acknowledge that there are huge issues for these people. They deserve a quality of life and a dignity of life that is not afforded them when they are parked in nursing homes full of older people, who, as it is affectionately said, are waiting in God’s waiting room or garden.

That is not an environment for young people with a severe brain injury, such as the young man whose parents I met and spoke to last week. He is living in a nursing home on the South Coast, and his dad has to travel on a 160-kilometre round trip to see him once a week. He says that his son, Rod, is making progress but deserves a chance at a decent life. Rod is able to communicate a little bit; he uses an alphabet board with a laser pen. He tells his dad every time that he does not want to be in a nursing home. But Rod’s circumstances are such that there are no options. His story is a tragic one. He fell down a stairwell, landing on his head, when he was 17. He had not quite finished the HSC. What was the future for this young man? At 17, it was all ahead of him; now, at 30—he has been in that nursing home since he was 19—he is living in an aged care facility that really cannot meet his needs. They do the best they can but, certainly, the psychological and social circumstances are not ideal for someone like him. Rod’s injuries include quadriplegia with marked spasticity. He is not able to speak. He is fed with a tube. He has short-term memory loss. He is incontinent. All this makes his life pretty miserable. It is very difficult for him to be comfortable either in bed or in a sitting position, so he needs to be turned on a regular basis.

These are the needs of a highly dependent young man whose future is bleak. His outlook is desperate, and his parents are desperate for him, just like all those parents who are desperate for other young people. I am talking about young people, up to 50 and 60 years of age, who should not be in nursing homes. They should be in facilities that are much more focused on their needs. We need to think about what resources we should be putting in place—resources and opportunities that could be announced out of the COAG meeting on Friday, resources and opportunities that could offer some options and alternatives for young people like Rod, resources and opportunities such as the model in Western Australia which saw 100 relatively young people moved out of nursing homes now being supported in housing options. Whether they live independently with support services or rely on other options, such as group homes where pooled funding resources enable them to develop a quality of life which resembles some kind of life at all, young people need options. Aged care nursing homes are not designed to care for young people and their very different needs. We all know that. Nursing homes are not funded to provide the more intensive rehabilitative, social, emotional or community access needs that are crucial to the health and wellbeing of our younger people.

We also have young people who go under the radar—people who very early in their lives, as perhaps young adults, develop neurological and degenerative diseases like multiple sclerosis, Huntington’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, which become more debilitating and mean that a person’s ability to live independently becomes much more focused and difficult as they grow older. For many of their families and carers the only option is to place them in an aged care facility. What is the impact and consequence of that outcome? We are separating families; we have mothers who cannot care for their children, so they have to be separated from their children; we have dads who become dislocated and isolated; and these young people lose that contact and family support. It is a big problem for us.

Some fantastic work has been done by the Young People in Nursing Homes National Project, coordinated by the National Alliance of Young People in Nursing Homes—which was an outcome of a conference in 2003. That national project is providing great information and support to young people who are in nursing homes and to their families. Dr Bronwyn Morkham, who is here this evening—and I am really pleased that she is here because she has been lobbying very hard all week on this issue—told me that, every day of every week, a young Australian with acquired disabilities is placed in an aged care nursing home because the accommodation and support they require does not exist.

What an awful shame to think that by 2007 that number is going to be something like 10,000 young people. What an extraordinary shame that we cannot give those people the kinds of services and support that they need. And what a shame that we cannot draw on the expertise, care and support that these families are providing for young people to actually come up with some good policy options to focus on their needs. We need to see some very smart action come out of the Council of Australian Governments on Friday. The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that he is going to address this issue. A leaked memo from the federal department suggested that the proposed funding will not stretch to all young people confined to aged care. It is a four-page memo saying that the funding will not be sufficient to move all young people to new centres and concedes that more teenagers will be moved into aged care.

At the last election, Labor committed to getting young people out of inappropriate accommodation like nursing homes. From our perspective, it is about spending health dollars effectively, not to mention quality of life and the sorts of values that we as a society should ascribe to everyone. It is quite clear that there is an appalling lack of facilities, and there is a huge expectation by the community, the parents, the carers and the young people themselves that the government is going to bite the bullet on Friday and is going to actually make some sense and some real commitment to addressing this need.

Before I commence my remarks this evening, I would like to congratulate Senators Nash and Stephens on their contributions to this debate and acknowledge in the gallery Carol Franklin, who is an advocate for people with severe disabilities in Western Australia and does a fantastic job.

On 16 January this year a good friend of mine, the then member for Victoria Park and Premier of Western Australia, unexpectedly announced his resignation as Premier and his retirement from public life. Geoff Gallop was first elected to the seat of Victoria Park in Perth’s inner southern suburbs in 1986—the year that I moved to Western Australia. In fact, Geoff was one of the first people I met when I moved there. Geoff quickly became a strong advocate for his local area. He emersed himself in the day-to-day life of the seat of Victoria Park, studying the history of every suburb of that quite well established and old electorate—old in terms of the establishment of the suburbs rather than necessarily the residents of it—and really became the voice and the face of Victoria Park.

Geoff became leader of the state parliamentary Labor Party some 10 years ago in what could only be said were fairly challenging circumstances—not long before we faced a very difficult state election. I think Geoff, in facing that election, surprised everyone except himself with his ability to connect with the Western Australian community, his ability to communicate a message to that community and his ability to campaign and provide a very clear vision of where he thought our state should go. In 2001 Geoff was elected as Premier, and he was re-elected in February last year. Geoff was leader of our party at a state level for some 10 years.

As Premier of our state I think Geoff should be remembered as a brilliant and quite innovative leader who certainly left my home state of Western Australia in a far better state than when he first entered public life. He will be remembered for his commitment to creating long-term sustainable economic growth in Western Australia and his concern that our growth should not just be based on the current resources boom, and his commitment to the provision of infrastructure development in Western Australia—for instance, the development of the train line between Perth and Mandurah.

Geoff is the only person who had a vision to develop new tertiary hospitals in the northern and southern suburbs in Perth—where the sick people are—rather than in the inner city, where you currently find most of our important tertiary medical care. He will be remembered for his decisions to protect Western Australia’s unique environment and reform our education system, and for his commitment to developing our resources industries. Geoff did all of this with the support of his intelligent, creative, very certain and sure and dedicated partner, Bev, and their two sons. Geoff and Bev’s partnership is one of true devotion and equality and is something to be admired.

On 16 January, when Geoff announced his retirement, not only was it a shock to all of us in the Labor Party but also it was actually very touching and probably a tribute to the contribution he had made and the standing in which he was held that even the Prime Minister interrupted his well-known January break to make what I thought were some quite thoughtful comments on behalf of the government. The former Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett came out and talked about the way Geoff announced his retirement as being an enormous contribution to public life. I thought that the remarks of former Premier Richard Court were very sensitive. Even the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Matt Birney, was also quite sensitive and I thought he handled the issue quite well. He did not seek to score any political points, which is something good.

When Geoff made his announcement he revealed that he was being treated for depression. This is not easy confession or revelation to make when you are in public life. As many of us here and those living with depression would know, it is not an easy thing. It can be very debilitating. There is no one set of symptoms and no one way of diagnosing or treating this illness. It affects different people in very different ways. No doubt the stresses and time pressures of politics certainly would have helped to contribute to and exacerbate Geoff’s depression. But it is the true mark of someone to actually reveal that that is what they are being confronted with. It would have been very easy, as Mr Kennett said at the time, for Geoff to announce his retirement due to the well-heralded and often-used family reasons rather than be fully open and honest.

I would like to place on the record my enormous debt of gratitude, thanks and respect for Geoff Gallop and all that he has contributed, both to the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party—a contribution that I am sure he will continue to make in a different guise after he has dealt with his current challenge—and to the development of our state. Geoff’s resignation highlighted one of the greatest challenges facing our community. It is a challenge that I have discussed in this place before—that is, the challenge of mental illness and how we address it as a community. The statistic most often used when discussing mental illness is that, at some point in our lives, it will affect up to 20 per cent of our community; up to one person in five.

As I have mentioned before, I live in the inner northern suburb of Mount Hawthorn, where we are having a very lively debate about the provision of mental health services in our own midst. In fact, on 14 February, the Town of Vincent is set to consider yet again an application by the health department to have a step-down facility for what will now be 16 residents—it was originally going to be 20—for intermediate care after their sustained intensive treatment. It will be an intermediate step-down facility for up to 16 people at a time to use before they are sent home to their families, or sent home on their own in some cases. It is often a criticism of our health systems no matter where we are that we give people the intensive treatment they need—perhaps not as many of them as we should because of the pressures that we face—and then we just send them home without the support they need to be reintegrated as successful members of our community.

It has therefore been my view that the proposal to develop Hawthorn House into a step-down facility is one that is worthy of our community’s support. Hawthorn House will be based at the old Hawthorn Hospital, a community based hospital that has been a health facility in the Mount Hawthorn area for over 70 years. Local residents are used to it being a health facility—it is just going to be used for something different and will be addressing a different kind of health need. Of course, addressing that different kind of health need brings with it all of the stigma and the really nasty edge that we sometimes find in our society when we are trying to deal with these complex issues.

Members of this place would be aware that quite some time ago there was an agreement signed by the then Commonwealth government and the various state governments of different political persuasions about deinstitutionalisation, which would mean getting rid of the dramatically big institutions as the only recourse for the treatment of mental illness and providing a variety of care for those with a mental illness. It was accepted at that time that mental illness is an illness like any other. It appears in different guises and affects people in different ways, as Geoff Gallop has pointed out. Therefore, we should have a variety of treatments.

I would like to place on the record that, if we accept that statistic of 20 per cent, in my local suburb of Mount Hawthorn it would mean that up to 750 people will be affected at some point in their lives by mental illness. I would think, therefore, that it is appropriate that all levels of government—local, state and federal—actually help our community to address this significant need. I would like to also place on the record my congratulations to our WA health minister, Jim McGinty, for pushing forward and creating these community based facilities—something that state and federal governments signed up to in 1992. All political parties have been a bit remiss in actually putting our money where our mouths are since then and actually providing the facilities our community needs. I would also like to congratulate the five councillors that we need who will be voting for the proposal on 14th. (Time expired)

I rise tonight to raise an issue that is close to my heart. In fact, it is close to my liver, lungs and kidneys, as it is to yours. I am talking about organ donation. The number of organ donors in this country is declining. This should be of great concern. As the Age reported on 10 January, the Australian and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry found that 204 people donated organs in Australia in 2005, representing a seven per cent drop on the 218 donors of the previous year. The result is blow-outs in waiting times for kidney transplants, in some cases to more than four years.

The national picture sketched by the Australian and New Zealand Donor Registry was not pretty. Organ donation rates dropped 49 per cent in South Australia, 14 per cent in New South Wales and 10 per cent in Queensland. This was offset to a degree by increases in the donation rate in Western Australia of 30 per cent and of 11 per cent in Victoria. In my home state last year, only two Tasmanians donated their organs to help others. Nationally, the donor rate fell from 10.8 to 10 donors per million in our population. It is a worrying trend.

Put these donation rates alongside the organ transplant waiting lists in this country and it gets a whole lot more concerning. As of 1 January this year the Australian and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry figures show that, nationwide, 1,407 Australians are awaiting kidney transplants. This figure includes 395 in Victoria and Tasmania. One hundred and twenty-five liver transplants are needed; 41 Australians are waiting for new hearts; 11 need heart-lung transplants; 94 Australians, including 57 Tasmanians and Victorians measured together, need new lungs to breathe; and 31 need new pancreases and kidneys.

In total, more than 1,716 people were identified as waiting for some form of organ transplant as of 1 January 2006. Some of these Australians will die waiting. The national organ donor registry is the only hope for those waiting. It could mean a second chance. We need to do much more as a country to take what I believe is a groundswell of community support for the concept of organ donation and turn it into actual consent.

One unfortunate fact of organ donation is that it usually coincides with the death of the donor. This brings a range of factors into play that can influence the likelihood of a successful transplant occurring. If the donor was involved in a serious road accident, were the organs damaged? Did the donor suffer from an undiagnosed medical condition—for example cancer, hepatitis or renal disease—that makes transplanting the donor’s organs to another patient unviable? It also brings the wishes of the donor’s surviving family members into play. This is possibly the most gut wrenching and tough aspect of all when dealing with organ donation. For some families, the thought of their recently deceased family member having organs removed and given to another human being is too much to bear. It is hard to think of another life when you are coming to terms with the fact that a loved one is no longer with you. Ethical and religious issues can also come into play for some families.

Collectively, these circumstances can lead to missed opportunities for donation and there is no easy way around it, but one thing can help. If a potential donor has taken the time to discuss with other family members the decision and desire to donate their organs, the decision for families in mourning is an easier one. I urge prospective donors to discuss their decision in detail with all their family members. I understand that death is never the easiest thing to discuss, but we need to start thinking about organ donation as a conversation of life, not death, in our families and in our communities.

It is particularly appropriate for me to be standing here tonight to discuss this issue. In a few short weeks, Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week will be held. This event is the largest public awareness campaign we have that is associated with organ and tissue donation for transplantation in Australia. This year, Australian Organ Donor Awareness Week runs from 19 to 25 February. I encourage members of the public and, indeed, any senators or members who may have thought in the past of joining to take this opportunity to sign up to the consent register.

With good public awareness campaigns and the support of politicians across the political divide in this country, we can convert community support for the concept of organ donation into a higher donation rate in Australia. If we can do that, we will shorten our waiting lists and cut the number of Australians who die waiting for transplants. The Medicare Australia website has excellent information available about organ donation and Organ Donor Awareness Week. The website provides a simple way for people to record their consent or their objection to becoming an organ and/or tissue donor. I commend Medicare Australia on its leadership on this apolitical and important issue.

By focusing on the need for organ and tissue donation, encouraging people to discuss their wishes with their families and promoting the success of organ transplantation in Australia, Medicare Australia is taking crucial steps towards increasing our national organ donation rate. The key message for this year’s national Organ Donor Awareness Week is ‘organ donors save lives’. It is a simple message and a simple equation. Each donor may not save just one life; their organs may go to as many as 10 Australians in need of transplants. For instance, last year, from the 204 donors nationally, 373 Australians received new kidneys, 164 Australians received new livers, 72 Australians gained new hearts and a further 78 Australians breathed a little easier with new lungs. The impact of the generosity of the donors and their families who assisted these Australians in need of transplants is immeasurable. The gift of these organs has truly given those who have received them a chance to live life where none existed before. To me, it is a miracle that medicine can perform the surgery to allow this, but it is equally a miracle and a triumph of human kindness that this occurs at all.

Having said that, demand for organs is outstripping supply. We have a lot of work to do as a country to lift the profile and participation rates for organ donation. Nationally, more than 670,000 Australians have registered consent to organ or tissue donation. But there is still more to do, particularly in my home state where the donor rate is only four donors per million population. That compares to rates of 20 per million population in the Northern Territory, 17 in the ACT and 13 in South Australia.

I will be taking up the challenge to do all I can to promote organ donation in Tasmania. I believe that Tasmanians on the whole support the concept of organ donation and they want to help save lives. We have to turn that into consent. As of 31 December 2005, the total number of those who had registered consent or intent to be an organ donor was 18,293. Converting that interest into actual donations is the big challenge ahead, especially with the waiting lists being so long.

National statistics tend to group Tasmania and Victoria together, but the implication from the data is clear. Tasmania and Victoria account together for close to one-third of the national waiting lists for organ transplants. Five hundred and four people are waiting in these states right now. Tasmania needs to lift its number of donors and the forthcoming awareness week is the perfect time to start. Registering more Tasmanians will be the first crucial step. Encouraging Tasmanians to have the conversation with their families about donation will be the second. As I have said, this is not an easy conversation to have because losing a loved one is something we would rather not think about, but this conversation is nevertheless a critical element in the donation process.

The third step to increasing donation rates in Tasmania and right around the country is ensuring that intensive care wards in our hospitals and our hospital system in general are better geared towards identifying and coordinating potential donors. That requires all levels of government to work together. It means making sure that the resources are there for hospitals to keep track of potential donors within our hospital system. It requires our hospitals to establish strong management processes for identifying and capturing donor opportunities as they arise. More than 30,000 Australians have received transplants in the last 60 years. With improving medical technology and techniques, these recipients are enjoying many years of good quality life that could not have been available to them without a transplant. I thank the Senate for its time.

The matter I wish to address tonight concerns the practices and attitudes of the Legal Services Division of the Department of Defence. In particular, I want to concentrate on its key role in apparently fostering and carrying on with a revisionist attitude to military justice. That attitude seems to me to be in direct conflict with the strategy, directions and culture outlined and sought by the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston.

The strong condemnation of the Senate and the community has already been expressed at the failure of Defence and the government to adequately attend to the problems within the military justice system. The activity, culture and attitude of this Legal Services Division are a critical part of that ongoing problem. This problem no doubt reflects the ongoing attitude and view of the hierarchy of this particular division. This division is combative and litigious in the extreme. More to the point, it demonstrates a contemptuous attitude to the Senate. I say that because of answers given to my questions on notice from the supplementary estimates last November. Those questions sought information on a number of matters concerning the case load of the division and its attendant enormous costs. The answers to those questions are, at best, deliberately evasive and, in many respects, offensive.

Continually, it seems that the government, through its bureaucracy, is bent on doing snow jobs or using the flimsiest of excuses to deny information. These excuses need to be challenged. As we know, the classic from the disaster-prone procurement area is the old commercial-in-confidence camouflage. The Senate has grappled with this for some time. It covers a multitude of sins which actively prevent serious scrutiny of Defence activity in the spending of some billions of taxpayers’ money. We understand the need to protect commercial information so as not to, obviously, disadvantage companies tendering for contracts, but it is so often used to hide much more.

The next great excuse is that the matter is sub judice—that is, a case of complaint within the military justice system is protected from investigation by the Senate because it is alleged it remains under the consideration of a particular court. This too is often used to avoid scrutiny. This particularly applies in cases already in the public domain, where the facts are fully known and understood. Inevitably, though, many cases proceed through the litigious and combative maze of Defence to, for example, the Federal Court. That, of course, does not prevent the Senate exploring any matter preceding the initiation of that action. This applies to a number of cases where victims of the system are forced to sue for any form of redress, yet that action is seized upon by Defence to deny further examination by the Senate. And I say at the outset that it simply is not good enough. The other excuse used with increasing frequency is that of privacy, and this is applied willy-nilly in a blanket fashion. It is a standard response regardless of a victim’s or complainant’s willingness to have their interests raised and represented in the Senate.

Finally, there is the old excuse of not being prepared to do the work to answer the question, based on priority use of resources. We understand that sometimes the information sought is not available in the form in which it has been requested. In this case, though, the information should be an item of common knowledge. Here I refer particularly to the case load of the legal division before tribunals and courts around Australia. I asked a simple question about workload, yet I am told that the information cannot be provided. It is another smokescreen to avoid accountability and responsibility. My simple question was:

How many common law applications seeking damages or any other form of redress are currently being handled by the division?

I also asked, of those:

How many are contracted to private firms, and what firms?

It is pretty simple. It was a straight-out question of case load management. But the answer was that such figures are not readily available. The truth perhaps is that they really do not know their business or the commitment and resources being allocated. More likely, though, the answer is that it is huge and the Legal Services Division or the Department of Defence do not want anybody to know how much is being spent and how much is being allocated. So at best it is poor management; at worst, it is arrogant secrecy and concealment.

The reason I am pursuing this matter is that military justice goes way beyond acts of simple bastardisation and the consequences that derive from that activity. It goes beyond the failure to investigate and to provide redress. It goes ultimately into the heart of this division, whose task is apparently to make sure that no case, whatever its merit, is properly settled.

Let me remind the Senate of the four cases in particular which were the subject of my questions. The first is that of Commander Fahey—and there is no dispute about the circumstances concerning Commander Fahey. They are on the public record, and there are large media files and continuing media interest in the case. It is a celebrated case involving the harassment and persecution of a bright and able young officer who has now been on leave on full pay for well over five years.

As found by the Western Australian Medical Board, an attempt was made to discharge Commander Fahey on a trumped up diagnosis of psychological stress. The guilty party in this case, no doubt operating collusively, wrote a highly improper and incorrect referral to a tame psychiatrist, who obliged. The naval doctor concerned was found guilty of malpractice by the Western Australian Medical Board and went very close to losing his licence to practise medicine.

As the record—now confirmed—shows, legal fees of $444,000 were paid for him by the Department of Defence, although payment of those fees was in direct contradiction of the Attorney-General’s guidelines, which preclude payment where fault is proven. This breach of guidelines is now under investigation by the Attorney-General’s Department. We will see what the Attorney has to say in due course about the Defence legal division thumbing their nose at the guidelines to protect one of their mates. The doctor was even promoted, the only apparent reason being that the Navy are so short of doctors that they will take anyone. With this sort of policy and practice, the deck is stacked totally against any complainant. Military justice was denied, is denied and will continue to be denied.

The next chapter for Commander Fahey was an application to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Given the patent inability of the military justice system to provide redress, this is the only avenue short of litigation in the courts that is available—especially in cases of sexual harassment. Once again, there was a stone wall. In this case, the Defence legal division paid Phillips Fox $93,867 to defeat her. Now she has an action in the Federal Court seeking redress for her treatment. No doubt that too will be fought with all the ferocity and resources that the legal division can muster. To date, the Fahey case, short of settlement, has cost in the order of half a million dollars in legal fees paid by the Commonwealth. We get no comment because of sub judice, as was the case from the Chief of the Defence Force at the last round of estimates. Their motto, no doubt, is: ‘Show no mercy.’

The next case, which is also on the public record, is that of Ms Susan Campbell, the mother of suicide victim Eleanor Tibble. Ms Campbell has also sought redress and recompense for the loss of her daughter, based on a finding by the coroner that the RAAF was 50 per cent culpable. Ms Campbell also failed to obtain redress through HREOC and is now being fought tooth and nail in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, where the decision is reserved. Defence legal division has spent $193,090 fighting her, with undoubtedly more to come.

Next there is the case of Ms Kellie Wiggins, which also involves a harassment complaint. She, too, has failed to obtain redress and is taking action at huge personal cost in the Federal Magistrates Court. Again, Phillips Fox are the attack dogs. Their dealings with Ms Wiggins’s solicitors seem to be confidential. Put simply, Ms Wiggins’s complaint to my office is that they too are excessively combative. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether Defence knows what their lawyers do on their behalf. It does seem, though, that they share the same combative culture, either instinctively or under instruction. Ms Wiggins is just another David fighting Goliath, and without financial assistance she will be beaten off like all of the others.

The fourth case involves the much publicised settlement with Air Vice Marshal Criss. As the Senate will recall, Air Vice Marshal Criss was a senior RAAF officer who fell foul of senior command. An inquiry by Mr Bill Blick found that he was wrongly treated, despite all denials. Defence has now advised that the legal costs here amounted to $162,314—and that does not include the cost of the Blick inquiry or the cost of legal assistance provided to Air Vice Marshal Criss. This, we can assume, could have been several hundred thousand dollars.

I will not repeat the details of each of these sagas. But the point under discussion is that each is symptomatic of a larger and ongoing problem. There are many others. Some have written to me with similar and even more expensive experiences. In one case, the cost to Defence alone goes to millions of dollars. The point is that much of this could and should have been avoided. In most of these cases, Defence, believe it or not, has conceded liability. Settlements for damages for defective administration are the evidence for that.

In fact, in answer to Senate question 10/97 I was told that in the last two years 90 claims have been finalised. Fifty of these resulted in financial payments, at a total cost of over $690,000. At the same time, three applications have been made before HREOC in each of the last three years by female ADF officers. Settlement was reached only in one case, with payment of a miserable $14,000. As we know from other cases, settlement has been offered to others and either rejected or withdrawn. I will adjourn my remarks and resume tomorrow evening on a similar subject.

I rise tonight to discuss what will be one of the major issues of my parliamentary career. It is an issue that is coming forward once again, and that is the issue of the dignity of life and the point at which a person attains their unencumbered and unfettered right to life. We are having a debate at the moment that is getting caught up in semantics and technical details and avoiding the ultimate, fundamental, underlying issue that we are about to approve the process of a drug that finishes human life. It is definitely human life. It is not tree life or horse life; it is human life.

The debate on RU486 is going to be a defining moment for this chamber between honour and convenience. It is hard to win a battle that defines such an important issue as the dignity of human life because so much is on the table. There is so much that is at the forefront of people’s minds when they deal with the issue of an action that takes away human life and what implications there might be in their life for actions they may have taken in the past. What I hope we do is separate the action from the person. No person is a bad person; all people are generally good people. But certain things inherently take us to a lower place.

A bad habit the human race has is of sanitising truth, of covering over things that are too hard to deal with and are too hard to face up to. In this debate we have been talking about foetuses, about human tissue and about blood clots but we fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that we are dealing with human life. Whatever we destroy is a process of human life that we have been through. Every time we enter the discussion we bring up aspects of the health considerations of the mother, and they are vital considerations that we must take on board, but we refuse to acknowledge the life and health considerations of that human life we have destroyed.

It is a peculiar thing that if we are duplicitous in taking life then we lose that content of collective moral calibre that an ethical and just nation should have. Once we decide that we can legislate and brush over the worth of human life then obviously there is going to be a lack of sincerity and a high level of scepticism on any other issue in this parliament—when senators in certain corners of the chamber put their hands on their hearts and say that something is an important, moral and just issue to them but at a previous time were completely willing to take away the right of a human being to an incumbered and unfettered existence or an unfettered path.

There are questions you must always pose to yourself. When did you attain the right to life? Was it yesterday? Was it last week? Was it the day after you were born? Was it the day before you were born? What is so peculiar about the whole process of birth that if, at one stage, you take a person’s life it is murder but if you take the life the day before it may be legal and just? At what time do the rights of a person descend and so the taking of their life becomes murder? How do we arrive at that process? The philosophical debate that we should have had in this house is: at what stage of a human’s life—and that starts at conception and goes to death—does a person attain an unfettered right to live without the threat of a third party killing them?

We will have an interesting debate. It will be tangled up in the difference between whether the Therapeutic Goods Administration should administer and be party to the control of the taking of a person’s life or whether another body should. The debate will deal with the actual technicalities of the words ‘Therapeutic Goods Administration’ and the administration of the act, because dealing with the real issue is too hard. Dealing with the real issue is too disturbing—to actually come to the position where you have to ask yourself these questions. When did I attain my rights and why? When did this person attain their rights and why? What rights do I have over another person’s life? What is the justification for me having those rights?

It is interesting that it will be acknowledged that the process of this drug—the RU486, the mifepristone, which is the progesterone antagonist, followed by the misoprostol, which is the prostaglandin—is inherently more dangerous than surgical abortion for the period of time it is used. Without a shadow of a doubt there will be women who will die because they take this drug but who would have survived had they had a surgical abortion—without a shadow of a doubt.

Apparently that is just acceptable collateral damage. That is part of the process. We have had the argument thrown up about the fatality rate from types of antihistamine drugs or Viagra. But it is a ridiculous comparison. In promoting and proffering this debate, we not only take away the right of the child to live but we are also quite willing to let a few mothers die as well. I put on record that when the first mother dies by reason of using RU486—and there will be one—it will be the responsibility of this chamber and the people in it, absolutely. We must be willing to accept responsibility and not shirk it. We must accept as a nation that we passed a law and the process that gave a mercenary approach not only to the life of the child but to the life of the mother. We also have to acknowledge, if we decide to pass this law, the psychological impact of the use of this drug on someone who expels a foetus, which is a small child, who then tries to deal with the issue of disposing at home of something that has arms and legs and eyes and a skull. That is a peculiar thing for us to be dealing with. We are going to look in the mirror and feel a little bit disenchanted about the honour of this place when we go on to other pieces of legislation.

I am disappointed that the legislation is going through so quickly. You cannot legislate people’s lives back, so it is an issue of absolute and fundamental importance. All the legislation here at the moment, if people so choose, can be changed. In the next term of government we can change back any aspect of the IR legislation or Telstra and things can be changed around and legislated back. But the first mother who dies cannot have her life legislated back. It is gone. And certainly every child that will lose their life by this process—whether you call it human tissue or human life, it is a human life—will not have their life legislated back either. You will also be imposing on people the whole concept of going home with the knowledge that they have what was their child dead inside them before the prostaglandin, which they take a couple of days later, works and they expel the remnants of the human life in whatever convenient manner they can find to deal with it.

It is a most important debate. It deals with human life, and anybody would say that what is primarily important in their life is their unencumbered right to freely go through life without another person taking it away for no other reason than their belief in how they see their own life going. This is an argument of honour versus convenience. I think that it is going to be very hard for us to win, but it is fundamentally important, if anyone is listening to this debate, that they think about the vote they are about to take.

The following government documents were tabled:

Australian Crime Commission—

Report for 2004-05.

Intergovernmental committee responses to the Australian Crime Commission annual report for 2004-05.

Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2004-05.

Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 2004-05.

General Practice Education and Training Limited—Report for 2004-05.

Issues from the Advance to the Finance Minister as a final charge for year ended 30 June 2005.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 2004-05.

Treaties—

BilateralText, together with national interest analysis and annexures—Agreement on the Promotion of Aviation Safety between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America (Canberra, 21 June 2005) and Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness, covering Design Approval, Production Activities, Export Airworthiness Approval, Post Design Approval Activities, and Technical Assistance between Authorities under the Agreement on the Promotion of Aviation Safety between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America, done at Canberra on 21 June 2005 (Gold Coast, 26 September 2005).

MultilateralText, together with national interest analysis and annexures—

Amendments, done at Nairobi, Kenya on 25 November 2005, to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, done at Bonn on 23 June 1979.

Protocol of Amendments, adopted in Monaco on 14 April 2005, to the Convention on the International Hydrographic Organization, done at Monaco on 3 May 1967.

The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:

[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act—

Child Care Benefit (Eligibility of Child Care Services for Approval and Continued Approval) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04174]*.

Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2005 [F2005L04264]*.

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act—A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04268]*.

Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act—Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) By-Laws 2005 [F2005L04071]*.

Aged Care Act—

Aged Care (Amount of flexible care subsidy – multi-purpose services) Determination 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04239]*.

Aged Care (Residential Care Subsidy – Amount of Respite Supplement) Determination 2005 [F2005L04260]*.

Allocation Amendment Principles 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04229]*.

Determinations of amounts of flexible care subsidy—

Extended Aged Care at Home—ACA 22 Ch. 3 No. 22/2005 [F2005L04068]*.

Extended Aged Care at Home – Dementia—ACA 22 Ch. 3 No. 23/2005 [F2005L04073]*.

Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 2005 (No. 6) [F2005L04231]*.

Air Services Act—Air Services Regulations—Instrument No. AERU-05-57 [F2005L04240]*.

Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act—Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Proclamation 2005 [F2005L04066]*.

Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006Advance to the Finance Minister—Determination No. 2 of 2005-2006 [F2005L04014]*.

Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2005-2006Advance to the Finance Minister—Determination No. 3 of 2005-2006 [F2006L00169]*.

Australian Communications and Media Authority Act and Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Anti-Siphoning Monitoring) Direction (No. 1) 2005 [F2005L04151]*.

Australian Communications and Media Authority Act and Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunications (Interpretation) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04043]*.

Australian Crime Commission Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 296—Australian Crime Commission Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04034]*.

Australian National University Act—

Liquor (University Arts Centre) Statute—Liquor (University Arts Centre) Order 2005 [F2005L04120]*.

Programs and Awards Statute 2004—

Associate Degrees Rules 2006 [F2006L00034]*.

Associate Diplomas Rules 2006 [F2006L00025]*.

Bachelor Degrees Rules 2006 [F2006L00035]*.

Graduate Awards Rules 2006 [F2006L00036]*.

Undergraduate Diplomas Rules 2006 [F2006L00038]*.

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (confidentiality) determination No. 1 of 2006—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2006L00193]*.

Non-Confidentiality Determination No. 12 of 2005—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2005L04160]*.

Australian Research Council Act—Determination No. 29—Approval of expenditure on research programs under section 51—Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development; Discovery Projects; Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities; Linkage International Awards (Round 11); and Linkage Projects (Round 1), dated 3 November 2005.

Aviation Transport Security Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 320—Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04098]*.

Banking Act—

Banking (restricted word or expression) consent No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L00212]*.

Banking (restricted word or expression) determination No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L00211]*.

Broadcasting Services Act—

Licence Area Plan – Arnhem Land (Radio), dated 19 January 2006 [F2006L00221]*.

Variation to Licence Area Plan for Central Western Slopes Radio – No. 1 of 2006, dated 19 January 2006 [F2006L00223]*.

Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act—

General Directions to Federal Safety Officers 2005 [F2005L04062]*.

Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

305—Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Accreditation Scheme) Regulations 2005 [F2005L04059]*.

306—Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04067]*.

Civil Aviation Act—

Civil Aviation Regulations—

Civil Aviation Order 20.9 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2005 [F2006L00094]*.

Civil Aviation Order 82.1 Amendment Order (No. 2) 2006 [F2006L00134]*.

Civil Aviation Order 95.12.1 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2005 [F2006L00056]*.

Civil Aviation Order 95.32 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2005 [F2006L00054]*.

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2005 [F2006L00095]*.

Instruments Nos—

CASA 492/05—Permission and direction – helicopter special operations [F2005L04004]*.

CASA 577/05—Directions – for determining maximum weight [F2005L04227]*.

CASA 579/05—Authorisation – to carry out maintenance on class A or class B aircraft; and Exemption – to certify maintenance on class A or class B aircraft [F2006L00133]*.

CASA 580/05—Direction – carriage of cabin attendant in hot air balloons [F2005L04250]*.

CASA 581/05—Revocation of determination – instrument approach and departure procedures; and Revocation of approval – RNAV RNP trial at Queenstown, New Zealand [F2005L04255]*.

CASA 19/06—Instructions – RNAV (RNP-AR) approaches and departures [F2006L00257]*.

CASA 49/06—Revocation of authorisation to carry out maintenance, and exemption to certify maintenance, on class A or class B aircraft [F2006L00215]*.

CASA EX54/05—Exemption – replacement components [F2005L04135]*.

CASA EX59/05—Exemption – carriage of life rafts [F2006L00132]*.

CASA EX60/05—Exemption – for aerial display of hang gliders [F2005L04210]*.

CASA EX61/05—Exemption – for seaplanes [F2005L04259]*.

CASA EX62/05—Exemption – maximum take-off weight and installation of fuel system [F2005L04258]*.

CASA EX01/06—Exemption – from provisions of CASR Part 173 [F2006L00170]*.

CASA EX02/06—Exemption – solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with RAA at Cambridge Airport [F2006L00159]*.

CASA EX05/06—Exemption – from period that maintenance release is in force [F2006L00268]*.

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—

Airworthiness Directives—Part—

105—

AD/750XL/6—Centre Console Wiring Loom [F2005L04029]*.

AD/750XL/7—MTOW Restriction [F2005L04244]*.

AD/750XL/7 Amdt 1—MTOW Restriction [F2006L00068]*.

AD/A109/48 Amdt 1—Rescue Hoist Assembly [F2006L00111]*.

AD/A320/162 Amdt 1—Integrated Standby Instrument System [F2006L00114]*.

AD/A320/188—Fuel System – Twin Motor Low Pressure Valve Actuator [F2005L03973]*.

AD/A320/189—Forward Passenger Doors – Escape Slide Raft [F2006L00115]*.

AD/A320/190—Engine Pylon Spar Box Ribs [F2006L00128]*.

AD/A330/22 Amdt 1—Flight Manual Amendment – Fuel Leak Procedure [F2006L00235]*.

AD/A330/31 Amdt 1—Airworthiness Limitations Items – Time Limits/Maintenance Checks [F2006L00116]*.

AD/B727/200—Forward Cargo Door Cutout Frames [F2005L03918]*.

AD/B737/12 Amdt 1—Supplemental Structural Inspection Program [F2006L00120]*.

AD/B737/40 Amdt 1—Structural Modification and Inspection Program [F2006L00121]*.

AD/B737/239 Amdt 1—Engine Fuel Feed System Electrical Bonding [F2005L03970]*.

AD/B737/270—Aft Pressure Bulkhead Web – 2 [F2005L03917]*.

AD/B737/271—Aileron Control Transfer Mechanism [F2005L03968]*.

AD/B737/273—Air Leakage into the Fuel Feed Lines [F2005L03964]*.

AD/B737/274—Wing Centre Tank Wire Bundles [F2006L00208]*.

AD/B737/275—P15 Refuel Panel Wire Chafing [F2006L00122]*.

AD/B737/276—Nacelle Support Fitting Attachment Fasteners [F2006L00123]*.

AD/B737/277—Splice Fitting Between Windows 1 and 2 [F2006L00124]*.

AD/B747/259—Trailing Edge Flap Actuator Attach Fittings [F2005L03895]*.

AD/B747/337—Upper Chords of the Upper Deck Floor Beams [F2005L03914]*.

AD/B747/338—Station 488 Frame Web [F2006L00125]*.

AD/B767/216—Frequency Converters – Medical and Galley Utility Outlets [F2006L00127]*.

AD/B767/217—Outboard Overhead Stowage Bin Hinge Assemblies [F2006L00129]*.

AD/BAe 146/52 Amdt 3—Fuselage Frame 29 [F2006L00131]*.

AD/BELL 206/162—Main Rotor Blade Grip Plate Tang [F2005L04019]*.

AD/BELL 412/46—External Rescue Hoist Cable Cut Electrical Circuit [F2005L04154]*.

AD/BN-2/84—Pitot/Static Pressure Head [F2005L04204]*.

AD/BN-2/84 Amdt 1—Pitot/Static Pressure Head [F2005L04212]*.

AD/CHA/29—Flight Control Cables [F2006L00209]*.

AD/DAUPHIN/62 Amdt 1—Wheel Brake Hose [F2005L03978]*.

AD/DHC-8/105—Elevator Trim and Gust Lock Chains [F2005L03961]*.

AD/DHC-8/105—Elevator Trim and Gust Lock Chains [F2005L04105]*.

AD/DHC-8/106—Control Column Torque Tube Rivets [F2006L00137]*.

AD/DO 228/5—Overhead Panels 5VE & 6VE Wiring [F2005L04150]*.

AD/DO 228/6—Horizontal Stabiliser Leading Edge and Ribs [F2006L00138]*.

AD/DO 328/7—Relays 32HB and 36HB [F2005L03958]*.

AD/DO 328/8—Proximity Switch Electrical Unit [F2005L03957]*.

AD/DO 328/9—DC Power Unit 1VE Electrical Connections [F2005L03956]*.

AD/DO 328/11—Rudder Pedal Unit [F2005L03954]*.

AD/DO 328/12—Jet Booster Pump [F2005L03953]*.

AD/DO 328/13—Engine Controls Power and Condition Control Cables [F2005L03951]*.

AD/DO 328/14—Engine Air Intake De Icing System [F2005L03949]*.

AD/DO 328/15—Relief Restrictor Valve [F2005L03948]*.

AD/DO 328/16—Engine Control Rod Ends [F2005L03947]*.

AD/DO 328/17—Circuit Breaker Panels 10VE & 11VE Fuses [F2005L03946]*.

AD/DO 328/18—Aft Avionics Cooling Fan [F2005L03944]*.

AD/DO 328/19—Propeller Blade Overheat Protection [F2005L03943]*.

AD/DO 328/20—Circuit Breaker Panels 10VE & 11VE Sealing [F2005L03942]*.

AD/DO 328/22—Ground Spoiler Valve Block [F2005L03940]*.

AD/DO 328/23—Roll Spoiler Double Shuttle Valve [F2005L03938]*.

AD/DO 328/24—Ground Cooling Fan [F2005L03937]*.

AD/DO 328/25—Propeller Control Unit Bearing [F2005L03936]*.

AD/DO 328/26—Ice and Rain Protection Systems [F2005L03935]*.

AD/DO 328/27—FDR & CVR Impact G-Switches [F2005L03934]*.

AD/DO 328/28—Airfoil De-ice Tube [F2005L03932]*.

AD/DO 328/29—Fuel Pump Wiring [F2005L03931]*.

AD/DO 328/30—Stick Pusher Disarm Switch/Light [F2005L03929]*.

AD/DO 328/31—Flight Attendant’s Panel 19VE [F2005L03928]*.

AD/DO 328/33—Cabin Pressure Control System [F2005L03926]*.

AD/DO 328/34—Fuselage Drain Installation [F2005L03911]*.

AD/DO 328/35—Rudder Spring Tab Lever Assembly [F2005L03910]*.

AD/DO 328/37—MLG Main Body Assembly [F2005L03901]*.

AD/DO 328/38—Main Landing Gear Training Arm Bushes [F2005L03900]*.

AD/EC 120/13 Amdt 1—Pilot’s Cyclic Stick Friction Washers [F2006L00139]*.

AD/EC 135/11—Emergency Floatation System [F2006L00140]*.

AD/ECUREUIL/116—Battery Overheat Sensing Circuit Wiring [F2006L00096]*.

AD/EMB-120/40—Elevator Torque Tubes [F2006L00141]*.

AD/F50/92 Amdt 2—Engine Mounting Frame Welds [F2006L00142]*.

AD/F2000/1—Braking Function Anomalies [F2006L00234]*.

AD/GBK 117/6 Amdt 3—Main Rotor Blade [F2005L03898]*.

AD/LJ45/8—Engine Electrical Wire Bundles [F2005L04134]*.

AD/PC-12/43 Amdt 1—Crew Seats Backrest Tubes [F2006L00143]*.

AD/R22/53—Main Rotor Blades [F2006L00144]*.

AD/SF340/98—Main Landing Gear Shock Strut Uplock Axle [F2006L00145]*.

106—

AD/ARRIEL/22—HP/LP Fuel Pump Drive Components [F2005L03971]*.

AD/CF6/60—High Pressure Compressor Case [F2005L03962]*.

AD/LYC/113—ECi Cylinder Assemblies [F2006L00194]*.

AD/SMA/1—Engine Operating Limitations [F2006L00236]*.

107—

AD/INST/53—Shadin ADC-2000 Units [F2005L04152]*.

AD/PHZL/84—Propeller Control Unit [F2005L03922]*.

Manual of Standards Subpart 91.U Instrument 2005 [F2005L04061]*.

Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

321—Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 4) [F2005L04039]*.

322—Civil Aviation (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04040]*.

323—Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04033]*.

Class Rulings—

CR 2005/106-CR 2005/116.

CR 2006/1 and CR 2006/2.

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act—

Classification (Advertising for Unclassified Films) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04031]*.

Classification (Markings for Certified Exempt Films and Computer Games) Determination 2005 [F2005L04175]*.

Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 307—Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04113]*.

Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—

Notice under paragraph 45(1)(b)—Health eSignature Authority Pty Ltd.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 338—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04127]*.

Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 319—Electoral and Referendum Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04017]*.

Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 297—Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04035]*.

Corporations Act—

Accounting Standards—

AASB 124—Related Party Disclosures [F2005L04237]*.

AASB 1048—Interpretation and Application of Standards [F2005L04099]*.

AASB 2005-12—Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards [F2005L04207]*.

AASB 2006-1—Amendments to Australian Accounting Standards [F2006L00210]*.

ASIC Class Orders—

[CO 05/1122] [F2005L04202]*.

[CO 05/1194] [F2005L04056]*.

[CO 05/1236] [F2005L04242]*.

[CO 05/1243] [F2005L04176]*.

[CO 05/1254] [F2005L04233]*.

[CO 05/1270] [F2005L04224]*.

[CO 06/6] [F2006L00207]*.

[CO 06/36] [F2006L00224]*.

[CO 06/50] [F2006L00291]*.

[CO 06/51] [F2006L00292]*.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 324—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04022]*.

Criminal Code Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 298—Criminal Code Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 14) [F2005L04036]*.

Currency Act—Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2005 (No. 4) [F2005L04157]*.

Customs Act—

CEO Determination No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L00222]*.

CEO Instruments of Approval Nos—

113 of 2005 [F2005L04020]*.

114 of 2005 [F2005L04161]*.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 299—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04018]*.

Tariff Concession Orders—

0509438 [F2006L00213]*.

0509439 [F2006L00214]*.

0510272 [F2006L00242]*.

0510935 [F2005L04074]*.

0511357 [F2006L00007]*.

0511358 [F2006L00014]*.

0511359 [F2006L00013]*.

0511360 [F2006L00021]*.

0511361 [F2006L00020]*.

0511363 [F2006L00027]*.

0511452 [F2006L00026]*.

0511453 [F2006L00024]*.

0511454 [F2006L00028]*.

0511455 [F2006L00012]*.

0511817 [F2006L00195]*.

0511961 [F2006L00151]*.

0512080 [F2006L00152]*.

0512081 [F2005L03969]*.

0512086 [F2005L03972]*.

0512087 [F2005L03974]*.

0512088 [F2005L03975]*.

0512184 [F2005L04075]*.

0512187 [F2005L03977]*.

0512190 [F2005L03979]*.

0512192 [F2005L04076]*.

0512193 [F2005L03884]*.

0512194 [F2005L04200]*.

0512195 [F2005L03980]*.

0512264 [F2005L03981]*.

0512266 [F2005L04077]*.

0512267 [F2005L04179]*.

0512268 [F2005L04078]*.

0512269 [F2005L04197]*.

0512270 [F2005L04216]*.

0512556 [F2005L03982]*.

0512568 [F2005L04217]*.

0512615 [F2006L00033]*.

0512616 [F2005L04178]*.

0512617 [F2005L04180]*.

0512618 [F2005L04181]*.

0512619 [F2005L04182]*.

0512620 [F2005L04183]*.

0512621 [F2005L04184]*.

0512622 [F2005L04185]*.

0512623 [F2005L04186]*.

0512624 [F2005L04187]*.

0512625 [F2005L04188]*.

0512626 [F2005L04219]*.

0512719 [F2005L04220]*.

0512720 [F2005L04198]*.

0512721 [F2005L04221]*.

0512722 [F2005L04222]*.

0512723 [F2005L04189]*.

0512937 [F2006L00003]*.

0512938 [F2006L00039]*.

0512939 [F2006L00005]*.

0512940 [F2005L04195]*.

0512941 [F2006L00069]*.

0513176 [F2005L04199]*.

0513209 [F2005L04196]*.

0513210 [F2006L00040]*.

0513211 [F2006L00043]*.

0513212 [F2006L00041]*.

0513213 [F2006L00042]*.

0513214 [F2005L04223]*.

0513215 [F2006L00180]*.

0513216 [F2005L04225]*.

0513345 [F2005L04226]*.

0513346 [F2006L00044]*.

0513347 [F2006L00045]*.

0513348 [F2006L00046]*.

0513351 [F2006L00057]*.

0513352 [F2006L00058]*.

0513449 [F2006L00059]*.

0513450 [F2006L00060]*.

0513451 [F2006L00061]*.

0513452 [F2006L00030]*.

0513453 [F2006L00062]*.

0513454 [F2006L00029]*.

0513455 [F2006L00063]*.

0513456 [F2006L00064]*.

0513489 [F2006L00031]*.

0513490 [F2006L00022]*.

0513491 [F2006L00089]*.

0513492 [F2006L00065]*.

0513493 [F2006L00032]*.

0513495 [F2006L00098]*.

0513496 [F2006L00008]*.

0513531 [F2006L00066]*.

0513532 [F2006L00153]*.

0513533 [F2006L00070]*.

0513534 [F2006L00099]*.

0513536 [F2006L00150]*.

0513554 [F2006L00100]*.

0513654 [F2006L00071]*.

0513655 [F2006L00072]*.

0513657 [F2006L00101]*.

0513658 [F2006L00073]*.

0513659 [F2006L00074]*.

0513660 [F2006L00075]*.

0513661 [F2006L00102]*.

0514065 [F2006L00076]*.

0514066 [F2006L00078]*.

0514067 [F2006L00149]*.

0514068 [F2006L00160]*.

0514069 [F2006L00079]*.

0514071 [F2006L00103]*.

0514072 [F2006L00009]*.

0514121 [F2006L00011]*.

0514123 [F2006L00080]*.

0514124 [F2006L00161]*.

0514126 [F2006L00162]*.

0514127 [F2006L00163]*.

0514130 [F2006L00090]*.

0514131 [F2006L00091]*.

0514132 [F2006L00104]*.

0514133 [F2006L00017]*.

0514134 [F2006L00018]*.

0514135 [F2006L00105]*.

0514136 [F2006L00106]*.

0514153 [F2006L00107]*.

0514154 [F2006L00019]*.

0514155 [F2006L00092]*.

0514156 [F2006L00108]*.

0514157 [F2006L00109]*.

0514158 [F2006L00110]*.

0514159 [F2006L00093]*.

0514160 [F2006L00154]*.

0514338 [F2006L00164]*.

0514591 [F2006L00165]*.

0514612 [F2006L00023]*.

0514729 [F2006L00166]*.

0514730 [F2006L00167]*.

0514731 [F2006L00155]*.

0514733 [F2006L00181]*.

0514734 [F2006L00156]*.

0514781 [F2006L00196]*.

0514782 [F2006L00182]*.

0514783 [F2006L00157]*.

0514784 [F2006L00197]*.

0514786 [F2006L00244]*.

0514787 [F2006L00247]*.

0514788 [F2006L00168]*.

0514830 [F2006L00249]*.

0514831 [F2006L00255]*.

0514832 [F2006L00158]*.

0514833 [F2006L00198]*.

0514834 [F2006L00183]*.

0514901 [F2006L00184]*.

0514902 [F2006L00185]*.

0514903 [F2006L00199]*.

0514904 [F2006L00261]*.

0514905 [F2006L00200]*.

0514906 [F2006L00201]*.

0515066 [F2006L00186]*.

0515067 [F2006L00187]*.

0515068 [F2006L00188]*.

0515070 [F2006L00297]*.

0515071 [F2006L00263]*.

0515072 [F2006L00202]*.

0515317 [F2006L00265]*.

0515318 [F2006L00203]*.

0515319 [F2006L00189]*.

0515320 [F2006L00190]*.

0515321 [F2006L00204]*.

0515322 [F2006L00266]*.

0515324 [F2006L00191]*.

0515325 [F2006L00205]*.

0515326 [F2006L00269]*.

0515340 [F2006L00270]*.

0515398 [F2006L00271]*.

0515399 [F2006L00278]*.

0515400 [F2006L00283]*.

0515401 [F2006L00293]*.

0515402 [F2006L00206]*.

0515405 [F2006L00294]*.

0515676 [F2006L00296]*.

0515677 [F2006L00298]*.

0515680 [F2006L00299]*.

0515681 [F2006L00300]*.

0515682 [F2006L00303]*.

0515683 [F2006L00305]*.

0515689 [F2006L00306]*.

0515717 [F2006L00307]*.

0515955 [F2006L00309]*.

0515956 [F2006L00310]*.

Tariff Concession Revocation Instruments—

29/2005 [F2005L03963]*.

30/2005 [F2005L03983]*.

31/2005 [F2005L03967]*.

32/2005 [F2005L04177]*.

33/2005 [F2006L00047]*.

34/2005 [F2006L00048]*.

35/2005 [F2006L00049]*.

1/2006 [F2006L00147]*.

2/2006 [F2006L00148]*.

Defence Act—

Determinations under section 58H—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determinations Nos—

13 of 2005—Navy Medical Grades (Additional Responsibility) – Repeal.

14 of 2005—Medical Assistant Trades.

15 of 2005—Dental Auxiliary Trades.

16 of 2005—Paratrooper Allowance – Amendment.

17 of 2005—Royal Australian Navy Electronic Warfare Technical Trades.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 303—Australian Military Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04136]*.

Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 304—Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04126]*.

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act—Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Regulations—Certificates under regulation 5A, dated 12 November [2]; and 13 December [2] 2005.

Education Services for Overseas Students Act—ESOS Assurance Fund 2006 Contributions Criteria [F2005L04209]*.

Energy Grants (Cleaner Fuels) Scheme Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 325—Energy Grants (Cleaner Fuels) Scheme Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04011]*.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—

Adoption of a Territory Plan as a Recovery Plan, dated 1 January 2006 [F2006L00172]*.

Amendment of list of specimens taken to be suitable for live import, dated 20 December 2005 [F2006L00082]*.

Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Control (Animals) Amendment Order 2005 (No. 4) [F2006L00052]*.

Extradition Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 280—Extradition (Convention against Corruption) Regulations 2005 [F2006L00053]*.

Federal Court of Australia Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

340—Federal Court Amendment Rules 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04162]*.

341—Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2005 [F2005L04163]*.

Financial Management and Accountability Act—

Adjustments of Appropriations on Change of Agency Functions—Direction No. 12 of 2005-2006 [F2005L04201]*.

Financial Management and Accountability Determination 2005/01 – Commonwealth Bank of Australia Public Share Offer Account Abolition 2005 [F2005L03793]*.

Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement (Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Variation (No. 2) 2005 [F2005L03890]*.

Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement: Department of Finance and Administration – Administered Expenses Cancellation 2005 [F2005L04001]*.

Net Appropriation Agreements for—

Department of Family and Community Services [F2005L04005]*.

Department of Finance and Administration [F2005L03999]*.

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [F2005L04203]*.

Fisheries Management Act—

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 294—Fisheries Management Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04101]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—

GAB2B Determination 2005—Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery Catch Disposal Record [F2005L04009]*.

NT01 Determination 2005 [F2005L03998]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and Coral Sea Fishery—TR01 Determination 2005 [F2005L04000]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003—

SESSF Direction No. 05—Gear Requirements for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector [F2005L04191]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (Quota Species) Total Allowable Catch (Fishing Year 2006) Determination 2005 [F2005L04205]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, South Tasman Rise Fishery, Coral Sea Fishery and High Seas Fishery—SESS2A Determination 2005—Commonwealth Catch Disposal Record [F2005L04007]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery, Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery and Coral Sea Fishery—Determination No. LN01—Commonwealth Line Daily Fishing Log [F2005L03995]*.

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (Specified Non-Quota Species) Temporary Order 2005 [F2005L04168]*.

Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan 1995—2005/2006 SBT Provisional National Catch Allocation Determination [F2006L00001]*.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act—Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Amendment No. 84 – 2005 [F2005L03939]*.

Fuel Quality Standards Act—Fuel Quality Information Standard (Ethanol) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 1) [F2006L00179]*.

Goods and Services Tax Rulings—

GSTR 2005/6.

Notice of Withdrawal—GSTR 2000/36.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 309—Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04030]*.

Health Insurance Act—

Declaration of quality assurance activity—QAA No. 3/2005 [F2005L04159]*.

Health Insurance (Allied Health and Dental Services) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04032]*.

Health Insurance Determination HS/6/01 (Amendment) HS/06/05 [F2005L04089]*.

Health Insurance (Positron Emission Tomography) Determination HS/07/05 [F2005L04087]*.

Health Insurance Regulations—Health Insurance (Requirements for Allied Health Professionals) Determination 2005 [F2005L04046]*.

Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

311—Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04093]*.

312—Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04092]*.

Higher Education Funding Act—Declaration under section 4—Carnegie Mellon University [F2006L00192]*.

Higher Education Support Act—

Declaration of percentage of Commonwealth supported places to be provided by Table A providers for a course of study in medicine, dated 25 November 2005 [F2005L03930]*.

Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 15 of 2005)—Shafston Institute of Technology Pty Ltd [F2005L04241]*.

Other Grants Guidelines, dated 9 December 2005 [F2005L04164]*.

Horticultural Marketing and Research and Development Services Act—Horticultural Marketing and Research and Development Services {Regulated Horticultural Products and Markets [Stone Fruit (Peaches and Plums) to Taiwan]} Revocation Order 2005 [F2005L03851]*.

Imported Food control Act—Imported Food Control Regulations—Imported Food Control Amendment Order 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L03878]*.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

326—Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8) [F2005L03989]*.

327—Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9) [F2005L04027]*.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and Taxation Administration Act—Shortened Document Retention Periods (Individuals with Simple Tax Affairs) Determination 2006 [F2006L00216]*.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

Income Tax (Effective Life of Depreciating Assets) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04024]*.

Income Tax (Effective Life of Depreciating Assets) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04252]*.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 328—Income Tax Assessment Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 4) [F2005L04023]*.

Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act—Ordinance 2005 No. 1—Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 2005 [F2005L04119]*.

Lands Acquisition Act—Statements describing property acquired by agreement for specified public purposes under sections—

40.

125.

Legislative Instruments Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 300—Legislative Instruments Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04094]*.

Life Insurance Act—

Life Insurance (Prudential Rules) Determinations Nos—

4 of 2005—Prudential Rules No. 26 – Collection of Statistics [F2005L04165]*.

5 of 2005—Prudential Rules No. 35 – Financial Statements [F2005L04170]*.

6 of 2005—Prudential Rules No. 49 – Contract Classification for the purpose of regulatory reporting to APRA [F2005L04171]*.

7 of 2005—Prudential Rules No. 50 – Revised Starting Amounts [F2005L04172]*.

Record of resolutions of the Life Insurance Actuarial Standards Board: actuarial standards [F2005L04213]*.

Medical Indemnity (Competitive Advantage Payment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 313—Medical Indemnity (Competitive Advantage Payment) Regulations 2005 [F2005L04110]*.

Medical Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 314—Medical Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04108]*.

Medical Indemnity (UMP Support Payment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 315—Medical Indemnity (UMP Support Payment) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04109]*.

Migration Act—

Migration Agents Regulations—MARA Notices—

MN5-06b of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2006L00317]*.

MN5-06c of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2006L00318]*.

MN5-06f of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Miscellaneous Activities) [F2006L00315]*.

MN5-06g of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Pro bono Activities) [F2006L00316]*.

Migration Regulations—

Disclosure of information to prescribed bodies (Regulation 5.34D), dated 19 January 2006 [F2006L00227]*.

Disclosure of information to prescribed international organisations (Regulation 5.34E), dated 19 January 2006 [F2006L00226]*.

Entertainment Visa: Performing at non-commercial festivals (Regulation 1205(2)(a)(ii)(B)), dated 28 November 2005 [F2005L04006]*.

Migration occupations in demand (Regulation 1.03), dated 15 December 2005 [F2005L04002]*.

Organisations that may sponsor short stay business visitors (Regulation 459.214(c)), dated 29 November 2005 [F2005L03893]*.

Payment of visa application charges and fees in foreign currencies (Regulation 5.36(1A)(a)), dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04060]*.

Places and currencies for paying of fees (Paragraphs 5.36(1)(a) and 5.36(1)(b)), dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04058]*.

Skilled Australian Sponsored (Migrant) Visa: Residential postcodes, “skilled occupations” and points (Regulations 1.03 and 2.26B) [F2005L04008]*.

States and Territories with English language training arrangements (Regulations 134.222C(2)(a), 139.226(b), 863.226(b) and 882.225(b)), dated 15 December 2005 [F2005L04085]*.

Travel agents for PRC citizens applying for tourist visas (Regulation 1218(1)(b)(iii)), dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04123]*.

Travel agents for PRC citizens applying for tourist visas (Regulation 1218(1)(b)(iii)), dated 15 December 2005 [F2005L04155]*.

Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

317—Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 11) [F2005L03892]*.

339—Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 12) [F2005L03909]*.

Statement for period 1 July to 31 December 2005 under section 33, dated 8 October 2005.

Motor Vehicle Standards Act—

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 1/00 – Reversing Lamps) 2005 [F2005L03873]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 6/00 – Direction Indicators) 2005 [F2005L03907]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 13/00 – Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on other than L-Group Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L03991]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 72/00 – Dynamic Side Impact Occupant Protection) 2005 [F2005L03992]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 73/00 – Offset Frontal Impact Occupant Protection) 2005 [F2005L03990]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 79/00 – Emission Control for Light Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L04079]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 8/01 – Safety Glazing Material) 2005 [F2005L03908]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 31/01 – Brake Systems for Passenger Cars) 2005 [F2005L03852]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 34/01 – Child Restraint Anchorages and Child Restraint Anchor Fittings) 2005 [F2005L03997]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 35/01 – Commercial Vehicle Brake Systems) 2005 [F2005L04015]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 79/01 – Emission Control for Light Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L04080]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 81/01 – Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L04084]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 3/02 – Seats and Seat Anchorages) 2005 [F2005L03887]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 19/02 – Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on L-Group Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L04012]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 38/02 – Trailer Brake Systems) 2005 [F2005L04016]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 61/02 – Vehicle Marking) 2005 [F2005L03994]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 79/02 – Emission Control for Light Vehicles) 2005 [F2005L04081]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 4/03 – Seatbelts) 2005 [F2005L03905]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 5/04 – Anchorages for Seatbelts) 2005 [F2005L03906]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 42/04 – General Safety Requirements) 2005 [F2005L03996]*.

Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule – Definitions and Vehicle Categories) 2005 [F2005L03850]*.

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 281—Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Convention against Corruption) Regulations 2005 [F2006L00055]*.

National Health Act—

Arrangements Nos—

PB 6 of 2006—Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2006L00175]*.

PB 10 of 2006—Special Authority Program [F2006L00228]*.

Declaration No. PB 3 of 2006 [F2006L00171]*.

Determinations—

HIB 24/2005 [F2005L04083]*.

HIB 1/2006 [F2006L00081]*.

HIB 2/2006 [F2006L00178]*.

Nos—

PB 1 of 2006 [F2005L04167]*.

PB 2 of 2006 [F2005L04049]*.

PB 4 of 2006 [F2006L00173]*.

PB 5 of 2006 [F2006L00174]*.

PB 7 of 2006 [F2006L00176]*.

PB 8 of 2006 [F2006L00088]*.

PSO 11/2005 [F2005L04247]*.

PSO 12/2005 [F2005L04249]*.

Determinations under section—

84BA, dated 16 December 2005 [F2005L04208]*.

84HA, dated 22 December 2005 [F2005L04251]*.

National Health (Immunisation Program – Designated Vaccines) Determination 2005 [F2005L04267]*.

National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits —early supply) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04243]*.

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 316—National Health Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L04090]*.

Native Title Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 288—Native Title (Representative Bodies – Audit of Financial Statements) Regulations 2005 [F2005L03872]*.

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 329—Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Regulations 2005 [F2005L03882]*.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 318—Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L03952]*.

Privacy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 301—Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04091]*.

Product Grants and Benefits Ruling—Addendum—PGBR 2005/2.

Product Rulings—

Addenda—

PR 2003/37.

PR 2004/9, PR 2004/11-PR 2004/13, PR 2004/18, PR 2004/19, PR 2004/22, PR 2004/29, PR 2004/43, PR 2004/51, PR 2004/58, PR 2004/77, PR 2004/89, PR 2004/90, PR 2004/100 and PR 2004/101.

PR 2005/12, PR 2005/15, PR 2005/16, PR 2005/33, PR 2005/34, PR 2005/38, PR 2005/39 and PR 2005/42.

Notices of Withdrawal—PR 2005/101, PR 2005/105 and PR 2005/106.

PR 2005/114-PR 2005/119.

Quarantine Act—Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 2005 (No. 4) [F2005L04021]*.

Radiocommunications Act—

Radiocommunications (Certificates—27 GHz Band) Determination (Revocation) 2005 [F2005L04054]*.

Radiocommunications (Foreign Space Objects) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04041]*.

Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Scientific Licence) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 2) [F2006L00083]*.

Remuneration and Allowances Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 308—Remuneration and Allowances Regulations 2005 [F2005L04096]*.

Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations—

2005/18: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office and Members of Parliament [F2005L04038]*.

2005/19: Principal Executive Office – Classification Structure and Terms and Conditions [F2005L04037]*.

2005/20: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office [F2006L00217]*.

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 310—Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04003]*.

Retirement Savings Accounts Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

330—Retirement Savings Accounts Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 4) [F2005L04048]*.

331—Retirement Savings Accounts Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 5) [F2005L04026]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of ACT Employee) Notice 2005 (1) [F2005L04156]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of Employee) Notice 2005 (No. 3) [F2005L04010]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Licence Eligibility) Notice 2005 (No. 1) [F2006L00084]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Licence Eligibility) Notice 2005 (No. 2) [F2006L00097]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Rate of Interest Payable) Notice 2005 (1) [F2005L04063]*.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Specified Rate per Kilometre) Notice 2005 (1) [F2005L04064]*.

Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation (Specified Rate per Kilometre) Notice 2005 (1) [F2005L04065]*.

Social Security Act—Social Security Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00225]*.

Social Security (Administration) Act—Explanatory statement to Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) Determination 2005 (DEWR) [F2005L03511] (in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 28 November 2005).

Superannuation Act 1976Superannuation (Family Law – Superannuation Act 1976) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L03986]*.

Superannuation Act 2005Superannuation (PSSAP) Approved Authority Exclusion Declaration 2005 [F2005L04211]*.

Superannuation Contributions Determinations—Notices of Withdrawal—SCD 2005/1-SCD 2005/5.

Superannuation Guarantee Determination—Notice of Withdrawal—SGD 93/5.

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

332—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 6) [F2005L03987]*.

333—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 7) [F2005L04028]*.

334—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 8) [F2005L04025]*.

335—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9) [F2005L04047]*.

Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2005 Nos—

336—Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L03988]*.

337—Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) [F2005L03891]*.

Taxation Determinations—

Addenda—

TD 2000/7 and TD 2000/52.

TD 2002/3 and TD 2002/17.

TD 2003/12.

TD 2004/13.

Notices of Withdrawal—

TD 92/170.

TD 98/28.

TD 2005/52-TD 2005/54.

TD 2006/1.

Taxation Rulings—

Addenda—TR 2000/8 and TR 2000/18.

TR 2005/D17 and TR 2005/20-TR 2005/24.

TR 2005/List.

Telecommunications Act—

Telecommunications Cabling Provider Amendment Rules 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04052]*.

Telecommunications (Operational Separation – Designated Services) Determination (No. 1) 2005 [F2005L04245]*.

Telecommunications (Requirements for Operational Separation Plan) Determination (No. 1) 2005 [F2005L04248]*.

Telecommunications Technical Standard (Analogue Interworking and non-interference requirements for Customer Equipment for connection to the Public Switched Telephone Network – AS/ACIF S002:2005) 2005 [F2006L00085]*.

Telecommunications Technical Standard (Information Technology Equipment – Safety, Part 1: General requirements – AS/NZS 60950.1:2003) 2005 [F2005L04044]*.

Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for connection to an air interface of a Telecommunications Network – Part 3: GSM Customer Equipment – AS/ACIF S042.3:2005) 2005 [F2006L00086]*.

Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for DSL Customer Equipment for connection to the Public Switched Telephone Network – AS/ACIF S041:2005) 2005 [F2006L00087]*.

Telecommunications Technical Standard (Safety of Information Technology Equipment – AS/NZS 60950:2000 (Incorporating Amendment No. 1)) 2005 [F2005L04042]*.

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act—Telstra Carrier Charges – Price Control Arrangements, Notification and Disallowance Determination No. 1 of 2005 [F2005L04228]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) Act—

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 302—Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04097]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Australian Capital Territory) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04122]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – New South Wales) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04111]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Northern Territory) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04121]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Queensland) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04114]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – South Australia) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04116]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Tasmania) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04118]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Victoria) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04112]*.

Telecommunications (Interception) (Emergency Service Facility – Western Australia) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04115]*.

Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act—Telecommunications (Date of Imposition of Charge) Determination 2006 [F2006L00219]*.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Act—Textile, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program Determination 2005 [F2005L04234]*.

Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods Order No. 74—Standards for blood components [F2006L00146]*.

Torres Strait Fisheries Act—

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 295—Torres Strait Fisheries Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04104]*.

Torres Strait Finfish Fishery—Torres Strait Fisheries Management Notice No. 75—Prohibitions relating to the taking, processing and carrying of finfish (gear, size and area restrictions and take and carry limit) [F2005L03945]*.

Torres Strait Spanish Mackerel Fishery—Torres Strait Fisheries Management Notice No. 74—Prohibitions relating to the taking, processing and carrying of Spanish mackerel (gear and size restrictions and take and carry limit) [F2005L03933]*.

Torres Strait Trochus Fishery—Torres Strait Fisheries Management Notice No. 76—Prohibitions relating to the taking, processing and carrying of trochus (gear and size restrictions) [F2005L03985]*.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act—

Determinations of Non-warlike Service—

Operation Azure, dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04106]*.

Operation Spire, dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04103]*.

Determination of Warlike Service—Operation Palate II, dated 8 December 2005 [F2005L04107]*.

Determination under section 46L, dated 19 January 2005 [F2005L03993]*.

Instructions under sections—

25A, dated 17 January 2006 [F2006L00229]*.

30C, dated 17 January 2006 [F2006L00230]*.

74, dated 17 January 2006 [F2006L00232]*.

Instrument No. 2005/R27—Veterans’ Entitlements (Repatriation Private Patient Principles 2004 – New Member for NATMOC) Instrument 2005 [F2005L04158]*.

Statements of Principles concerning—

Dermatomyositis No. 51 of 2005 [F2005L04142]*.

Dermatomyositis No. 52 of 2005 [F2005L04143]*.

Epilepsy No. 49 of 2005 [F2005L04140]*.

Epilepsy No. 50 of 2005 [F2005L04141]*.

Epileptic seizure No. 47 of 2005 [F2005L04138]*.

Epileptic seizure No. 48 of 2005 [F2005L04139]*.

Guillain-Barre syndrome No. 53 of 2005 [F2005L04144]*.

Guillain-Barre syndrome No. 54 of 2005 [F2005L04145]*.

Malignant neoplasm of the pancreas No. 45 of 2005 [F2005L04132]*.

Malignant neoplasm of the pancreas No. 46 of 2005 [F2005L04133]*.

Narcolepsy No. 57 of 2005 [F2005L04148]*.

Narcolepsy No. 58 of 2005 [F2005L04149]*.

Peripheral neuropathy No. 41 of 2005 [F2005L04128]*.

Peripheral neuropathy No. 42 of 2005 [F2005L04129]*.

Steatohepatitis No. 55 of 2005 [F2005L04146]*.

Steatohepatitis No. 56 of 2005 [F2005L04147]*.

Sudden unexpected death No. 43 of 2005 [F2005L04130]*.

Sudden unexpected death No. 44 of 2005 [F2005L04131]*.

Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act—Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment Declaration 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L04055]*.

Governor-General’s Proclamations—Commencement of Provisions of Acts—

Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Act 2005Schedule 1—19 December 2005 [F2005L04088]*.

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Interception and Other Measures) Act 2005Items 1, 2 and 9 of Schedule 2—17 December 2005 [F2005L04095]*.

Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Act 2003Schedule 1—21 December 2005 [F2005L04082]*.

National Health Amendment (Immunisation Program) Act 2005Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1—1 January 2006 [F2005L04086]*.

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Act 2005Schedule 11—1 January 2006 [F2005L04117]*.

*    Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument.