Pursuant to standing order 12, I lay on the table a warrant nominating Senator Ludlam as an additional Temporary Chair of Committees when the Deputy President and Chair of Committees is absent.
by leave—I move:
The reason for not not granting leave in relation to this matter—clearly it is a matter we would not agree with—is that we would not have the numbers in the chamber.
I hope you’re not opposing.
There was a double negative.
A double negative, Senator Parry.
Yes, there was a double negative in that.
Are you speaking to a motion?
I am speaking to a motion. In doing so I recognise that the three signatures on the motion mean that we would not have a majority in the chamber. We would then waste time by going through a procedural motion which the government would lose. The government does not support the reference of these matters to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Paragraphs (e) and (f) of the reference appear to be a direct investigation into a state election, without any reference to the Commonwealth Electoral Act or the Australian Electoral Commission. As such, this inquiry should be undertaken by the South Australian parliament. If not rejected, this would indicate to all state and territory parliaments that they have the right to investigate Commonwealth elections for partisan political purposes. This matter is a reference to a Commonwealth body and it should relate to Commonwealth matters.
Shortly after the first four paragraphs of the reference were reported to the media I asked the AEC for a briefing on these allegations and whether similar alleged conduct would be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The AEC advised that these alleged activities would more likely than not be in breach of the act. However, in order to remove all doubt and to ensure that electors are made aware of on whose behalf how-to-vote cards are distributed, I requested the AEC to prepare possible amendments to the act. These amendments, which I table now, improve the authorisation requirements under the act so that it is made clear at the top of how-to-vote cards whether or not the card is being distributed on behalf of a political party or candidate. I will be seeking support for the amendments when further electoral legislation is debated in June and, of course, I look forward to the support of the movers of this reference for those amendments which make this inquiry unnecessary.
Unfortunately, I had very little time to be able to address the reference or hold consultations on it. Had I been afforded that opportunity I would have advised those supporting the motion that paragraphs (e) and (f) seem to be matters that should be dealt with by the relevant state authority and not matters that the Commonwealth should inquire into. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are clearly matters that raise concern. I expect Senator Fielding, having looked at that issue in detail, would acknowledge that the government has looked at acting to ensure that how-to-vote cards are dealt with in an appropriate manner and that the matter will be dealt with during the June sitting. If those amendments were to be a standalone bill, I would ask the opposition to indicate that they would not oppose any cut-off motion so that we can also deal with them.
We will look at any amendments that the Special Minister of State wants to bring forward to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. From what he has said to me, I do not think this addresses in any way the matter that was the concern of Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and me and which led to this reference. Unless my colleagues tell me otherwise in light of these amendments, in my view we should continue to pursue this matter through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It was disgraceful, inexcusable behaviour in the South Australian election. We think it is intolerable and we think the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is the body that should fully investigate the matter in the terms of the motion.
This is a very serious issue, and we hear the Labor Party trying to weasel out of it. They ran around impersonating Family First in South Australia, and the Prime Minister has not got the guts to rule it out at the federal election. He should have come out the same day and ruled out doing these dirty tricks at this upcoming federal election. It was wrong. I am not just upset with the fact that they looked better than our people did! That was crazy. Maybe they got a discount on the shirts. I would like to know where they got the shirts from, because they were good shirts.
We’ll give them to you!
Great! Maybe you will get a bulk discount and give them to us. But it was totally wrong. It was misleading and deceptive, and here you are trying to stall on this issue. It is blatantly wrong and you should not be doing it. This motion has to go through today.
You’re stalling. You’re sending it to a committee.
This is a serious issue and you are treating it as if it is not. What happened in South Australia is misleading and deceptive and should be ruled out. The Prime Minister should straight away rule this out for the upcoming election.
As a co-sponsor of this motion, I think what occurred in the South Australian election is something that needs to be looked at at a federal level. These terms of reference will deal with that. I note that the South Australian premier has indicated concerns and that there may well be changes to the South Australian Electoral Act so that this sort of thing does not occur again. Obviously Senator Brown is in a much better position to discuss this, but in previous years there was misleading conduct in relation to people saying they were Greens or associated with the Greens. I have heard stories about that occurring in years gone by. One of the problems that we have in relation to section 329 of the Electoral Act at the moment is that it deals with the issue of printed material. T-shirts are not included as printed material. I have drafted an amendment to the Electoral Act to include the issue of conduct and have forwarded copies of that to my colleagues. I would like to think it is something that will have bipartisan support, because clearly what occurred in South Australia indicates a problem: the possibility of abuse. I do not think anyone in this chamber would want to go down that path. For the next federal election I think it is important. We have been alerted to it; now we need to deal with it. That is why I support and have, in fact, co-sponsored these terms of reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
The Greens likewise will support any motion to clean up the rampant misrepresentation which goes on in the run to both state and federal elections and which is engaged in by the major political parties on both sides. We have seen from the Liberal Party in the past the electoral how-to-vote cards handed out that can confuse the voters into thinking they are coming from the Greens. But what is not covered in this motion is the deception of people in the run to elections through specifically targeted negative advertising. The Labor Party has become the doyenne of this deceptive activity. We saw it in the Tasmanian elections. We saw it in the South Australian elections. We saw it in the seat of Mitchell in South Australia, where arguably it changed the outcome of that election. On all occasions the Labor Party labelled its opponents—Liberal, Green or Independent—as wanting to promote illegal drugs and/or relationships with prisoners who had committed heinous crimes and who were in jail. We can expect more of it because it seems that it works, and it is not until we get truth in advertising and an end to the deliberate setting up of opponents, which seems to be coordinated and rampant in the Labor Party nationally, that we will get some protection for voters from this highly planned, misleading advertising.
Senator Fielding himself came in in an election in which his party is alleged to have spent a million dollars repeatedly advertising in my home state that I wanted to give drugs to children. So Family First is not clean from this tendency to want to besmirch untruthfully opponents in the run to elections. We should stop it. There is not in this proposal a motion for truth in advertising in the run to elections. There should be, and it is something the Greens—apparently alone, though perhaps with Senator Xenophon—will be campaigning for in the run to this election and consequently.
Question agreed to.
Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
I move:
That the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm today: Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010.No. 4 Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010.No. 5 Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2009.No. 6 Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010.Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010.Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2009.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That a motion relating to the Government’s waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money be considered during general business today.
Question agreed to.
Senator McEwen to move on 21 June 2010:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Adams to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion no. 527 standing in the name of Senator Xenophon for today, proposing the introduction of the Water Licence Moratorium Bill 2009, postponed till 2 September 2010.
General business notice of motion no. 694 standing in the name of the Leader of the Family First Party (Senator Fielding) for today, proposing the introduction of the Protection of Personal Information Bill 2010, postponed till 15 June 2010.
General business notice of motion no. 800 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, relating to the logging industry in Tasmania and Victoria, postponed till 24 June 2010.
I move:
That—
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the Department of Parliamentary Services to improve exterior lighting within the Parliament House precinct.
Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?
I seek leave to ask the minister a question about the motion.
Leave granted.
I would just ask the minister if she could tell the Senate if the in-ground lighting that is referred to in this proposal is environmentally high quality.
by leave—Senator Brown, I was not aware that the Greens were going to raise any issue at this point in the debate. I do not have substantial information on this proposal. I would have to get advice from DPS on the detail of this proposal. If the senator wishes us to do that, I think the President has indicated by way of nodding at me that we would be very happy to provide that.
I do not want to delay the matter. I thank the minister for that. It has just come to my attention—I am not ambushing her with this. We will proceed to support the motion on the basis that there is compact fluorescent or other energy efficient lighting in the in-ground component of this proposal.
So you are supporting the motion?
Yes.
Senator Brown, I think the answer will satisfy you, but I am not sure.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to restrict the hours during which takeaway alcoholic beverages can be sold, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Australia has a binge drinking problem which is killing Australians, particularly young Australians. and compromising the safety of our streets.
Every week we read about another case of alcohol fuelled violence or of another tragic death on our roads from drink driving.
Our binge drinking culture is a major social and health issue and Australians are beginning to wake up and say enough already.
The extent of this problem goes further than people think and the statistics to back it up are simply horrifying.
Alcohol causes almost 4,300 deaths each year and costs almost 400,000 hospital bed days per year. It accounts for around 40 per cent of police work and is the cause of one in five deaths on our roads.
Binge drinking robs our society to the tune of $16 billion a year, and also inflicts an enormous emotional cost—splitting families apart and destroying relationships.
In a survey released last year, the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation revealed that more than 80 per cent of Australians recognise that as a society we have a drinking problem and that 85 per cent of Australians want more done to fix that problem.
In April last year, the Brumby Labor Government was forced to hold an emergency summit because the alcohol-fuelled violence in Melbourne was spiralling out of control.
Since then, things have only gotten worse.
One of the factors which is making this problem worse are the 24 hour takeaway alcohol stores operating around Melbourne which let younger people load up on cheap alcohol around the clock and then spill out onto the streets.
It’s no wonder there is so much violence on our streets when you don’t have proper regulations controlling these outlets selling packaged liquor.
In my home state of Victoria there are 144 licensees allowed to serve alcohol around the clock and 37 such outlets sell packaged liquor.
This is outrageous and should not be allowed to continue to exist.
The Responsible Takeaway Alcohol Hours Bill is a major piece of legislation and will go a long way to curbing the alcohol fuelled violence which has taken over our streets.
Under this legislation, it will be prohibited to sell takeaway alcohol after midnight and before 7am in the morning.
Any business caught doing this will be up for a fine of $10,000.
Stopping the sale of takeaway alcohol at all hours of the night is long overdue and it’s crazy that it has taken so long to address this issue.
This policy has the support of numerous public health groups and no doubt many parents too.
Geoff Munro from the Community Alcohol Action Network has said previously,
“In the interests of reducing the mayhem on the streets, assaults, the glassings, people suffering brain damage and even dying after being king hit on the street, it doesn’t seem an unreasonable limitation that people should not be able to buy alcohol right through the night”.
There’s no silver bullet solution to our alcohol-related violence, but this bill is certainly a very important first step.
Last year we saw the ridiculous situation where the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal gave the green light to the Exford Hotel to continue selling packaged liquor all night.
This was despite the fact that the tribunal was referred to 30 examples of public drunkenness and disorderly and drunken behaviour outside or around the hotel.
Clearly the laws in place at the moment are not strong enough to deal with the problems facing our streets and the Responsible Takeaway Alcohol Hours Bill will help address this issue.
This bill makes it perfectly clear that if you are a business that sells takeaway alcohol, then after midnight it’s time to shut up shop.
People who are loading themselves up on alcohol at two, three or four in the morning are people who are more likely to get into trouble and cause problems on our streets.
Allowing the sale of takeaway alcohol at all hours of the night only undoes a lot of the hard work done by our brave police force to keep our streets safe and free of violence.
As a father of three children, I know that I worry about their safety when they are out late at night, because of the surging violence on our streets.
Restricting the hours of sale of takeaway alcohol is a move that will bring a sigh of relief to thousands of mums and dads across the country and is a policy that should be supported by both sides of Parliament.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned
At the request of Senator Scullion, I move:
by leave—The government opposes this motion. We recognise that Senator Scullion’s motion has the support of the coalition and the Greens, and maybe others. We will not be calling a division.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to require that religious and charitable institutions meet a public benefit test to justify their exemption from taxation, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill seeks to introduce a public benefit test for religious and charitable organisations seeking tax exempt status.
What this Bill proposes is nothing new. In the United Kingdom a public benefit test exists to make sure that organisations receiving support from the public through tax exemptions do more good than harm.
I make no secret of the fact that this Bill is prompted by the heartbreaking stories I have heard from victims of the Church of Scientology.
There is no denying that this organisation’s tax-exempt status needs to be examined. If the stories I have heard are true, and I believe they are, then the Church of Scientology does not deserve the tax-payer support it receives.
Scientology needs to be open and transparent, and to prove that the good they do in the community outweighs the harm.
But the public benefit test is not limited to the Church of Scientology. Under this legislation, all religious or charitable organisations will have to come clean about what they do—both the good and the bad.
After all, daylight is the best disinfectant.
Previously, the Government has responded to calls for a public benefit test with the line that they did not want to pre-empt any recommendations that may have been made in the Henry Tax Review.
Well, the Henry Review is out and, in line with a Productivity Commission report earlier this year, it calls for a National Charities Commission to monitor, regulate and streamline tax concessions for not-for-profit organisations.
But the Government has chosen to ignore this recommendation, and similar recommendations from previous reports saying the same thing.
In the United Kingdom, a Charity Commission has been in place since 2006. Part of this organisation’s role is to administer the public benefit test.
I quote from the Commission’s website:
To be a charity an organisation must have purposes or (‘aims’) all of which are exclusively charitable; a charity cannot have some purposes which are charitable and others which are not.
In a foreword on the Charity Commission’s website, the Chief Executive writes:
Perhaps more than any other sector of society, charities can command public trust. Charities are fortunate to be in this position and we, as their regulator, have a responsibility to ensure that this trust is maintained and even, if possible, increased. It is important for civil society that this trust is not taken for granted, but is actively valued, earned and continually renewed.
Part of being a charity, or not-for-profit organisation, relies on public trust.
The Commission goes on to outline the purpose of the test, which it says is to:
explain the requirement that, to be a charity in England and Wales, an organisation must have charitable aims that are for the public benefit;
raise awareness and understanding of that public benefit requirement amongst the public and the charitable sector;
explain how the public benefit requirement operates in practice; and
explain the new requirement for charity trustees to report on public benefit.
Offering tax exemptions says, on the part of the Government and on behalf of taxpayers, ‘we acknowledge the work you do, and support you in your aims’.
But the way things stand right now, we don’t know what those aims are, other than what websites and glossy brochures tell us.
When we’re dealing with our own money, we can look at those websites and brochures, look at annual reports and talk to people face to face before we decide to make a donation.
And if something doesn’t look quite right, we have the choice to walk away.
But when the Government is effectively making donations on our behalf through tax exemptions, we just have to take the organisation’s word that they’re working in the public good.
I’m not saying that all religions and charities out there are rorting the system.
Far from it.
Many of them provide vitally important services to the community, working in the areas of society most of us try not to think about too deeply, often for little more than the satisfaction of doing a good deed.
These are the organisations that deserve taxpayer support.
And they deserve acknowledgement that they are using that support in the way it is meant to be used.
The public benefit test is not new, it is not unheard of, and it is not a threat.
It is simply a tool to encourage public confidence in the not-for-profit sector, and a means for the Government to ensure its support is not being abused.
In the end, it is simply a way of letting in the daylight.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
At the request of Senator Moore, I move:
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator McEwen, I move:
Question agreed to.
I move:
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name by omitting ‘25 June 2010’ and substituting ‘18 June 2010’.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2010:
The key outcomes agreed by the Commonwealth Government and five states and two territories at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting on 19 April and 20 April 2010 and the process of consultation between the states and Commonwealth prior to these agreements and related matters, including but not limited to:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
The Commonwealth government has reached an agreement on health reform with all states and territories, except Western Australia, which represents the biggest change to our health system since the introduction of Medicare. These changes are the end result of a comprehensive structural review of Australia’s health and hospital system by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, an extensive consultation process to test the report’s recommendation and consultation and intense negotiations with states and territories culminating in the COAG agreement of 20 April. Just two days ago we released a budget that fully funds the health reform investments.
This referral to committee around the detail of the agreement is a duplication of the significant effort that has already taken place. In fact, we believe that the detail sought by Senator Fierravanti-Wells could be found within the publicly released documents which are in existence. These include the intergovernmental agreement on 20 April 2010; the document, A national health and hospitals network for Australia’s future—delivering better health and better hospitals, released on 11 May 2010, which I table, and the 2010-2011 budget papers. Within that documentation are key milestones for implementing the various elements of the agreement. These clearly outline those areas where further consultation and negotiation will take place with states and territories and with key stakeholders prior to details being finalised. For these reasons the government opposes the motion.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name by omitting ‘31 July 2010’ and substituting ‘13 August 2010’.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That the following matters be referred to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee for inquiry and report by 13 August 2010:
Question agreed to.
by leave—The government oppose this motion but we recognise Senator Hanson-Young has the support not only of her own party but of the coalition and therefore has a majority in the chamber. We will not call a division.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I thank the government for pointing out that it is the coalition and the Greens who want to see an inquiry into the NAPLAN testing. Clearly, this process has been a poorly managed by the government. I would really like to have seen the government commit to a public inquiry into this issue as well. I think it is sad, in fact, that the government does not want the transparency of a public inquiry, and I am sure that will continue to be raised throughout the course of this committee process. I think it is poor that the government will not want an inquiry into something which they say is essential and important, and which they stand by. It is quite a reflection on how concerned they are about how these test results are being used.
I move:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
The government is committed to developing a population strategy that considers pressures on infrastructure, services and the environment. It is also an opportunity to look at managing the pressures of an ageing population by providing the skills and innovation needed to underpin continued economic growth.
It is important that sustainable growth improve our standard of living and preserve our unique environment. To help guide the development of future policies, the Prime Minister announced on 3 April 2010 the appointment of the Hon. Tony Burke MP to the new office of Minister for Population in the Treasury portfolio. Minister Burke’s initial task will be to develop Australia’s first comprehensive population strategy over the next 12 months. The strategy will consider the social and economic infrastructure Australia will need to support a growing population, including the roads, housing and service delivery network. As an early priority it will also consider maximising opportunities for the Australian people. This inquiry proposed by Senator Brown will duplicate this important body of work that the government is committed to delivering.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
On behalf of the coalition, I indicate that we will oppose this notice of motion. It is not because we disagree with its intent; indeed, many of the clauses that are contained in this notice of motion are consistent with the coalition’s population policy, which has been detailed and released. I would note that we are the only mainstream party that has a comprehensive population policy in place ahead of the next election.
Our objection to this is that it presupposes that Australia has an ability to influence and slow global population growth which, quite frankly, beggars belief at a most reasonable level. Australia certainly has an ability to influence its own population growth at this point, but whether we should be slowing population growth globally is something of much broader consideration. The coalition did seek to amend this motion. The Greens, unfortunately, were not amenable to amending it, so the coalition is not able to support this motion at this time.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I thank the Senate. This motion reeks of the Greens’ communist roots. If Bob Brown had his way—
Senator Fielding, you need to refer to people by their correct titles in this place.
If Senator Brown had his way, he would have Australia moving towards China’s one-child policy. It is a joke. This is Australia. It is a free country and I plan to keep it that way. The only way we can do that is by stopping the Greens from ever holding the balance of power in this Senate. I am serious here. If anyone out there believes in a free country, do not vote for the Greens because this motion does move us towards China’s one-child policy. It is just ridiculous. Motions like this smack of communism and that is the reason why Family First will not support this motion.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Unusual things happen in politics, and I am always amazed at Senator Fielding’s ability to turn a very serious matter into a light-hearted one and to have everybody around the chamber laughing. I thank him for that at this stage of today’s proceedings.
The Greens are a mainstream party and we are putting forward an important means of drawing upon the wit and wisdom of all Australians in developing population policy. The Greens do have a population policy. I think it is very moderate and inadequate. If you go to their websites you will find that, contrary to what Senator Bernardi said, there is no population policy from the coalition or from the government—although we are pleased that the Prime Minister has now established a population ministry. But how is the ministry going to work if it is not informed?
Here we are saying: ‘Let’s have an independent inquiry and get everybody’s viewpoints and the expertise of the nation brought to bear.’ It is, after all, a motion that is consequent upon the advice of Barry Jones and the House of Representatives inquiry into population in 1994. This is not new territory. It was Labor policy at least after that inquiry and it ought to be getting endorsement now. Instead of that, from the coalition, the government and the Family First entity we are getting complete negativity. They do not want to know about it, they do not want to have an independent inquiry and they do not want to be properly informed. It is not a good way of formulating national policy on a matter as important as this.
When it comes to international population growth, there is a set formula. I say to Senator Bernardi, the more we put into overseas aid—particularly literacy for women and the ability for them to engage in small investments and businesses—the quicker we see populations steady down for the health of all— (Time expired)
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Given some of the other statements that have been made, I indicate that I support this inquiry. I think we do need to be informed. I happen to believe that we do need to have a sensible, sustained population growth in this country, particularly with an ageing population, in order to have a sufficient balance of the younger demographic to ensure they can pay for the pensions of older Australians. I do not see this as being anti population growth as such. It is about having a debate on this very important issue. Such an inquiry would look at issues of urban design, suburban sprawl and the sustainability and liveability of our city centres. I think that is a sensible thing to do. It should be seen in the context of an ageing population in this country. We do need to make plans for the future as to what mix we want in the context of the intergenerational challenge that has been referred to in previous Commonwealth government reports. I think this is a sensible move. I do not see this as having anything to do with China, a one-child policy or anything like that. I think we should have this debate.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.
I move:
I would also note that around 1,680 people have signed an online petition opposing the release of this exploration area.
Question put.
At the request of Senator Abetz, I move:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
The government believes the motion is not appropriate. Key documents relating to Australia’s future tax system are already public. The government released the final report of the panel on 2 May 2010. On 2 May it also released its long-term tax plan entitled Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: Tax Plan for our Future. This is the first instalment of the government’s response. The package includes numerous informative fact sheets that may be of assistance to Senator Abetz. The second instalment was delivered in the 2010-11 budget, when we announced further substantial tax reforms, standard deductions, a reduction in interest withholding tax and new incentives to encourage personal saving. It is important to note that Treasury then released relevant policy parameters provided to KPMG Econtech, which then independently modelled their economic effects.
A summary modelling report and the full report is available on the KPMG website. I know that websites are not particularly popular with Senator Abetz, but I suggest he go to the KPMG website. He does not need to go via any other pathway to Treasury officials—it is there on the KPMG website. The development of the recommendations of the independent review panel was undertaken against a background of massive community engagement. On 6 August 2008 the panel released its architecture of Australia’s tax and transfer system. On 10 December three more papers were released and public meetings were held. The panel also conducted focus groups in April 2009 to further explore some of the issues raised in the public arena. Senator Abetz can freely access all these documents at www.futuretax.gov.au and, should he need the government to supply hard copies, that can also be arranged. The government opposes the motion.
Mr President, can I recommend that Senator Abetz be sent a copy of the Hansard with respect to that statement so that he does receive the information.
Senator Brown, that is not necessary.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Mr President, the government opposes the motion. We will not call a division; we recognise that it has a majority in the chamber.
I move:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
This motion is essentially unnecessary. The government has been full and frank about the issues associated with the Change Program, which, I might add, commenced under the former government. It is ultimately administered by the independent ATO. Upon concerns being raised about the program, I acted and instigated the Inspector-General of Taxation review, and I acknowledge Senator Xenophon’s keen interest in the issue. The independent review should be allowed to run its course, without interference from parliament. There are various parliamentary acts under which the inspector-general acts. I would argue that parliament cannot break its own acts of parliament in attempting to instruct the inspector-general, who is fully independent and fully at arm’s length. That was the way the inspector-general was established, by the former government, so that parliament and I as minister could not influence the inspector-general once an inquiry was called. The inspector-general is unequivocally required to maintain the confidentiality of those who give information where this is requested as a result of both the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003 and the inspector-general’s public confirmation of this obligation, as set out in his recent advertisements seeking submissions for this inquiry. The former government established that parameter.
In addition, where an ATO employee indicates to the I-G that they have information relevant to the Change Program the inspector-general will formally ask the ATO employee to provide that information. The employee will then have the full protection of section 17 of the Inspector-General of Taxation Act 2003. The timing of the presentation to me of any report is a matter for the inspector-general. It is his decision. The act provides, for good reason, no power to direct a particular time frame. (Time expired)
by leave—I appreciate the comments of the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law in relation to this matter, about which I have had a number of useful discussions with the minister’s office. But, with respect to the minister and to the government, the purpose of this motion is to make it clear that those tax officials who have information to give to the inspector-general, who, clearly, is independent, are given an assurance that there will be no recriminations against them from the Australian Taxation Office. There is a concern—and we know what happens to whistleblowers and of the retribution against them—that for this inquiry to be effective in relation to this very comprehensive Change Program, where there has been a cost blow-out in the hundreds of millions of dollars and chaos in terms of hundreds of thousands of returns not being processed in time, it is important that there be an assurance from the Australian tax office that there will be no recriminations against their employees for coming forward to the Inspector-General of Taxation.
I commend the minister for requesting the inquiry. This motion is about ensuring that the inquiry of the Inspector-General is as effective, as fulsome and as robust as possible. There is a genuine concern that the men and women of the tax office who are at the front line of dealing with this new IT system may be reluctant to come forward without these assurances. That is why I think it is important that we go down this path and request of the tax office that they give assurances to the Senate in relation to this. Also, in relation to the timing of it: it is a request, not an order, to the Inspector-General to do so. And it is only a progress report. I think it is important that we put this in context.
Again, I commend the government for instigating the Inspector-General’s inquiry in relation to this. This would enhance the inquiry and enhance what I believe, genuinely, the government is trying to do—to get to the bottom of what appears to be a debacle in relation to the IT system.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Those who have been following this Change Program through Senate estimates would know that I have been very interested in this program for a number of years, even under the coalition government. I had some information right upfront that this Change Program in the Australian Taxation Office was going off the rails under the coalition and the minister knows this. He has been at those estimates and knows I was asking the questions. And then to hear him on radio saying, ‘We don’t direct anything to the tax office; it is a separate sort of issue. It’s not us’—they report through to you!
Yes, but I can’t direct them.
They report through to the government and you cannot wipe your hands clean of this program. You listened to me, a number of times, in estimates. Under the coalition, this program was a stuff-up, a real problem. Then we have had small businesses impacted because of this Change Program and you go on radio and say, ‘It’s not me; it’s the tax office.’ Well, you knew there was a problem. What were you doing about it? So this motion is very important because it allows other people to come forward—and it actually allows the public to know what is going on—without any consequences to them from doing that. I think that is very important.
This is a big issue. That is the reason I have been chasing this one, for quite some time, through Senate estimates. I was a little annoyed to hear someone go on radio and say, ‘It’s not me; it’s the tax office.’ But you knew there was a problem. What did you do about it? This should have been checked—double-checked—before it went out. As the minister, you should do that. You knew there were problems and it was wrong. So this is a very important issue, and I will be supporting the motion.
Question agreed to.
by leave—The government opposed that motion. We recognise that it has the support of the majority in the chamber. We will not be calling a division.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I know Senator O’Brien makes a point every time of getting up to defend the government being negative with a motion like this one from Senator Xenophon, or when it comes from the opposition or when it comes from the Greens, but I want to point out that it is the job of the crossbench and the opposition to be not just seeking information from a government that wants to cover its tracks but also to protect whistleblowers and other people who act in the public interest. I do not know what the game-play is from Senator O’Brien, although I can guess it, but it is the quality of the move and the government should be supporting—
You know exactly what’s going on, Bob. Why are you being misleading?
He is starting to complain now, Mr President! Senator O’Brien does not like me nailing him on the fact that this is a legitimate exercise—this is what Senator Xenophon and the crossbench and the opposition are charged with doing here in the public’s service. The government’s complaint about it and this repeated call, ‘We’re up against everybody on the other side and there is somehow some nexus about it,’ is completely false, manufactured and will not wash.
I move:
I understand there is an amendment to the motion.
by leave—I move the following amendment to the above motion:
Omit paragraph (b).
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I have had some useful discussions in the last 24 hours with Senator Ludlam, who has been very helpful, on expanding the terms of reference; with Senator Barnett, who is on the committee; and with Senator Wortley as the chair of the committee. I will not seek to have the Senate divide on this. I would prefer that we included the issue of gambling, but I understand where the government and, indeed, the opposition are coming from.
It is helpful that the issue of an online ombudsman will be considered by this committee, because I think that that is an integral part of this. In relation to the issue of online gambling, as I understand it there will be submissions invited generally on the issue of gambling online, but I concede that it would be more appropriate for a committee looking at the Interactive Gambling Act and the issue of online gambling, to consider this at a later stage.
I understand the Productivity Commission report will need to be released in the next few weeks, and I can foreshadow that I will be pushing for terms of reference looking at this and issues of online gambling generally in regulation, once that report is released. So I can live with this compromise, and I am grateful for the consideration given by Senators Wortley, Barnett and Ludlam so that we can get on with this in terms of an online ombudsman being considered.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Briefly in support of the motion and the amendment, the Greens had considered and would have supported the original motion as it stood—and that included the hazards of online gambling. Given the way the work of the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety seems to be panning out with a specific focus on children, I certainly was not aware of the risks there. I think there will be merit, if not at this opportunity then certainly some time down the track, in making ourselves aware of what those risks are and what it is exactly that kids are being confronted with in that domain. In terms of the online ombudsman, I think that potentially is a useful piece of policy architecture. It is something that does not exist yet. I look forward to that being part of the mix and part of the debate in that joint committee on cybersafety.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
I move:
That, when the Economics Legislation Committee meets to consider budget estimates in relation to the Department of the Treasury in the week beginning 31 May 2010, the Secretary of the department, Dr Henry, is to appear before the committee to answer questions.
I seek leave to amend general business notion of No. 796 in the terms circulated in the Senate.
Leave granted.
I move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Dr Henry, is to appear before the Economics Legislation Committee at a mutually agreeable time on or before 30 June 2010”.
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
Since this government has been in office, Dr Henry has appeared before every Senate estimates and before Senate committees generally on many occasions. I have to say that that was not the case under the former government. There were occasions when I asked for Dr Henry to appear and he did not, but I never brought it into the chamber to insist—in the way that Senator Bushby is doing—that he must appear. I think that, in these circumstances that I will outline, it is unreasonable for such a motion to be presented to the chamber. Dr Henry has explained to the Senate estimates committee that he has an immovable family matter. He is taking leave. He must attend that family matter, and it will take him outside the country. It is a private family matter.
I am sure it would not be a surprise to anyone in this chamber that Dr Henry has a very, very heavy workload; he always has done. Particularly under this government he has had a heavy workload. In all the circumstances, it is and was appropriate for Dr Henry to receive leave because of his family circumstances. I would argue to any impartial observer that Dr Henry fairly deserves an opportunity to take the leave to be with his family. We oppose the motion and the amendment, if it should be carried. There are any number of Treasury officials who will be appearing before the Senate estimates committee who are very capable of responding to the range of questions that will be put by the opposition and the crossbench team.
You want us to buy that?
Are you questioning, Senator McGauran, by way of interjection the circumstances of Dr Henry? Are you seriously questioning that?
I am questioning you.
I think that is a very poor reflection on you, Senator McGauran. I have given the explanation that Dr Henry has given— (Time expired)
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
The opposition does not begrudge Dr Henry the opportunity to have an overseas holiday at this time. We are sure he has earned a holiday given the ad hoc way the government approaches economic issues and places demands on Dr Henry. But of course we have been reasonable in this. We have actually sought private clarification through the minister as to the nature and the timing of the trip to ensure that the circumstances leading to this are truly immovable and truly relate to circumstances that cannot be avoided. Despite making that effort, we have received no assurance that that is the case. All we have been told is what is contained in a letter from the Assistant Treasurer which we received last night—that he has unavoidable personal commitments and no further advice has been provided as to what that relates to. Given that he is not due to appear for three weeks, one can only presume that those relate to commitments that he has chosen to accept rather than those that might have been imposed on him through a sudden death or similar tragic circumstances.
The question is: why has this holiday been chosen to be taken during estimates? It has long been the case that the budget is held in the second week of May and that, after a week’s break, budget estimates occur in the two weeks following. It is not like the Secretary of the Treasury has not known when this will occur. The sittings for this year came out in November last year. He has had almost eight months to lock this into his diary and to make sure that he was available to turn up on these dates.
We are looking at a point in time that will be the first opportunity for the estimates committee to examine Dr Henry on the Henry review. For the last two years, he has been turning up to estimates committees and refusing to answer questions about the review because ‘it is not yet delivered’. It is now delivered; it is released. The government has responded. But it has responded dismally to the Henry review, and the people of Australia deserve the opportunity for parliament to examine Dr Henry on his review and his thoughts about the government’s approach to it.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
There is always a means of coming to a reasonable agreement on the basis of the information available. I do not mind what the argument is in either direction, but the amendment put forward is to enable a mutually agreeable time to be found for Dr Henry to appear before the committee, and I am sure that can be arranged. I would point out that not only did Dr Henry not always appear before the committee during the period of the coalition government but quite recently I asked for the Governor of the Reserve Bank to appear before a committee to look into the matter of the scandal surrounding Securency, which has half its board appointed by the Reserve Bank, and, if I remember correctly, the opposition voted to prevent that happening. So there is a double standard here. However, we are in favour of information being made available to the parliament when it wants it and hence the reasonable amendment that I put forward.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I support this motion in its amended form. As I understand it from my discussions with Senator Brown earlier today, Dr Henry will be able to accommodate this amended request. I think it is important that we hear from the Secretary to the Treasury. He has recently completed the most comprehensive review of our tax system in many years, and I commend the government for commissioning Dr Henry to do that. I think it is important we hear from Dr Henry in relation to that. I think it would have been unreasonable to insist that he attend during estimates if he had genuine prior family commitments and I think it is important that this motion is passed and that we hear from Dr Henry before the end of the financial year.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I think it is important to note that Dr Henry has probably had better attendance at estimates under the Labor government than under the coalition government. I could be wrong, but that is my belief. And I think that is a good move. I am sure that the circumstances through which Dr Henry will not be available would be serious enough for him not to appear but I think this motion does make sense. To have Dr Henry available to the Economics Legislation Committee at a mutually agreeable time on or before 30 June 2010 does make a lot of sense, and we will be supporting the motion for that. What we have to realise is that Dr Henry was tasked to take a root and branch approach. The budget is just out and this is a very important period coming up to the election. I think this is a more than reasonable motion to support.
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates hearings, as listed at item 7 on today’s Order of Business:
The list read as follows—
Budget estimates (Supplementary) 2009-10—
Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 4 February and 12 May 2010—Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 12 March and 13 May 2010—Human Services portfolio.
Additional estimates 2009-10—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between—
25 February and 12 May 2010—Families, Housing, Community services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio.
18 March and 12 May 2010—
Health and Ageing portfolio.
Indigenous issues across portfolios—Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio; Human Services portfolio.
Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 10 February and 12 May 2010—
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio.
Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee— Additional information received between 1 April and 12 May 2010— Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee— Additional information received between 12 February and 12 May 2010—
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio.
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 12 March and 13 May 2010—
Climate Change portfolio.
Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
Human Services portfolio.
Parliamentary departments.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 1 April and 13 May 2010—
Defence portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 17 March and 11 May 2010— Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Publications, I present the 18th report of the committee.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have one of the bills listed separately on the
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I table three revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010
The purpose of the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010 is to establish the Office of the Information Commissioner.
The Bill will implement the structural reforms outlined in the Government’s election commitment, Government information: restoring trust and integrity. Together with the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010, it constitutes the second stage of the Rudd Government’s overhaul of FOI.
The new Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will bring together the independent oversight functions for privacy protection (principally regulated by the Privacy Act 1988) and for access to government information (regulated by the Freedom of Information Act 1982). The Government considers that the co-location of privacy and FOI policy will enhance oversight and allow for consistent information policy.
For this purpose, the Bill creates two new independent statutory positions of Australian Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information (FOI) Commissioner. It also makes provision for the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner in this legislation instead of under the Privacy Act 1988. The Government moved an amendment, implementing the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to refer to the new office holder as the Australian Information Commissioner.
The absence of an independent statutory monitor for FOI was identified as an impediment to effective administration of the FOI Act in the joint 1995 Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council Open Government report and later by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. To correct that deficiency, the Australian Information Commissioner and FOI Commissioner will have broad ranging FOI functions. They will ensure a constant voice which not only addresses poor FOI practices, but also addresses attitudes that are not conducive to the presumption of openness which is intended by the Government’s FOI reforms.
The nature of the FOI functions and privacy functions are too extensive for one office holder to effectively manage. Conversely, the appointment of multiple statutory officers of equal standing does not present an effective governance model. The Bill establishes the Australian Information Commissioner as head of the Office for both strategic and administrative purposes. It is intended that the FOI Commissioner will be mainly responsible for the FOI functions, and that the Privacy Commissioner will be mainly responsible for privacy functions.
While the Government expects that the three office holders will work together cooperatively, the Bill makes provision for the Australian Information Commissioner’s view to prevail in any disagreement on matters which involve substantial policy decisions. Provision is also made to ensure that there is no duplication in the performance of essential determination functions.
The FOI functions include those functions that will make the Information and FOI Commissioners strong advocates for FOI, such as promoting awareness, issuing guidance, monitoring compliance and providing training and assistance. It is intended that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will be a resource for agencies as well as for the public. The Commissioners will also be given a function of undertaking merits review of access decisions and investigating complaints. The comprehensive nature of the Commissioners’ FOI functions is in keeping with the Government’s intention to provide a central clearing house for FOI matters.
The privacy functions are those functions now performed by the Privacy Commissioner. The Government is currently embarking on reforms to the Privacy Act by preparing draft legislation for release for public consultation later this year. Any changes that are made to the functions and powers of the Privacy Commissioner following the Government’s privacy reforms will of course be aligned with the new structure created in this Bill.
The Bill also gives the Australian Information Commissioner a discrete function of advising the Government on information management policy. That function reflects the capacity for the new structure to generate strategic advice to Government on broader information management policy and practice, including in the use of systems employed in information management. Consistent with the objective of achieving a coordinated approach to information management policy across government, the Australian Information Commissioner is to be assisted by an Information Advisory Committee. The Committee will be chaired by the Australian Information Commissioner and will comprise senior executives from key agencies and other persons outside government who have suitable experience or qualifications.
The establishment of an Office of the Australian Information Commissioner not only supports the important outcome of promoting a pro-disclosure culture and revitalising FOI, but also lays new, stronger foundations for privacy protection and improvement in the broader management of government information.
In February this year, the Rudd Government showed its commitment to reform in the area of government information by appointing Professor John McMillan AO as the Information Commissioner Designate. As everyone in this chamber is aware, Professor McMillan has extensive experience, including as the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the past seven years and as a campaigner for Australia’s first FOI Act in the 1970s, which makes him an excellent choice for Australia’s first Information Commissioner. After the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010 is enacted, I will recommend to the Governor-General in Council that she appoint Professor McMillan as the Australian Information Commissioner.
Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010
The main purpose of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010 is to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to usher in a new regime for access to government information.
When Labor was in opposition, I was one of the key drafters of Labor’s policy for restoring trust and integrity in government. A core element of this policy was to overhaul Australia’s antiquated FOI laws, which, after over a decade of the Howard Government’s culture of concealment, were in serious need of reform.
When the Rudd Labor Government was elected in 2007, we immediately started work to fulfil our commitment to undertake the most significant overhaul of the FOI Act since its commencement in 1982. We committed to driving a cultural shift across the bureaucracy to promote a pro-disclosure attitude and we’re fulfilling that commitment.
The Government has already delivered the first stage of FOI reform, introducing and passing legislation to remove the power to issue conclusive certificates in the FOI Act and the Archives Act 1983.
This Bill, together with the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010, meets the Rudd Government’s remaining FOI election commitments, which are designed to restore trust and integrity in the handling of government information.
The two Bills are the product of a participatory process. The Government consulted a number of stakeholders and then released exposure drafts of each Bill for public comment in March last year.
The Bills were also referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry. Witnesses to the Committee were overwhelmingly in favour of the Bills being immediately passed through Parliament.
In its report on the two Bills, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee made three recommendations for amendment. The Government moved amendments to implement two of those recommendations, namely to establish the Information Commissioner as the Australian Information Commissioner and to provide for the Commissioner to be a member of the Administrative Review Council.
The Committee’s recommendation to amend the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill to remove the concept of onus in both review proceedings by the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is not supported by Coalition Senators, nor by some stakeholders who use the FOI Act.
The Government does not accept that the Committee’s recommendation to remove the onus would have disadvantaged applicants. The removal of the onus was recommended to ensure that FOI applications were not treated as adversarial court processes. Notwithstanding this view, the Government has decided to retain the concept of onus in FOI proceedings, making it clear that the Bill is designed to make access to documents easier for applicants, with the agency or Minister under an obligation to justify why non-disclosure is necessary.
Under an existing obligation in the AAT, an agency or Minister is required to use their best endeavours to assist the AAT to make a decision on an FOI review application. That obligation will also be applied to a review by the Australian Information Commissioner.
Proposals in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill are also drawn in part from the key findings of the 1995 joint Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council Open Government report. The report’s key findings have been updated and supplemented by other measures to deliver better access to government information.
Given all of these consultation and review processes, the Government considers that the Bills will deliver the intended shift to a culture of disclosure across Government and more effective and efficient access to government information. They will directly address the culture of secrecy that thrived under the Howard Government.
The Rudd Government remains responsible and accountable to the people it serves. This Bill amends the objects clause of the FOI Act to expressly refer to the important role that access to government information serves in promoting Australia’s representative democracy.
In pursuit of the FOI Act’s objective to give the Australian community access to government held information, the existing limited publication requirements under Part II of the Act are to be replaced. The Bill provides for a new framework which will require pro-active publication of information by agencies. This new publication scheme will require agencies to actively consider the types of information they have which can and should be made available to the public. This measure represents a significant shift away from the current system that is predominantly reactive; responding only to requests that have been made.
The publication of information, which will be primarily web-based, needs to be structured, informative and user friendly. The Australian Information Commissioner, an office which will be created by the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010, will be responsible for ensuring this occurs. The Australian Information Commissioner will be responsible for issuing guidance to agencies on how they can ensure optimal publication. Agencies will also be required to develop plans showing what information they will publish to further the objectives of the Act.
The Bill also proposes many changes to improve the effectiveness of the FOI application system. The changes are closely entwined with the structural reforms proposed by the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010. The aim of these measures is to ensure that the public interest in disclosure remains at the forefront of decision making, and that the right of access to documents is not unduly restricted by liberal application of exemption criteria.
A new, single form of public interest test weighted towards disclosure will be introduced and the test will be applied to more exemption categories than is currently the case. The public interest test is to be added to the economy, research and personal information exemptions and is to be partially applied to the business affairs exemption. In response to public consultation, the public interest test will not be applied to that part of the business affairs exemption which relates to documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information.
Decision makers will be required to address the public interest factors taken into account in their reasons for the decision. The Bill does not seek to exhaustively define public interest factors. It has long been recognised that the categories of public interest are not closed. The public interest will vary depending on the subject matter.
Certain factors which are not conducive to open and accountable government, including arguments solely concerned with political sensitivity, will not be able to be used as factors supporting non-disclosure of documents. This extends to submissions ordinarily associated with the deliberative documents exemption, for example, that disclosure would cause a loss of confidence in the government or cause embarrassment to the government. In keeping with the intention of the reforms to promote disclosure, the Bill lists some pro-disclosure factors but does not list factors against disclosure.
The Bill will repeal exemption categories for Executive Council documents, documents arising out of companies and securities legislation, and documents relating to the conduct by an agency of industrial relations.
The Bill also proposes two limited exclusions from the operation of the FOI Act for certain intelligence related information. The public interest in maintaining confidence in the information must clearly outweigh the public interest in access to that information. The nature of intelligence agencies’ functions and some programs which operate to ensure Australia’s strategic defence are such that those intelligence functions would be compromised by public dissemination of that information. These functions cannot be carried out with the same level of transparency ordinarily expected of administrative action. This is recognised by the special accountability systems in place for the intelligence agencies through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
A substantial change which will significantly increase accessibility to information will be reducing the term during which the FOI Act governs public access to government information, and accelerating the application of the Archives Act. The Bill amends the Archives Act to bring forward the open access period for all records (other than Cabinet notebooks and census information) from 30 years to 20 years. The open access period for Cabinet notebooks is to be brought forward from 50 years to 30 years. These measures will make government information available earlier under the Archives Act.
The Bill also amends section 33(1)(b) of the Archives Act to address concerns with the current application of the provision. Decisions made by the Australian Government on section 33 exemptions will be made consistent with past practice and our international obligations, and will be based on the national interest and based on the views of partner governments.
The Government recognises that the promise of better information disclosure requires structural reforms. The establishment of an Australian Information Commissioner and FOI Commissioner, as independent officers, will address a long-standing lacuna in effective FOI administration. In addition to promotional, monitoring and guidance functions, the Commissioners will directly participate in the process by reviewing access decisions made by agencies and Ministers. Review of a decision by the Australian Information Commissioner will not replace review by the AAT. A party can still apply for AAT review after an Information Commissioner review if needed. Both forums will offer full independent merits review, unfettered by the limiting effects of conclusive certificates. Retaining an option of review by the AAT, an experienced review body, will be particularly important for highly contested FOI matters.
Australian Information Commissioner review will be characterised by reduced formality and adversarial contest, with most applications determined on the papers. The Commissioners will be able to dispose of an application where an agreement is reached between the parties or by determination if no compromise is reached.
Following public consultation on the exposure draft of the Bill, the Government has amended the Bill to provide that the applicant will have the option of seeking internal review or going directly to the Australian Information Commissioner for review of an initial FOI decision. By making internal review optional, agencies should be encouraged to make the best possible access decision at first instance.
There is potential for a substantial resource impost in the maintenance of an effective FOI system. That impost in part exists because not all government information can properly be released and so it can take time for agencies to work out what information can be released and what cannot. The broad range of FOI functions to be vested in the Information and FOI Commissioners are designed to ensure the objects of the Act are achieved with as minimal contest, and therefore cost, as possible. That includes fostering a pro-disclosure culture among agencies. To manage access requests that are manifestly unreasonable, the Australian Information Commissioner is given a power to restrict an applicant’s access rights by declaring them to be vexatious. Provision is also made to enhance consultation provisions for dealing with onerous or vague requests for documents.
The Australian Information Commissioner will also take over the bulk of the role of the Ombudsman in investigating complaints about handling of FOI requests. However, the Ombudsman will still have capacity to investigate complaints which relate to FOI where it would be more appropriate or effective for the Ombudsman to do so.
One aspect of the current law which has restricted the public’s access to information is cost. Cost should not deter reasonable requests for access to information. The Bill, together with amendments proposed to regulations, remove all application fees, including for internal review.
No costs will apply for access to a person’s own information. Every applicant will receive some free decision making time. Journalists and not-for-profit organisations will receive the first five hours of decision making time free and all other applicants will receive the first hour of decision making time free. Some of these measures will be implemented through amendment to regulations. The regulations will also be amended so that if there is a failure to comply with a statutory time period, any charges will be waived.
Not all these measures received support in the Senate inquiry and some submissions called for wider changes. The Government will ask the Australian Information Commissioner to undertake a review of the charges system within 12 months of the Commissioner’s appointment. That review will be comprehensive and will include the effectiveness of measures taken as part of these reforms to reduce the cost of FOI access for applicants.
The Government has allocated $19.5 million over 4 years from 2009-10 for the establishment and running of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (in addition to existing resources for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner).
While the Privacy Act 1988 largely regulates the handling of personal information by Commonwealth agencies, access to and correction of a person’s own information is currently enforced through the FOI Act. Around 85-90 percent of FOI requests annually are for personal information. The Government proposes to amend the Privacy Act so that it is the principal legislation which provides for an enforceable right of access to, and correction of, an individual’s own information. That proposal will be addressed in legislation covering broader reforms to the Privacy Act which I expect to release for public consultation later this year.
The Government believes the legislation now before the Parliament comprises a strong package of measures to enhance access to information for the Australian public.
To ensure the reform package delivers effective change, provision is made in the Bill for the Act to be reviewed two years after the commencement of the reforms. The review will be comprehensive, and will necessarily cover all aspects of FOI, including how well the two-tier review system is working, how the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is operating, the exemptions in the Act, and agencies’ implementation of the new information publication scheme.
In order to address the concerns raised by the Australian Greens, the review will also need to include a consideration of whether the exclusion of agencies, including intelligence agencies, from the application of the Act is still appropriate and necessary. Naturally, such a consideration would require reference to international practice and consideration of what is in the Australian public’s interest.
Unlike our predecessors, this Government recognises that transparent and open government is a key component of a healthy and vibrant democracy. When the Rudd Government was elected, Labor committed to significantly reform Freedom of Information laws and these Bills fulfil the Government’s promise to the Australian public.
Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010
This bill supports the implementation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions.
I am very proud to be standing here today introducing this legislation – this Bill is a landmark reform for our health system.
With this Bill, for the first time there will be a national system for the registration and accreditation of 10 health professions– bringing consistency and uniform standards to our health workforce.
Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have already passed the Bills which will put in place the national system. The ACT and Northern Territory have introduced their Bills and South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are well advanced in their planning.
National registration has been a long time coming – the previous government, with the current Leader of the Opposition as Minister for Health, identified it as a goal, and then decided to sit on his hands. After years of blaming the states and territories for all the problems in the health system, he was unable to work with them to deliver this key health reform.
Just as he sat on the sidelines whilst 60 per cent of Australians suffered from a shortage of doctors, he dithered on this important workforce reform.
The Rudd Government recognised that this goal was one that had stalled and needed pursuing – we immediately got to work with the States and Territories – and in March 2008 signed an intergovernmental agreement to progress the National scheme.
We know that a National scheme could reduce red tape, increase standards and improve safety for the Australian community.
We also know that a national scheme will improve the mobility of the health workforce. It will stop health professionals for having to re-register every time they step across a State border, saving time, money and inconvenience. This for example will help to boost locum support for rural doctors as Doctors become freer to work across State boundaries.
On 3 November 2009, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) received Royal Assent in the Queensland Parliament.
The National Law sets out the framework for the scheme, covering registration of health practitioners and accreditation of health education and training, complaints, privacy and information sharing, and transitional arrangements.
The Commonwealth does not need to apply the National Law, however consequential and transitional amendments are required to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to ensure that medical practitioners continue to retain the same Medicare billing eligibility from 1 July 2010.
It also streamlines the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of medical practitioners for Medicare purposes ensuring reduction of red tape, currency of the Health Insurance Act 1973 regulations and adequate access to Medicare rebates and retention of practitioners in Australia.
Streamlining the recognition of doctors for Medicare purposes
The current pathways to specialist, consultant physician and GP recognition in the Health Insurance Act 1973 necessitate communication exchange between Medicare Australia and relevant organisations (such as medical colleges) to ascertain Medicare eligibility.
These arrangements have been put in place because previously there was variation across states and territories for the recognition of specialist qualifications and general practice qualifications in the registration process.
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme provides a nationally consistent means of identifying both specialists and GPs, and the mandatory requirement for Continuing Professional Development in the Scheme means Medicare Australia is no longer is required to monitor whether practitioners providing a ‘Medicare rebateable service’ are meeting Continuing Professional Development requirements.
It is essential that the extensive systems involved in registration and recognition of doctors for Medicare purposes are streamlined to ensure reduction of red tape, currency of the Health Insurance regulations and efficient access to Medicare rebates.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 provides various pathways for recognising specialists, consultant physicians and general practitioners (GPs) for Medicare purposes.
This Bill provides an opportunity to streamline current specialist recognition processes under Commonwealth legislation.
This includes removing the current Vocational Register of General Practitioners, particularly now that the Medical Board of Australia has recommended that Health Ministers endorse ‘general practice’ as a specialty for the medical profession.
I am aware that the Medical Board of Australia is soon to make decisions about the eligibility requirements for the General Practitioner specialty register.
I can assure the House that this bill will not disadvantage medical practitioners that are currently registered in states and territories.
In particular, it will not disadvantage any GPs that are currently on the Vocational Register whether or not they have a fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Remote and Rural Medicine.
Streamlining specialist recognition will also facilitate workforce mobility and access to Medicare for International Medical Graduates.
Conclusion
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions will modernise the regulation of health professionals by creating a single regulatory environment.
By ending the duplication of effort, multiple standards and red tape caused by separate systems in each state and territory, we will have a more workable registration scheme for Australian patients and practitioners that also contributes to improving the safety of our health system for all Australians.
It provides the community with the reassurance that health professionals across Australia meet a common set of standards. Our health workforce will also benefit from the improved mobility the national scheme will offer.
I would like to extend my thanks to all of the professional groups who have constructively engaged in an incredibly complex task over four years – this includes the current State and Territory Health Professional Boards who have faced enormous change.
I would also like to recognise the expertise and hard work of the officials who have undertaken the work that is making National Registration a reality.
Lastly I acknowledge my Ministerial colleagues around the country who are all committed to a National scheme for the registration of health professionals- and put the national interest first.
I look forward to the National Law being adopted in the remaining jurisdictions over the coming months and the implementation of a National registration and accreditation scheme for the first time in Australia.
Debate (on motion by Senator Sherry) adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Ordered that the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 be listed on the Notice Paper as a separate order of the day.
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010
The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2010 contains three amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Customs Tariff).
Two of these amendments relate to import concessions for the textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry. The amendments will insert end-dates for items 61 and 73 in Schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff. These amendments reflect the Government’s change of policy from providing assistance through tariff concessions to providing a wider range of support to TCF industries as set out in the Government’s TCF Innovation Package as announced in the 2009-10 Budget.
The Government’s TCF Innovation Package will drive innovation and renewal in the Australian TCF industries by investing $401.0 million in a retargeted TCF Package from 2009-10 to 2015-16. The new TCF Innovation Package redirects $55.0 million towards innovation, including $10.0 million in new funding. The Package recognises the importance of the TCF industries, which employ over 45,000 Australians and underpin regional economies around the country. It aims to make the TCF sector stronger and more sustainable by supporting the development of new products and processes, especially at the high-tech, high-value end of the market.
The Bill amends item 61 to insert an end-date of 30 June 2010. Item 61 provides the means for duty concessions under the Expanded Overseas Assembly Provisions Scheme.
This Scheme provides duty concessions for certain TCF goods that are manufactured overseas from Australian fabric and are subsequently imported back to Australia.
The Bill amends the end-date of item 73, changing the existing end-date from 30 June 2017 to 30 June 2011. Item 73 gives effect to the Product Diversification Scheme (PDS) for certain clothing and finished textiles.
This Scheme allows a producer to earn duty credits for certain clothing and finished textiles and then to apply those credits, through item 73, to offset duty payable on qualifying imported finished products.
While importers will no longer be able to earn duty credits under the PDS after 30 June 2010, the end-date of 30 June 2011 for item 73 will provide importers with an additional twelve months to use those credits.
The Bill also inserts an end-date of 31 December 2009 for item 53C in Schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff. Item 53C provided a mechanism to reduce the general rate of customs duty from 10% to 5% for certain goods that were not of a kind used as components in passenger motor vehicles.
From 1 January 2010, the general rate of duty for the above goods reduced from 10% to 5%. As a consequence, there is no need for the item 53C concession and the item is redundant.
Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010
The Health Insurance Amendment (Pathology Requests) Bill 2010 will improve patient choice of pathology services, and encourage providers to compete on price and quality of service.
Currently the Health Insurance Act 1973 requires that, in most cases, in order for a Medicare benefit to be payable for a pathology service rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner, a request for the service must be made to that particular pathology practitioner or the approved pathology authority at which they work. This means that a patient is effectively required to take a completed request form to the approved pathology practitioner or authority named on the form. This restriction does not apply to other diagnostic services that attract Medicare benefits.
This Bill removes this restriction so that, while there will still be a legislative requirement for a request for a pathology service to be made, there will no longer be a requirement that the request be made to a particular approved pathology practitioner or authority. This legislative change will allow patients to take a pathology request to an approved pathology practitioner or authority of their choice and will encourage pathology providers to compete on price and convenience for patients.
The Government supports a patient’s right to choose their pathology provider, just as they are entitled to choose their own GP or any other medical practitioner.
Medical practitioners who request pathology services will still be free to make recommendations to patients about which pathology provider they feel is best suited to their needs. Feedback from requesters has shown that there are often valid clinical reasons for recommending a particular pathology provider over another. The Government recognizes the importance of the doctor patient relationship and will continue to encourage medical practitioners to discuss with patients options for all aspects of their treatment, including pathology services.
Convenience and access to bulk billing are some of the reasons that a patient may wish to choose one provider over another. However, patients will also need to be aware of the potential consequences of not keeping their requesting practitioner informed of their choice, as this may impact on the continuity of their care.
In the case of diagnostic imaging requests, patients already have the option of taking their request form to any provider, not just the one named on the request form. These changes to the Health Insurance Act merely bring the arrangements for pathology requests in line with those for other diagnostic services.
The amendments will take effect from 1 July 2010.
The Government will also make changes to relevant regulations prior to 1 July 2011 to require that requests for pathology services include a clear and understandable statement, which is obviously positioned, making patients aware that requests can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or authority.
Pathology providers will be able to continue to produce ‘branded’ request forms (that include the company logo and address) and to provide these to requesting medical practitioners. These may include a list of the locations of that provider’s collection centres. They will, however, be required from 1 July 2011 to include on their request forms a clear and understandable statement, which is obviously positioned, making patients aware that these forms can be taken to any approved pathology practitioner or approved pathology authority.
Options for the wording of this statement is one of a range of implementation issues being discussed with requesters, providers and consumers of pathology services as part of the stakeholder consultation process currently being conducted by my Department.
Informed patient choice is a key element of quality health care. This amendment will ensure that patients have a right to choose their pathology provider and are made aware of that fact, leading to increased competition and better service among providers.
Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010
The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003.
Background
Australia’s aviation security legislation framework consists of a number of layers of security measures, and is under constant review to ensure that Australia’s aviation industry is safeguarded and able to quickly adapt to new threats to security.
The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 establishes a preventive security regime to safeguard against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference with the Australian aviation sector.
The failed terrorist attempt on Christmas Day last year against a United States-bound flight clearly demonstrates the continuing need for stringent preventive security measures.
Australia’s maritime industry is critical to the social and economic prosperity of Australia. Nearly 4000 ships carry goods and commodities to and from Australian shores each year, carrying 99 percent of Australia’s imports and exports by volume. These ships represent nearly 10 percent of world seaborne trade by mass – the 5th largest shipping task in the world.
The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 establishes a preventive security regime to safeguard against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference with Australia’s ports, port facilities, ships and offshore facilities.
It gives effect to Australia’s international obligations as a Contracting Administration under the International Maritime Organisation’s International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, established under Chapter 11-2 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention.
To quote from the recently released Counter-Terrorism White Paper “terrorism continues to pose a serious security challenge to Australia ... the threat of terrorism is real and enduring. It has become a persistent and permanent feature of Australia’s security environment”.
Objective of the Bill
The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 contains two amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Both amendments have been developed to better equip the Australian Government’s capacity to respond in the event of an aviation incident.
The bill also amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to implement a range of proposals which emerged from a recent examination of security arrangements for passenger ships undertaken by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Together, the measures in this Bill ensure Australia’s preventive transport security arrangements continue to deliver effective security outcomes, both now and into the future.
Measures in the Bill
I will first provide an overview of the measures in the Bill to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.
The first amendment will allow the prohibited items list to be made in a notice issued by the Minister responsible for administering the Act. Currently, the prohibited items list is made in the regulations, and as such, any amendment to be made to the prohibited items list currently involves a relatively lengthy legislative process. This amendment will ensure that the prohibited items list can be more easily amended and updated to reflect emerging threats and vulnerabilities to aviation security, while still preserving Parliamentary scrutiny.
The second aviation security amendment will enable the Secretary of my department to delegate all or any of his powers and functions to a Senior Executive Service employee in the Attorney-General’s Department. While this amendment is administrative in nature, it is being made in preparation for the establishment of the ‘Commonwealth Incident Coordinator’ position within Attorney General’s Department from 1 July 2010. The creation of the position of the Commonwealth Incident Coordinator forms part of the Australian Government’s all-hazards approach to crisis and consequence management.
The role of the Commonwealth ‘Incident Coordinator’ is to coordinate response planning and the implementation of Australian Government crisis management decisions across relevant domains. By delegating these powers to the Commonwealth Incident Coordinator, the Australian Government will be better placed to respond in a fully coordinated fashion to rapidly developing security incidents.
For example, as part of a coordinated response to a terrorist incident, the Commonwealth Incident Coordinator could use the powers to direct an aircraft subject to a bomb threat to land at a particular airport, or park in a specific part of an airport, where emergency services are best placed to respond to the threat.
I will now describe the measures in the bill which amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003.
Firstly, the bill inserts provisions to allow ship operators to be given exemptions from certain security requirements in certain circumstances, where there is no impact on the security outcome.
From time to time, Australian ships that are not required to be security regulated under the Act need to travel overseas or to another Australian state or territory on an exceptional basis. These ‘one-off’ voyages every five years or so are typically for maintenance purposes, but mean that these ships must comply with all of the security obligations under the Act, at a significant additional cost to their operations.
The amendment proposed in the Bill would allow operators of Australian ships to apply to the Secretary for an exemption from the requirement to hold an International Ship Security Certificate or a Ship Security Plan. Such an exemption would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and if security in the maritime environment was not reduced. This amendment is consistent with that provided for in the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, Convention, to which Australia is a signatory.
A similar situation exists for foreign flagged ships; they are occasionally granted an exemption by their flag State from complying with their requirement to hold an International Ship Security Certificate (or its equivalent). Such an exemption is often granted to allow the ship to travel to Australia as part of one-off overseas voyage to conduct maintenance on the ship, a similar situation to the one I just explained.
There is currently no ability under the Act to recognise an exemption made by another Contracting Administration to the SOLAS Convention, meaning that a foreign ship arriving in Australia without an International Ship Security Certificate is in contravention of the Act. The proposed amendment would allow for regulations to be made prescribing certain kinds of regulated ships that are exempt from the requirement to have or obtain a valid ship security certificate on arrival in Australia.
Secondly, the bill makes amendments with regard to passenger ships to enable regulations to be made to define different classes of passenger ships and to enable screening officers to conduct frisk searches of passengers and crew.
Currently a ‘one size fits all’ approach is applied to passenger ship security regardless of the operational characteristics of the specific ship or class of ship. This approach does not allow individual factors, constraints and considerations to be taken into account when prescribing an appropriate and customised range of preventive security measures in relation to the level of threat for their operating environments.
This amendment would allow for the prescription of different classes of security regulated ships in the maritime security Regulations. For example, this would allow passenger ships to be defined by, say, any combination of size, passenger capacity, areas of geographical operation, type of items carried or the types of activities they conduct. It would allow for customised security measures to be developed and applied to each class, avoiding the issues attached to over or under-regulation.
Passenger ship security will also be strengthened through the introduction of frisk search powers to enhance the screening and clearance of passengers and crew in certain circumstances. The establishment of frisk search powers for the passenger ship sector means that more effective security screening processes can be promptly introduced, should the nature and level of threat in the maritime environment suddenly escalate. The recent events of Christmas Day highlight the need to have a responsive security framework, adaptable to rapid changes in circumstances. The power to conduct frisk searches in certain circumstances already exists for aviation travellers and the proposed amendment would mirror these arrangements.
The Bill will also provide greater flexibility to make regulations with regard to screening and clearing matters.
I propose to amend the Act so that regulations can be made to address all necessary aspects of maritime security screening practices, and not be limited to the matters specified in that section.
Thirdly, the bill enables certain persons to be appointed as ‘security assessment inspectors’ to conduct security assessments of maritime industry participants.
Currently the Act does not have any explicit powers of entry into security regulated areas other than for Departmental offices and law enforcement officers.
This amendment will enable the Secretary to appoint a person as a security assessment inspector if that person meets criteria to be specified in regulations. Appointed security assessment inspectors will be able to survey the extant security environment at a regulated maritime site and examine the effectiveness of current security policies; this will enable timely responses to changing and emerging threats to be developed to ensure the regime continues to meet the threat of terrorism both now and into the future.
Fourthly, the bill provides for measure to allow the Secretary of my Department to delegate his powers under the MTOFSA to Agency Heads and certain SES officers in other agencies in certain circumstances.
Currently, the Secretary of my Department may delegate all or any of their powers and functions under the Act to an SES employee in my Department only. This amendment would allow the Secretary to delegate all or any of their powers and functions to the Agency Head of an agency that conducts national security activities and an SES employee in the Attorney Generals Department. In respect of delegations to Agency Heads, these may be sub-delegated within the agency to an SES Band three employee.
This amendment would also allow the Secretary to delegate his or her powers and functions to the Commonwealth Incident Coordinator, to be created in the Attorney-General’s Department at the SES level and mirrors the aviation security amendment I mentioned earlier.
The ability to delegate powers externally across the aviation, maritime and offshore environments provides my Department with the maximum flexibility within the legislative framework to enable an appropriate incident response to be made in unexpected and often urgent situations.
Finally, the Bill makes some minor amendments to modernise image recording powers for maritime security inspectors. To modernise the options for use of recording media and to align with the newly introduced powers of a Security Assessment Inspector, the Bill replaces the power to photograph equipment with the power to make a still or moving image, or any recording of equipment. To correct a drafting anomaly, the Bill introduces is a similar power to allow for the recording of images by maritime security inspectors when inspecting equipment at a place, or a vehicle or vessel under control of a regulated maritime industry participant, to align with their existing power to photograph on board a security regulated ship and on a security regulated offshore facility.
Conclusion
Just as terrorists will continue to alter their methods, so too must we ensure that our preventive transport security arrangements evolve to meet this threat. The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 will enhance the operation of the aviation and maritime security regimes for the benefit of our maritime, offshore and aviation industries and the Australian public. I am confident that the measures introduced in this Bill will contribute to a transport system that is more secure against the threat of terrorism.
Debate (on motion by Senator Sherry) adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
At the request of Senator Scullion, I present the fourth report of the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
In relation to this particular Senate inquiry I congratulate Senator Scullion, all of the members of the committee and the secretariat staff for the very significant work they have done on this report. I know Senator Scullion is very keen to speak to the report and its recommendations and will certainly take the opportunity to do so later on. There are a number of very significant recommendations, all of which seek to improve the situation of Australia’s Indigenous people.
I had the privilege of being able to attend some of the committee’s hearings—in particular, the hearing held at Weipa in the Cape York Peninsula area of Queensland. The evidence given made it quite clear that, in spite of motions to say sorry to Indigenous people by Mr Rudd earlier in the term of this parliament, as with most things with Mr Rudd, they were just words. It is again a hallmark of this government that there is plenty of talk but very little action. Indigenous people who gave evidence to this inquiry clearly made that point.
Another case in point is the wild rivers legislation in Queensland which imposes a huge impost on the ability of Indigenous people to usefully use their lands. It is legislation that has been widely condemned by Indigenous people in North Queensland. Mr Abbott has moved a quite significant private members bill to overturn Queensland legislation to avoid the provisions of the Queensland wild rivers legislation and to make sure that any decisions made by the Queensland government in relation to this matter are only taken with the full consultation and consent of Indigenous people.
Mr Rudd had an opportunity to indicate to Australia and to Indigenous people that his words of saying sorry meant more than just words. This was an instance where Mr Rudd could have turned those words into action. Regrettably, so far he and his colleagues in the Labor Party have opposed this private members bill, and I think that is indicative of the approach that the Rudd government has taken towards Indigenous people generally.
As I indicated, there are a number of significant recommendations made by the committee. I commend those to the parliament. Senator Scullion as chair will be addressing this report at a later period. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
I too would like to comment on this report. I am a member of this committee and I think committee members get a very good insight into some of the issues that Aboriginal communities need to deal with. We travel around each of the states and territories as much as we can. We visited a number of communities, as Senator Macdonald has indicated. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it to Weipa—which I was most distressed about—due to other committee commitments. However, I did join the committee for the rest of the hearings in Queensland and I learnt some very valuable information.
Several of the recommendations you will see in this committee report address the issues of the Cape York Family Responsibility Commission. There is a review of that process and an ongoing evaluation, which I think is very important. You will see that several of the recommendations relate to ensuring that results from that evaluation of the Cape York trial are very seriously reviewed. I think that is particularly important. We heard from the Cape York Family Responsibility Commission, who gave us some very valuable information. I was also in the position of having heard representatives of the commission talk at an ACOSS conference the week before in Canberra, so I have had the opportunity to hear about this trial on several occasions.
A very important point to make here is that this trial is significantly different from many of the other trials that are going on around Australia about income management. A lot of people hold up the Cape York income management trial as an indication of the success of income management. The point that is very clear from the inquiry and from talking to representatives of the family commission is that they take a very holistic approach to the way they deal with the issues of disadvantage in Cape York—the issue of not attending school and the other issues that affect family dysfunction. That is, they put a lot of effort into case management. This trial has cost around $40 million. There are many people pointing to the success of the trial. About 450 people have been through the process. Only 98 of those have been income managed and towards the end of the process. What happens is that you get case managers and case workers working with the families to look at what is going on in those families—how they can help, whether it is the kids’ nonattendance at school, how you encourage attendance at school, whether there is domestic violence and the other causes of disadvantage—and start to address those and walk people through the process.
The point is that, of those 400, only 98 at the time we heard the evidence had been income managed. That was a much more consultative process. As you can see, $40 million into a trial of that size is a substantial amount of money. I am not for one minute criticising that. The point is that there is a lot of effort going into case management to help people to genuinely change. I very strongly support the recommendation the committee has made about looking at the results. The key is that we need to look at the success factors, if overall it is judged to be successful.
We raised a number of issues in the report about housing. There was a lot of ongoing criticism about the SIHIP process and a motion was passed in this place this morning dealing with that. We raised a lot of questions about that program. You can be sure that there will be a lot more focus on that issue, I would suggest in this place anyway, in estimates and in the committee’s ongoing work. That is an absolute key, as we all know, to addressing disadvantage in Aboriginal communities.
The other issue that we covered, particularly in Queensland—we had a particular focus on Queensland this time; senators may remember that we had a focus on Western Australia and the Northern Territory last time—was criminal justice issues. We had a very useful discussion on that issue with correctional services and the Attorney-General’s Department in Queensland. Aboriginal incarceration is a very significant issue that certainly I and the committee have been looking at very carefully. I believe there will be further work done by the committee on the issues surrounding incarceration. A discussion paper has been produced by the committee on that very clear issue, which we need to focus on very strongly. I am very hopeful that the committee can continue to look at that, in the same way that I am hopeful that other agencies will start to look at the very high number of Aboriginal people who are incarcerated in the criminal justice system and its causes.
One of the issues that came up in this inquiry—and the matter is dealt with in the report that I am going to table next in this place—is that of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system who have poor hearing. In Queensland, it was acknowledged that Aboriginal people are not screened for hearing problems as they go into the criminal justice system. One of the recommendations in the report is for the Queensland government to have a look at that issue and consider screening Aboriginal people for hearing impairment as they go into the criminal justice system. I very strongly commend to the chamber that recommendation as well because I think it will start to address some very important hearing and health issues for Aboriginal Australians. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee Hear us: inquiry into hearing health in Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
It is with great pleasure that I present this report to the chamber. This has been a very important inquiry. We have learnt a lot, as anybody reading the committee’s report and looking at the submissions will note. We have travelled extensively around Australia to various states. We have heard from individuals, from organisations working with those with a hearing impairment and taken a lot of evidence. We have made a large number of recommendations because it is a vital issue and one that touches in some way every Australian. Currently, one in six Australians has a hearing impairment and that is predicted to rise to one in four Australians. Of course, it is not just those with a hearing impairment who are affected; it is their families and friends and the productivity of Australia. Hearing impairment costs us billions of dollars. As I said, it touches families, friends and employers, so it affects everybody. There are some key issues. I should say straightaway that there is a very strong acknowledgment of the programs that we already have in Australia, particularly by Australian Hearing Services and the fantastic work they do with those between birth and the age of 21. And there are other services for the over-65s who are very strongly supported.
Access to services for those between the ages of 21 and 65 was the biggest issue that was raised with us. Until the age of 21 people get very strong support and they get access to hearing aids and assessments. But, when they get to 21, that is it—there is no more support. Take for example students at university who are doing their courses and their hearing aids no longer work. Hearing aids can cost between $3,000 and $10,000. If you are a university student, you cannot find $3,000 to $10,000. We heard of personal accounts where people said that they had to drop out of university because they were not able to hear. So it has affected their education—and, of course, then it affects their ability to be employed. We also heard a lot of evidence of people retiring early because they felt excluded from the workforce. They were no longer able to cope in the workforce with a hearing impairment.
We have made a number of recommendations that deal with access to services. We have said that we believe that those over 21, for a start, should still be able to gain access to Hearing Services Australia on a means tested basis. Obviously if you are in a position where you can afford those services, it would be on a fee-for-service basis. But, if you cannot, we believe it should be means tested. We also believe that people should have access to services on a means tested basis—so the same sort of process that applies for access to the voucher system et cetera. Those over 21 should have access to these services on a means tested approach. There is no doubt in our minds that those between the ages of 21 and 65 are disadvantaged by not being able to get access to hearing services.
We have also made a number of recommendations around education, awareness and research. We need to, for a start, increase awareness of hearing impairment in Australia. We need to increase the awareness of employers. We need to increase access for people to gain support in the workforce. I know a lot of members will be aware that I am very strongly supportive of the need to address hearing in Aboriginal communities. Hearing in Aboriginal communities is a very significant issue. We spent a lot of time looking at the research in this area. In some communities, up to 40 per cent of people are affected by otitis media, which then affects their hearing. A four per cent level of this disease internationally is considered a pandemic and a serious health risk. In some communities, as I said, 40 per cent of people are affected by otitis media. Particularly if they are babies, they have reoccurring bouts of this and, by the time they get to school, their hearing has been significantly affected. That then alienates them from school. If you are going to school and English is not your first language and your hearing is impaired, you are in big trouble from the word go in terms of being able to access literacy and numeracy programs. That can increasingly alienate you from education.
We looked at the number of Aboriginal people with a hearing impairment who are in correctional institutions and the criminal justice system. We were presented with evidence from the Northern Territory, where there was a study done in, I think, 2007—but it might have been a bit earlier. That study showed that 90 per cent of Aboriginal people in the Darwin correctional centre had a hearing impairment—90 per cent. Other states actually do not know what number of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system have a hearing impairment. New South Wales said that it had done a study that indicated it was very high there too. So we have made a number of recommendations looking at access to hearing services and dealing with this issue in Aboriginal communities. It is absolutely fundamental.
One of the key points that was raised with us was that Hearing Services Australia can provide hearing aids to people up to the age of 21 and they can provide hearing aids to Aboriginal children but, unfortunately, hearings aids for Aboriginal children, particularly if you are in a remote community, get lost, get damaged and get grit in them because they are in sand and sometimes there is a bit of shame about wearing them. But what has been identified as extremely successful for Aboriginal children is sound fields and dealing with acoustics in the classroom. Unfortunately, under the legislation, Hearing Services Australia cannot provide those services. Even though it is cheaper and more effective to provide sound fields in classrooms, they are unable to fund that because of the legislation. So we have made recommendations that that be reviewed and that those services be provided to schools.
We found that there was no overall audit of the number of classrooms in the Northern Territory that have sound fields. I suppose one of the immediate results of this inquiry was that, coincidentally, on the day the inquiry was in Darwin and I was asking questions around sound fields, the education department announced that it was going to be undertaking an audit of the number of classrooms in the Northern Territory. I would say that that was an immediately good outcome from our inquiry.
We have made a large number of recommendations. We tried to trim them, but this issue is so important to this country, particularly when you consider the ageing population and that we are going to go from one in six to one in four Australians who have a hearing impairment. This affects people’s physical and mental health, their ability to participate in community, their employability and, basically, their life outcomes. It is absolutely essential that we build on the good work that we do in Australia. This report is not about what a bad job we do in Australia on hearing services and helping the hearing impaired; it is about building on the good work that we do. We cannot rest on our laurels.
We need to inject more resources into some key areas—in particular, into helping those people between the ages of 21 and 65. We need to enable them to access services. We need to train people. One of the recommendations is about ensuring people can get trained in audiology. There are also some perverse incentives in the system at the moment. Those over 65 can automatically get access to the voucher system. The government has introduced some measures around eligibility. But a lot of people feel that those over 65 who—after being told by, for example, their families that they think they have some hearing issues—go and get tested and get hearing aids then put those hearing aids in the drawer. At least a quarter of those end up getting put in the drawer. Those people are not getting the assistance that their hearing aids could provide them. So we need to provide more support to older people about accessing hearing services.
I know some of my colleagues want to talk about this. This was a unanimous report. I urge people to read it and I particularly urge government to take on board our recommendations. I thank the secretariat for all their support—they have been fantastic—and I thank my colleagues and all those marvellous organisations. (Time expired)
Four years ago, Mr Peter Lindley and his wife Jill came to visit me in my office to talk about the urgent need to have an inquiry into hearing in our country. He had a severe hearing impairment himself, having had industrial hearing loss over many years. He came to talk about why it is so important for us as a government to look into the issue of hearing loss across our community, focusing on the need for access, support and, most importantly, looking at what the dangers are to the hearing health of our country into the future.
It has taken a long time but now we have been able to have a formal hearing into hearing—which we laughed about on the committee many times as we actually put those terms together. Nonetheless, we have now come forward with a report which has a large number of recommendations. It strongly vindicates the urgent need that there was for this issue to be considered by our government.
As Senator Siewert has said, there were no complaints about the quality of service for those who are able to access the service in our country, and there were significant amounts of praise given both for the people who worked in the Australian hearing services and for the amazing wealth of intellectual and professional knowledge we have in the areas of research in this country. Again, as so often happens, when you actually have the time to see what is available in this country it gives us great pride. Internationally, the work of the researchers and the work of the people in this industry are renowned across the whole world—and should be, most particularly by the people who live in this country.
We will not have time, in the very short time we have got to speak this morning, to talk about the range of important things that came out of this inquiry. I do want to put on record, though, some of the evidence that we received about the mental health aspects of people who have hearing issues in our country—such as the feeling of isolation, the feeling of not being engaged in the community and the way that people can have enormous problems in fitting in and being accepted. Those things were told to us with great difficulty by many people who chose to come and talk with us about their private pain. It was not only from those who actually had hearing loss but also from their parents, their friends and the community around them.
When we see that people have been damaged by the fact that they do not feel accepted by those around them, when their opportunities for employment and education and their opportunities to make effective choices about their future are all affected by something that so many of us take for granted—the ability to hear and communicate effectively with those around us—we as a wider Australian community must accept these issues. We must look at a way we can address them and then we can effectively say that we are working well with all those in our community.
As we talk further over many years, I believe some of these recommendations will be before us as we make decisions about how we best respond. There is the whole aspect of improving access to services. Most particularly, we heard from those people who were over 21 who had been receiving amazingly strong support—the best in the world. We were told on a number of occasions that the support that young people in this country have up to the age of 21 is unparalleled anywhere in the world; but the way that the system works now, and has for many years—this is not a new issue—is one that needs to be firmly on the agenda into the future. The access to services for people over 21 needs to be something that we consider; it cannot be just a personal responsibility. The costs are enormous. It was a huge surprise to me to see the large costs of getting hearing services and that is something no family can handle by themselves.
I could go on for a long time about the issues in schools and education, but I do know that Senator Adams wants to make a contribution in this area. I want to put on record my appreciation to the secretariat and my appreciation for so many people who gave their time to tell us their stories—again reinforcing the value of the committee system in this place. We now have those issues in front of us. We cannot run away from them. I had practised my Auslan to say, ‘Thank you, we hear you in this place’. I do not think it would actually work effectively in Hansard but I can assure you that many of us now have a greater appreciation of the need to widen our language services. Mr Lindley, we finally came through.
I also rise to speak on our Senate Community Affairs References Committee report, Hear us: inquiry into hearing health in Australia. When we started this inquiry I wondered how it was going to turn out, but it was absolutely incredible how the public embraced it. I would like to thank all those who contributed to our inquiry. We had an enormous number of submissions and the further we went the more we learnt as a committee.
I would like to focus on the issue of Indigenous people. Otitis media is a very common problem amongst Indigenous communities. It just goes to show, with the evidence that we heard later on, that 90 per cent of all incarcerated Indigenous people have some sort of hearing loss. Think about this: a child with otitis media that has not been able to be rectified has to somehow be educated. But because the child cannot hear and cannot communicate with its parents or peers, it moves through society being a little different and probably rejected in the community. I think that through the inquiry we have come up with something that really and truly must be worked on very hard.
As those children grow up, if they are rejected, they become loners. They are not educated because they cannot hear, and they become frustrated. They, unfortunately, often end up in the justice system. It is much easier for them when they do not understand to nod and say yes. I do wonder just how many of them end up with the wrong sentencing and move backwards and forwards through the justice system. That to me is one of the most important issues that we have to deal with. Somehow we have to ensure that those children, when they are babies, can be treated properly and then they can be educated.
We found a great example at Hermannsburg. There are a large number of children at the school with some type of hearing loss. The school there is very proactive with children with hearing loss. They have acoustic classrooms with hearing loops. The teachers use lapel microphones. Those children are really doing very, very well. Several months ago there was a photo of the principal of the school with a number of students on the front page of the Australian to show what can be done in a remote Indigenous community as far as education goes. A lot of that was to do with the fact that those children had the ability to hear what the teachers were saying and so the teachers were able to communicate with the children.
Once again, the solutions lie in being tested as a baby to pick up any problems associated with hearing and sorting out any behavioural problems which may develop and mentoring these children through their education. I know that time is limited, so I would like to thank the secretariat. They have been very good in travelling with us, coping with all the issues we had to cope with and with the large number of submissions that we had. I would like to commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Trade Practices Amendment (Material Lessening of Competition—Richmond Amendment) Bill 2009, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the Senate Economics References Committee, Milking it for all it’s worth—competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I defer to others who I know wish to speak on this question.
This report is one which has been produced cooperatively on a multipartisan basis—if I can put it that way. It was the subject of a reference that I moved and that was co-sponsored by Senators Milne and Colbeck. The inquiry was initiated by serious problems in the state of Tasmania in relation to negotiations between dairy farmers and milk processors but has proceeded way beyond the remit of that particular problem, although that problem has been given serious consideration in the report.
The report points out that the dairy industry was the subject of deregulation and that up until the year 2000 there was much regulation around the country in the dairy industry. At that time a process of deregulation took place and it was examined then by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, a committee of which I was a member at that time. The report of that committee is one in which I participated on a very active basis. This report refers to the circumstances that existed at that time and in the lead-up to that time and talks about one of the findings of that report. This report of the Senate Economics References committee says in paragraph 2.18:
In their findings however, they also noted that of serious concern was the suggestion that the controlled regulation provided would ‘shift to processors and large retailers who would then be able to dictate terms to the industry and marketplace.’
This report essentially has found that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s finding at that time has proven to be correct and that power in the industry has indeed moved substantially into the hands of processors and large retailers. In relation to the balance of power between those entities, large retailers held by far the most power.
There are 15 recommendations made in this report. They refer to the state of trade practices law in this country and matters which pertain to the negotiation between dairy farmers and processors and other entities. They refer to the state of affairs which relates to the regulation of acquisitions and takeovers, particularly as they relate to the dairy industry. There are references in the report to members of this committee who are concerned with that issue as it pertains to other industries as well. In other words, the findings in this report are compounding the views of members of the committee in relation to other issues.
This report is one which has very broad support. It is, if I can perhaps put it this way, one which is made beyond politics and made on the evidence before it. It is one of the reports which typically used to come from the rural and regional affairs committee—but it has now come from this committee—where members of the committee make a finding based not on politics but purely on the evidence before them. We would encourage the government and the public to have regard for the report on that basis.
There is limited time today to present a full debate about this matter, and the government is very keen for other legislation before the chamber this morning to proceed. We hope that we have the cooperation of all parties in that regard. I want to thank the secretary, John Hawkins, and a member of the secretariat, Sandra Kennedy, for their very hard work in the production of this report and the work of the committee. It certainly has been greatly enhanced by the work and the drafting that they have done for us. I think many members of the committee would share the view that this report would not read as well and probably would not be as soundly presented without the assistance of members of the secretariat.
I thank members of this committee who have participated in this inquiry for their cooperation. We hope that this report illuminates the affairs in this industry and will have some impact on policy of any government in the future in this regard.
In speaking to this report of the Senate Economics References Committee, Milking it for all it’s worth—competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry, I also acknowledge the work of my colleagues who sat on the committee, particularly Senators O’Brien and Milne, who co-sponsored the motion on this particular report, and Senator Eggleston, who chaired the inquiry and travelled around the country with us. I would also like to share with Senator O’Brien in thanking the secretariat, particularly John Hawkins and Sandra Kennedy, for their work. It was quite intense at times. There was quite a deal of negotiation to get a consensus report, which is one thing that we all thought was important in dealing with this issue.
As Senator O’Brien has indicated, I think it perhaps has broader implications. We did look very closely at the dairy industry because of circumstances that occurred in that sector at the time, but the recommendations have a much broader remit when you consider their potential applications through the Trade Practices Act, the recommendation to review the National Competition Policy and also some of the other issues, particularly relating to the dairy industry.
Like Senator O’Brien, I came into this inquiry after talking to some dairy farmers and having made a note in my diary, ‘How do we more equitably create a balance between the negotiating parties in these sorts of circumstances?’ where you have a large multinational company and a group of, basically, individual operators who are working under a collective bargaining process that has been set up under the auspices of the ACCC and the Trade Practices Act.
It is really a very difficult question, but it is one which we hear about increasingly. I also acknowledge Senator O’Brien’s comments in relation to the balance right down the supply chain, particularly in relation to our food products, starting with the supermarkets at the top and finishing with the primary producers at the bottom of the supply chain—if that is the way that you want to arrange it—leaving the farmers, in fact, in the place of being price takers. The influences on the price that the farmers get are multiple. There are the local conditions in the domestic market, and we heard a lot of discussion about those. I think there is even some conjecture about what those really are, depending on who is making the argument. Obviously, international market conditions have an influence in certain sectors of the dairy market. There is no question that those who are supplying the market in the manufacturing milk sector are certainly influenced by the global market, but the arguments as to the extent to which that flows through into the domestic supply for drinking milk is another question. The evidence that we have received about the variations in those prices around the country, depending on what were described as local market conditions, leads me to believe that there is scope to look at this further.
It was interesting to see that there were higher prices being paid at farm gate for milk in places where there was competition in the marketplace for that farm milk, particularly in northern New South Wales and Queensland. There were claims that related to cost of supply, yet cost of supply was one of the issues that the dairy farmers in Tasmania were looking to achieve as part of their negotiations with the companies at the time of the major dispute. It is interesting to note that when we looked at retail milk prices versus price paid at farm gate for milk there did not seem to be any correlation. In fact, some of the cheapest milk in the country was available in the places where the companies were paying the highest farm gate price for milk. I think that, again, bears some further consideration at some point in time.
There is no question that right down the supply chain there are significant pressures. We did start to receive some evidence as to where the profit lies in the supply chain. Certainly, the dairy farmers were not making much profit, if they were in fact breaking even. I think there is quite severe pressure on some of the processing companies and that gets applied down the supply chain, particularly by the supermarkets.
One of the things that interested me and that came out through the evidence that we received was a process, or a factor, called waterbedding, where the price of one commodity within the market is pushed down and the prices of other similar products are pushed up. That is particularly illustrated through the pricing of generic milk in the market versus what is branded ‘label’ milk. This issue was considered as part of the ACCC’s inquiry into supermarket pricing, and in my view the ACCC need to go back and have another look at this. They came to the conclusion, on my reading of their report, that there did not seem to be too much of a problem. I do not believe that; I believe that there is genuinely a problem. In fact, when you talk to companies away from the glare of public evidence and the spotlight, they are more than happy to say that they would like to see the end of generic milk because it was initially produced using what they would call marginal costs but now something in the order of 50 per cent of the milk consumed in Australia is of a generic label. It is quite clearly, in my view, having an impact on the price of the other products that are being supplied into the market by the major manufacturers, and I think that is something that we really need to look at.
The issue of price discrimination is dealt with in the report and our recommendations, and I believe that this is something we need to consider further as part of our discussions. It will be very interesting to see what the outcomes of the current negotiations that are occurring between the manufacturers and the major supermarkets on those generic supply contracts are, particularly in relation to price. It appears to me that the low price that is being offered for generic milk is also forcing manufacturers to charge a higher price for their own labelled product. This makes them, over time, uncompetitive with the supermarket and generic products. When close to 50 per cent of the product in the market is being supplied by supermarket and generic producers, I think it makes things very difficult for the other manufacturers of milk.
I would like to make some quick comments about one element of the report where we talked about the future of and the planning for dairy in Australia. There were a couple of views expressed in the report in respect of that, particularly on the Tasmanian dairy plan, which was promoting growth. One of the difficulties that we had in this report was that there were two Senate inquiries that occurred as part of this process—one through the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries—and sometimes, certainly in my mind, evidence was confused to a certain extent. There was some criticism from some of my colleagues of the dairy plan, although I have to say that I thought it was quite well put together and relatively conservative in the way that it was designed. What really brought this about was the global financial crisis, which nobody could have foreseen coming. Some of the companies which were promoting taking more milk actually took more milk, but I have to say the behaviour of National Foods towards their dairy farmers was just so short-sighted and really exacerbated conditions in the Tasmanian dairy industry and brought all this about. It really caused some problems when they said that they would not take more milk. In fact, they were penalising farmers for producing over a certain quantity.
I agree with the recommendation that, when plans are put together, consideration be made of factors that might crop up, as occurred in this circumstance. But there is clear evidence in my view that the global financial crisis played a significant role in the circumstances. I am very pleased that National Foods have started to repair their relationship with the dairy farmers in Tasmania. They are working very closely with them now. But I have to say that their behaviour in other sectors of their market still bears some consideration and they really do need to look at the way that they are operating because it is very disappointing. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted.
I rise today to comment on the Senate Economics References Committee report Milking it for all it’s worth—competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry. I think this is an extremely good and timely report and I join with my colleagues who worked on the committee in thanking the secretariat for the exceptionally good job they did. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for the effort put into trying to get a consensus report here, because a consensus report means that there is a much better chance of delivering the outcomes and the recommendations, which are very strong. I became involved in this inquiry from the start, as Senator Colbeck and Senator O’Brien acknowledged. There was genuine concern right across the political spectrum from Tasmania about the way that dairy farmers were being treated by the processors in terms of the prices that the farmers were being offered. It was very clear that they were being offered prices that were below the cost of production.
The dairy industry has come a very long way since the time that I was brought up on a dairy farm on the north-west coast of Tasmania. The farm had two brothers operating a small acreage, milking 120 head of cattle and with six bales in the milking shed. That was the kind of life that many people across Australia experienced on dairy farms in those days. Since deregulation and consolidation of the industry, whilst there has been an increase in the volume of milk produced and the herd sizes, the number of farms has reduced because they have had to get bigger in order to operate on the scale that is required to be profitable in the industry these days. Therein lies the problem: a lot of people have had to borrow huge amounts of money in order to increase the herd size and in order to buy the machinery that is necessary to carry out dairying these days. They have been vulnerable to the field officers from the processors coming onto their properties and saying, ‘If you buy a bigger and better machine, if you change your calving times and if you change your regime on the property, you can increase your production by X and this will be good for you.’ On a handshake in the paddock, which I still find extraordinary—and I acknowledge that it is the culture of the country; it was certainly my father’s culture as well that if you shook hands with somebody on the property then that was a done deal—these people went and borrowed sometimes a million dollars. It is unbelievable that the banks would actually lend them the money on the basis that a field officer said in the paddock that if they upgraded their machinery and bought X then production would increase and there would be a market.
That is what Senator Colbeck referred to a short while ago and the cause of the difference of opinion on the committee. There was not a difference of opinion on the committee about the behaviour of some of the field officers from the processing companies. Everybody agreed that it is irresponsible to go on to a property and encourage people to increase their production levels without an additional responsibility on the side of the processor to agree to take the additional milk, so that is clear. The difference of opinion was about the strategic plan for the industry in the longer term. I have a different view. I believe that the dairy industry representatives—from government, the processor side and the bureaucracy, if you like, of DairyTas and Dairy Australia—have encouraged increased production and given people the notional view that there is a very bright future for dairying, without saying where those markets are or actually qualifying, in my view, where they intend to process and sell into overseas markets. Until they get that, in my view they are being irresponsible in advocating for increased supply without indicating where the increased demand is likely to be and what responsibility they take for delivering those markets. But, in the context of saying that, I do acknowledge that in the midst of all this there were the global financial crisis and other issues which impacted upon processors—in particular Fonterra, in this case, not making a decision to expand in the way they had said they would.
In commenting on this report, I want to say that I am really quite excited about it, because I listened to not only dairy farmers but vegetable growers and other primary producers in Tasmania and around the country. They are all saying that the problem for them is that they just cannot get a decent price because of the duopoly between Coles and Woolworths—it is just impossible these days—and because of the way that the Trade Practices Act operates. Also, the ACCC is both the organisation that approves a merger and the organisation which then determines whether there is excessive competition or not enough competition in the marketplace. All this has to be changed.
So this report goes beyond the dairy industry in saying that we want a review by the Productivity Commission of National Competition Policy. I am so excited about this, but my excitement is nothing compared with that of former Senator Dee Margetts. She does not know yet but I imagine she will be so excited when she knows about this, because she has done her PhD on competition policy and its complete failure in Australia. A lot of claims were made a decade or more ago, when we established National Competition Policy, about how it was going to increase competition, but look around Australia in the primary industry sector: it has done the exact opposite. If we get an evaluation of National Competition Policy we will at last go back to some sense in relation to this.
There are a couple of other issues that I want to comment on. One is the Trade Practices Act. As a result of the repeal of section 49 of the Trade Practices Act, corporations were prohibited from discriminating between buyers of goods of like grade and quality in relation to the price of those goods if that discrimination was of such a degree or of such a recurring or systemic nature that it would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in the market. But that was repealed in 1995 and what happened was that other provisions did not kick in to regulate the issue, so now we have the retailers engaging in price discrimination. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Generic milk is the same as branded milk, yet they discriminate on the basis of price and there is nothing anyone can do about it because of the repeal of section 49. Section 46 does not do it. We definitely need the review of the Trade Practices Act. I would have liked to go further than my colleagues. There is a note in the report that says that the Greens would ban generic milk—and I would if I could—but my colleagues thought that was a bridge too far. But at least I acknowledge they all recognise the problem that is there, because the differential between branded price and generic price is higher for milk than for any other product. On many occasions there is a 33 per cent difference in milk price, which does not occur in other products, and it is exactly the same product; it is just different packaging. If that is not price discrimination then I do not know what is, so we have to deal with this issue.
This report recommends a review of trade practices, a look at restoring provisions around section 49—the whole price discrimination issue—and the evaluation of National Competition Policy. There are also specific recommendations regarding collective bargaining and labelling and so on. I think our colleagues in the dairy industry around Australia are going to really welcome this report from the Senate. They will become excited about it only if they see that the government is prepared to move on it, because now there is a consensus in the Senate that we have to look at trade practices and at National Competition Policy—we have to do these things. Let us hope we will get some action on it, because we only have a temporary ceasefire, in my view, with dairy farmers and the processors for the moment. It can degenerate at any time depending on what happens, for a range of reasons. I would like to fix it in the long run, separate the powers of the ACCC, restore the powers under the Trade Practices Act and have a really good look at whether National Competition Policy has been a panacea and at the claims that were made at the time so that somebody is accountable for them, because out there in rural and regional Australia a lot of people have suffered because those claims have never been substantiated.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That government business order of the day no. 18 (Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008) be considered after consideration of government business order of the day no. 6 (Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010).
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Senator Chris Evans:
That this bill be now read a second time.
While all sides of politics can agree that the people-smuggling trade appallingly exploits innocent individuals who are desperate for freedom and desperately fleeing persecution, the Greens do not believe that the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 deals with those issues, as I said in my earlier remarks in this debate. Rather, we have a situation where providing humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers could be criminalised under this bill, particularly as it fails to reflect our obligations under the current international anti-people-smuggling protocol. We are a signatory to that protocol yet its definition is not used in this legislation. The protocol that we are a signatory to specifically states that it does not aim to punish individuals who assist smuggled persons purely for humanitarian reasons. That is the difference between it and this bill.
The fact that the government has failed to commit to a charter of rights, which would enshrine our commitments under international law and provide an avenue for human rights challenges in Australian courts, gives cause for concern with this legislation, particularly when it unintentionally captures innocent individuals simply because it is so poorly drafted and broad, does not include the correct definitions and, therefore, does not fulfil its aim to criminalise genuine people smuggling. The bill does not reflect the issues in relation to people that are helped on humanitarian grounds.
Given the lack of consultation with the legal profession about the impact that this legislation will have on civil liberties, as well as the failure of these proposed new measures to adhere to our commitments under international law, I move a second reading amendment on behalf of the Greens:
At the end of the motion, add: “and further consideration of the bill be an order of the day for the first sitting day after:
(a) the bill has been subjected to inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, proposed by the Government as part of its new Human Rights Framework; and
(b) a statement of the bill’s compatibility with Australia’s international obligations has been produced and tabled in the Senate”.
The government say that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Human Rights Subcommittee is their new measure for moving forward with any legislation that has questions around its compatibility with human rights and international law. Why not let this bill be the first one to go through this committee? If the government are honestly committed to ensuring that individuals’ human rights are not violated and that legislation is not flawed in relation to human rights and civil liberties, then they should let this legislation go through that process. The Greens will not be supporting this legislation going to the next stage until it has moved through that committee and a statement of its compatibility with our international obligations is tabled in the parliament. Why would the government, after announcing that this is their new process and that this is what they are committed to, not take the opportunity to test it out with such an important piece of legislation?
It is clear from various submissions provided to the Senate committee which looked into this legislation—the committee inquiry which was rushed and whose report is one of the poorest I have seen in my short time here in the Senate—that the new offence in the amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Migration Act 1958 is too broad and ineffective, particularly in the ambiguous reference to material support, which I spoke about earlier. Not only is this term vague and indeterminate, with concerns about fairness and due process, but it also presents problems with our obligations under international law, including the refugee convention.
Australia is a signatory to the anti-people-smuggling protocol, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, yet all the legal evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation raised concerns that it breaches our commitments to them. In particular, article 6 of the protocol against the smuggling of migrants requires states to criminalise specified conduct:
… when committed … in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit …
Yet that has been left out of this piece of legislation. This requirement already exists in the people-smuggling offences under the Criminal Code. Why do we need this definition of material support, which does not offer any more clarity about the types of issues and individuals which this legislation will deal with? Under this bill, the requirement for a profit motive to exist is omitted. So, if a person helped somebody to escape an awful situation where they were fleeing for their life or from persecution, this bill would say that the person helping that individual is a criminal, without even a transfer of money. It simply does not make sense in relation to what the government suggests is the intent of this legislation.
It is obvious that there is strong concern that, if this legislation is passed in its current form, it would criminalise activities of aid organisations, humanitarian workers, charity and church workers and other individuals who assist people across borders for humanitarian reasons. Why is it that the government has not included the international definition of people smuggling? If the government intends to tackle genuine people smugglers, then why is that not clearly defined in this legislation? There is really no argument for not doing so. Of course, that is why this piece of legislation should not proceed until it is further looked at. It is such a poorly drafted, poorly targeted piece of legislation. One of the witnesses, indeed, during the inquiry said that it was the worst piece of legislation she had ever seen, and this was from a quite significant person in the legal profession in Australia. Despite having previously appeared in front of the committee long before the Rudd government were running the country—that is, during the Howard years—she still made the point that this was the worst piece of legislation she had ever seen.
It is clear from the government’s own submissions that there has not been adequate time to consider this bill. The failure of the government to articulate why it is necessary to introduce the new measures proposed in this bill highlights why public consultation and debate are necessary. I strongly urge the Senate to support the second reading amendment put forward by the Greens that suggests that this bill should not proceed until it is further scrutinised and checked off by the new Human Rights Subcommittee so that we can really have an understanding of the impact it will have. (Time expired)
In speaking on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, I want to start by acknowledging that on budget day the 123rd arrival of a suspected illegal entry vessel occurred—that is, 123 vessels since 2008. Here we are in May and there have been 55 vessels this year. They are arriving at a rate of three per week. Anybody experienced in this area—and I was the minister in charge of border protection in 2007—knows the season has only just begun. We have had 55 boats this year and the season has only just begun. These boats are arriving at such a rate that I checked various websites to make sure one had not arrived this morning. At any given moment, I suspect Northern Command is aware of several boats on their way, spotted by Coastwatch, showing up on radar or according to advice we receive from passing merchant and commercial vessels.
This bill is one of the most shameful answers to a collapse of public policy that this parliament, in its long history, has ever seen. The mismanagement not just by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship but also by the border protection minister and by the Prime Minister is absolutely unsurpassed in Australian parliamentary history. Having deployed troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally and in the full knowledge of what has gone on in Sri Lanka, to now say that we will delay the processing of refugees from those places because they are now more stable is an insult not just to senators’ intelligence but also to the intelligence of every right-thinking Australian.
It was five minutes ago, metaphorically, that the government was saying this was all about push factors. This piece of legislation is the most crass political stunt that this parliament has seen in its long history. We are now saying it is not due to push factors, as those push factors have abated such that there can be a delay and treatment of these people in a different way. So the defence of this guilty party in power at the moment has changed mid-trial. That is how strong the defence was when it started out—it was weak, it was a house of cards and it has begun to collapse. The confusion, indecision and misunderstanding in responding to this problem—this public policy issue that is at the forefront of many minds in Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia—and the public policy catastrophe that these ministers, including the Prime Minister, have presided over are simply outrageous.
The people smugglers are now so brazen that when suspected illegal entrants arrive in our waters they have the telephone numbers of defence personnel in their mobile phones. David Cody on the ABC highlighted the fact that one of the witnesses to the SIEV 36 coronial inquest told the coroner that mobile phones are taken because some asylum seekers have found the phone numbers of ADF personnel. How does this happen? The government is utterly asleep at the wheel on these matters if suspected illegal entrants have the personal mobile phone numbers of Australian Defence Force personnel before they get here. We know they will pull up next to Christmas Island, ring 000 and say: ‘Come and get us.’ This is an organised, corrupt trade that this government has inaugurated. When we were in power, they never had the mobile phone numbers of our personnel and they never knew about ringing 000. This is an organised, planned operation from within Australia that this government has presided over and, two years down the track, it is now belatedly taking some action. What an absolute scandal!
I now go to the SIEV 36 coronial inquest. On 16 April, an explosion occurred on board the SIEV 36 in which five men perished. The coronial inquest was conducted by Mr Greg Cavanagh, a jurist in the Northern Territory—a stipendiary magistrate. I pause to give him great credit for the work that he has done on this difficult subject matter. Pursuant to the legislation, he was to make recommendations and to proceed to find out what happened. He found out that there was an organised, planned modus operandi to ignite the boat. Of course, the government refused to disclose any of this information to the public, but there was an organised conspiracy by these people on board this boat to blow it up. At the time of the detonation, there were nine Australian Defence Force personnel on board the boat. This is what the government has led us to—our own soldiers, sailors and airmen who were on board that boat were exposed to the risk of being blown up by this government’s total failure in public policy.
The coroner found that all the adult passengers on this boat had conspired to tell other than the truth to the coroner. I want to take the Senate to those matters. At paragraph 12, he said:
... a group of passengers ... believed they were to be returned to Indonesia ... Notwithstanding that all passengers now deny knowledge of most of what occurred, I conclude that at least passengers Brahimi, Ghulam Mohammadi and Salman were involved in a plan to set fire to the vessel.
Further, he said:
As to whether lives could have been saved—
and five people died in that explosion—
I have concluded that action taken by navy personnel was appropriate and more passengers might have died but for the action they took. Indeed, later in these findings, I refer specifically to the bravery of three members of the ADF.
He went on to say that many of the ADF members who were blown into the water by this explosion, and were injured, recovered and then assisted in the timely rescue and treatment of passengers, and probably went on to save many lives. This is a very fine day in the history of the Australian Defence Force. This group of people were intercepting a suspected illegal entry vessel and were exposed, as we now know with the benefit of hindsight, to enormous risk, and they responded magnificently. I want to commend them and I want to commend the Chief of the Australian Defence Force for what has been a remarkable response in very, very difficult circumstances.
In paragraph 18, the coroner said:
At the time of their deaths, the deceased were passengers on SIEV 36. A group of 47 asylum seekers and two Indonesian crew departed Indonesia in the middle of the night on either 10th or 11th of April 2009. Their destination was Australia. On the morning of 15th of April 2009, SIEV 36 arrived in the vicinity of Ashmore Island. At that time, the passengers were somewhat dehydrated, exhausted and seasick but none were suffering from any serious illnesses. One of the crew, Beny, had an infected tooth. A passenger, Talash, had previously had an appendectomy.
And there were a number of children on board this vessel. This is what we have: 47 desperate people on the high seas, some in various states of ill health. What happens? After being intercepted and after the Navy had gone on board and cleaned up the vessel, we then had a whole host of issues involved in towing them for the next 12 to 13 hours. As a result of some of them mistakenly believing they were to be towed back to Indonesia, a deliberate act was carried out—as the coroner has set out. That act was recorded on a video from the vessel HMAS Childers. The coroner stated:
The camera was on HMAS Childers and had been activated within minutes of—
the naval officer on the spot—
calling high threat. That video shows that about 12 minutes before the explosion, namely about 7:33am, the passenger Brahimi was squatting at the bow of the boat immediately in front of the hatch where the unleaded petrol was stored. There was still one container of petrol in that hatch. The other had been taken by one of the crew members to the cabin and it remained somewhere in the cabin or in the engine compartment thereafter. That container was recovered and Beny said a photo of it attached to his statutory declaration was the container, when he gave his oral evidence.
Naval officer Faunt saw Brahimi at the bow and two naval personnel moved to the front. A person called Salman was standing in front of the cabin and had a cigarette lighter. It was Brahimi with the lighter and it was sought to be taken from him. A very short time after that the vessel detonated. We are so lucky that no Australian personnel died in this incident. Five people who were near the explosion perished. Nine Australian Defence Force personnel suffered ear damage, extensive burns and many of them were thrown into the water.
In dealing with some of the evidence, at paragraph 68 the coroner said that one of the naval seamen on board said:
Salman was gesturing towards him and he denied that the other passenger spoke to him. He denied seeing the activities of G. Mohammadi. He denies any knowledge of how the fire started.
69. Having regard to the video evidence, and what he had said previously in his written statements, I must conclude that his denials are not to be believed. He has lied.
This is about one of the asylum seekers. The coroner goes on to say:
When asked if Brahimi was resisting—
one of the naval officers—
told me ‘Absolutely’. Bendeich who took the lighter from Brahimi said he had to prise the lighter from his hand. Brahimi not only resisted but can be seen—
on the video—
trying to throw the lighter to other passengers.
71. Brahimi also denied that the floorboards over the hatch where the petrol was stored were open at that time—
the naval officer concerned—
however said they were open. He replaced them after he had taken the lighter. The video shows them to be open. Again Brahimi has not told me the truth.
The coroner goes on to set out all of the events and at paragraph 72, he said:
I cannot be certain as to what Brahimi was attempting to do with the lighter. He did not smoke. The question is why did he have the lighter in his hand? Why was he flicking the lighter? It might have been a threat or it may have been that he intended to light a fire at the forward hatch area. He was in a very good position to gain access to the unleaded petrol, spill the petrol and then start a fire. In all events if he had intended to do so, he was stopped by the intervention of Dawe and Bendeich—
both naval personnel—
73. Other passengers were asked about this ‘lighter’ incident. Most if not all of those who were a on the front deck would have been in a position to see this incident. However, all the witnesses called denied knowledge of it. In so far as those depicted on the video were in a position to see and were in fact looking in the direction of the incident, I do not accept their denials of knowledge. They are lying.
He goes on to find many of the witnesses lied in their evidence. At paragraph 75, he said:
I can only conclude that they have not told the truth.
And so it goes on. The coroner sets out that there has been a conspiracy to deny an intent to destroy this vessel, which contained 47 personnel plus two crew and nine Australian Defence Force personnel.
What do you think the government’s response to these people has been—these people who have lied at a coronial inquest and who apparently in the full knowledge that something terrible would happen, according to the coroner, deliberately blew up this vessel? What do you think happened to them, Madam Acting Deputy President? This government granted them visas. This government has granted these people, who were prepared to conduct the most violent act of criminality not just to themselves but to our personnel who were rescuing them, visas. It is an absolute disgrace.
We then come to this legislation, which seeks to toughen up the whole scenario. The event on SIEV 36 was caused by this government mismanaging—bungling—the whole policy of border protection. The government stands to be condemned. Five people died that day, we were very lucky that other sailors and Australian Defence Force personnel were not killed, and the government has given these people visas in the face of this damning report by the coroner.
Of course, we have had other boats—quite apart from the fact that these people have mobile phones. We know that just the other day we had to send out a P3 Orion to a boat. People were put in the water to assist a boat of some 59 Sri Lankans. Five asylum seekers perished just prior to 11 May because the boat they were in had been at sea for some 20 days and had no food, water or fuel on it. That is what this government, in its stupidity, has delivered to this public policy issue: people in leaky boats coming across a treacherous piece of water and perishing. Five people from that boat perished. Goodness only knows how many boats have set off from Sri Lanka to make the trip and have never been heard of again. This is the scandal of these people with their crazy compassion and their ‘we won’t have children behind razor wire’. There are probably dozens and dozens of men, women and children who have perished in those waters because of the stupidity of the minister for immigration and a bungling, hopeless Prime Minister who does not understand the parameters of this matter, particularly in Sri Lanka.
The government’s real attitude was on display in an article by Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun of 13 May in which he talks about former MP Peter Katsambanis, who was a member of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Mr Katsambanis told Andrew Bolt that his former colleagues on the tribunal are under pressure to accept dodgy refugee claims. The article said:
The management of the Refugee Review Tribunal has hinted very strongly that members should start approving more refugee claims … after the change of government in 2007.
There is the cat out of the bag.
It was made very clear by management that long term career prospects would not be enhanced by continuing to make decisions that were lawful and correct (ie rejections or affirmed cases where that was the correct decision to make)—
that is, to refuse entry.
One of the people deciding the next round of appointments on the RRT is John Gibson, a Melbourne lawyer who heads up the Refugee Council of Australia. He also appears in many … cases in the Federal Court appealing against decisions made by RRT members. The fact that this man is on a panel selecting or recommending RRT members offends every principle of independence of administrative decision making …
So here we have the system rigged, and it demonstrates the government’s quite misguided and stupid policy. What has the government delivered to this nation on this policy? Men, women and children travelling across a perilous piece of water, many of whom perish; Australian Defence Force personnel thrust into ever-greater risk in managing their arrivals; and a huge budget black hole of expense on Christmas Island and in motels in Queensland. Those things are what the stupid, misguided, so-called compassionate policy of these people has delivered. And we have to deal with this. We have to pick up the pieces. We have to fly the aircraft, sail the boats, man the surface assets and go out and rescue people at a massive rate.
People are losing their lives because of this crazy, crazy policy. When will this government wake up and stop playing politics like this crazy piece of legislation and delaying processing? What on earth does that say? It says, ‘We’ve lost the plot, we don’t know what we’re doing, but we’re going to look politically tough.’ I think Australians are waking up at last.
I rise to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. In following Senator Johnston’s comments, can I say that as I move around the country I find people are waking up. In this country where one out of three people has been born overseas, people support, and this country has always subscribed to, an Australian immigration policy that is built and depends on order and process. That has been the success of our immigration policy. It depends very much on our sovereign right to determine who comes into this country, and we decide in an orderly manner and according to a process that follows rules and regulations.
Millions of people have come to this country and made an absolutely fantastic contribution. They do not remember the queue that they stood in. They perhaps do not remember the time they waited, but they do know that they came in through the front door. That is the message out there to the millions of Australians. That is why millions of Australians are very concerned about the breakdown of our border protection and, more broadly, the breakdown of process and order in our immigration policy. They came here, they respected order and process, they integrated into Australian society and they expect that their government respects those same principles that they were asked to abide by in coming to this country.
My colleagues have talked about the processes and humanitarian programs. Australia has been a very generous subscriber to humanitarian programs and accepting refugees—indeed, we take about 13,500 per annum. In my time, I have had the benefit of speaking to a number of people who have come to Australia after waiting overseas. They came to Australia and they have benefited from that humanitarian program. Many of them waited for years and years in camps overseas. They went through the proper processes, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Many women—including mothers and their children—who have been abused as a consequence of war and other circumstances overseas waited in camps. As far as I am concerned—and this is the expectation in our country—they are the ones who should be given first preference. We do not know the security status of people who want to jump the queue. We do not know where they come from. We do not know who they are.
As a consequence of this government’s changes, it is not just the person who comes in—either offshore or onshore—through the back door; it is also a multiplier effect that their families also come out to this country. It is very clear that the government’s changes in July 2008 started the process. The process started when Minister Evans announced the changes. You cannot change aspects of our immigration system—and, indeed, as a consequence of answers given at estimates by Minister Evans, there have been changes to about 26 programs in the department. Some have been small. Some have been major, like abolishing temporary protection visas. But the reality is that the compound effect of these changes has said something to people overseas. These people watch what happens in Australia. This is an industry; this is not just somebody who decides they are going to dodge the system.
Before I became a senator, I worked at the office of the Australian Government Solicitor for 20 years, where I saw this industry in operation firsthand at the grassroots. Senator Johnston talked about dodgy claims. I have seen my fair share of dodgy claims through the courts. That is the reality. That is the end effect of dismantling of a proper and orderly immigration process. So it is little wonder that we are seeing a budget blow-out. It is an extra $1 billion over four years, according to figures released in this budget.
This does not only affect the offshore arrivals; it also affects onshore arrivals. Yes, this debate has been primarily about boat arrivals; but this is also about people who claim asylum onshore. What sort of message has this sent to people who arrive here with a valid visa who then suddenly decide that they are going to claim asylum status? Every one of those people who is successful in claiming asylum takes another place from those 13,500 places that have been set aside for people who have been assessed by UNHCR to be genuine refugees. This is what this debate is about. It is about order and process.
In the end, I look at what this government has done and I look at its history. Yes, under the Howard government we did have a tough but successful policy, but this has a long history. The Howard policies had their antecedents in Labor’s policies. Let us not forget that it was Labor that introduced mandatory detention in this country. Let us not forget that it was Gerry Hand who introduced temporary protection permits. And they worked. They worked in that era, they worked under the Howard era and they will continue to work in the future.
So, when I look at the practical angles and effects of this, it is critical to the sovereignty and security of this country that we know who comes in, that security is not compromised at the expense of proper processes and that the necessary checks and balances are undertaken. I conclude by saying that this whole sad and sorry episode of the dismantling of proper order and process has, regrettably, had consequences and will continue to do so unless this government changes its tack.
Over the past few years there has been a lot of discussion about illegal arrivals in Australia—indeed, in recent months the debate has been hotting up. Almost everyone has an opinion—about what their motives are, about whether Australia should accept them, about how we process them, about how we treat them once they are here and about whether there should be offshore processing on Christmas Island. These are important discussions that we need to have, and I do not think many people would disagree with that. At the outset I want to acknowledge that this a complex and divisive issue. There are more than two sides to this argument and more options than the all-or-nothing choices that we are often presented with.
I also want to acknowledge that this Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 refers to people smugglers—those who make money off the desperation of others—rather than the arrivals themselves. I agree that as a country we should be taking steps to try to deter smugglers who charge exorbitant fees and offer pie-in-the-sky promises only to put their charges lives at risk in rickety boats and rough seas. We have seen in recent days this very example: the five Sri Lankan Tamils who went missing after their boat ran out of fuel somewhere to the west of the Cocos Islands. Those five are now presumed dead and the remaining 59 people on the stricken boat had to be rescued by the crew of a Slovenian freighter. If media reports are to be believed, this happened just five days after Australian authorities first learned that the boat was out of fuel. Apparently, the missing men had left the boat to try to find help for others on board, which included women and children.
Even worse was the SIEV X disaster in 2001. I note that Senator Faulkner when in opposition was outspoken and courageous in pursuing that particular incident. I think it was referred to as a Certain Maritime Incident in the reports. In that horrific incident, 65 men, 142 women and 146 children died off the coast of Java on their way to Australia. We need to make it clear that this should not happen at all. We need to show that Australia values human life and that we condemn the treatment of people as ‘just another commodity’.
However, I have concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this bill. My colleague Senator Hanson-Young, on behalf of the Australian Greens, has raised valid concerns that the bill could breach Australia’s international human rights obligations and I share some of these concerns. I am concerned that this bill is simply too heavy-handed. It does have good elements in terms of an expanded role for ASIO. That is a good thing. It is important that intelligence services and exchanging of information can nip the problem in the bud and prevent the people smugglers doing their business in the first place. Whilst I have always had the view that our intelligence agencies should be subject to robust scrutiny by this parliament, it is important that we have that exchange of information.
These concerns, and Senator Hanson-Young has articulated them very well, include the broadness of the definitions included in the bill. Under this bill people acting on humanitarian grounds, or offering financial support to refugees overseas, can be charged with people-smuggling offences. This bill treats good Samaritans the same as ‘for profit’ people smugglers, which means that under this bill the nuns from The Sound of Music could be thrown into jail. That is one of the unintended consequences of this bill. That is plainly ridiculous.
A highly suspect lot anyway.
I think Senator Scullion said that the nuns were a highly suspect lot anyway. I am sure he said that tongue firmly in cheek.
A few years ago when the Prime Minister was an opposition frontbencher, he wrote an article for The Monthly about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the role Christianity should take in society. There was a fair amount of criticism aimed at that article and some derision of the Prime Minister when he was then in opposition, but basically I think that the Prime Minister was right, although the arguments he made could apply to anyone, not just Christians. His piece on Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a powerful piece. It was well written, well researched, and it made a point about the issue of moral imperatives in public life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and was one of the first and most outspoken opponents of Hitler and Nazism. He is famous for his writings on theology advocating moral imperatives and he assisted people out of Nazi Germany. He assisted Jews to escape Nazi Germany so that they could avoid the fate that befell six million people of the Jewish faith.
Reverend Tim Costello of World Vision—my good friend—has said that, today, Bonhoeffer would be considered a people smuggler. Interestingly, around the same time Bonhoeffer was travelling secretly around East Germany to encourage a Christian movement against Nazism, delegates from countries around the world were gathering for the Evian Conference. The conference held in July of 1938 at Evian-les-Bains in France was called to discuss the issue of growing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany. While most of the delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees, none of the countries, except the Dominican Republic, were too keen on taking more immigrants than their ‘quota’.
One of the Australian delegates was Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas W. White, at the time Minister for Trade and Customs. His attitude on behalf of Australia was:
It will no doubt be appreciated also that as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration.
He went on to add:
I hope that the conference will find a solution to this tragic world problem.
So, in other words, Australia’s position in 1938 was ‘We are very sorry, but it is not our problem.’ We all know what happened in the events following 1938.
Last week, I received a copy of Australia’s Human Rights Framework which, according to the accompanying letter from the Attorney-General, ‘outlines action the government will take to promote and protect human rights’. Two of the measures outlined in the framework were the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on human rights and the introduction of statements of compatibility with UN human rights treaties to accompany all new legislation. I believe the government when they say they are committed to human rights and to protecting Australia’s international reputation.
So my preference would be for the government to postpone debate on this bill until these two framework measures are established and introduced. This way, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights can then review this legislation in terms of our human rights obligations. It does not have to be a lengthy process. It is important that we deal with this, but let us put the safeguards in place. Let us not have unintended consequences.
The government can then issue a statement of compatibility on this legislation so that we can be confident in Australia’s dedication to human rights. This is an issue where there are literally lives at stake. Without the government taking these measures to ensure that we have the best possible legislation in place, the most effective legislation in place and one that is fair and without unintended consequences, I cannot support this bill in its current form.
This is Australia and we will decide who comes into this country—not the people smugglers, as the Rudd government has been allowing and encouraging. Border protection is a fundamental concern to all Australians. Australians expect their government to keep their borders safe and stop illegal people or goods from coming into the country—and rightfully so. It is a basic requirement of any government to take care of our national security. There can be no compromise when it comes to our national security.
When it comes to border protection and stopping illegal immigrants from flooding our borders, this government is nothing short of a failure. Every day we read in the papers of another boatload of people caught trying to sneak into the country by jumping the queue, while people in refugee camps, who are waiting patiently, are forced to wait even longer because they have had their places taken by those who are coming by boat.
It is a huge issue for all Australians and something which is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money. Facilities on Christmas Island are at breaking point, with too many people flooding our shores for us to be able to detain everyone there. Now we are being forced to bring these people to the mainland, where they are practically processed in our living room. This is concerning many, many people. It is proof that the government has lost control of its handling of this issue and does not have an idea of what to do with the mess that it has created.
So what is the Rudd government doing? The Rudd government is just throwing more money at the problem, in the hope that it will fix the flood of boats coming our way. The Rudd government is spending $202 million in this budget on accommodation for asylum seekers. First we had Hotel Christmas Island and now it is Hotel Queensland. What is next—the Hyatt or Club Med? The Rudd government does not have a clue on how to handle the wave of asylum seekers flooding onto our shores—and giving them luxury accommodation is clearly not the answer. There is no way we should be detaining asylum seekers in hotels, because it just gives the people smugglers an extra selling point for their marketing.
Clearly the Rudd government is all at sea with its asylum seeker policy. The Rudd government is encouraging people to put their lives at risk by jumping onto leaky boats and taking the dangerous voyage to Australia—all because we are seen as a soft touch. We need to send a clear message to the people smugglers that Australia will no longer allow them to profit by preying on desperate and vulnerable people. The Rudd government needs to stop throwing money at the problem and start implementing a policy that will fix the problem.
I have been to Christmas Island and have spoken firsthand to people who arrived illegally by boat. The belief out there is that, as long as you pay enough money, you can simply jump on a boat and come to Australia, where you only have to wait three months and then you are given a gold pass into Australia. Why would you bother to wait five to 10 years in a refugee camp, when you can simply pay to jump the queue? That is the kind of message this government has sent to people smugglers—and it is just wrong. We have seen boat after boat stream into our waters, and you would have to have your head in a bucket of sand to say we do not have a serious people-smuggling problem.
I voted for the Rudd government’s changes to the immigration laws back in 2008 because I was against the barbaric laws which were put in place by the Howard government. But I accept that these changes have led to unintended consequences. The Rudd government need to wake up and realise that people smuggling is a real problem that is only going to get worse, and they need to be prepared to take more serious action. That is why I have put forward the idea of sending boat people to the back of the queue in overseas refugee camps—to stop people smugglers from selling Australia as an attractive destination.
Under Family First’s proposal, queuejumpers would be sent to the back of the queue at various overseas refugee camps and not given a gold pass to come into Australia. We need to send a clear message that queue jumping will not be tolerated by Australia. Every time we accept into our country a refugee who has come by boat, another refugee waiting patiently in an overseas camp somewhere is forced to wait even longer. That is not fair. For every person who comes by boat as a refugee, we take one person from the front of the queue in an overseas refugee camp. Clearly, they are jumping the queue. There are thousands of refugees patiently waiting in line in camps across the world trying to gain asylum, but boat people just push their way further and push those who have been waiting in the queue further down the queue. There is no way I think we should be rewarding people for jumping the queue and penalising those who are waiting in line.
Under this idea, Australia would take in people who have waited patiently in line in overseas refugee camps instead of rewarding queuejumpers. As I said, we need to send a clear message that queue jumping will not be tolerated by Australia. Australia is a fair and compassionate country and we should do our fair share to help refugees, but we should not encourage queuejumpers under any circumstances. As I said, every time we accept a refugee into our country by boat, a refugee waiting patiently in a camp somewhere overseas is forced to wait even longer. How is this fair on these people? There are hundreds of thousands of refugees patiently waiting in line in camps across the world trying to gain asylum, but boat people just push them further down the queue. There is no way we should be rewarding people for jumping the queue and penalising those who are waiting in line.
Of course, the real villains here are not the asylum seekers but the notorious network of people smugglers who prey on the vulnerabilities of desperate people and put the lives of these desperate and vulnerable people at risk all for the sake of making money for themselves. People smuggling is a despicable crime, and we cannot afford to go soft on these people. We need strong laws in this country to deter people smugglers and send a message that this kind of illegal activity will not be tolerated. I have always maintained that we should throw the book at people who engage in people smuggling, because that is the only way we are going to get through to them that Australia will not put up with their criminal activities.
Family First support the measures contained in the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010because, when it comes to people smugglers. there can be no compromise and no leniency. This bill will expand the crime of people smuggling to include those people who provide material support or resources towards a people smuggling venture. It also contains provisions which harmonise the people-smuggling offences contained in the Criminal Code and the Migration Act, making it easier for us to prosecute people smugglers when they break our laws. People smugglers have no respect for our laws. They endanger the lives of vulnerable people and they threaten the border integrity of this country.
Family First welcomes these changes, but they are still not enough. They are simply scratching at the surface. Until the Rudd government gets serious, this problem is not going to go away. Until the Rudd government looks at Family First’s plan and takes action to discourage people from getting on the boat in the first place, this is going to remain a problem for our country and remain a concern for many, many Australians. Even the UN has revealed that people smuggling into Australia is out of control. Now it is time for the Rudd government to listen, so that we do not all end up paying for this later down the track.
I rise to end the second reading debate on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. I first thank all senators for their contributions to the debate and I note the support of the opposition for this legislation. This debate has been wide ranging and a great many things have been asserted—some of which has had something to do with the legislation that is before the chamber and some of which has not. I shall try to confine myself to those matters which are relevant to the bill before the chamber.
This is legislation which seeks to deal with people smuggling. Obviously there is broad agreement that people smuggling jeopardises the safety, wellbeing and security of those being smuggled. The government takes a hardline approach to dealing with people smugglers and the supporters and financiers of those engaged in this trade. We are determined to maintain a strong message to people smugglers that their activities will not be tolerated in Australia.
Domestic efforts to combat people smuggling have yielded strong results and since September 2008 there have been 138 arrests and 36 convictions of people smugglers in Australia. There are currently 101 people being prosecuted in Australian courts for people smuggling. The government has also implemented a strengthened offshore approach. In the same period, the Australian government cooperation with regional countries has resulted in more than 180 disruptions involving more than 4,900 people bound for Australia. Our regional partnerships have resulted in the arrest of more than 150 people smugglers overseas and this bill before the chamber complements the government’s plan to combat people smuggling by strengthening Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework.
The measures in the bill will address the often serious consequences of people-smuggling activities, including the potential for injury and loss of life on maritime ventures to Australia and the targeting of enablers and financiers of people-smuggling activities. The bill will act as a greater deterrent for people smugglers and it will enable law enforcement and national security agencies to play a greater support role in support of whole-of-government efforts to combat people smuggling.
The ability for law enforcement agencies to obtain evidence through telecommunications interception and surveillance devices is vital to combating people smuggling and the bill will make telecommunications interception available for the investigation of offences relating to people smuggling. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies can make emergency authorisation for the use of surveillance devices for the new aggravated people-smuggling offence and will ensure that law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary tools to effectively combat people smuggling.
The government maintains its humanitarian approach to those persons who are genuine refugees but fall prey to people smugglers while it works to improve the situation of displaced populations in the region. The bill is consistent with the approach the government is taking. For example, whilst imposing new offences and strict penalties for people smugglers, the new offence of supporting people smuggling will not target persons who pay for their own passage or the passage of family members on the same venture.
This bill has been considered by both the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I thank both committees for their work on the bill and on the matters raised. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended the bill be passed, subject to further amendment to the definition of foreign intelligence contained in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The government has considered this recommendation and is confident that the proposed amendments provide the appropriate powers to achieve the intended outcome and will not be seeking further amendments to the bill.
The bill is a measured response to a growing problem and demonstrates the government’s commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling activities and to targeting criminal groups who are involved in organising and benefiting from people smuggling activities. I commend the bill to the chamber.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Debate resumed.
I rise to speak on the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. This bill is the final stage of what has been a long and much debated process, particularly for the professionals covered by the legislation. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act to streamline the recognition of health professions under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. The national registration and accreditation scheme is a significant reform commenced by the coalition government. There has been strong in-principle support for a nationally consistent registration and accreditation scheme for health professions. Jurisdictional differences for registration and accreditation requirements have hampered workforce mobility and made it difficult to monitor the small number of practitioners who have been under scrutiny or facing disciplinary action in a given jurisdiction.
The guiding principles of the scheme are stated as:
The process commenced with the Productivity Commission recommendations in January 2006 for a single national registration board and a single national accreditation scheme. The coalition government acted on the recommendations by reaching a COAG agreement in 2006 to establish a national registration scheme. In April 2007, COAG agreed on a single national registration and accreditation scheme to start in July 2008.
The health workforce underpins our health and hospital system. Health workforce issues are prominent in political debate and in the media. The coalition has a strong record and commitment to improving the quality of Australia’s health workforce, despite this government’s best efforts to rewrite history. The coalition government delivered nine new medical schools, including in regional areas such as at the University of Wollongong, which I was very pleased to support. There was a 50 per cent increase in medical school places between 2003 and 2007. Additional funding was provided in 2006 for some 605 additional medical school places being phased in from 2007 to 2011. The coalition government also provided 3,700 additional nursing places between 2005 and 2007. It was the coalition government that introduced funding for practice nurses through the Nursing in General Practice Initiative and later with additional MBS rebates.
Following the election of the Rudd government, the national registration and accreditation scheme stalled. The implementation has been delayed by two years and the start date is now July 2010. A key motivation for a single national scheme for registration and accreditation was to reduce bureaucratic red tape across the jurisdictions. Regretfully, it seems there has been bureaucratic influence and interference with the establishment and proposed functions of the boards.
It was only after the first Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that a requirement was included for the ministerial council to give consideration to the potential impact of the council’s direction on the quality and safety of health care. A provision has been included for the council to first give consideration to the potential impact of its direction on the quality and safety of health care. A number of professions, including physiotherapy and psychology, have experienced delays with or expressed frustration at the process for specialisation recognition under the registration scheme. Clearly, the process has not been without difficulty and there remain some issues to be resolved before implementation in July.
The bill also provides consequential amendments to section 19 of the Health Insurance Act relating to Medicare benefit ineligibility for medical practitioners that are not authorised to render certain services under the practitioner’s registration. The coalition will not oppose the bill.
I rise to speak on the Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The Australian Greens understand that reaching this agreement on a national system for the registration and accreditation of the 10 health professions that are currently included has been a long and complicated process. We believe that reducing bureaucracy and making cost savings are very good for our health system where that is practical and where it produces good outcomes. We also support the concept of national registration. However, we do have some concerns that, in some instances, there seems to have been a lowering of the standards of accreditation in order to generate this one-size-fits-all solution.
I will talk about a specific example from my home state of Western Australia. The standards of the Australian Psychological Society for their colleges and entrance into their colleges are quite different from those in Western Australia, where we have a much more focused approach on specialist registration standards. We believe that we have higher standards than those of the Australian Psychological Society. In the last few years since we have fortunately been able to access some of these services under Medicare, the society has allowed more people with no postgraduate training into their specialist colleges, something which the WA board has not allowed. This is why WA has the lowest level of membership of the Australian Psychological Society. WA’s psychologists have not needed membership of their specialist colleges to be identified as specialists. We have that already in WA. The WA registration board has performed this function—we believe a lot better.
The most important issue for WA is that the new system will have only the undergraduate level of training—four years of university training and supervision—registered to practise in all areas of psychology. They believe—and the Greens are concerned about this—that this level of training is significantly below international training standards. International training standards require, at the very least, masters-level training—two years full-time intensive postgraduate training and two years supervision. All up, that is at least eight years. WA has been the only state, and still is, which has registered this postgraduate training and two years on-the-job supervision, and hence has been the only state to meet international training standards. This level of registration in WA will be lost under this new scheme. It has caused a significant amount of concern in Western Australia, and I am sure that my fellow Western Australian senators have received emails and letters about this as well—not to mention meetings around this issue.
The endorsement process, which on the surface looks like the postgraduate registration, is highly inadequate—especially for WA. Firstly, although people with these postgraduate qualifications can be endorsed to practise in a specialist area under the national scheme, the specialist areas of practice are not protected at all. This is because a registered generalist with only undergraduate training—no clinical, diagnostic or ethics training—can go out and practise in all specialist areas. They just need to refrain from indicating that they are endorsed.
Secondly, the endorsement procedure is very flexible. This means that if the Psychology Board of Australia, for example, under pressure from government or others felt they needed to change the level of training for endorsement definition—for example, reduce it—then this could be readily done. It makes it much more difficult to ensure that we are maintaining standards. Endorsement is also confusing to the public, who look for specialists, not for ‘endorsed’ psychologists. This is of concern to the psychologists and their level of training, which ensures that the public know what they are getting and that it is the best. It is also actually confusing for the public, particularly in Western Australia, where they are very used to the specialist title approach that we take there.
We are concerned about the potential deskilling of the workforce over time. If an undergraduate can practise in all speciality areas but just not say that they are endorsed, why would they spend the extra time and significant cost to do postgraduate training if this is not going to be accredited and registered properly? We believe that the way forward is for WA to retain specialist title registration and the recognition that affords, which gives much better protection to the public and the community. I understand that this issue has been raised on a number of occasions and that it has not been properly dealt with through the whole accreditation process. There continues to be a great deal of anxiety in Western Australia around this particular issue.
The other issue about the national registration scheme that continues to concern me is around midwives and the linking of midwives with the requirement for indemnity insurance. I do appreciate that there has been legislation passed through this chamber which provides indemnity insurance for midwives. Of course, at the moment we have got that intermediate situation where we all know that indemnity insurance does not extend to midwives providing homebirths but all registered midwives have to have indemnity insurance. At the moment we have a two-year exemption where midwives do not have to have the indemnity insurance for providing homebirths. That situation is ongoing, yet needs to be resolved. The Greens will be watching this very carefully.
As I have said, the Greens have supported this process. We do have some ongoing and specific concerns, particularly around the issue of specialist psychologists and their titles in Western Australia. We believe that needs to be resolved in such a manner that Western Australia can retain its specialist titles. We encourage the government to engage with the Western Australian government and the Australian Psychological Society process in Western Australia to ensure that these psychologists and their specialist titles and training are preserved. This is not just about psychologists wanting to have specialist titles for the prestige. This is an important issue for the community. It is an important issue about standards and maintaining those standards in Western Australia. Western Australians feel really strongly that we should not have to lower our standards, which are good standards, to the eastern states’ standards. In fact, we believe that the eastern states’ standards should be raised to those of Western Australia because they are a much better approach and they meet international standards.
I thank the senators for their contributions in summing up the debate. This is very important legislation for us. It actually heralds landmark changes for Australian health practitioners. It is, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells said, a piece of work that COAG initiated in 2004 and it is very important for us to ensure that this bill takes effect from 1 July. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Senator Chris Evans:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to indicate coalition support for the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010, following a practice that has occurred since 2001. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 stipulates that the act should be amended each year to incorporate the amount appropriated for the Australian Research Council and to bring up to date the details of the funds administered. This measure provides for an increase in spending of approximately $889.6 million over four financial years, applies indexation against the existing schemes and creates an additional out year.
The funding supports three initiatives in particular: the Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology Initiative, the Super Science Fellowships scheme and continued funding for National ICT Australia. The Super Science Fellowships scheme consists of 100 three-year early-career fellowships which will be awarded to some of Australia’s most promising young researchers. They will focus on the areas of space and astronomy, marine and climate, and future industries, all of which are very important to our economy. The Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology Initiative is looking at things like the bionic eye, which we have heard something of recently. As I understand, it is one of the few initiatives to come out of the 2020 conference that was conducted here in Canberra with some of Australia’s best and brightest, allegedly. National ICT Australia has an important role in maintaining Australia’s research and skills base in the social and economic benefits that ICT capacity can bring. The opposition is more than happy to support these initiatives that are very important to the development of industry in the country and looks forward to seeing results.
I thank Senator Colbeck for the opposition’s support for the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. It is important that we continue to support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council and the three specific initiatives that will build Australia’s research capacity and promote research excellence. We are a nation that is seeking to support innovation in our research and development and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Senator Chris Evans:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2009. The purpose of the first bill is to introduce a framework for the regulation of biologicals by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Biologicals are human cellular and tissue based therapy products that contain or are derived from human cells or tissues—for example, skin grafts used to treat severe burns. This legislation will have implications for the 20 licensed tissue banks nationally, including bone banks, eye banks, heart valve banks and skin banks, and also organisations which are working in the area of cellular and tissue therapies. The regulatory impact statement outlined a number of approaches to regulation: option 1 was to retain the status quo; option 2 was to regulate all human cellular and tissue therapies as medicines or therapeutic devices and remove the exemptions for transplant, assisted reproduction tissues, and human cellular and tissue therapies which had been prepared for a particular person; and option 3, which is the option that is being taken, is to regulate human cellular and tissue therapies as a discrete class of therapeutic goods, namely, biologicals.
In the legislation there are four classes of human cellular and tissue therapies, each with a different level of regulation based on the level of risk. From the consultation it is apparent that stakeholders prefer option 3, which is reflected in this bill. Option 3 has regulation based on risk and clarity, has compliance costs lower than option 2, has improved consumer safety over option 1, which is the status quo, and is consistent with experience in the United States, Europe and Canada. Organs will continue to be regulated by the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority and assisted reproduction tissues will continue to be regulated in the current way.
This bill is part of the overall ongoing regulatory reform being undertaken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This is the fourth in a series of bills implementing that reform. It seeks to build on other reforms agreed to by the parliament over the last year. The coalition has been broadly supportive of these measures. Human cellular and tissue therapies have been primarily manufactured by not-for-profit tissue banks and major hospitals. However, with rapid advances in cellular and tissue technology there is an increasing involvement by private sector companies and clinics in the manufacture of human cellular and tissue products, while medical device manufacturers may in future incorporate human cells and tissues into medical devices. Clearly, therefore, we do not need an update of the Therapeutic Goods Act to reflect that these emerging technologies and human cellular and tissue products can be regulated as a specific group.
The government assures that under this legislation all biologicals used within Australia will be properly assessed and regulated providing confidence for patients who hope to benefit from the outcome of these technologies. Biologicals will be included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and only those that are so registered or otherwise exempted will be able to be supplied and used in Australia. Biologicals can be exempted from the Therapeutic Goods Administration regulatory framework by regulation to deal with emergency situations, to allow for special experimental users or where substitutes are not available.
Criminal and civil penalty provisions are provided for in the bill to ensure compliance by those bodies and individuals involved in the making, supply and use of biologicals. These penalties are consistent with other provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act and can apply in the same way as penalties for the misuse of other therapeutic goods. The second bill complements the amendments proposed in the first bill and will ensure consistency with the approach on annual charges for biologicals taken towards all therapeutic goods. The coalition does not oppose these bills.
I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for that comprehensive summary of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 and Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2009. I think that she has highlighted the importance of the Australian government ensuring that the therapeutic goods regime is very contemporary, deals with modern science and provides a supportive regulatory framework. On the basis of that, I commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Bills passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Senator Wong:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I know that the Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010 is listed as non-controversial, but that does not mean that it is without significance. It is a highly significant bill. As Senator Stephens would know, while some people—indeed, some of my own colleagues—do not appreciate the full significance of the higher education sector to our economy, it is our third-largest export, so anything to do with higher education is critical to this country’s future. This bill foreshadows and flags the increasing internationalisation of the Australian tertiary sector, allowing further universities to enter into the sector and compete with Australian universities. Specifically, this bill seeks to enable the listing of University College London as a table C provider, which will allow it to offer FEE-HELP assistance to eligible domestic students.
Honourable senators will be aware that University College London, known as UCL, is one of the world’s leading research institutions. It is one of the great universities of the English-speaking world, and it is a great thing that this bill will enable them to compete in Australia. Enabling students to attend UCL and qualify for FEE-HELP signals the continued internationalisation of higher education in Australia. This is a good thing. It is a great thing for our nation. It also signals that with competition our nation cannot in any sense afford to rest on its laurels. I know the government is seeking not to do that, and the opposition will encourage them in that endeavour. The opposition certainly supports this bill.
I thank Senator Mason for his support and the support of the opposition. The Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010 allows for retrospective commencement of the amendment to the Higher Education Act to ensure that any students wishing to seek FEE-HELP assistance for units of study that they undertake with University College London during semester 1 of 2010 will not be disadvantaged owing to a delay in the passage of the bill after commencement of semester 1 of the 2010 academic year. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Debate resumed from 5 February, on motion by Senator Wong:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Foreign Evidence Act 1994 provides a means of adducing foreign material obtained through mutual assistance as evidence in Australian criminal and related proceedings. The Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 would streamline the process for adducing foreign evidence, particularly where that evidence is a business record. The bill as proposed to be amended by the government amendments would displace the operation of the rule against hearsay with respect to foreign business records—that is, foreign business records could be adduced even when the record contains hearsay evidence provided that the other evidentiary requirements in the particular jurisdiction are satisfied.
The amendments would also enable the court to examine foreign material and draw inferences from the material in order to establish the material as a business record that may be adduced and would remove a provision of the bill which would have given the court the discretion to limit the use to be made of foreign material. It will remove a provision of the bill which would have created a presumption that foreign material complied with the testimony requirements in the Foreign Evidence Act and will make minor consequential amendments to the application provision. This would assist in relation to complex prosecutions involving the use of evidence obtained overseas, including investigations into people smuggling and associated conduct such as the provision of material support and laundering the proceeds of criminal activity. With those short words, I commend the bill to the Senate.
by leave—The Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 has quite a history. As originally drafted, the amendments proposed by the bill provide that business records obtained through mutual assistance will be presumed to be admissible unless the court is satisfied that the records are not reliable or probative, or are privileged. In addition, there are measures to provide for testimony to be admitted in Australian courts although the law in the country where the evidence was taken does not require such evidence to be given on oath or affirmation, or under caution, provided that there is an obligation to tell the truth.
The opposition’s consultations revealed some significant concerns about the practical effect of the bill. The following shortcomings were identified. Firstly, subclause 24(4) of the bill provides for material obtained as a result of a mutual assistance request to be adduced as evidence if it ‘appears to consist of a business record’. This is a departure from established principles of evidence, which require the party seeking to rely upon the material to establish that it is in fact a business record. In effect, this reverses the onus of proof and requires the accused to establish that the material is not a business record.
Secondly, the regime introduces a broad judicial discretion as to admissibility of foreign material, at the expense of the ordinary rules governing the admissibility of evidence. Thirdly, subclauses 24(5) and (6) provide that, once foreign material has been adduced, the material will be admissible despite any other rule of evidence. Exclusionary rules of evidence—for example, the rules as to opinion, tendency or hearsay evidence—will not be available as a safeguard. Fourthly, foreign testimony is presumed to comply with local rules as to an obligation to tell the truth unless evidence sufficient to raise a doubt to the contrary is adduced. This reverses the usual onus of proof on that issue as well. Fifthly, the bill has a retrospective operation—that is, it would, if enacted, apply to proceedings currently on foot. Rules of evidence are considered procedural rather than substantive and therefore the presumption against retrospectivity does not apply.
The effect of the bill, therefore, could be to expose Australian litigants to liabilities on the footing of evidence of a standard inferior to that which would be required by an Australian court. Accordingly, the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. At those hearings, both the Law Council of Australia, represented by some very senior practitioners including Mr David Russell QC, and civil liberties groups raised similar concerns. The committee reported on 10 March. The opposition members of the committee recommended that the bill not be passed in its existing form. The government’s response has been amendments which were circulated in the Senate in August last year, although it has taken until today for the Senate to consider them.
The amendments significantly truncate the bill. They provide that, once the court has determined that foreign material consists of a business record, it will be admissible despite the hearsay rule. Business records are an exception to the hearsay rule under the Commonwealth Evidence Act and, as far I can determine, in most other Australian jurisdictions. It therefore would not seem to make any substantive change to the law, other than to make specific provision for evidence that has been obtained from a foreign source under a mutual cooperation agreement. In those circumstances, in its amended form, the coalition is now in a position to support the bill.
In closing, I would like to record my thanks to those whom I have consulted in relation to this dense though, to us lawyers, intensely fascinating subject—in particular, Mr Russell QC and Robin Speed and Daniel Appleby of Speed and Stracey Lawyers, who were instrumental in identifying the practical shortcomings of the bill in its original form, as well as Mr Odgers SC and Ms Sarah Moulds of the Law Council of Australia, who provided such valuable evidence to the committee.
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 on 19 August 2009. In my overview I spoke effectively to the amendments, so I will not need to make any further comment. I seek leave to move the amendments together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (2), (3) and (4) on sheet AG202 together:
(2) Schedule 1, items 11 and 12, page 4 (line 18) to page 5 (line 13), omit the items, substitute:
11 At the end of section 24
Add:
(3) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply if:
(a) the foreign material is a business record; and
(b) the only reason why the evidence would not have been admissible had it been adduced from the person at the hearing is that an Australian law relating to hearsay evidence (however described) would have applied to the evidence.
(4) For the purpose of determining whether foreign material is a business record, and may be adduced as evidence, the court may:
(a) examine the foreign material; and
(b) draw any reasonable inference from the form and contents of the foreign material as well as from any other matters from which inferences may properly be drawn.
(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 3), omit “amendments made by items 7 and 8”, substitute “amendment made by item 7”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 4), omit “amendments made by items 7 and 8 of this Schedule apply”, substitute “amendment made by item 7 of this Schedule applies”.
We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 8 to 12), to be opposed.
(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (lines 11 to 15), to be opposed.
The question is that amendments (2), (3) and (4) on sheet AG202 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that items 8 and 17 in schedule 1 stand as printed.
Question negatived.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed.
I indicate on behalf of the opposition that, with the amendments that have been foreshadowed to us by the Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary—and in particular foreshadowed in the minister’s letter to me of the week before last—the opposition is in a position to and does support the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010. The story of how we came to this position is a long and in many ways sorry one. What in its original form was represented as a considerable enhancement to the freedom of information laws of Australia—laws which I might say were introduced originally by a Liberal Attorney-General, the late Senator Peter Durack, during the Fraser government—in fact, under close scrutiny, appeared to be a very severe curtailment of freedom of information in this country. When these bills were referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, that committee discovered in particular a proposal to remove the reversal of the onus of proof provided for in section 61 of the Freedom of Information Act so as to cast the onus of proof upon an applicant rather than upon a minister or the minister’s delegate seeking to defend a decision to refuse to disclose information.
To understand why this is such an important issue, it is important to appreciate this. Freedom of information laws operate on the assumption that, unless cause is shown by government why information ought to be withheld from a citizen, the information should be available to the citizen. There are perfectly appropriate exceptions made to that principle, the most obvious of which of course is in relation to national security. There are others as well, including protection of other people’s privacy, protection of commercial-in-confidence information and so on. If a refusal of an application under the Freedom of Information Act occurs then the applicant—that is, the citizen seeking the availability of the information—has a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It has always been the case that a party seeking to overturn an adverse decision or a refusal by the minister has had the benefit of a reverse onus. That is what section 61 of the act provided. That has always been uncontroversial.
I have taken the trouble of going as far back as to look at the original report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs of November 1979, which reported on the first iteration of the Freedom of Information Act—that is, the Freedom of Information Bill 1978. I discovered that, from the very first occasion that freedom of information legislation was introduced into this chamber, it has been uncontroversial that a citizen who is faced with the refusal of an access request and wishes to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to overturn that refusal enjoys a reverse onus—that is, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal it remains for the government, for the minister or his delegate, to justify the refusal to grant access to the citizen.
There is a very important reason why that should be so. Once an application for access to a document is refused, the applicant has no way of testing whether or not the appropriate criteria and statutory tests have been observed by the decision maker who was responsible for the refusal. How on earth is an applicant appealing to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be in a position even so much as to mount an argument as to why the decision about refusal of access to a document was wrong when ex hypothesi they cannot have the document themselves? They would not be able in any conceivable set of circumstances to discharge an onus of proof that lay upon them to show why the decision was wrong. In the words used by coalition senators in their dissenting report following the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee’s hearing:
The government, the decision maker, the minister or his delegate have a monopoly of information, so the practical effect of removing the reverse onus in section 61 of the act would be to make any decision to refuse access for all intents and purposes unchallengeable on appeal.
Yet in their original form that is what these bills sought to do. Under cover of a lot of rhetoric about reforming and expanding freedom of information laws, what the Rudd government was originally planning to do in these bills was to remove the reverse onus in section 61 so as to make any refusal of access to a document practically unchallengeable. It would have been the greatest reversal of freedom of information practice in the history of the Freedom of Information Act. Astonishingly and to the very great discredit of those responsible for the preparation of the bills and their presentation to the Senate committee, this fundamental change—this extremely significant and deleterious change to section 61 of the act—was in fact included in a schedule presented to the Senate committee as a miscellaneous technical amendment.
Just think about that. Dwell and reflect for a moment on the supreme irony that, in a bill which falsely claimed to be expanding and reforming the freedom of information regime, an amendment which would have set back the regime to make it practically unworkable was itself concealed from the Senate committee by being treated as a technical minor amendment. That is hardly freedom of information; a conspiracy to conceal highly material information from the Senate committee would be a better description. Nevertheless, due to the industry of coalition senators and, in particular, Senator Scott Ryan, this anomaly was discovered and highlighted.
A number of witnesses before the Senate committee who were deeply experienced in freedom of information practice dwelt upon the effects of the removal of the reverse onus in section 61. One of those witnesses was Mr Mark Robinson, who appeared on behalf of the Law Council of Australia. Mr Robinson is one of Australia’s most experienced freedom of information practitioners, having appeared in hundreds of applications both for and against governments and, in the course of 17 years, having sat as a judicial officer hearing applications under the New South Wales Freedom of Information Act and, in fact, having been the draftsman of the New South Wales Freedom of Information Act.
In response to an assertion on behalf of the government that the removal of the reverse onus of proof in section 61 would have no practical effect on the operation of the act, this is what Mr Robinson had to tell the committee:
It is an irrelevant assertion. I say this because the applicant does not normally know what document it is that he or she is seeking, and he or she does not normally know what it contains. They may think they do but they may be wrong. And how can an applicant meaningfully assist the tribunal by presenting his or her case first and by bearing the onus of proving something? You only have to think about it logically, I submit. As an applicant I can stand up and say: ‘I put an FOI application in. I don’t have to tell you why I did it, because that’s irrelevant. I don’t have to tell you who I am, because that’s irrelevant. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with the document when I get it, because that’s often irrelevant—and I want the document.’ And I sit down. Now, how is that possibly going to discharge the onus of proof? It puts an applicant in an impossible position, both practically and as a matter of fairness, and as a matter of law. On one view of it, that onus could never be discharged, ever.
I put to Mr Robinson the proposition that:
… it is almost impossible to imagine how an applicant could succeed if he bears the onus of proof since he has no means of knowing what is in the document.
When I asked him whether he agreed with that proposition, Mr Robinson said:
Absolutely …
He went on to say that the impact of the government’s proposal to withdraw the reverse onus of proof in section 61 would be to undermine the Freedom of Information Act. He went on to say:
The most stark way to appreciate this is to accept that, in most FOI cases since the beginning of the FOI Act, in the AAT the Commonwealth goes first. The Commonwealth agency has presented its case first in every case I have been involved in and in almost every case that I am aware of … third parties who want to preserve their trade secrets may sometimes come in. They are called reverse FOI applications by other people. The situation is different there, but in the ordinary FOI case of an FOI applicant wanting a document from the Commonwealth the Commonwealth goes first. This will change that.
I asked Mr Robinson whether he agreed that the effect of section 61 was at variance with the declaration of intent in the objects clause of the bill that it would expand access to information. Mr Robinson said that, yes, he did. In response to questions from Senator Scott Ryan, Professor Spencer Zifcak, the Vice-President of Liberty Victoria, also expressed concern that the removal of the onus of proof would, for all practical purposes, undermine the operation of the FOI Act.
Government senators in their majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs thought that they had reached a halfway point by suggesting that perhaps there could be no onus of proof provision in the amended act. But, of course, that does not meet the objection. An applicant for information under the FOI Act, faced with a situation in which a monopoly of knowledge is possessed by those who have refused an access application, is in no better position if there is no onus of proof than if the onus of proof lies upon them. The only way that FOI practice can be observed is if the onus of proof—the onus of upholding the refusal to provide information, in other words—lies on the decision maker—that is, the minister or their delegate because only they, as I have said in my remarks, are in a position to know what is in the document whose disclosure they are resisting.
I am pleased to say that at long last the minister, Senator Ludwig, saw the sense in what the opposition was saying and saw the sense in what was contained in the coalition senators’ minority report. In a letter which he directed to me the week before last Senator Ludwig capitulated on the issue of onus of proof just as the government capitulated on a number of other issues which will form the government amendments which are about to be moved by the minister. It is for that reason that the opposition now find ourselves in a position in which we are able to support this legislation. We support its intent; we support the other aspects of the legislation which I have not dwelt upon in these remarks. The only reason this legislation has now become uncontroversial is that the government capitulated to the opposition. The government was found out in trying to slip past the Senate and a Senate committee, under the ruse that it was a technical amendment only, a proposal which would have rendered unworkable the entire scheme of Australia’s freedom of information legislation.
There is so much heroic rhetoric from the Rudd government. This is yet another example of the total disconnect between the heroic rhetoric of the Rudd government and the reality of its very nasty and deceptive political practice. On this occasion, as on so many other occasions, the Rudd government has been found out. It has backed down from its attempt to distort and set back Australia’s freedom of information laws. I particularly want to thank Senator Scott Ryan for his efforts in revealing this attempt to get what would have been a very, very deleterious amendment past the scrutiny of the Senate. In the form in which it will now be amended, the opposition is in a position to support the legislation.
The Australian Greens welcome the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010 and the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010 and congratulate the government on having taken these important steps towards greater openness in government. I would like to add my remarks to those of Senator Brandis on the issue of onus of proof. He put it probably more eloquently and at greater length than I was going to, but those concerns were certainly shared by the Australian Greens. I suppose in this instance the government is to be commended for at least acknowledging, under the weight of overwhelming evidence, that it was wrong rather than, as we see so many times in this place, simply just pushing ahead. As a result this legislation, while very significant, is now being debated as noncontroversial.
Information is central to knowing how our elected representatives are exercising their power and to hold our representatives to account. The Greens believe that open and transparent government is a prerequisite to an effective democracy. We welcome the government’s commitment to a pro-disclosure culture and a restoration of open and transparent government. We also look forward to the review of the fees and charges because very significant concerns were raised in the committee process about the interaction between processing charges and application fees. We urge the government to bear in mind that the costs of fees and charges should not be prohibitive for the kind of freedom of information requests that agencies normally deal with. Access to information for an individual or an organisation should not be determined by their ability to pay, as such fees and charges need to be set at a reasonable level. We also look forward to developments in the application of freedom of information to parliamentary departments and would appreciate being kept informed of any progress in this area—it was set aside from consideration in these bills.
Senators will probably already be aware that we have a number of amendments that we will seek to move when we shift into the committee stage. I will briefly foreshadow them now. I do not propose to tie up the chamber for too long when we get to discussion of those amendments. I would firstly say, as is so often the case with this government and, I suppose, with the previous government, that this is a package of generally good legislation that the Australian Greens support. We concur that it will improve transparency and accountability of government departments and of course for that reason we are supporting it. But there is always a catch. There is always a poison pill, and in the case of this particular legislation it is quite a serious one—that the government has proposed to shroud intelligence and security agencies entirely from the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. The minister will be aware that I raised these issues when we debated a less comprehensive FOI bill earlier. Those issues remain. They have not changed, and the government is persisting with this idea that existing public interest immunity grounds are not sufficient for some reason—and we have never heard a justification for why not—and that in fact the administrative decisions of agencies, or the amount of paper clips that they are ordering, should be permanently beyond the reach of freedom of information legislation.
So the amendments that we will move seek to remove the current exemption from the FOI Act granted to intelligence agencies. We believe that the scope of exemptions from the act are central to the act’s effectiveness and we do not believe that simply because a document originated in a security agency it automatically has implications for national security and should therefore receive automatic and whole exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. If the Greens amendments succeed, security and intelligence agencies will still have the entirely legitimate right to prevent material from being released through FOI application processes under the normal grounds that they use today, including issues of national security, issues of operational secrecy and the kinds of legitimate public interest exemptions that, throughout a long history of convention in the Australian Senate, have been allowed as legitimate reasons for these agencies to withhold information. We are not proposing that those exemptions lapse or that they should no longer apply, simply that it is at best lazy drafting to simply exempt these agencies from freedom of information entirely. So our amendments go to that effect.
The second part of our amendments provides guidance for a review of this situation which is profoundly unsatisfactory to the Australian Greens. We propose that this review should take place after the act has been in operation for two years to ensure that it properly addresses the Greens concerns about wholesale exemptions from the act, particularly in respect to intelligence agencies. I will be interested to hear the minister’s remarks before we close the second reading debate on that issue specifically, in expectation that the minister may give us some commitments in this regard. In fact a two-year review is a pretty poor substitute for good public policy which would surely have allowed that security and intelligence agencies should not be beyond the reach of an instrument as important as freedom of information. In fact, these are precisely the kinds of agencies for which oversight by the public and by the parliament is more important than ever. I will make a couple of other concluding remarks when we move to the committee stage.
I thank the opposition, the Greens and Senators Xenophon and Fielding for their support for early passage of this legislation through the Senate, and I also thank those senators who participated in the inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee.
The Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010, together with the Australian Information Commissioner Bill 2010 is, after all, concerned with significantly enhancing openness in government. The Rudd government has undertaken the first overhaul of the FOI Act since it was enacted in 1982, nearly 30 years ago. The passage of the FOI Act was a milestone for Australia. The Rudd government continues to recognise that we are responsible and accountable to the people we serve. For this reason, when we were in opposition we committed to overhauling the FOI Act and we have delivered on this promise. This legislation expressly recognises that giving the Australian community access to government-held information strengthens Australia’s representative democracy, recognises the role that this object serves to increase public participation in government processes and increases accountability in the government’s activities.
The Australian Information Commissioner Bill will also establish the first independent model to oversight FOI administration. Many of the reforms within that model, which provide for a framework for agency driven proactive publication of government information together with the single public interest test, are contained within these two bills, but this does not mark the end of the government’s commitment to ensuring an effective FOI regime and that the amended FOI Act meets the government’s object of enhancing openness provisions made in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 and in the Australian Information Commissioner Bill. A full review will be undertaken of the operation of the legislation two years from the commencement of the reform measures. These bills comprise the strongest package of measures to enhance public access to government-held information that this chamber has seen in nearly 30 years.
In foreshadowing an issue that the Greens have raised in relation to the review which I just mentioned, I have included a statement in the second reading speech in order to address the concerns raised by the Australian Greens. The review will also need to include a consideration of whether the exclusion of agencies, including intelligence agencies, from the application of the act is still appropriate and necessary. Naturally such a consideration would require reference to international practice and consideration of what is in Australia’s public interest. The government would be opposed to the first foreshadowed amendment. We think that second part, both in the second reading statement and with my statement on Hansard, goes some way to addressing the Greens issue. I know it does not go all the way, but I accept that this is a matter that the Greens take very seriously. In this instance, the government’s position is quite clear. We have articulated that we have got to what we consider to be an appropriate balance in this legislation.
Finally, the establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner underpins the government’s objective to revitalise the FOI Act and also lays a stronger foundation for privacy protection and improvements in the broader management of government information.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Bills—by leave—taken together and as a whole.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2), (4) and (5) on sheet 6106 to the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010:
(2) Schedule 6, page 137 (after line 30), after item 19, insert:
19A Subsections 7(1) and (1A)
Repeal the subsections.
(4) Schedule 6, page 147 (after line 29), after item 37, insert:
37A Division 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 (the items relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Office of National Assessments)
Repeal the items.
37B Division 2 of Part I of Schedule 2
Repeal the Division.
We oppose schedule 6 in the following terms:
(1) Schedule 6, item 4, page 134 (lines 27 to 30), item to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 6, items 20 and 21, page 137 (line 31) to page 139 (line 9), items to be opposed.
I07 Ludlam, Sen Scott 1The amendments give effect to the issues that I raised before. Before we put them to a vote, I am interested to hear from the minister. I am presuming we do not have opposition consent for the amendments, as we did not the last time I raised them. What is it exactly about Australian security agencies that should render them entirely immune to freedom of information that does not apply, for example, to the CIA, to United States intelligence agencies and to intelligence agencies like MI5 or MI6 in Britain, which are subject to freedom of information laws? What is it exactly about Australian secrecy in the case of these agencies that is so special?
Does the opposition want to add something first?
I indicate that, as Senator Ludlam has anticipated, the opposition does not support the Greens amendments. It has been a well-established principle in this country that matters of national security, and like matters, are well within the appropriate exclusions from the FOI regime and that we have other mechanisms, in particular the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and recently, as a result of an initiative of the opposition in fact, the independent review of antiterrorism laws. There is a suite of safeguards which, in the opposition’s view, provide appropriate and searching oversight of the performance of national security agencies and which make it appropriate that they do not fall within the FOI regime.
Thank you both. In concurrence with the remarks of the opposition and in addition, the legislation of course does not change the status of intelligence agencies, which are now excluded from the FOI Act. I also remind the Senate that the ALRC open government report recommended that the intelligence agencies should remain wholly excluded from the operation of the act. In its reasons the review observed that, if intelligence agencies were subject to the FOI Act, ‘the vast majority ... of these documents would be exempt.’
In answer to your specific question, the nature of the functions of the intelligence agencies is such that those functions would be compromised by the public dissemination of that information. These functions cannot be carried out with the same level of transparency ordinarily expected of administrative action. For those reasons and the reasons articulated by Senator Brandis, we would not agree with the amendment.
I do not propose to tie us up, but it appears that I am simply not being heard. We are not proposing to lift the ability of these agencies to continue to apply for public interest immunity on grounds of issues like national secrecy, operational security and so on. We are not proposing to lift those exemptions. What we are objecting to is the simple throwing of a shroud of invisibility over the agencies, giving them immunity from the FOI Act. I would put the question one more time, unless you simply do not intend to answer it: what is different about Australian security agencies? Why should the Freedom of Information Act apply to agencies in comparable democracies but not in Australia? If you do not have any answer to that question, I will simply put the amendments and we will move through.
As there are no further contributions, I will put the question, which is that amendments (2) and (4) be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that items 4, 20 and 21 in schedule 6 stand as printed.
Question agreed.
I move Green amendment (5) on sheet 6106:
The question now is that amendment (5) be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.
I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
by leave—I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to this bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill amends the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (the Act) to enable the registration of emergency service and government telephone numbers and all fax numbers. It also enables the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, the period of registration. It is proposed that initially this period will be set at five years.
Reasons for urgency
The Register established under the Act commenced on 31 May 2007, with the registration period set at 3 years in order to allow disconnected and reassigned numbers to be removed from the Register periodically, so as to maintain the accuracy of the Register.
Initial registrations begin to automatically drop off the Register from 31 May 2010 if they have not re-registered.
The Government is introducing an amendment in this Bill that will enable the Minister to determine the length of the registration period. It is intended that the initial Determination, proposed to come into effect at the same time as the Bill will extend the registration period to five years, including for those already on the Register.
Passage of the Bill in this sitting will ensure that the Bill is enacted and comes into effect before the first registrants begin to drop off the Register on 31 May 2010.
Question agreed to.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Do Not Call Register Act 2006 (the Act) was introduced in May 2006 to enable individuals to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls by listing their fixed or mobile telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Register (the Register ). Only numbers used primarily for private or domestic purposes can currently be registered. The Register formally commenced on 31 May 2007 at which time registration lasted for 3 years. One month after the Register commenced operation, over 1 million numbers had been registered.
The Government recognises that telemarketing and fax marketing are legitimate marketing methods, but considers that this must be weighed against the effects on called parties. For agencies of Government, for instance, the receipt of telemarketing calls tends to be limited value, causing inefficiencies and loss of productivity.
For emergency services organisations —such as ambulance services, fire and law enforcement authorities—such calls can be an operational impediment. Emergency service operators have advised the Government that telemarketers are bypassing emergency numbers, such as ‘000’, and directly contacting emergency service operators through the use of predictive dialling equipment. Responding to these calls delays the response to genuine emergency calls.
Neither Government agencies nor emergency services organisation can currently put their numbers on the Register.
In response to these concerns, this bill will expand the class of numbers that can be registered to include the telephone numbers of government agencies and emergency services organisations.
The Government has also heeded complaints that the Act does not offer protection from the receipt of unsolicited commercial faxes. Recipients of marketing faxes are affected through the direct costs of additional consumables such as ink and paper; from lost time and from the tying-up of fax equipment and other communications services such as payment systems.
The Bill therefore introduces regulation of unsolicited fax marketing by prohibiting the sending of a marketing fax to a number on the Register. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 to allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to make codes and standards for the fax marketing industry.
Following introduction in the House of Representatives in November 2009, the Bill was referred for consideration by a Senate Committee. The Committee took evidence that the extension of the Register to business numbers would adversely affect business-to-business communication and impose unreasonable compliance costs.
Having regard to these concerns business numbers — other than business fax numbers—will not, at this time, be allowed on the Register.
A recent review of the Do Not Call Register scheme undertaken by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy identified that individual respondents strongly supported the extension of the registration period which is currently 3 years.
This Bill also provides for the extension of the registration period. This change will be effected by giving the Minister the power under the Act to determine the registration period in an instrument. Initially, the registration period will be set at 5 years. This will apply to numbers registered after the commencement of the Bill as well as those numbers currently on the Register. In the event that this Bill does not commence before 31 May 2010 — the day on which the initial 3 year registration period starts to expire — any numbers that fall from the Register prior to commencement will be re-instated on the Register.
Expected benefits
The Bill will benefit those organisations, other than businesses, that are detrimentally affected by telemarketing calls by prohibiting unsolicited marketing calls or faxes. This will be of particular benefit to governments and emergency service organisations.
The Bill may also assist the telemarketing and fax marketing industries in targeting their campaigns to those recipients who are more likely to respond positively to their representations.
Compliance Costs
There are expected to be some compliance costs for fax marketers who have not previously been required to use the Register. However, these compliance costs are expected to be in line with the costs that telemarketers incurred with the introduction of the original Do Not Call Register and are not expected to be large. For example, the current cost to check 20 000 numbers against the Register is $78 per year. In 2008, an independent study conducted by the call centre industry found that 90 per cent of call centres surveyed experienced no change in gross revenues following the introduction of the original Register, and none experienced decreased gross revenues.
Funding
The Government will provide funding of $4.7 million over four years to make the necessary changes to the scheme. Of this amount, approximately $3.5 million over four years will be recovered from the telemarketing and fax marketing industries through fees paid to access the Register to cover its operational costs. The remaining $1.2 million will come from a re-allocation of resources within the broadband, communications and the digital economy portfolio.
Conclusion
This Bill will put in place a range of measures that will enhance the effectiveness of the Do Not Call Register and provide Australians with greater protection from unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing and fax marketing.
The coalition will support the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and, for the very detailed rationale, I refer senators and members of the public to the comments made by my friend and colleague the Hon. Tony Smith in the other place. However, I quickly make the observation that the way in which this legislation has been handled is yet another example, another case study of a government which does not know how to manage its legislative program, which does not know how to manage the affairs of government, which does not think things through and has to fix up things at the last minute. Here we are, at the last possible opportunity to get this legislation through in time, for its coming into effect by 31 May, and we have other senators who want to talk to it.
The Do Not Call Register is a great and very successful Howard government initiative, which has seen more than four million residential phone numbers registered. It protects those Australians from unwanted calls from telemarketers. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, with great fanfare, announced that he wanted to extend this register to business, government, faxes and emergency numbers. Right from the outset, we said that extending this to business would not be workable. According to the typical Rudd government’s modus operandi, late on Friday afternoon, on 30 April, the minister had to perform yet another backflip. He was trying to do it on the quiet when nobody was watching. We are now here mopping up the minister’s stuff-ups and we are given 30 seconds to deal with this piece of legislation just so as not to embarrass the minister by it adversely impacting on millions of Australians who want to continue to benefit from the protection of this particular piece of legislation.
The coalition does support the extension to five years, as has been put forward by the government. We think it should have happened through legislation rather than through regulation. However, to facilitate speedy passage of this legislation I will conclude my remarks on that point.
The Australian Greens support the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. We actually put this to the government in the last sitting of parliament. We believe that the Senate should not have been given four minutes to debate the bill but, in the interests of moving it forward, I commend this legislation to the house. I also congratulate the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on one of those rare moments where the government has actually changed tack and done something constructive to fix an issue while setting most of the substantive issues aside.
I have been given perhaps a minute or two to talk about the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I agreed that this legislation could go into a position of ‘noncontroversial’ as long as I could speak on it. I do not know if this is how this chamber wants to work, but I do not think this is the way it should work. I want to speak on this bill; it is important. There are vulnerable Australians who are hassled and taken advantage of by marketing companies. I think it is pretty ordinary that I am given only a couple of minutes. I am asking the chamber to think about what it wants to do after question time and to perhaps allow another 12 minutes to be given to this particular bill, to at least allow me to raise some of those concerns. The Do Not Call Register is important. The last time this bill came before the Senate we argued the case very strongly that it was crazy that, when you put yourself on the register for not wanting unsolicited calls, your name should just drop off the register at the end of three years. This bill now extends the time to five years.
In other countries you are on the register permanently—you do not have to keep putting yourself back on the register. As I said, there are many vulnerable Australians and they do not want to keep putting themselves on the register. People forget when the time comes up. The government may say that they will let people know that they have to reregister, but that is not the way it should be done. It should never be done in that particular way. Everybody hates getting annoying phone calls.
Debate interrupted.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Carr. Is the government aware of comments made by the chief executive of Incitec Pivot on Mr Rudd’s great big new tax on mining that it was:
… a mistake to place the prosperity of Australia at risk by introducing a double tax regime that significantly increases the cost base of our mining industry …
Is the government also aware that Incitec Pivot has now reportedly halted exploration drilling in response to the government’s decision to introduce its great big new tax on mining?
I am not aware of the particulars that the senator has raised, but what I can say is that there have been a number of claims made about this important measure and that a number of threats have been made which, in my submission, are not well founded. They are based on a number of assumptions which are incorrect. I draw to your attention, Senator, that projects such as Gorgon in Western Australia have proceeded in the context of what has been a resources rental tax which has now been operating for many years. There are many factors at play in the decisions regarding mining. There are issues that go to questions of technical risk, there are issues that go to exchange rates and there is, of course, the fundamental issue as to whether or not there is a customer for the product that is being mined. We have seen that infrastructure bottlenecks have for years been limiting our capacity to respond to increasing demand, and that is why we are going to devote $5.6 billion from this new proposal towards permanent infrastructure funding that recognises the infrastructure needs of resources regions. We will be supporting resource explorations through a $1.1 billion resource exploration rebate. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government considered the impact of its great big new tax on mining on Australia’s farmers, including the price and availability of fertiliser products? If not, why not?
What we have considered is the detailed modelling that has been produced for the government by KPMG which highlights that, rather than being a negative for the Australian economy, this measure will be a major positive for the Australian economy. This is a measure that will enhance the international competitiveness of Australia, and we take the very strong view—as does the Australian Treasury—that this is a tax reform that will see a growth not just in the mining sector but because of the measures that this—
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The question was directed specifically to the consideration of the impact on the agricultural sector. The modelling to which the minister has referred, the KPMG Econtech report, makes no reference to the agricultural sector whatsoever. The answer is not responsive to the supplementary question in any respect.
Mr President, on the point of order, the minister has been relevant to the question and the minister has been answering the question. It is a pity the opposition did not listen to the answer that was being provided in this respect, if they want to engage in that. There is no point of order. In respect of the KPMG modelling, the minister does not have to mention a specific word, as seems to be the demand of the opposition. The minister can provide an answer which encompasses the issues raised within the question, and that is what the minister is doing. If the opposition are going to listen for specific words to demonstrate that it is either in relevance or out of relevance then I would submit that is the wrong approach.
Senator Carr, you have 20 seconds remaining. I draw your attention to the question that was asked.
I am always delighted by the idiocy of those opposite who seek to—
Senator Carr! That does not help. I think you should withdraw that.
If you request it, Mr President, I withdraw it. What we know, of course, is that phosphates are used by most agricultural industries because Australian soil— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I think I have just heard a load of fertiliser of the bovine variety in Senator Carr’s answer.
Senator Colbeck! The question.
I apologise for diverging, Mr President. Will the government guarantee that its great big new tax on mining will not increase the price of vital inputs, including fertilisers, for Australia’s hardworking and struggling farmers?
The phosphate industry, of course, plays a vital role in Australian agricultural industries, and most Australian property enterprises actually use ammonium phosphates, whereas pastoral enterprises use superphosphates. The sugar and horticultural industries use a combination of both.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! When there is silence we will proceed.
Domestic production for these phosphates has actually accounted for some 49 per cent of the phosphate consumption in this country. What we see is that ABARE farm surveys show that as a percentage of total farm costs fertilisers make up about 15 per cent of the cash cost for grain producers, 12 per cent of the cash cost for mixed cropping and livestock producers and seven per cent for dairy farmers.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Carr, resume your seat. When there is order, we will proceed.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! As I said, when there is silence, we will proceed. The time for debating this is post question time.
It is a very simple question, Mr President. Is the price of fertiliser going to go up as a result of Mr Rudd’s great big new tax on mining?
What I have indicated is that the opposition is opposed to these measures, despite the fact that they provide enormous benefit to the Australian— (Time expired)
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sherry. In light of the Rudd government’s disciplined budget, including a substantial fiscal consolidation, can the Assistant Treasurer detail the challenges faced by the government—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Farrell, resume your seat. Interjections are disorderly; I remind senators of that.
Can the Assistant Treasurer detail the challenges faced by the government in delivering this responsible document? Why is it important that future budgets be framed within the government’s strict fiscal discipline rules?
Thank you, Senator Farrell, for that very important question. The government has delivered a highly responsible budget. It delivers the right outcomes for the current economic times. The government has stuck by very, very strict fiscal rules to get the budget back in the black as soon as possible after the global financial and economic crisis—and it has worked. We are back in surplus three years ahead of schedule, three years ahead of any other advanced economy in the world.
Let us look at net debt. Net debt will be halved. It is projected to peak at just 6.1 per cent of gross domestic product. Compare that to other advanced economies, where net debt is projected to peak at 93 per cent on average. Net debt in the rest of the advanced world is projected to peak at 15 times, on average, Australian net debt. The budget delivers the fastest fiscal consolidation since the 1960s. We have lower unemployment, higher economic growth and the lowest debt of any major advanced economy. In fact, many major advanced economies have no date at all as to when they will emerge from deficit. We brought this about by discipline. We have not allowed tax as a proportion of the total economy to go above the level we inherited from the previous government. Tax as a percentage of GDP is lower than that which we inherited from the former government. We have not allowed spending growth to go beyond a two per cent real increase until such time as the budget returns to surplus. We are not spending any of the revenue increase as a result of our stronger economy, which avoided a recession—unlike most of the other advanced economies—but we are allowing it to help drive the budget back into surplus early, and we have offset new spending by saving. We have delivered on the forward estimates aggregate savings— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of any alternative fiscal policies to manage the budget during these challenging times? Are those alternatives realistic? How do they compare with the government’s fiscally disciplined and economically responsible approach?
Mr Hockey, the shadow Treasurer, said a week and a half ago that this budget should come back into surplus three or four years early. We have delivered. What we have had from those opposite are lots of claims that they will oppose various revenue measures. You have set the bar; you have got to deliver. You have got to deliver a faster surplus, having decided to oppose some of our revenue measures and having decided to oppose some of our expenditure cuts. That is your challenge: how you are going to deliver a faster surplus having laid claim to the idea that you can actually produce a better surplus when you oppose revenue measures and expenditure cuts. There are lots of glib ideas from those opposite. Let us start seeing detailed policy which delivers a lower budget deficit. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Without the fiscal discipline of the type shown in the Rudd government’s responsible budget, is there any risk to Australia’s future economic growth?
As I have said, this is a very responsible budget, aptly presented, I think, as a no-frills budget. It brings the budget back into surplus three years earlier. The challenge for Mr Hockey tonight and for those opposite is: you have to take up the challenge of producing an earlier budget surplus—as you claim you will do—and, at the same time, indicate those revenue measures that you do not want to support and those expenditure cuts that you do not want to support. What we have seen for the last 2½ years, particularly under the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, is that you oppose revenue measures and oppose expenditure cuts and expect us to believe you can deliver a lower budget surplus. That will be the challenge tonight. With all those measures you have said you will oppose, how are you going to produce a lower budget deficit? (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Carr. Does Labor’s great big new tax on the resources sector apply to quarries? What effect will the great big new tax have on the cost of products derived from quarries, including cement, gravel, sand, bricks and similar building products?
I thank the senator for his question. What this tax does is provide for much more efficient administration of our resources sector, because it allows us to provide assistance to the sector for exploration. It provides for a new set of arrangements. There is a royalties rebate, which the states and territories have been pursuing. The tax also provides for a quite significant expansion of infrastructure projects within the resources sector. What our modelling has shown is that the tax actually leads to significant improvement.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I asked the minister: does this great big new tax apply to quarries? I did not ask for some other ramble. Does this new tax apply to quarries? Could you please ask him to be relevant to the question.
I draw the minister’s attention to the question. The minister has one minute and 16 seconds remaining. Minister, you need to address the question of Senator Williams.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! If you want to debate the question, the time to do that is post question time. Constant interjection is not going to speed up question time.
Thank you, Mr President. The resources super profits tax will apply to all mining and petroleum projects, with the exception of existing PRRT projects, for which opt-in arrangements will be developed in consultation with industry.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order!
As I was saying, this is a measure which applies to all mining and petroleum projects, with the exception of those which have existing resource rent tax provisions, for which there is an opt-in arrangement. A consultation process will of course be developed for those particular projects.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. As you know, the minister is required to be directly relevant to the question, ‘Does the tax apply to quarries?’ He has gone nowhere near being responsive to the question. He plainly does not know the answer. You should direct him to the question and insist that, if he does not know the answer, he tell the Senate that he does not know the answer. If he does know the answer, he should give it.
I cannot direct a minister how to answer a question. I draw the minister’s attention to the question and remind him that he has 31 seconds remaining to address the question.
Senator Brandis is desperately trying to prove his relevance in this week of sittings. This is the third time I have said that the super profits tax arrangements will apply to all mining and petroleum projects, with the exception of existing resource rent projects, to which the opt-in arrangements apply. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Considering the tax does go on quarries, has the government conducted any modelling of the impact its great big new tax will have on building costs and, in particular, on the costs of housing construction?
I have indicated already on numerous occasions in this chamber—and I am only too happy to help Senator Williams yet again—that the government commissioned KPMG Econtech on 19 March to undertake independent modelling of the tax reform. As stated on previous occasions, KPMG’s modelling has indicated that the replacement of royalties with the super profits tax would increase resource investment by 4½ per cent, employment by seven per cent and output by 5½ per cent.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order.
Carve it out, for God’s sake! They do it even in the Kremlin!
Order! Senator Heffernan, Senator Brandis is on his feet wishing to take a point of order and you are interjecting over him.
My point of order goes to relevance, Mr President. The question was whether there was modelling of housing costs. The minister has identified a report, the KPMG Econtech report, which says not a word about housing costs. The minister, if he is to be relevant to the question, should either tell us there has been modelling in relation to housing costs or tell us there has not been. He is not at liberty to refer his answer to a report that goes nowhere near the question.
I cannot tell the minister how to answer the question. The minister has 23 seconds remaining to answer the question.
I am surprised that the poor man’s Perry Mason thinks he can tell me what I am at liberty to say and what I am not. I have been asked a question about the modelling. The government has undertaken the modelling. It has published the modelling and if the senators opposite do not bother to read the statements that have been published perhaps I can refer them to the KPMG website itself. I suggest that might be very helpful. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the government assure Australians that Labor’s great big new tax on resources will not increase the price of housing by forcing up the price of building products?
I can indicate—and I hope Senator Williams takes note of this matter—that the modelling says that the replacement of royalties with a superprofits tax will increase the level of investment. It will increase the level of employment. It will increase the level of output. It will increase the GDP of this country by 0.75 per cent and real after-tax wages by 1.1 per cent. The modelling says that this tax means that Australia will be more competitive and will be able to produce a higher quality and a more efficient industry. This is a measure that enhances the economic opportunities for working people right across this country. It is about sharing the benefits of the resources boom so that all Australians get the benefit of what are their assets. These are the people’s assets. (Time expired)
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! There are others waiting to ask questions in question time. If you wish to debate the issue, the time to do so is post question time.
My question is to the Minister for Defence representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. While the amount of compensation allocated in the budget is clearly insufficient, the Greens join others in welcoming the long overdue recognition of severe health impacts on Australian Defence personnel who were exposed to ionising radiation from nuclear tests. Beyond the compensation measures announced in the budget, veterans are also calling for full comprehensive health care in particular at a gold card standard. Is the government considering this and is the government aware of those calls? Will you consider payment of compensation as a lump sum, as is occurring overseas in other countries’ compensation for nuclear veterans? In particular, with the evidence of genetic effects of nuclear tests on children and grandchildren—the families and children of nuclear veterans—what will the government do for the second and third generations affected by their parents’ or grandparents’ exposure to this radiation?
I thank Senator Ludlam for his question. I will try and deal with those areas of the question that I have some knowledge of. First, as Senator Ludlam mentioned, in this week’s budget there is a measure of some $24 million for veterans who suffered as a result of the British nuclear tests that occurred between 1952 and 1963 at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Montebello Islands. It is important to say that this represents the delivery of the commitment that the government made prior to the 2007 election to review the recommendations of the Clarke report which were made in 2003.
That recommendation of the Clarke report proposed that the ADF involvement in those tests should be declared non-warlike hazardous and, hence, veterans be compensated accordingly. As you point out, there has been a longstanding view that those recommendations should be acted upon. It was a public review and the outcome of the processes for the British nuclear test veterans was a decision to implement the Clarke recommendations. The government acted on and accepted the recommendations.
You made the point about lump sum compensation. It is true that some veterans are now arguing for a different form of compensation. My understanding, as a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, is that there is an issue in relation to the incapacity of lump sum compensation under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act, but I will check that for you. As you might be aware, the previous government undertook studies that provided white cards for healthcare support only for the treatment of cancer. There was no compensation and no wider health support beyond cancer. (Time expired)
Thank you, Minister, for that. I recognise I asked the question in a number of parts. I wonder whether I can ask you to take on notice the specific matters that I raised about the gold card standard health care, lump sum compensation for veterans and, in particular, the important issue of compensating second- and third-generation victims because ionising radiation—whether from weapons tests, uranium mining or waste dumping—can affect the children of people exposed to the initial radiation. On that issue, I particularly seek your advice on notice. Mr President, I have a supplementary question. What is the government doing and what does the government plan to do to address the current situation regarding the health effects— (Time expired)
This is an important issue. In the spirit of trying to provide some information, where I am able to advise Senator Ludlam I will respond to the issues he has raised in his supplementary question. My recollection as a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is, as I said, that the Veterans’ Entitlement Act does not provide for or have the capacity for any lump sum compensation. This of course was an issue when I was veterans’ affairs minister back a very long time ago in 1993. I am more than happy to put to the minister those other substantive questions in relation to the children of veterans. I have to be frank with you and say that I am not aware of any budget measure that goes to that issue. I am aware that the government has implemented the Clarke report recommendation. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I believe the minister is correct, that there is no budget measure in this year’s budget for the children of veterans. My supplementary question relates to the situation regarding the health effects still being endured by Aboriginal people who were also exposed to the British atomic weapons tests in Australia and who of course have received no compensation whatsoever. Has the Australian government made representations to the UK government regarding the current case before the United Kingdom High Court where the Ministry of Defence is appealing the case of the Aboriginal victims of weapons tests and the veterans affected by the British nuclear testing? Has the government made representations in this matter? (Time expired)
I will need to check with the minister about representations. I can say frankly that I am not aware of any. I am aware from, again, some 17 years ago, that £20 million was paid by the government of the United Kingdom for the clean-up of Maralinga. Some senators would be aware of that. I know veterans have said that this was for individual compensation—perhaps there was a debate about site clean-up. Beyond that, I do not have any information as to whether that specific issue that you raise has been progressed. I am very doubtful that it has. I am only saying that because I am not aware of it. What I will do in this circumstance is raise that specific issue with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Also, if there is anything that he can add on the other elements, I am more than happy to provide that to you as soon as I am able.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Carr. Is the minister aware that according to Australia’s leading construction cost survey, Rawlinsons construction handbook, a single-storey primary school building should cost between $1,300 and $1,400 per square metre to build? Is the minister also aware that in New South Wales a standard library delivered to hundreds of schools is costing $5,400 per square metre and that a standard canteen is costing $13,300 a square metre? How can the minister still maintain that the buildings imposed on schools under the Building the Education Revolution are good value for money?
I thank Senator Mason for the question. I always enjoy a question from Senator Mason. He has had to wait in the queue for some time. Senators opposite have obviously been pushing ahead of him. The simple fact of life is that the Building the Education Revolution is a program of $16.2 billion which has been supporting jobs in local communities right around Australia—24,000 projects around Australia. We have seen 9,000 schools around Australia enjoy considerable benefit from this program. We have seen a full and thorough investigation into the claims that have been made.
Senator Mason, I have given you this advice on many occasions: the Australian is not the best source of advice that you could find. What you should do is go to the ANAO for advice on these questions. The ANAO have shown that the department of education’s governance arrangements have ensured that the BER and P21 are delivering improved education facilities to almost all primary schools in Australia.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Carr, please resume your seat. When there is silence we will proceed. Senator Carr, continue.
The Australian National Audit Office survey results reflect strong support for the program and confidence in the outcomes—95 per cent of principals were confident that the BER would improve their schools and provide ongoing value to their school and to the school community, while over 80 per cent of principals were confident the program would achieve its education— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that, according to national quantity surveyors BMT and Associates, the standard school hall under the BER is costing taxpayers $5,800 per square metre? That is four times as much as a one- or two-storey air-conditioned office building. How can the minister still insist that the buildings imposed on schools under the Building the Education Revolution are good value for money?
I know Senator Mason does his job in a manful way. He seeks to denigrate a program that is providing support to 9,000 schools around Australia. This program is probably the biggest single investment in the educational opportunities of the children of this country. But of course he is like a lot of opposition members and senators who come into this parliament and attack the BER and vote against it, but are happy to go back to their electorates and their communities and promote the successes of the program, and claim that as their own work. What we have seen across this country—and we will see it again and again— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Rawlinsons now excludes the data about the BER projects from its industry-wide cost survey because it calls it ‘insane’ and ‘anomalous’ and says it would distort its nationwide construction data? Minister, who is insane: the most respected construction firm in Australia or the government, which claims the buildings are good value for money?
Tell us which schools, Brett.
I’ll tell you anytime you like.
Order! The time for debating these and other questions is post question time.
Senator Heffernan interjecting—
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Order! Senators Sterle and Heffernan!
What the government has done is to appoint an implementation task force to ensure absolutely that there will be value for money in the BER rollout. The task force has the power and resources to investigate complaints, particularly in regard to the issue of value for money. But that will not change the fact that opposition senators and opposition members will be fronting right around this country as we open project after project over the next few months, and they will be claiming credit for them, despite the fact that they have voted against these measures, despite the fact that they have argued against these measures and despite the fact that they have sought to undermine the education programs of this government. It is time for the opposition to come clean: what do they stand for, what are they committed to, and are they genuinely interested in running an education policy rather than a slur against schools in this country? (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner. I refer the minister to the government’s announcement, in the context of the budget, that the Australian government will invest $1.1 billion for enhanced force protection capabilities in Afghanistan over the period 2009-10 to 2012-13. Can the minister advise the Senate of the steps the government is taking to protect our troops in Afghanistan from Taliban attacks?
The government’s and, I know, the parliament’s highest priority is the safety and protection of Australian troops and civilian personnel serving overseas. Our personnel work in dangerous conditions in Afghanistan where the risk of Taliban attacks is part of the reality of everyday life. One of my first decisions on becoming defence minister on 22 July 2009 was to direct a comprehensive review of the protection provided to our troops in Afghanistan to ensure that they did have the full range of protections that were required. Appropriately, the review was conducted mostly in the theatre of operations.
In response to the force protection review, the government will invest $1.1 billion for enhanced force protection capabilities in Afghanistan over the period 2009-10 to 2012-13. Since the review was completed, Defence has been working hard to progress and implement the outcomes of the review. Some measures have been implemented already, including improving countermeasures against improvised explosive devices, IEDs, and improving IED detection equipment. Progress on the other recommendations is well underway, including enhanced medical support and the upgrading and hardening of living and working accommodation in Tarin Kowt, as well as a range of other vital capability enhancements. I can assure the Senate that this work will continue to be progressed as a matter of priority.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the minister to the recent rocket attacks by Taliban insurgents against the coalition military base at Tarin Kowt in Afghanistan and ask the minister could he advise the Senate on what steps the government is taking to protect our troops from such attacks?
In September last year I tasked the Chief of the Defence Force to develop options to deploy the best currently available counter-rocket artillery and mortar system as a matter of the highest priority. Of course, such a system is vital given the ongoing threat from insurgent rocket attacks. I can confirm that the government has approved acquisition of this capability with funding in the budget. It will provide a sense and warn capability which detects projectiles in flight and warns our forces of incoming threat. Elements of the system should be in place by the end of 2010, with subsequent progressive delivery of improved levels of protection.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Could the minister outline any specific steps that are being taken to protect our troops under the force protection review?
As all senators would be aware, our forces in Afghanistan currently face a very high risk from both insurgent operations and improvised explosive devices, and of course a high risk from indirect fire. Accordingly, the government’s investment in force protection capabilities includes a range of measures to provide direct protection for ADF members from small arms, IEDs and indirect fire. So, in addition to C-RAM, which I have mentioned, there is hardening of accommodation in Tarin Kowt, improved route clearance capabilities, enhanced protection and firepower for protected mobility vehicles, new night fighting equipment, improved body armour, a new weapons system for special forces, additional military working dogs and a suite of improved intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities. (Time expired)
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sherry. Has the government undertaken any modelling into the impact of the compulsory three per cent increase in payroll costs for employers on employment levels or wage rises? How much does the government forecast this increase in the levy will cost Australian workers in wage rises forgone?
Thank you for raising the very important announcement that was part of the tax package announced just over a week ago relating to the improvement in what is known as the superannuation guarantee. The superannuation guarantee, as you have indicated, Senator Ryan, is to be increased from three to nine per cent—
Opposition senators interjecting—
increased from nine to 12 per cent, sorry—I was reflecting on history and the well-known opposition of those opposite to all improvements in the superannuation guarantee. I well recall the debate around the three per cent and its economic and wage impact. I recall the debate on the superannuation guarantee, which took the minimum contribution from three to nine per cent. I recall the debate—
Did you do any modelling?
and the modelling. Although I do not recall the details of the modelling from that period. But I certainly recall the debate and discussion about the issues that Senator Ryan is raising, about the issues with respect to employment and the issues with respect to the wage impact. I well recall the debate on the three per cent and the nine per cent. I look forward to the debate and discussion on the legislation to take the superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent. I should also remind Senator Ryan that it was a commitment of the former Liberal government, I think, in 1996— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Thank you to the minister for the history lesson. I wonder if he is aware of some of his more personal history in this regard. In the Australian on 8 August 2008 the minister commented:
… one of our election commitments was we will not be increasing the 9 per cent super guarantee which is payable by the employer. We have ruled it out and we will be sticking to that.
Does the minister stand by those comments?
I am not absolutely sure that the quote you have given is accurate. I will of course check the source of the quote. However, I will accept that I did indicate words of a very similar or like nature. I will accept that I did indicate an approach to the superannuation guarantee in words of a very similar or like nature, not just with respect to that quote in the Australiansubject to checking the accuracy. I am happy to confirm whether it is accurate or not. I will take your word for it that the quote is accurate. I am more than happy to confirm that I did make a comment of a similar or like nature and not just on that occasion. I made a comment similar or of a like nature on a number of occasions. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I appreciate that the minister admits he made a comment of a similar or like nature and will check it. I assume then—and this is another one he might check—that the minister is also retreating from his comments on radio 3AW on May 14 last year, when he said the government would ‘absolutely not’ increase the compulsory superannuation levy. How can anything he or this government says be trusted? Why shouldn’t employers fear that it will just go up to 15 per cent next?
Again, subject to checking the accuracy of the quote, I do recall saying words of a similar or like nature on 3AW. As I have already indicated, I am more than happy to confirm that I have made similar or the same statements on a number of occasions.
Answer the question!
That is what you are asking me. I can confirm that. And I can also—
Mr President, on a point of order: the minister just said that I asked whether or not he could confirm he had made the statement. I did not. I asked him whether he stood by his comments and whether employers should fear that this is going to go up to 15 per cent next.
Mr President, on a point of order: it is an issue where the opposition and other senators are entitled to raise a point of order when they choose to. But, in this instance, we do not have a genuine attempt to raise a point of order; what we are now seeing is the opposition continually raising and restating the question and, in some instances, restating it differently from the way the original question was raised—which is impermissible—and then asking the minister to be relevant to that subsequently asked question, which is paraphrasing their first, which is not the case. The minister has been relevant to the question and is answering it in a way that provides certainty in this place and ensures that his answer is accurate rather than taking the paraphrased, restated question that the opposition have sought to raise.
I believe the minister is answering the question. I cannot direct the minister how to answer the question or tell him what to say in answering the question. I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that there are 21 seconds remaining—if he has anything further to add to the answer.
I am not surprised to hear the messages of doom and gloom from those opposite about superannuation. These claims were made many years ago and they turned out to be not true. I recall the Liberal opposition committing to increase superannuation to 15 per cent in its election promises in 1995 leading up to the 1996 election, and they broke it in 1997. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth, Senator Arbib. Is the government aware that, as a result of its decision to rush ahead with changes to child care under the National Quality Framework and as a result of ignoring the increasing cost that this will impose on parents and childcare operators, a childcare centre in Box Hill South in my state of Victoria is now going to be forced to scrap all its places for three-year-olds unless it can foot a massive bill of $1 million in capital costs just to comply with the new regulations? Given this, what is the government doing to stop more childcare centres shutting their doors and leaving parents without any place to look after their children?
I thank the honourable senator for that question on a very important issue. The Rudd government is very proud of the agenda it has pursued on child care and also childhood development since taking office. We are very proud of the agenda we have undertaken. Given the absolute neglect—
Senator Conroy interjecting—
Order! Minister, just resume your seat. Senator Conroy, you will need to withdraw that.
I withdraw, Mr President.
Given the absolute neglect of the Liberal Party on child care, we are investing a record $14.4 billion in childcare benefit and childcare rebate to help Australian families. That is $8 billion more than was provided under the Howard government. It is not just about more funding but also about improving the standards and quality of childcare services provided.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Bernardi, constant interjection is totally disorderly. Senator Conroy, responding to interjections is equally disorderly.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! When we have silence we will proceed.
Thank you, Mr President. So the government is undertaking a very ambitious reform to the quality of child care. I do not have any information on the childcare centre that the senator has raised, but I am happy to seek out that information and try to provide it to him. The government has undertaken independent economic modelling and found that the average out-of-pocket cost increases for a family on $80,000 would be 57c per week in 2010-11 rising to $8.67 per week by 2014-15 for one child to attend full time a long day care centre. The future of our children is absolutely critical and we make absolutely no apology for improving the quality of services to parents, the quality of teaching in those childcare centres and the quality of vocational education to childcare providers. That is what the government is undertaking. The previous Howard government neglected the sector, neglected child care. (Time expired)
Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Given the findings by Access Economics that childcare costs for parents under the National Quality Framework may increase by up to $12 a day per child, and given that for a family with two children this increase of $120 per week is not something that the average Australian family can afford, what plans does the government have in place to compensate families for the additional costs of child care to ensure they are not forced out of the workforce and their children out of an early learning opportunity?
In terms of the cost of the reforms to parents, I think I have gone through the independent economic modelling showing 57c per week in 2010-11 and $8.67 in 2014-15; but, as Senator Wong has just said, we should never forget that it was the Rudd government that increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. That was a commitment that was given prior to the last election and it was a commitment that the government stuck to and delivered for Australian families. What is the record of the opposition—the Liberal Party and the National Party—on child care? Absolute neglect. On their watch, ABC Learning, improper regulation—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Resume, Senator Arbib.
They left child care to the marketplace. There was improper regulation. On their watch there was the collapse of ABC Learning. This government has acted. We have kept our commitment—30 per cent to 50 per cent.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Shouting is disorderly on both sides. Senator Arbib, continue.
I am finished.
Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Why is the government slashing the childcare rebate and putting mums and dads out of pocket by an extra $278 per child per year just to save a few dollars but is willing to splurge $202 million on accommodation for babysitting asylum seekers?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! When there is silence we will proceed.
Through you, Mr President, I say to Senator Fielding: I have a lot of time for you, Senator Fielding, but I have to say that, on that question, you have completely missed the mark. This government has delivered on its commitment to increase the rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. In terms of the change in the budget, the vast majority of Australian families—some 97 per cent—will not be affected by the change arising out of the budget. We are extremely proud of the work that this government has done in terms of child care and childhood development. It took the Rudd government to put childhood development on the map. The Rudd government put lifelong learning on the map.
And 260 broken promises.
Senator Payne can shout and whinge and whine, but she knows that it is a fact that the Liberal Party absolutely neglected child care, neglected the cost of—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! This shouting across the chamber, as I have drawn to senators’ attention, does not assist in the conduct. It is completely disorderly. Senator Arbib, continue.
Mr President, do not let me judge this; I will let the Australian people judge it. They threw those opposite out of office. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Yesterday Senator Bob Brown asked a question of me with respect to security arrangements at Parliament House. I responded in writing to Senator Brown yesterday. I table a copy of that response and, with the concurrence of the Senate, it will be incorporated in Hansard.
The statement read as follows—
Response to question from Sen Bob Brown to President regarding Parliamentary Security
12 May 2010
In response to the question from Senator Bob Brown about the new funding for Parliament House security, the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) advises that in 2009, the Parliament House Security Management Board (5MB) commissioned a review of physical security for Parliament House. The 5MB is established under the Parliamentary Services Act 1999 and comprises senior officers of the three Parliamentary Service Departments.
The physical security review was undertaken by the Attorney-General’s Department. The review was conducted against the background of national security assessments in 2009. It was completed in August 2009. The Presiding Officers were subsequently briefed on the findings of the review, and requested that the Joint House Committee and Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence also be briefed. These briefings occurred in late 2009.
In summary, the review identified a number risks to Parliament House and its occupants, and recommended a range of risk mitigation actions.
The SMB supports the findings of the review, and the Presiding Officers have accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations.
A central consideration for the Presiding Officers (and for the SMB) is that Parliament House is a workplace for up to 3,500 people during sitting periods and around half that number in non-sitting periods; additionally, we have an average of 2,400 visitors per day, including groups of school children and international visitors. Clearly there is a duty of care for us as Presiding Officers, and also for the Government, to ensure that Parliament House is a safe workplace and a safe place of visitation.
Full implementation of the actions recommended in the review will require significant capital funding and operational funding. As a consequence, an NPP budget bid was submitted to the Government for consideration as part of the 2010/11 budget.
The Government has responded to our budget bid with the funding which is listed in the budget papers.
Subject to approval of the budget, the additional funding will be spent over the next two financial years on the following key actions:
In addition, some actions were initiated earlier in 2010 using existing DPS capital funds, notably a reconfiguration of the public car park to move the bus stops and bus parking to the northern end of the car park. DPS has endeavoured to maintain the number of parking spaces for buses, cars etc whilst making these changes.
Taken together, these actions will mitigate the most significant risks identified in the 2009 review. Officers of DPS can provide a further briefing to Senator Brown or other senators about the proposed works to be funded through the budget initiative.
In response to the question from Senator Brown about other security-related works, DPS advises that it had already committed to a range of actions including:
The SMB has been very concerned to ensure high levels of accessibility for occupants and visitors. The measures outlined above will be implemented in ways which maintain this level of accessibility.
A second review of information security is also underway, and will be completed later in 2010. Some further investment may be required as a result.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Colbeck and Williams today relating to the proposed tax on the mining industry.
There is really only one constant in the debate surrounding this great big new super resource tax by the Rudd government, and that one constant is that the Prime Minister, in promulgating and advancing this tax, has not been honest with the Australian people. Further to that, he has absolutely no understanding of the mining industry.
This government, right around Australia, are on the nose with the electorate. After 2½ years, they find themselves in a most perilous position. Everybody on this side of the chamber senses it. There are baseball bats waiting for these Labor candidates in the next federal election, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. The workers, the shareholders, the fund managers, the airlines and the indirect industries maintaining equipment, supplying equipment and providing transport—all those support industries—are all waiting with baseball bats for these Labor candidates.
This Prime Minister has not been honest. These ministers have not been honest. They are advancing that this tax is like the petroleum resource rent tax. What an absolute disgrace! It is a misrepresentation—and, quite frankly, it is unworthy of them holding a position in this chamber. The petroleum resource rent tax is six per cent plus five per cent plus depreciation and there is a delayed timeline before it kicks in. This Rudd government’s crazy super tax on the mining industry of this country starts straightaway—it is almost retrospective. The Prime Minister knows that. Minister Carr knows that. Minister Sherry knows that. Why would they seek to mislead people? Why would they seek to try to fudge it?
This tax is a thought bubble from this Prime Minister when he could not get his emissions trading scheme through. He has had to fill a deep hole in his budget forward estimates and he has thought, ‘Where can I go that has some revenue, some cash? I will go to the miners.’ This tax is on top of state royalties—unlike the petroleum resource rent tax. Why would you misrepresent that? Why would you be dishonest about that? This tax is for existing mines, as has been established. Why would you misrepresent that it is like the petroleum resource rent tax? It is totally different.
Mum and dad shareholders who have invested good money through their own super funds or through their own cash in mining companies onshore—as we would want them to do to support our own people—have had the goalposts moved. Our sovereign risk is now looking absolutely trashed on world markets. The dishonesty has been exampled by Senator Conroy and finance minister Tanner, when talking about the National Broadband Network, in saying that the whole scheme would return a modest six or seven per cent—yet for miners, six per cent is a super profit! Coalmining in Queensland and in New South Wales is clearly for the chop. Electricity prices in Victoria are going to go through the roof when the value of coal put into the boilers is actually deemed a super profit. The mining companies of this country commit company tax, state royalties, native title payments, payroll tax and superannuation to the national good. This tax is going to take them up to about 60 per cent.
I say again: there are baseball bats waiting for these Labor ministers. State member McTiernan—running against our candidate Randall in the seat of Canning—has been begging Joe Bullock to go to Hasluck. She has seen the polling and said, ‘Get me out of this; I do not want not to go down the gurgler.’ We have heard nothing in Western Australia about health, given the Prime Minister’s grandiose spendathon on health. But I would also say that none of the other states have heard anything about health. There is no detail. There is nothing. There is just a doorstop and no delivery. There is a doorstop from this Prime Minister and no delivery. You have heard this from me first: it is bye-bye Gary Gray; it is bye-bye Stephen Smith; and it is bye-bye Glenn Sterle.
I appreciate the forward warning that seems to be coming from the other side. I think it is much more tainted with optimism and hope about what will occur rather than any general advantage. Nonetheless, this tax is about having a fair taxation system in our country. This is an area which is looking at a fair contribution. That is all that is being asked. We are looking at profits that are super profits and we are looking at getting a fair return on the resources of our country.
What is not surprising—and we are absolutely prepared for it because we have seen it over generations—is that whenever there is the introduction of a new tax there are the grim forebodings of the future and the outrageous statements about what will happen. We will hear that the sky will come tumbling down and the quarries will be filled in. What we are talking about is ensuring that in this country there should be a fair return to this country and the people living in the community for the resources with which we know we are deeply blessed with. We are not asking anything more than that. What we are talking about is that people are part of it.
We hear about the fact that there is no knowledge of the industry but the industry is involved in the process. We have a situation where now, after due process, the government makes a budget decision and decides that this is one way of taxation for our community. It is not an unusual process. It is one that has been used by many governments over many years. The Treasurer and the industry are going to set up a process where the detail will be worked out and where people can be engaged in the area so that it will not be imposed on them arbitrarily.
Companies that are making profits out of the mining industry in this country will have clarity about the tax they will pay and they will have clarity about what constitutes royalties and what does not. We consistently hear about this confusion. The process will be that the new tax will be introduced; no one has hidden from that. There is almost a proposal that this is a hidden tax—it is not. It has been clearly put forward. There is one industry that will be affected and the process will be there to work out and clarify these details.
I certainly heard the minister say on a number of occasions in answers to questions today that the KPMG modelling was looking at what this would bring into the country in the future: it would help the mining industry; it would help our community. Some of the profits that will be coming out of this taxation will be reinvested into important things in the community, such as the infrastructure processes. It is very important to the regions about which we are speaking, and to the regions I look after in Queensland, that they have absolute assurance about the road process and the improvement in rail. I know that my comrade Senator Hutchins will be concentrating on this area.
Yeah, ‘comrade’ is right.
He is absolutely always a comrade. We have never been afraid of that term. We do not see it as a difficulty. We see it as something that we use quite openly. We are following through on the ongoing aspects. The people on the other side will continue to cry gloom and doom as they always do—it does not matter what initiative comes up or what proposal comes up in the budget—and they will be beating their hearts while saying that this is something that will destroy the economy.
We are hoping that we will be able to move forward through this quite fair process and have an actual engagement with the community when looking at how profits can be effectively reinvested into our community. It is a fair aspect of taxation and a fair understanding of responsibility. The actual income that comes from this reinvestment will benefit the whole community. It will not be just sent overseas or taken into some other area but it will be reinvested into the areas which share in the profits of our community. It is a fair process. It is not dishonest. It is not hidden. It is something that will take us from 2012 onwards.
It is very interesting today—I have been trying to work out where Mr Rudd got this idea from. It has fascinated me to find out where Mr Rudd got this idea from. Now I have found it. I looked up ‘Hugo Chavez’ and I found that in Caracas in Venezuela on 27 February 2007 it was reported that Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez signed a decree to nationalise the oil industry—the sixth-largest in the world. The decree allowed Venezuela’s state oil company to take a 60 per cent stake in the oil industry at the time. It seems surprising that the tax that will now be on Australian miners is 58 per cent. He is out by two per cent but he has arrived there. The article goes on to quote Chavez:
The privatization of the oil sector to overseas companies in the 1990s was ‘disgraceful,’ said left-wing populist Chavez at the signing ceremony in Caracas… ‘The privatization of oil is over,’ Chavez said. ‘This is the last space that was left for us to recuperate’…
So well might you call your friends ‘comrade’, Senator Moore, because comrades they obviously are. This is the most bizarre piece of politics that has happened to Australia for so long—the nationalisation of the mining industry. That is exactly what you have done. You are taking 40 per cent of the profits, putting the corporate rate of tax on the remainder and you are absorbing 40 per cent of the losses. You have nationalised them to exactly the same extent—bar two per cent—that Hugo Chavez did in South America. Is that where our nation has now been delivered? It is not Henry’s view. This is something that comes from the peculiarity of the Labor Party.
So well may they call themselves ‘comrades’, because comrades they certainly are and that is exactly what we have here. Australia went down this path briefly—a bit of insanity back in 1949—when Labor decided to nationalise the banking industry, but we thought we had moved on from that. But the man who dwells at the philosophical brothel of ideas, our dear Prime Minister, had to try to endear himself back to the left wing after he completely deserted them over the ETS—after he left them behind. He tried to recant from it on The 7.30 Report last night but, because he had to try to endear himself back to the left wing, he came up with one of the nuttiest policies that this nation has ever seen. It is startling that I can read something about Hugo Chavez and see awful similarities to exactly where our nation has gone now.
They say that nothing is going to change. We have already heard Tom Albanese saying they are shutting down projects. In my state of Queensland, as we speak, they are reassessing projects. They are shutting down projects; people’s jobs are threatened. You have given up on the people of Dawson and you will lose the seat of Dawson. You have given up on the people of Flynn and you will lose the seat of Flynn. The fly-in, fly-out workers in Leichhardt are not going to vote for you. This is something that is absolutely peculiar.
Then we had one of the most pathetic performances I have ever seen by a minister in this chamber when Minister Kim Carr had to turn around on a question and on microphone say, ‘Has anybody got anything on that?’ For one of his answers, he had to turn around and ask, ‘Has anybody got anything on this?’ Why? It is because this policy has risen up from hell and it has arrived on their desks and there it is. They do not care. They are quite happy with this ad hoc approach.
They completely and utterly burn Minister Wong and they have treated her like an oily rag. Why? It was because it was convenient. At the philosophical brothel, the dispensation of virtues comes at random. As long as the price of popularity is right, you can do what you like. Now will come the reshuffle. Now we have the nationalisation of the mining industry—our major exporter. That you would take our nation to this position is perverse. If that is what we have to come in this nation under the guidance of the Labor Party, it is perverse. It will put up the price of bricks, it will put up the price of quarrying, it will put up the price of cement and it will be part and parcel of you driving our nation into the dirt.
And the sky will fall in. Maybe I should just remind the opposition that in this tax we are referring to the resources of this country. They do not belong to BHP; they do not belong to your paymaster Clive what’s-his-name Palmer. They do not belong to Tom Albanese; they belong to the Australian people. This tax has been discussed by a number of people over some time. I might run a guess who. First of all, just guess who—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
That is right, Senator Abetz: guess who. We are talking about increasing the taxation on resources that are owned by this country. On 25 February this year in a parliament on the other side of the country—in fact Senator Johnston’s parliament—there was a question asked in relation to what discussions had been underway in relation to royalties. In relation to the royalties increase, guess who said this:
The mining companies are aware of it, and some of them have expressed their views. I have to say that a few people who work around the mining industry came to me over summer and said,—
and I am going to have to give it away now—
‘By the way, Colin, the mining companies are getting away with murder, they’re not paying enough.’ A number of people working in the mining industry have said that to me.
As I said I did give it away—it was the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, Mr Colin Barnett. That was what Mr Barnett said. Let me just tell you what the independent assessment of the government’s resource rent tax by KPMG said. This is what they have published and you can see it if you wish to, Senator Abetz. They said:
Introducing the new tax modelled as a resource rent tax has zero economic costs. Further, effectively abolishing the crude oil excise and state royalties leads to an economic gain because it encourages activity in the mining sector. Further, the cut in the company tax rate stimulates investment across the whole economy also relating to economic gain.
They further went on:
It will increase GDP by 0.7 per cent and increase employment in those industries.
You have the courage, Senator Abetz, when the budget comes in to the Senate, to vote against it, because we have made it very clear that three things are going to be attached to that resource rent tax. The first is infrastructure, the second is relief to small companies and the third is in relation to increasing the superannuation contributions. Do you have the courage to vote against that?
As my comrade Senator Moore said, you have been very optimistic about these things. You go and tell people in the budget that there was $4.2 billion put forward for road projects over 2010-11. Let me just go through a few of them. There is the Hunter Expressway, New South Wales; the Kempsey bypass, New South Wales; and the Sapphire to Woolgoolga project, New South Wales. In Queensland there is the Cardwell Range realignment. In Victoria there is the Kings Road interchange and the duplication from Waurn Ponds to Winchelsea. In Western Australia there are four projects and there is one in South Australia. Of that money, the government is going to put forward $59.5 million to eliminate 320 road black spots over the next year.
Then we can go on to a number of other things, particularly the magnificent investment that is going to occur in rail over the next few years to fix up 10,000 kilometres of track and to make sure that there are a further 235 kilometres constructed and that 3,771 kilometres will be upgraded. That is what you have to risk when you vote against it. (Time expired)
What Comrade Hutchins and Comrade Moore, the self-declared comrades over there, are suggesting is that they realise Tuesday night’s budget was built on a house of cards and that this resource mining tax is the only way in which they are going to bankroll what they need to undertake in the next 12 months.
Our resources!
They are not your resources; they are the resources of all Australians, who have been and who are the recipients of the benefit of the mining boom over the last few years.
Senator Fielding has already indicated that he is not likely to support such an irresponsible and knee-jerk measure, and neither will this coalition be as irresponsible as you are. The Rudd government resource mining tax is nothing more than the Labor government’s desperate search to feed its spending addiction. That is all we have seen for the last two years. The amount of waste is criminal. In case those senators opposite are wondering why my colleagues and I get so upset about their needless spending, it is because it is because it is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that they are spending in such a fraudulent and outrageous way. It is money provided by hardworking mums and dads who are under increasing pressure to make ends meet. Labor has wasted billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money over the last two years and we know they cannot be trusted with the public purse.
For the benefit of the chamber, let me remind you of the litany of this waste. Labor promised computers in schools for every year 9 to 12 student. So far, only 220,000 of the one million computers promised have actually been delivered, and I might add that the budget blew out by $1 billion. They promised to cut spending on consultancies, but what did they do? They broke their promise and instead have awarded another $1.1 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to office. They promised broadband for a mere $4.7 billion, but broke that promise and replaced it with a $43 billion plan. In the process they wasted $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spent $25 million on another report by consultants.
They claimed to have all the answers on climate change and the environment. We know that in the Prime Minister’s own words he described it as ‘the moral challenge of our times’. But they have squibbed on the ETS, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in the process to date. We have seen $50 million spent on climate change advertising and paid 150 public servants to administer the ETS. We saw 68 delegates sent to Copenhagen at $1.5 million, the solar panel blow-out of $850 million and the Green Loans Program cancelled after $175 million was spent. The list just goes on and on. They promised to cut the cost of living but we have seen that prices have continued to rise. And we have seen the millions wasted on the abandoned GROCERYchoice and Fuelwatch programs. Labor continues to struggle on basic sums, but one equation is very simple: that is that waste increases debt and puts upward pressure on interest rates. When Kevin Rudd makes promises at this year’s election, we know that his track record says he will fail to deliver and will waste significant amounts of taxpayer money in the process. Australia cannot afford three more years of Labor’s waste and mismanagement.
In conclusion, it is clear that this government is desperate to find money to pad its spending splurge. It has turned its sights on the tobacco industry and turned its sights on the mining sector, and, in the shadow Treasurer’s words, ‘This is a tax on hope,’ and on the future of all Australians.
Question agreed to.
I present 10 government responses to 13 committee reports as listed at item 14 on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Attorney General’s Department and the Australian Crime Commission develop legislation as a matter of urgency to ensure that a person summonsed by the ACC, at a time when they are the subject of criminal or confiscation proceedings, may only be examined in relation to matters quarantined from those material to the pending proceedings.
Accepted
The Government agrees that it is appropriate to develop legislation to ensure a person subject to criminal proceedings is not able to be examined in relation to matters material to the pending proceedings. The Government notes that this issue is the subject of a current appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia following the Federal Court’s decision in OK v Australian Crime Commission.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that both the summons and the memorandum be revised to ensure that as far as possible, recipients understand what is required of them, and that procedures allowing adjournments for the purpose of seeking legal advice be included in the ACC’s examination practice.
Accepted and completed
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the ACC develop without delay, a practice and procedure manual for the benefit of practitioners and those summoned for examination or to produce documents.
Accepted and completed
Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the ACC in consultation with the Attorney General’s Department identify barriers to information sharing, and where regulatory or legislative remedies are necessary these be developed and implemented.
Accepted
Continued information sharing is vital to the effectiveness of the intelligence function and the success of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). Steps have been taken to ensure the ACC can share information with appropriate government agencies by prescribing a list of agencies and amending the Australian Crime Commission Regulations 2002. Further consideration may be given to information sharing with the private sector.
The Government notes that this recommendation was made in the context of information sharing between the ACC and non-police government agencies. At the time of the Committee’s review, a Federal Court decision prevented the ACC from disseminating information to Commonwealth agencies that were not a police force unless they were prescribed by regulation under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (ACC Act). In response to this decision, which has since been overturned by the Full Federal Court, regulations have been made facilitating information sharing between the ACC and other relevant government agencies.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the ACC consider statutory proposals to amend the ACC Act to provide categories of ACC officers with the necessary identified powers, including such matters as the powers to apply for or execute a warrant, and the right to carry a firearm. These should replace the current system of the use of Australian Federal Police special constable provisions.
Not Accepted
The secondment of State and Territory police and access to Australian Federal Police (AFP) special member status for some ACC staff enables the ACC to carry out its functions. The Government recognises that further consideration of providing the ACC with enforcement powers may be necessary in the future.
Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the ACC Act be amended to provide for the appointment of the Commissioner of Taxation to the ACC Board.
Accepted
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act No. 2 2010 amended the ACC Act to include the Commissioner of Taxation as a member of the ACC Board.
Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that formal arrangements be instituted to confirm the current practice of reporting allegations of misconduct to relevant accountability organisations, including the PJC, the IGC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the proposed Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
Accepted
The ACC has well established processes for communicating with the Commonwealth Ombudsman on complaints against the ACC or members of its staff relating to serious matters of alleged misconduct or corruption. Processes for reporting of matters to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) are contained in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (the LEIC Act). The Government does not consider it appropriate for formal mechanisms to be put in place for allegations of misconduct to be reported to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission (PJC-ACC) or Inter-Governmental Committee of the Australian Crime Commission.
Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that formal arrangements be put in place to require the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to notify the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the proposed Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity of any allegations of misconduct by officers of the ACC.
Accepted
The ACC has well established processes for communicating with the Commonwealth Ombudsman on complaints against the ACC or members of its staff relating to serious matters of alleged misconduct or corruption. Processes for reporting of matters to ACLEI are contained in the LEIC Act. The Government does not consider that separate formal arrangements are required in relation to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the CEO of the ACC direct, in the ACC Policy and Procedures, that in any case where the ACC procedurally has a choice of regulatory regime for the use of investigatory powers, it adopts as a matter of practice, the Commonwealth protocols.
Not Accepted
The ACC works in close collaboration with States and Territories on various investigations and it may be more appropriate for the ACC to pursue other regimes and protocols than those of the Commonwealth to meet operational requirements.
Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that section 55AA of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to broaden the scope of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s briefing to the PJC to include any matter relating to the operations of the ACC.
Noted
The Government will give further consideration to the issues raised in this recommendation as part of a proposal to improve the operation and accountability of the ACC’s powers.
Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the ACC Act 2002 be amended to provide explicit requirements to Board agencies to provide enumerated classes of information to the PJC on the ACC.
Not Accepted
The Government considers that it would be inappropriate to legislate to require State and Territory government agencies to provide information to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Committee. Such a requirement may conflict with legislation that those agencies currently operate under. In addition, the Committee noted that in most cases agencies cooperate with the PJC-ACC to provide the required information.
Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Bill, when introduced, include provisions that provide for scrutiny of the agency’s operations by this Committee.
Not Accepted
The effective oversight of the ACC would be compromised if the Committee charged with scrutinising its activities also had responsibility for scrutinising the activities of ACLEI, a body charged itself with scrutinising specific aspects of the ACC.
The LEIC Act commenced operation on 30 December 2006. ACLEI is responsible for investigating allegations of corruption in the ACC and the AFP. As such, the LEIC Act provides that a separate Parliamentary Joint Committee oversee its operations.
Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that the Parliament create a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Commonwealth Law Enforcement, with jurisdiction to supervise the operations of the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police and other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies.
Accepted
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010 (the Bill) was introduced into Parliament on 18 March 2010, and is currently being considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. An exposure draft of the Bill was circulated with the Discussion Paper on proposed legislative reforms to Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation which was released on 12 August 2009.
Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that the legislation for the creation of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity includes provision for the Committee to refer matters to the Commission for investigation, with a requirement to report to the Committee on the results of such investigations. This ensures the completeness and effectiveness of arrangements for scrutinising the operations of agencies, and - were its jurisdiction expanded as recommended above - prevents the Committee’s workload from becoming too great for effective Parliamentary supervision of the relevant agencies.
Accepted-In-Principle
Under section 23 of the LEIC Act, a member of the PJC-ACC can refer
allegations of corruption in the ACC and AFP to the Integrity Commissioner for investigation either personally or on behalf of the PJC-ACC. However, it should be noted that ACLEI’s role is not to undertake investigations on behalf of the PJC-ACC.
Under section 25 of the LEIC Act, a person making a referral may elect to be kept informed of the action taken by ACLEI in response to the referral. For example, where the Integrity Commissioner decides to investigate a matter referred under section 23 and the person has elected to be kept informed in accordance with section 25, the Integrity Commissioner must take steps as the Integrity Commissioner considers reasonable to keep the person informed of the progress of the investigation of that corruption issue. Further, in accordance with subsection 58(1), the Integrity Commissioner must also advise the person of the outcome of the investigation of the corruption issue.
It would not be appropriate for the PJC-ACC, charged with oversight of the ACC, to also scrutinise ACLEI’s activities.
Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that where priority issues involving the ACC arise, the Commonwealth continue to grant funds on a ‘once-off basis’ when this occurs between budgetary cycles.
Noted
The Government will provide the ACC with tied funding for specific purposes subject to normal budgetary processes.
Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that the issue surrounding the employment of secondees be addressed as a priority. Any review should address the standardisation of salary and working conditions through the development of a common secondment arrangement, as well as the implications of this system on the integrity and disciplinary framework.
Accepted
There have been attempts to introduce a common employment framework which have proven challenging due to the wide disparity in conditions in different jurisdictions. Secondee arrangements were reviewed in August 2009 and the ACC intends to amend the arrangements so that secondees retain the salary and conditions of service applicable to their home jurisdiction. This will provide the following benefits:
Ongoing efforts will be made towards standardisation of salary and working conditions. However, this is a complex matter that requires detailed consideration and consultation at Commonwealth, State and Territory government level.
Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that section 46B of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to provide that the maximum number of examiners allowed to work with the Commission at any one time be limited to three. The Committee also recommends that a further provision be inserted allowing the regulations to review and prescribe a higher number of examiners if and when the need arises.
Not Accepted
There are currently four examiners appointed under the ACC Act. The Government is open to considering provision for part-time or short duration appointments to meet the operational cycles. While examiners may be appointed for a maximum of ten years, the Government considers that the ACC requires a degree of flexibility to stagger and overlap appointments to enable examination programs to continue effectively and efficiently and to maintain a high degree of examiner expertise.
Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that regulatory, or if necessary legislative changes be introduced to allow persons summonsed for an Examination to be eligible for legal aid from the legal aid commissions, subject to the usual means tests.
Not Accepted
The Attorney-General’s Department already provides assistance in ACC proceedings under section 27 of the ACC Act. The Department also provides assistance to witnesses before other Australian Government bodies, royal commissions and other major inquiries under a range of other schemes.
It is not accepted that allowing legal aid commissions to provide assistance directly would be a ‘far more efficient procedure for representation than having to provide an application to a government department before even approaching a lawyer’ as stated in the report. There would be little difference if the statutory scheme arrangements were administered by legal aid commissions rather than the Department. Grants of aid from legal aid commissions are made for specific purposes and a lawyer would still need to make a separate application for a grant of aid for an appearance before the ACC, even if a grant of aid had previously been made for a related criminal matter.
The Attorney-General’s Department administers 26 statutory and non-statutory schemes of legal assistance and has demonstrated its capability of efficiently assessing applications for grants of assistance. It is also noted that the ACC Act scheme gives rise to a relatively small number of applications (six applications were received in 2008–2009 and ten in 2007–2008), all of which are dealt with promptly.
It is not correct to say that applicants must contact the Department before approaching a lawyer. In the Department’s experience, most, if not all, applicants for assistance under the scheme have contacted a lawyer before applying for assistance. In most cases this is a lawyer who has been assisting the applicant with matters related to the examination before the ACC.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Examination of the Annual Report for 2004-2005 of the Australian Crime Commission
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to provide for the appointment of the Commissioner of Taxation to the ACC Board.
Accepted
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act No. 2 2010 amended the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (the ACC Act) to include the Commissioner of Taxation as a member of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) Board.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission consider the release of the public versions of key research, including a declassified version of the Picture of Criminality.
Accepted
The public version of the Picture of Criminality in Australia, Organised Crime in Australia was released on 16 January 2008. An updated report was released on 25 February 2009. It will be updated periodically to ensure its continued relevance to increasing the public’s awareness of the impacts of serious and organised crime on the community.
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to prescribe the maximum number of examiners to be appointed.
Not Accepted
There are currently four examiners appointed under the ACC Act. The Government is open to considering provision for part-time or short duration appointments to meet the operational cycles. While examiners may be appointed for a maximum of ten years, the Government considers that the ACC requires a degree of flexibility to stagger and overlap appointments to enable examination programs to continue effectively and efficiently and to maintain a high degree of examiner expertise.
Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the document ‘Public Information Statement: Examinations conducted under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002’ be provided to all witnesses and their legal representatives along with the summons to appear at an examination.
Accepted
Those who are served with a summons to appear and give evidence at an ACC examination are provided with an explanatory note which is annexed to each summons. The explanatory memorandum provides specific information about the rights and obligations of examinees. The explanatory memorandum also refers to the Public Information Statement: Examinations Conducted under the ACC Act, which is available on the ACC website. The Public Information Statement contains general and procedural information on the ACC examination process to assist witnesses, practitioners and examiners.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission investigate the establishment of a common employment framework for secondees as a matter of priority.
Accepted
There have been attempts to introduce a common employment framework which have proven challenging due to the wide disparity in conditions in different jurisdictions. Secondee arrangements were reviewed in August 2009 and the ACC intends to amend the arrangements so that secondees retain the salary and conditions of service applicable to their home jurisdiction. This will provide the following benefits:
Ongoing efforts will be made towards standardisation of salary and working conditions. However, this is a complex matter that requires detailed consideration and consultation at Commonwealth, State and Territory government level.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) in Australia
Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government and the States, the Territories and their agencies standardise the terms being used to describe amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD), particularly for research and statistical purposes.
Accepted
The Government recognises the importance of standardising drug terminology, particularly for research and statistical purposes.
Efforts have already been made to standardise drug terminology in Australia. For example, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) are represented in the Police Statisticians’ Group, which deals with the collection and analysis of regional crime statistics and works closely with the Australian Bureau of Statistic (ABS) National Crime Statistics Unit (NCSU). The Police Statisticians’ Group considers and adopts standard definitions and terminology for its purpose on an ongoing basis, including illicit drugs terminology. This group is currently developing a standardised data dictionary together with the NCSU. Once this data dictionary is completed, it will be provided to the Ministerial Council of Police and Emergency Management – Police (MCPEMP) and the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS).
Further attempts to refine these terms will require the support of the health and law enforcement agencies on MCDS.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission develop a nationally coordinated response to new and emerging communications technologies used by organised criminal networks to undertake serious criminal activities.
Accepted-In-Principle
The Government agrees that law enforcement and the intelligence community would benefit from a nationally coordinated response to new and emerging communications technologies used by organised criminal networks. However, it would not be appropriate for the ACC to assume the coordination role outlined in the recommendation as the ACC primarily has an investigative and intelligence focus.
On 16–17 April 2009, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agreed to a set of resolutions for a national response to combat organised crime. Attorneys-General also agreed to establish a Senior Officers’ Group to undertake work on the legislative, interoperability and information sharing measures that were agreed to. Attorneys-General agreed to a range of further measures to support the national response to combat organised crime agreed to in April 2009.
The Attorney-General’s Department has led the development of an Organised Crime Strategic Framework (the Framework) that clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies in combating organised crime. The Framework was released on 25 November 2009 and proposes a stronger collaborative approach and a significant focus which on enhanced intelligence and information sharing capabilities, attacking the criminal economy and building community and business resilience.
It is understood that other jurisdictions are also developing high-level strategic frameworks to address organised crime at the State and Territory level. It will be important to coordinate Commonwealth, State and Territory strategic frameworks in order to achieve a coherent national response to organised crime
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission work with Federal, State and Territory law enforcement agencies to achieve consistency in the collection and analysis and reporting of data on the chemical composition of seized illicit tablets, as well as drug identification and coding.
Accepted-In-Principle
The Government considers that consistency in data collection, analysis and reporting is an important objective. The Commonwealth’s law enforcement agencies currently apply the ABS Standard Classification of Drugs of Concern to their data collection and analysis activities and request input from their partners in line with this standard.
The AFP has developed the Australian Illicit Drug Intelligence Program which aims to establish a series of Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS) fingerprints or ‘signatures’. This will allow chemists to conduct comparisons between batches of drugs. This information is important in identifying the source of finished ATS, precursors used in ATS manufacture and production methods.
In response to an Attorney-General’s Department funded report – Building Illicit Drugs Forensic Capacity across Australia – which was endorsed by MCDS in May 2008, the AFP, in partnership with the Department, has developed a business case for the implementation of a national illicit drug forensic system. This business case involved significant consultation with State and Territory law enforcement agencies and would assist in achieving greater consistency in the collection and analysis and reporting of data on the chemical composition of seized illicit tablets, as well as drug identification and coding. Importantly it would also expand the drug seizures subjected to profiling to include samples from State and Territory seizures.
Although the ACC will continue to work with other Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies in developing a consistent process for the collection of seized drug data, the AFP and the Attorney-General’s Department are better positioned to take the lead on this issue.
Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission continue to be funded commensurate with the anticipated increase in organised criminal activity in relation to amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD).
Noted
The ACC has received increased funding to address AOSD issues. The ACC continues to maintain a focus on drug-related intelligence and investigative issues. In 2008–09, for instance, the ACC received an additional $5 million to address issues associated with the proliferation of synthetic drugs in Australia.
Any proposals for increased funding for the ACC’s AOSD work will be developed and considered as part of the Government’s annual budget process, including within the context of cross government and portfolio funding proposals.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that public education and demand reduction campaigns for illicit drugs be factual, informative and appropriately targeted. The Committee also recommends that such campaigns seek input from young people, and take account of user experiences of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD).
Accepted
This recommendation reflects the current approach to social marketing campaigns developed by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing in relation to both licit and illicit drugs. Public education and demand reduction campaigns are strongly underpinned by advice from drug and alcohol experts and comprehensive market research amongst young people to ensure the education and campaign resources are appropriately targeted and effective with the intended audience.
This approach will be maintained in the development and delivery of the Government’s Illicit Drug Use – targeting young people who use methamphetamines, announced in the 2008 Budget.
Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that, in the execution of the National Drug Strategy, harm-reduction strategies and programs receive more attention and resources.
Accepted
The Commonwealth is committed to the aims contained in the National Drug Strategy 2004–2009 – improving health, social and economic outcomes by preventing the uptake of harmful drug use and reducing the harmful effects of licit and illicit drugs in Australian society. As part of a comprehensive approach, the Commonwealth, along with its State and Territory partners, will continue to pursue the eight priority areas identified in the Strategy:
The Government is of the view that effective interventions to prevent drug use, treat those with drug problems and stop drug trafficking and manufacture all contribute to a reduced level of harm to individuals and the community.
The National Drug Strategy 2004–2009 is currently being evaluated. The results of the evaluation will inform the development of the next phase of Australia’s National Drug Strategy, including the role of harm reduction strategies.
Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that the Victorian feasibility study for an illicit tablet monitoring and information service be monitored and, as appropriate, the outcomes independently evaluated by the appropriate Commonwealth Government agency.
Not Accepted
While the Government is supportive of measures aimed at reducing the harm caused by illicit drug use, it has concerns about the use of pill testing at dance venues and similar locations that are similar to those raised in the report. In particular, the Government is concerned that:
However, the Government is prepared to consider the results of any research aimed at providing new or more objective information about the impacts of pill testing.
Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that a review of the provisions of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug and Other Offences) Act 2005 be undertaken and that it be amended to provide for regular reviews of the effectiveness of the provisions at two-year intervals after the initial review.
Accepted-In-Principle
The Government agrees that the provisions of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug and Other Offences) Act 2005 should be reviewed.
The Government considers that the initial review should consider whether and when any subsequent reviews should be undertaken and whether there is a need to amend the Act to make provision for regular reviews.
Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the States and Territories consider adopting drug offence regimes based on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug and Other Offences) Act 2005 with the aim, as far as is practically possible, of establishing greater national consistency in the offences and penalties that apply to crimes related to amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD).
Accepted
The Commonwealth will continue to work with State and Territory Governments through MCDS and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to encourage national consistency of drug offences and precursor offences. In particular, it will do so by supporting the implementation of model serious drug offences as agreed by all jurisdictions through Model Criminal Code Officers Committee in 2002, and the implementation of the model schedules of drugs, plants, precursors and threshold quantities developed by the MCDS–Scheduling Working Party in 2007.
Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth government undertake regular reviews of the effectiveness and interaction of Commonwealth and State drug legislation.
Accepted
The AFP and State and Territory police services monitor the ongoing effectiveness of serious drugs legislation. The Commonwealth supports the principle that regular reviews should occur to ensure streamlining of the different jurisdictions’ drug and precursor legislation. The Commoweanlth considers that the review of the provisions of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug and Other Offences) Act 2005 (see response to Recommendation 8), should also cover the interaction of Commonwealth, State and Territory drug legislation. That review should consider whether, when and by whom any subsequent reviews should be undertaken. The Government believes that as the key ministerial forum on illicit drug issues MCDS is best placed to progress any regular reviews.
Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government continue to work with the State and Territory Governments to encourage national consistency of offences relating to amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) and precursor chemicals.
Accepted
The Government accepts this recommendation and, as outlined in response to Recommendation 9, will continue to work with State and Territory Governments through MCDS and SCAG to encourage national consistency of drug offences and precursor offences.
In February 2005, the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs (IGCD) formed the Scheduling Working Party on Controlled Substance, which consisted of relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies and industry representatives, to recommend model schedules of controlled drugs, plants and precursors and relevant quantities to the IGCD and MCDS. Model schedules and quantities for drugs, plants and precursors were completed in May 2007 and subsequently noted by MCDS at its May 2007 meeting.
In 2002, the Commonwealth established a National Precursor Working Group to facilitate the implementation of the National Precursor Strategy. Under this Strategy the Precursor Working Group has promoted the implementation of a range of nationally consistent policies, including, where appropriate, uniform criminal provisions and regulation (for example, the rescheduling of pseudoephedrine). A National Precursor Control Framework was developed under the National Precursor Strategy and was presented to MCDS in 2009. The Framework is designed to encourage greater national consistency for the regulation of precursor chemicals. The Precursor Working Group brings together 45 members from Commonwealth, State and Territory law enforcement agencies, forensic and health services, and non-government members including the pharmaceutical and chemicals industries.
Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in collaboration with State and Territory Governments and pharmacists, continue to implement Project STOP nationally.
Accepted
The national rollout of Project STOP in pharmacies took place in August 2007 as part of the National Strategy to Prevent the Diversion of Precursor Chemicals into Illicit Drug Manufacture. As of 18 August 2009, approximately 75% of pharmacies nationally (3,856 pharmacies nation-wide) had registered with Project STOP and over 3.3 million transactions had been processed.
The Commonwealth has committed $463,782 in funding to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for the national rollout of Project STOP as part of the National Precursor Strategy. The Department of Health and Ageing has also committed a further $156,242 towards awareness raising on Project STOP as part of the Pharmacy Development Program for the Pseudoephedrine Awareness Campaign.
Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission collaborate with the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service and the relevant State and Territory law enforcement agencies to improve performance measurements for drug law enforcement under the National Drug Strategy.
Accepted
The Commonwealth has undertaken a number of initiatives to improve performance measures for drug law enforcement.
The ACC has concluded a research project in collaboration with Victoria Police and Macquarie University which looked at the effectiveness and efficiency of strategic and operational activities including models for calculating return on investment of ACC investigations. Further analysis is occurring on measurable performance indicators and flexible forms of structure and management.
The AFP has acknowledged the need to balance supply and demand side indicators with performance measurements of drug law enforcement by developing the AFP Drug Harm Index (DHI) in 2001. The DHI, which is updated regularly (latest update was published in 2006), combines supply and demand side indicators into a single measure that encapsulates the potential value to the Australian community of AFP drug seizures. The benefits of the DHI approach have recently been recognised by overseas and international agencies, which are independently developing their own drug harm indices.
The National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund previously commissioned a project by the Australian Institute of Criminology to develop a performance measurement framework for drug law enforcement in Australia. The project, completed in December 2006, developed a model performance measurement framework for Commonwealth, State and Territory law enforcement agencies to better assess the effectiveness of law enforcement strategies in tackling the supply and distribution of illicit drugs in Australia. Stage 2 of the project, which focussed on refining the framework’s performance measures and exploring options for implementation within individual law enforcement agencies, was completed in November 2009. The report made a number of recommendations for progressing the implementation of the framework nationally. This work is being continued in 2010.
Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that the reporting of Australian Federal Police statistics show separately the drug law enforcement policing outcomes for the ACT and federal jurisdictions.
Accepted
The usual practice of the AFP and ACT Policing is to report drug law enforcement policing outcomes separately and distinctly from each other. This is critical as the outcomes for the AFP are reported to the Australian Government, whereas the outcomes of ACT Policing are set in consultation with the ACT Government.
For example:
Circumstances where the AFP may report all drug seizure statistics (AFP National and ACT Policing) together are generally limited to United Nations questionnaires seeking whole-of-country or whole-of-agency data.
Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission and other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with the relevant State and Territory agencies, develop a standard data dictionary to ensure that information shared is as accurate as possible.
Accepted
As noted in the response to Recommendation 3, the Commonwealth’s law enforcement agencies currently apply the existing ABS Standard Classification of Drugs of Concern to their data collection and analysis activities and requests input from their partners in line with this standard.
As highlighted in the response to Recommendation 1 the Police Statisticians’ Group is currently in the process of developing a standardised data dictionary together with the NCSU and this will be presented to MCPEMP and MCDS for endorsement once it is completed.
Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission review its current sources of information so that the potential for double counting between State, Territory and Commonwealth agencies is minimised. Such a review should be published so stakeholders have a clear understanding of the basis and accuracy of supply data.
Accepted
The ACC engages in a continual dialogue with contributors to the Illicit Drug Data Report (IDDR) in its effort to produce a robust statistical report. However, there are limitations in its ability to confirm the accuracy of each data entry that exists, and these are stated in each edition of the IDDR, allowing users to assess the suitability of the data for their purpose.
Currently, the ACC imposes standard data requirements on contributors and sources IDDR data from the most relevant agencies in each jurisdiction to minimise the incidences of double counting. The ACC uses the National Illicit Drug Reporting Format system to process data for the IDDR. This system has enabled the ACC to improve the statistical accuracy and reliability of data. However, ultimately the ACC must rely on the data controls established by the jurisdictions for the accuracy of the data it receives. The ACC does not consider that alternative sources of data exist given that it is collected directly from police forces and contracted forensic laboratories.
The ACC is confident that it currently accesses the most authoritative available data. However, it will continue to work with contributors to identify data improvements to enhance the data provided to it as part of the ongoing process of compiling and annually reviewing the IDDR.
Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission work with the State and Territory law enforcement agencies to increase their participation in data provision to the Australian Crime Commission’s databases.
Accepted
The ACC has been actively working with the States and Territories to increase data flow into the Australian Criminal Intelligence Database (ACID).
To enable jurisdictions to more effectively share criminal information and intelligence, the ACC implemented the Standard Information Exchange Format (SIEF) enhancement to ACID. SIEF facilitates information exchange among law enforcement agencies by allowing disparate systems to share, exchange, accept and translate information. By supporting SIEF, criminal information and intelligence can be more efficiently and effectively uploaded to ACID by agencies, providing users with wider access to law enforcement intelligence and the ability to undertake more effective searching.
The ACC provides regular training to State and Territory law enforcement agencies on the use of ACID and the analytical tools available to ACID users. The ACC presented to the ACC Board in December 2009 on the current ACID/Australian Law Enforcement Intelligence Network (ALEIN) functionality and options for further investment in ACID/ALEIN.
The National Clandestine Laboratory Database (NCLD) was rolled out nationally in August 2008. The NCLD helps law enforcement agencies better target their drug investigations by integrating information on seized clandestine laboratories from all police and forensic agencies around Australia. The ACC has completed NCLD training programs for all jurisdictions.
Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission work to include the data provided by the State and Territory law enforcement agencies to further develop the Illicit Drug Data Report.
Accepted
The ACC remains committed to producing a quality statistical report in the form of the IDDR and, where possible, to enhancing its value. The IDDR is the only report of its type in that it combines law enforcement data on a national basis with standardised counting rules. While there was some criticism aimed at the report in submissions to the committee, generally the IDDR receives widespread acknowledgement as the most authoritative description of the drug situation in Australia for the reporting period.
The ACC will continue to work with jurisdictions to identify data improvements to enhance data collection and reporting methods as part of the ongoing process of compiling the IDDR.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Inquiry into the Future Impact of Serious and Organised Crime on Australian Society
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government examine the cost of provision of telecommunications data by telecommunications companies, with particular reference to methods by which that cost can be met or controlled.
Accepted
The Government, in association with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), will continue to facilitate discussions between agencies and industry that will review the costs associated with access to telecommunications data. Ongoing discussions will explore options for greater standardisation of costs and investigate technical or procedural efficiencies that may reduce those costs. While ACMA has an arbitrator role, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the TI Act) also deals with the division of costs between carriers and agencies as it applies to the interception of communications.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the issue of failure to cooperate with the Australian Crime Commission examination process be resolved immediately; and that the Commonwealth Government release the Trowell Report as a matter of priority.
Accepted
The Independent Review of the Provisions of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 by Mr Mark Trowell QC was tabled in the House of Representatives on 21 February 2008 and the Senate on 11 March 2008.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act No. 2 2010 (the SOC No. 2 Act) amended the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to include a mechanism for examiners to refer uncooperative witnesses to a superior court to be dealt with as if in contempt of that court.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Australian Customs Service continue to have access to telecommunications interception through law enforcement agencies, and that those agencies liaise to enhance the provision of telecommunications interception information to the Australian Customs Service.
Accepted-In-Principle
The Government proposes that current arrangements continue and that within the framework of the TI Act, the Government will consider ways to enhance the provision of telecommunications interception information to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.
Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth and Queensland governments collaborate to expedite the granting of telecommunications interception powers to the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.
Accepted
On 8 July 2009, the Attorney-General declared the Queensland Police and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission to be agencies for the purposes of the TI Act. The declarations mean that these agencies are able to apply for warrants to intercept communications to assist in the investigation of serious offences.
Telecommunications interception powers are an essential investigative tool for modern law enforcement agencies and will assist Queensland to better combat serious criminal activity. The Commonwealth will work with Queensland to help establish its technical capability to use these powers.
This brings Queensland into line with every other police force in Australia.
Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that recommendations of the Sherman report into the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, where appropriate, be implemented without delay.
Accepted
The Government is committed to ensuring effective proceeds of crime legislation at the Commonwealth level. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2010 (the SOC Act) and the SOC Act No. 2 implemented recommendations from the Sherman Report.
Recommendation 6: The committee suggests that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission in the next term of the Federal Parliament conduct an inquiry into all aspects of international legislative and administrative strategies to disrupt and dismantle serious and organised crime.
Accepted
The Government supports the conduct of an inquiry into all aspects of international legislative and administrative strategies to disrupt and dismantle serious and organised crime.
The Government welcomes the 17 August 2009 report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission (PJC-ACC) inquiry into the effectiveness of legislative efforts to disrupt and dismantle serious and organised crime groups and associations with these groups.
Recommendation 7: The committee recommends that any future review of the Corporations Act 2001 identify provisions which could be amended to inhibit the activities of organised crime, including, but not limited to, those provisions dealing with directors.
Accepted
The Government will continue to monitor corporations law to identify opportunities for reform to inhibit the activities of organised crime groups, in line with the national response to combating organised crime agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory Attorneys-General in April 2009.
At its 17 April 2009 meeting, the Ministerial Council for Corporations (MINCO) considered the issue of director disqualification under the corporations legislation, in response to concerns about the use and management of companies by organised criminal groups. The States and Territories were asked to outline their position in relation to five options for reform, put forward by the Commonwealth, that range from extending automatic disqualifications to establishing a national register of prohibited persons. At its 6 August 2009 meeting, MINCO resolved that officers would undertake further work on the potential to expand the categories of offences that result in automatic disqualification from managing companies under the Corporations Act 2001.
Recommendation 8: The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments enact complementary and harmonised legislation for dealing with the activities of organised crime.
Accepted
The Government recognises that serious and organised crime is a national issue which would benefit from a complementary and harmonised legislative approach. In April 2009, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agreed to a set of resolutions for a national response to organised crime. Those resolutions dealt with both legislative and operational measures to combat organised crime activity. In August 2009, SCAG agreed to further measures to support the national response to organised crime. Through the April and August 2009 SCAG resolutions, all jurisdictions have agreed to consider introducing laws to enhance criminal asset confiscation and offences organised criminal activity. Jurisdictions also agreed to implement the model laws for cross-border investigative powers, developed in 2003 by the SCAG and then Australasian Police Ministers Council Joint Working Group.
The SOC Act and the SOC Act No. 2 implemented measures aimed at organised crime agreed to by State and Territory Attorneys-General and strengthened existing laws by:
The Commonwealth has also endorsed an Organised Crime Strategic Framework which will provide a unified strategic direction for all Commonwealth agencies with responsibility for combating organised crime. It will also enhance collaboration and coordination across government and provide a greater understanding of criminal networks and threats from organised crime.
Recommendation 9: The committee recommends that the government seeks to expedite the telecommunications industry’s adoption of option B of the Telecommunications (Service Provider—Identity Checks for Pre-Paid Mobile Telecommunications Services) Determination 2000, so as to require 100 points of identity documentation upon activation of prepaid mobile phone services.
Not Accepted
At their inaugural meeting on 16 June 2009, the Commonwealth and Telecommunications Industry Experts Group examined the current identity checking requirements for the purchase of prepaid mobile phone services. The Group identified significant deficiencies and difficulties with the operation of the identity checking regime.
As a result, the Group agreed that a review of the arrangements was required to ensure the policy objectives were being met and the arrangements are effective and efficient. The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy established a working group, comprising industry representatives, ACMA, the Attorney-Generals Department and law enforcement and national security agencies to guide the review and explore options for improved arrangements.
The working group is currently considering a proposal for an improved identity checking regime based on the collection of information at the point of activation. The proposal aims to better meet the requirements and objectives of law enforcement and national security agencies by collecting a richer set of information about the purchasers of pre-paid SIMs at the point of activation and improved access to collected information. The proposal also aims to provide industry with opportunities to better streamline the process while ensuring that consumers can reasonably access these services. The working group is progressing development of the proposal as a priority.
Recommendation 10: The committee recommends that the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management—Police consider a more strategic and national approach to recruitment and retention of sworn police officers across all jurisdictions; and that consideration be given to enhancing cross-jurisdictional mobility, including secondments, of sworn police officers and other police service personnel.
Accepted
The March 2008 Police Commissioners Conference endorsed a resolution to refer the issue of ‘recruitment and retention’ to the Australian and New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) Board for examination. While the nature and scope of ANZPAA’s Work Program is subject to its Board’s endorsement, it is expected that this and a broad range of related issues will be addressed as part of that program. ANZPAA reports routinely to MCPEMP on its activities and its work could inform any consideration of more strategic and national approaches in due course.
The Commonwealth commissioned a federal audit of police capabilities in 2009 conducted by Mr Roger Beale AO. The findings of the Audit were presented to Government through the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 June 2009. Relevant stakeholders within the Commonwealth, States and Territories and the non-government sector were consulted in its development. The 2008 Budget provided the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with $191.9 million dollars over five years commencing 2008–09 to recruit 500 police officers. The Government also provided $20 million over four years for a recruitment and retention program, which will include strategies to recruit more women and Indigenous officers.
Recommendation 11: The committee recommends that the Productivity Commission inquire into the cost effectiveness and benchmarking of law enforcement bodies and current national arrangements to address serious and organised crime.
Noted
The Government agrees that the cost effectiveness of law enforcement responses should be examined.
An inquiry of national arrangements to address serious and organised crime does not fall within the mandate of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission is not the appropriate organisation to undertake such an inquiry. The Commission is the Australian Government’s principal advisory body on microeconomic policy and regulation. It undertakes inquiries and provides advice on matters relating to industry, industry development and productivity.
The outcomes from the Federal Audit of Police Capabilities deal with the issue of national arrangements to address serious and organised crime.
Recommendation 12: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government increase funding to the Australian Institute of Criminology.
Noted
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) is funded by direct budget allocations and revenue from project based work for clients. Any proposals for increased funding for the AIC will be developed and considered as part of the Government’s annual budget process including within the context of cross government and portfolio funding proposals.
Recommendation 13: The committee recommends that a formal relationship be established between law enforcement agencies, government departments and the Australian Institute of Criminology to enhance the provision of data, information and research; and that particular emphasis be placed on the removal of any legislative impediments to the provision of data to the Australian Institute of Criminology by Commonwealth, State and Territory departments and agencies.
Accepted
The Government recognises the value of information and data to the quality research of the AIC and agrees that the AIC should identify the precise requirements to access that data. The AIC will provide any issues for consideration of possible improvements in AIC access to data to the Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies and MCPEMP.
AIC access to State and Territory data and information is a matter for consideration by State and Territory governments as well as other appropriate forums.
Recommendation 14: The committee recommends that public education programs about emerging criminal activities, such as credit card fraud, banking fraud, identity theft and internet-based criminal activity, be given a higher priority and increased resources.
Noted
The Government will continue to assess the resources and needs for further public awareness campaigns targeting emerging crimes. Previous initiatives have targeted identity crime, e-security and online protection. The Government is also working closely with the private sector to raise awareness of particular crime types, for instance through the Australian Consumer Fraud Taskforce which is focused on consumer protection in relation to frauds and scams.
Public education campaigns on specific new and emerging crime types and risks will continue to be developed and funded on a case by case basis in conjunction with industry, non-government organisations and the community. The ThinkUKnow campaign, a joint initiative of the AFP, Mircosoft and ACMA has already been successful in raising public awareness of the need for child safety on the internet. In July 2009, the Government launched the CyberSmart website which sets the benchmark for cyber-safety advice and targeted information for Australian children, parents and teachers.
Recommendation 15: The committee notes that the Australian Crime Commission has prepared a public version of the Picture of Criminality in Australia and recommends that the ACC Board make this report available at the earliest possible date.
Accepted
The public version of the Picture of Criminality in Australia, Organised Crime in Australia was released on 16 January 2008. An updated report was released on 25 February 2009. It will be updated periodically to ensure its continued relevance to increasing the public’s awareness of the impacts of serious and organised crime on the community.
Recommendation 16: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek to ensure the comprehensive and public reporting of online fraud, particularly within the banking and finance industry.
Accepted-In-Principle
The Government supports the fullest possible reporting of all crimes including online fraud in order to better inform banking consumers of the potential and associated online fraud risks. The Government is also working closely with the private sector to raise awareness of particular crime types, for instance through the Australian Consumer Fraud Taskforce which is focused on consumer protection in relation to frauds and scams.
Recommendation 17: The committee recommends that CrimTrac be funded to examine the legislative, administrative and technical aspects to allow the inclusion of additional datasets to the Minimum Nation Wide Person Profile; particular consideration should be given to Aviation Security Identification Cards, Maritime Security Identification Cards, explosives licences and ammonium nitrate licences.
Accepted-In-Principle
The National Police Reference System, hosted by CrimTrac, has the technical capacity to include additional information sets such as Aviation Security Identification Cards, Maritime Security Identification Cards, explosives licences and ammonium nitrate licences. The legislative and administrative aspects of providing additional datasets would need to be considered in consultation with States and Territories and Commonwealth agencies.
The Government is seeking the support of the CrimTrac Board of Management to have CrimTrac and the Attorney-General’s Department consider the technical, legislative and administrative aspects of including additional datasets on the Minimum Nationwide Person Profile (MNPP). The Government has asked CrimTrac, the Attorney-General’s Department and the ACC to review any impediments to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Database accessing MNPP data.
These reviews will also need to consider the privacy implications of providing access to this information through the MNPP. Any Commonwealth funding required to support enhancements to MNPP would need to be considered in the annual Commonwealth Budget process.
Recommendation 18: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government review CrimTrac’s current funding model in order to provide it with a greater level of funding certainty.
Accepted
The Attorney-General’s Department is currently working with CrimTrac to review both their funding model and their governance structure. Any future funding model will need to be considered by the CrimTrac Board. The Commonwealth is a member of the CrimTrac Board.
Recommendation 19: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments implement a national number plate recognition system.
Noted
The Commonwealth has provided $2.23 million of funding from the confiscated assets account under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to carry out the Scoping Study.
Recommendation 20: The committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission give consideration to the extent to which its information handling protocols incorporate, and could be enhanced by, the principles of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Accepted
It is acceptable that the ACC’s criminal intelligence holdings remain exempt from the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988. However, the ACC’s current policy is to comply with the Information Privacy Principles to the greatest extent possible. This policy position is supported by compliance with a range of specific provisions in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 and other statutes that require the ACC to maintain the confidentiality of information it holds. The dissemination of ACC information in accordance with such legislation carries specific conditions, typically including the requirement that no further dissemination shall occur without prior ACC approval. The ACC will continue to give consideration to the extent to which its information handling protocols incorporate, and can be enhanced by, privacy principles in the context of this recommendation and other relevant considerations.
The Government notes that recommendation 37-1 of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) Report 108 – For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (2008) proposes that:
the ACC, in consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, should develop and publish information-handling guidelines for the ACC and the Board of the ACC. The information-handling guidelines should address the conditions to be imposed on the recipients of personal information disclosed by the ACC in relation to further handling of that information.
the PJC-ACC should monitor compliance by the ACC and the Board of the ACC with the information-handling guidelines.
The Government has announced that it will be responding to the ALRC’s recommendations in two stages, with recommendations relating to exemptions (including recommendation 37-1) to be considered in the Government’s second stage response.
Recommendation 21: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide funding for a feasibility study into the development of a single national case management system.
Recommendation 22: The committee recommends that the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management—Police give consideration and support to the development of a single national case management system.
Accepted-In-Principle
The issue of a national case management solution has arisen in a number of forums, including in the Clarke Inquiry recommendations. In March 2009, the CrimTrac Board approved the proposal for CrimTrac to conduct a feasibility study into a national case management capability.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Examination of the Australian Crime Commission Annual Report 2006–07
Recommendation 1: The Committee urges the government, without further delay, to amend Part II Division 1 Subdivision B Sub-section 7B(2) of the Act to include the Commissioner of Taxation on the ACC Board.
Accepted
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act No. 2 2010 (the SOC No. 2 Act) amended the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (the ACC Act) to include the Commissioner of Taxation as a member of the Australian Crime Commission Board.
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the government expedite its response to the Trowell Report and in particular, address the emerging problem that refusal to co-operate with the ACC examiners and examination process is being employed as a delaying tactic to thwart or frustrate ACC operations.
Accepted
The Independent Review of the Provisions of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 by Mr Mark Trowell QC was tabled in the House of Representatives on 21 February 2008 and the Senate on 11 March 2008.
The SOC No. 2 Act amended the ACC Act to include a mechanism for examiners to refer uncooperative witnesses to a superior court to be dealt with as if in contempt of that court.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Inquiry into Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission be required to, without delay, develop and implement a consistent and reliable method for its examiners to promptly and securely record their reasons for decision as required by Part II Division 2 Subsections 28(1A) and 29(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.
Accepted
It is now the established practice of Australian Crime Commission (ACC) examiners to prepare and record their reasons prior to the issue of every summons and notice pursuant to subsections 28(1A) and 29(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (the ACC Act). The forms used for summonses and notices now include the time and date of issue. The time and date of settlement is also included in the record of reasons, ensuring that compliance is apparent on the face of the documentation.
Measures are in place to provide assurance as to the accuracy of the documents at the relevant time including restricted electronic access and audit measures that disclose any subsequent amendments to the documentation.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the amendment made to Part II Division 2 Subsections 28(1A) and 29(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 by the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007 be repealed but that those subsections be amended to ensure that the reasons for the decision must be recorded in writing before the issuing of a summons or notice.
Accepted
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No. 2) 2010 (the SOC No. 2 Act) amended the ACC Act to ensure that ACC examiners record their reasons for issuing a summons or notice to produce before, or at the same time as, the summons or notice is issued. A failure to do this invalidates the summons or notice. ACC examiners are no longer able to record reasons after the summons or notice has been issued.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that Part II Division 2 Subsections 28(8) and 29(5) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be repealed.
Accepted
The SOC No. 2 Act repealed subsection 28(8) of the ACC Act and replaced it with a new subsection stating that a failure to comply with requirements set out in section 29A will not invalidate the summons. As such, a failure to comply with the requirement to record reasons and attach the relevant Board determination (subsections 28(1A) and 28(2)) will invalidate the summons.
The SOC No. 2 Act also repealed subsection 29(5) and replaced it with a new subsection stating that a failure to comply with requirements set out in section 29A will not invalidate the notice. The effect of this amendment is that a failure to comply with the requirement to record reasons in subsection 29(1A) will invalidate the summons.
This recommendation suggests that subsections 28(8) and 29(5) be repealed in their entirety. However, the new subsections 28(8) and 29(5) state that a failure to issue a non-disclosure notation under section 29A will not invalidate the summons. The Committee’s report focused on ensuring that an examiner be properly satisfied prior to issuing a summons or notice, and that the reasons for issuing the summons or notice are recorded. The requirement to include a non-disclosure notation under section 29A is not related to the decision of whether or not to issue a summons or notice.
Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that Part II Division 2 Subsection 29B(4) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to include the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Accepted
The SOC No. 2 Act expands the circumstances in which a disclosure may be made under subsection 28B(4) to include making disclosures to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) for the purpose of making a complaint under the Ombudsman Act 1976. The SOC No. 2 Act also allows disclosure under subsection 28(4) to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) for the purpose of referring to the Integrity Commissioner an allegation or information that raises a corruption issue. ACLEI is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious and systemic corruption issues in the Australian Federal Police and the ACC. As such, it is appropriate that a person is able to disclose a summons or notice to ACLEI for the purpose of referring to the Integrity Commissioner an allegation, or information that raises a corruption allegation.
The SOC No. 2 Act also expands the circumstances in which a disclosure may be made under subsection 29B(2) to include making disclosures to the Ombudsman for the purpose of making a complaint under the Ombudsman Act, or to the ACLEI for the purpose of referring to the Integrity Commissioner an allegation or information that raises a corruption issue.
Recommendation 4 of the PJC-ACC Report was limited to amending subsection 29B(4). However, it is appropriate that all people who are aware of a summons or notice (either under subsection 29B(2) or 29B(4)) be able to disclose matters connected to the summons or notice to the Ombudsman or ACLEI where appropriate.
Recommendation 5: The committee notes that Sections 10 and 12 of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007 deems certain summonses and notices valid thereby protecting any prosecution based on those summonses and notices. The committee recommends that:
Accepted
The amendments in the SOC No. 2 Act only operate prospectively. Therefore the requirements to records reasons before or at the time a summons or notice is issued only applies to summons or notices issued after the commencement of Schedule 7 of the SOC No. 2 Act. Accordingly, a failure to comply with such requirements will only invalidate summons or notices issued after commencement.
Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to include the statutory definition of contempt and the statutory power of referral, plus ancillary provisions, proposed as clauses 34A and 34B in the National Crime Authority Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 (except that the referral be to the Federal Magistrates Court) for matters arising under Section 30 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.
Accepted
The SOC No. 2 Act enables the ACC to apply to a Court to have an uncooperative witness dealt with for contempt. This provides the ACC with a more immediate means of encouraging witnesses to cooperate with ACC Examiners, as the ACC can issue the threat of immediate detention. A contempt power was also recommended by the independent review of the ACC Act conducted by Mr Mark Trowell QC.
Recommendation 7: As a corollary of Recommendation 6, or as an alternative thereto, the committee urges the Commonwealth Attorney-General to negotiate with the judiciary an expedited judicial process for matters referred by the Australian Crime Commission under Part II Division 2 Section 30 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.
Noted
As the SOC No. 2 Act provides the ACC with a contempt power, the Government will not be responding to this recommendation. The Commonwealth consulted with States and Territories on the contempt regime.
Recommendation 8: The committee recommends that Part IV Section 61A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended to require the Minister to cause an independent review of the operation of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 every five years with the first review to be undertaken no later than 1 January 2011.
Accepted
The SOC No. 2 Act requires that the provisions and operation of the ACC Act be reviewed once every five years.
Recommendation 9: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Ombudsman be required to inspect records made by the Australian Crime Commission examiners to ensure full compliance with Part II Division 2 Sections 28 and 29 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 and that the Ombudsman report annually to the Parliament on this matter.
Recommendation 10: The committee recommends that at least once in each year the Commonwealth Ombudsman be required to provide a briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission about the Australian Crime Commission's exercise of the coercive powers under Part II Division 2 Sections 28 and 29 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 and that Part III Section 55AA of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 be amended accordingly.
Not accepted
The Government does not accept that the additional statutory oversight recommended by the Committee is necessary given the extent of statutory and judicial oversight already in place. The ACC is subject to regular review by the Courts and through the existing capacity of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s own motion investigation powers can be used for any part of the ACC’s operations, including examination processes and other matters related to the use of coercive powers. For example, in August 2008, the Ombudsman released a report into the ACC’s use of powers under Division 2, Part II of the ACC Act, which provides the framework for examinations.
Administrative measures have been implemented in relation to the Committee’s recommendation that reasons be recorded prior to the issue of a summons or notice to produce. Reasons are now recorded prior to issue in all cases. These administrative measures were reinforced by amendments to the ACC Act included in Schedule 7 to the SOC No. 2 Act. These changes to administrative practices, along with a clear legal obligation to record reasons no later than the time of issue of a summons or notice, will ensure appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the ACC’s legal obligations through the existing legal processes available in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Courts.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission Report
Inquiry into the legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the ACC work with its law enforcement partners to enhance data collection on criminal groups and criminal group membership, in order to quantify and develop an accurate national picture of organised crime groups within Australia.
Accepted
On 25 November 2009, the Government released the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework (the Framework), which includes measures to improve intelligence, information sharing and interoperability among agencies to best identify and combat organised crime networks and their activities.
A key element of the Framework is the biennial development, by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), of an Organised Crime Threat Assessment to provide a shared picture among relevant stakeholders of the most significant threats and harms arising from organised criminal activity.
Under the Framework, the ACC will continue to play a key role in collecting and disseminating intelligence on criminal organisations. The continuation of current arrangements, including the ACC Board and existing task forces are supported under the Framework.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the ACC monitor the Serious Crime Prevention Orders, of the United Kingdom’s Serious and Organised Crime Agency, and report to both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on the operation of the orders and on any benefits to Australian law enforcement agencies.
Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that the ACC continue to monitor the effectiveness of the United Kingdom’s Financial Reporting Orders, and report to both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission whether similar reporting orders may be of benefit in the Australian law enforcement context.
Accepted
The Government agrees that the ACC continue to monitor the effectiveness of Serious Crime Prevention Orders and Financial Reporting Orders in the context of other investigative and offender management options, and report back as appropriate.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the unexplained wealth provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 be passed.
Noted
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2010 was passed by Parliament on 4 February 2010 and received Royal Assent on 19 February 2010.
Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government give urgent consideration to strengthening the enforcement of registration obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006.
Accepted
Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act), providers of remittance services are required to register with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). On 23 April 2010, the Government released a discussion paper detailing proposals to enhance regulation of Australia’s remittance sector in order to combat serious crimes. The paper includes proposals to tighten the registration obligations of the sector, and to empower the AUSTRAC CEO to refuse, suspend or cancel the registration of remitters in appropriate circumstances, including if the person poses a significant money laundering, terrorism financing or people smuggling risk or has a history of non-compliance with their regulatory obligations. Subject to the outcome of consultations, the Government proposes to introduce legislation amending the AML/CTF Act as soon as possible.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act No. 2 2010 strengthened AUSTRAC’s ability to take enforcement action against reporting entities that do not comply with their obligations under the AML/CTF Act. Specifically, it removed the requirement that AUSTRAC prove that an entity located in a foreign country is not an authorised deposit-taking institution when taking action against providers of remittance services under the AML/CTF Act.
The Government is currently considering options for improving the operation of the AML/CTF Act more broadly. The Government is committed to developing a workable legislative framework that strikes a balance between efficient conduct of business and effective regulation to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government examine a more integrated model of asset recovery in which investigation and prosecution are undertaken within one agency, such as the ACC.
Accepted
The Government will examine possible options for a more integrated model of criminal asset confiscation.
An important factor for consideration will be the desirability of closely coordinating action to confiscate criminal assets with any related investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. Consideration would also need to be given to the resources and expertise required to integrate in a single agency the functions of investigating criminal assets and applying for court orders to restrain and confiscate those assets.
Integrating asset recovery into the ACC may not be an appropriate option as it may detract from the agency’s key functions of information and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
Recommendation 7: The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with regional partners, give consideration to establishing an intelligence fusion centre in the Oceania region.
Accepted in principle
The Framework clearly articulates the benefit of a fusion capability such as the successful concept of the ACC’s Financial Intelligence Assessment Team, which pools analytical skills and provides shared access to multiple Commonwealth data and intelligence holdings located within the ACC. The Government has committed to the development of a domestic criminal intelligence fusion capability linking a range of agencies and is currently focused on establishing that capability. Any consideration of a fusion centre in the Oceania region should occur once the Commonwealth fusion capability has been established and fully evaluated.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, AAA, IAA, IMU, JeM and LeJ as terrorist organisations
Tabled 15 June 2009
Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Ansar al-Islam as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Asbat al-Ansar (AAA) as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Islamic Army of Aden (IAA) as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 5:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ) as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 6:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 7:
The Committee recommends that where a decision to de-list an organisation is made, that the Attorney-General provide a statement of reasons to the Committee and a public statement of reasons.
Response:
The Government agrees in principle with the recommendation.
Before an organisation can be listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur) or advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur). The statement of reasons, which is made available to the public, contains information which forms the basis for the Attorney-General’s decision to list or re-list an organisation.
Regulations listing an organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code expire after two years. The organisation then ceases to be listed, unless new regulations are made to re-list the organisation. To date, two organisations – the Armed Islamic Group and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad – have not been re-listed following the expiry of regulations listing these organisation as terrorist organisations. In both cases, the Government informed the public by media releases that the organisations would not be re-listed. The media releases explained why the organisations no longer met the statutory test for listing as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. The Government considers that this is an appropriate way of informing the public that an organisation will not be re-listed, and considers that this performs the function of a ‘public statement of reasons’.
The Government recognises that the Committee has a particular interest in these matters. Where the Committee requests more information on an organisation that is not being re-listed, the Government will ensure that the Committee receives a further briefing by ASIO to explain in more detail why the organisation no longer meets the statutory test for listing.
Improving the statement of reasons
The Government also notes the discussion in the Committee’s report on improving the statement of reasons. In particular, the Government notes the Committee’s request that future statements of reasons be drafted, at least in part, in such a way that the information is directly referrable to the statutory criteria for listing contained within the Criminal Code.
In response to the Committee’s request, the structure of the statement of reasons has been improved. The statement of reasons now states the statutory criteria for listing under the Criminal Code, and clearly sets out how the organisation to be listed or re-listed satisfies the statutory criteria.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Hizballah’s External Security Organisation (ESO) as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995
Tabled 25 June 2009
Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation:
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the listing of Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation
Tabled 26 October 2009
Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Hamas’ Brigades, PKK, LeT and PIJ as terrorist organisations
Tabled 17 November 2009
Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation:
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation:
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation:
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation:
as a terrorist organisation.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Government Response to Recommendations from the Parliamentary Inquiry into RAAF F-111 Deseal/Reseal Workers and their Families
Foreword
The Australian community quite rightly expects the Commonwealth Government to care for our servicemen and women who suffer ill-health because of their military service. This Government takes that responsibility very seriously. In 2007 we announced an election commitment, set out in Labor’s Plan for Veterans’ Affairs, to convene a Parliamentary Inquiry to examine the health and compensation issues surrounding the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) F-111 deseal/reseal workers and their families.
In addition to examining the health effects of F-111 fuel tank maintenance, with particular reference to the unique fuselage repair work undertaken and the health risks involved, the Parliamentary Inquiry was also tasked with considering the adequacy of the Government’s response to date. The aim was to investigate whether the Government’s response was adequate and consistent with the findings of the Study of Health Outcomes in Aircraft Maintenance Personnel, 2004 (SHOAMP); and, whether the overall handling and administration of health and compensation schemes was sufficient.
The previous Government provided access to benefits for some 700 RAAF personnel and civilians who were identified as having been involved, to some degree, in the RAAF’s formal deseal/reseal fuel tank maintenance programs. Health care and compensation benefits were available to workers experiencing any of the SHOAMP-specified illnesses; with the Health Care Scheme available while a claim was being determined, and continuing indefinitely even if a claim was rejected. The previous Government also paid one-off ex-gratia lump sums to eligible participants who had been in formal deseal/reseal programs, where they satisfied Tier 1 or Tier 2 criteria - definitions based on length of participation in the formal programs. Such ex-gratia payments were available regardless of a claimant’s health status, and were based only on a participant’s working environment.
The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade commenced the F-111 Parliamentary Inquiry in June 2008 and took evidence and histories from the fuel tank maintenance workers themselves. It also reviewed relevant scientific and health studies, and considered the services and support provided to affected workers by the Departments of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs.
The Inquiry report, Sealing a just outcome: Report from the Inquiry into RAAF F-111 Deseal/Reseal Workers and their Families, was tabled on 25 June 2009. A copy of the report is available online at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/deseal_reseal/report.htm
The report makes 18 recommendations, broadly relating to:
The Government has accepted 14 of the Inquiry’s recommendations, some in modified form, one partially accepted, and some accepted with enhancements. The tables at pages 6 and 10 detail the Inquiry’s recommendations and the Government Response.
The Government Response provides some $55 million over four years, expanding the definition of eligible personnel and the benefits and services available to them - to provide better access to care and compensation under the SRCA.
The Response significantly expands eligibility for compensation and health care under ss7(2) of the SRCA, by recognising thousands more F-111 maintenance personnel who may be affected because their work required fuel tank entry. An estimated 2,400 additional workers, (along with those associated with the formal deseal/reseal work programs) may now be considered for access to health care and compensation through inclusion in the definition of Tier 3 exposure classification, should they become affected by the health conditions linked to F-111 deseal/reseal work. While they were not subject to the same working conditions (with respect to the time spent in fuel tank entry and levels of chemical exposure) as those in the formal deseal/reseal programs, the Government acknowledges that other personnel, such as those undertaking ‘pick and patch’ work, may have also been adversely affected by their working conditions.
Health care treatment and counselling, provided by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs under the SHOAMP Health Care Scheme, and health screening and testing under the Better Health Program, is now available for many more workers. The Government Response also caters to the needs of family members of fuel tank maintenance workers, by extending counselling services available to workers and their families. Both group and individual counselling sessions will be available - designed to meet the specific clinical needs of participants. There will also be an increased number of sessions in the counselling program.
To enable easier access to health care and compensation, the requirements for evidence to support claims have been broadened - through the development of guidelines enabling statutory declarations to be considered as part of formal evidence. This will facilitate the claims process for those whose official work-related records may be unavailable.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs will task a senior officer, with a health background, and a background knowledge of the F-111 worker claims, to oversee the implementation of this Response. This officer’s role will also include monitoring and analysing the nature of health issues arising for current and future claims, so that trends in any late-emerging illnesses are identified.
The Department of Defence is continuing to research the underlying cause of health conditions associated with F-111 fuel tank maintenance, through its study of mitochondria in personnel exposed to fuel and solvents. A pilot study has now been completed and the next stage of the research is being scoped under the management of Defence Centre for Occupational Health.
The ex-gratia payment scheme continues unchanged, with the exception that the Estates of deceased personnel who died prior to 8 September 2001 are now eligible to apply for ex-gratia payments. The Government has elected not to extend eligibility for the ex-gratia payment scheme.
In the interests of fairness, the scheme (although a flawed approach to a complex health and compensation issue) remains open to workers involved in the formal deseal/reseal work programs under the existing eligibility criteria. The new guidelines for use of statutory declarations should assist more of the personnel involved in the formal deseal/reseal work programs to access the ex-gratia payments, where official records of their involvement are not available.
As part of the Government Response, there is now a dedicated F-111 Government website, jointly hosted by the Departments of Defence and Veterans Affairs. The site provides information and assistance to F-111 fuel tank maintenance workers and their families, detailing the range of health services and compensation entitlements for affected workers, and the new eligibility requirements. The website is available at:
http://f111.dva.gov.au
The Government thanks the Committee responsible for conducting the Parliamentary Inquiry - for the breadth and scope of their work. We have considered the report in detail and are pleased to present this Government Response, outlining our approach and actions regarding the important matters raised on behalf of F-111 fuel tank maintenance workers and their families.
The Honourable Alan Griffin, MP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs
Minister for Defence Personnel
Table of Recommendations—Accepted | |||
No. | Recommendations from the Parliamentary Inquiry | Accept/ Reject | Government Response |
1 | That the definition of eligible personnel for the purposes of Tier 3 of the ex-gratia scheme be extended to include personnel posted to one or more of the F-111 maintenance squadrons 1, 6 and 482 who carried out Sealant Rework work during the period 1973 to 2000 and personnel who served in 3AD or 501 WG and who undertook fuel tank entry and Sealant Rework work outside of the formal DSRS program. | Accept - with modification and enhancement (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation to expand the definition for eligibility for Tier 3 status, with access to compensation and health care under ss7(2) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA), to now include all personnel undertaking F-111 fuel tank maintenance involving fuel-tank entry prior to January 2000, including personnel who worked in F-111 fuel tanks at locations other than RAAF Base Amberley, in addition to those personnel who are already eligible through their work in, or linked to, F-111 deseal/reseal. This definition is more generous than that recommended by the Inquiry. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) will utilise the services of a senior officer to monitor and analyse the nature of conditions appearing in incoming compensation claims so that any emerging trends indicative of late onset conditions associated with deseal/reseal work can be identified. |
2 | In absence of evidence to the contrary and where usual documentary evidence is not available or is inconclusive, a statutory declaration by the applicant confirming: - they were posted to 1, 6 or 482 Squadron between 1973 and 2000, or 3AD or 501 WG; - that they were required to undertake Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) or fuel tank entries; and - accompanied by a second corroborating statutory declaration from a commanding officer or superior officer or person who has already had a claim under the scheme approved be accepted as evidence of qualifying service. | Accept – with modifications (DVA) | The Government accepts recommendation 2 with modifications to make it consistent with the expanded definition in its response to recommendation 1. This response addresses the particular issues faced by RAAF maintenance personnel undertaking F-111 fuel tank repairs, with the absence of official records. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and where usual documentary evidence is not available or is inconclusive, a statutory declaration by the applicant confirming that they carried out eligible deseal/reseal work or other F-111 fuel tank maintenance involving fuel tank entry prior to January 2000, accompanied by a second corroborating statutory declaration from a commanding officer or superior officer or person who has already had a claim under the scheme approved, will be accepted as evidence that will be considered in deciding if the person is eligible for Tier 3 status. DVA will issue guidelines in relation to the use and acceptance of statutory declarations. The mere presence of two statutory declarations will not guarantee the success of an application: every case will be judged on its merits. |
7 | That a review be undertaken of those cases in which a statutory declaration has been rejected by DVA in determining an F-111 ex-gratia application. That the committee be provided with a copy of that review. | Accept (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation and will undertake a review of cases in which a statutory declaration has been rejected by DVA in determining an F-111 ex-gratia application. This may result in additional payments under the ex-gratia scheme and additional statutory compensation under the SRCA. |
8 | That the healthcare and compensation provisions made available under the F-111 ex-gratia scheme be in accordance with ss7(2) of the SRCA or the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA) and this apply to the widened group in accordance with the recommendations in this report. | Accept – with modification (DVA) | The recommendation is accepted to the extent that eligible personnel defined in recommendation 1 will have enhanced access to health care and compensation pursuant to ss.7(2) of the SRCA for the 31 conditions identified by the SHOAMP and access to the SHOAMP Health Care Scheme (SHCS). |
9 | That the cut off date requiring applicants for the SHCS to submit claims prior to 20th September 2005 be removed. That all claims for SHCS received by DVA and rejected because of the September 2005 date be reviewed. | Accept (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation. The removal of the closing date of 20 September 2005 from the SHCS will enable new personnel to apply for access to the SHCS, after submitting a claim for compensation and makes allowance for those health conditions that have a latency period before onset. This will enable a person to receive treatment through the SHCS at the time that the condition becomes evident and provide access to the Better Health Program. Applications rejected because of the closure date will be reviewed and new applications will be accepted. |
10 | That the requirement excluding estates of those who died prior to 8th September 2001 from accessing the ex-gratia scheme be removed. Those estates of former personnel with qualifying service in accordance with the scheme and these recommendations be eligible for support under the ex-gratia scheme. | Accept (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation. Estates of eligible former personnel who died before 8 September 2001 will be able to apply under the ex-gratia scheme. It needs to be established that the former RAAF worker had eligibility as Tier 1 or Tier 2 in accordance with the scheme and the new accepted recommendations. |
11 | That the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs appoint a person with suitable qualifications and background knowledge of the F-111 workers claims to oversee the implementation of these recommendations and to provide expert assistance to DVA in processing claims. The person should be appointed for a minimum of two years and also provide periodic advice to the Minister on progress in handling claims. | Accept – partially (DVA) | The Government partially accepts this recommendation. The Government will ask DVA to task a senior person, with suitable qualifications, including appropriate health background, and background knowledge of the F-111 worker claims to oversee the implementation of all the recommendations and to provide expert assistance to DVA in processing claims. This person will provide reports to the Government and will be responsible for the monitoring described in the response to recommendation 1. The Government does not consider it necessary to appoint an independent person to oversee implementation of these recommendations as this would take away from the responsibilities and powers vested in the Repatriation Commission, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, the relevant Departmental Secretaries and the Chief of Defence Force. |
12 | That group counselling be made available to F-111 fuel tank repair workers and their families. That initially, participation in up to five group counselling sessions be made available to all who have access to funded individual counselling. That the Minister review whether further group counselling sessions should be made available, based on outcomes from these group counselling services. | Accept – with modification and enhancement (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation by providing enhanced access to counselling services, in excess of that recommended by the Inquiry. The Government proposes that VVCS - Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) develops and delivers a flexible program of groups and individual counselling to meet the clinical needs of individuals including partners. |
13 | That the Government give consideration to expanding respite care for partners of seriously ill former F-111 workers who are principal care providers. | Accept (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation. DVA will consider options for additional respite services for deseal/reseal partners. |
14 | That Defence provide a briefing on the progress of litigation to the Committee in March and September of each year. | Accept (Defence) | The Government accepts the recommendation. Defence can provide a briefing on the progress of common law litigation of personal injury claims to the Committee in March, September and as otherwise required by the Committee. |
15 | The Committee recommends that Defence and DVA establish a dedicated website in relation to F-111 aircraft maintenance issues. Such a website should be comprehensive and include: - the Board of Inquiry (BOI) Report and recommendations; - the complete SHOAMP study reports; - complete information on the ex-gratia payment including application forms; - a link to this report and recommendations; and - contact details and role descriptions of all relevant personnel including the Defence Force Advocate, ex-gratia processing team, DVA compensation processing team and other support mechanisms such as the F-111 DSRS Support Group, counselling support and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. | Accept (DVA and Defence) | The Government accepts the recommendation. Defence and DVA will establish a dedicated website in relation to F-111 aircraft maintenance issues and include the information detailed in the recommendation. |
16 | That a review of DVA staff training be undertaken to ensure a regular high standard of client focused delivery of services occurs. That policies for handling cases of seriously ill patients, especially those in vulnerable circumstances, be reviewed. | Accept (DVA) | The Government accepts the recommendation. DVA has already taken a range of actions to improve its service delivery and has future plans for further action to ensure a regular high standard of client focused service delivery. Policies for handling cases of seriously ill patients, especially those in vulnerable circumstances, will be reviewed. |
17 | That the ADF expand its internal capability in occupational medicine as a matter of some urgency. That a review of current practices in handling OH&S matters within the ADF be conducted to amongst other things, respond to the structural and cultural issues identified in the BOI and by Professor Hopkins. | Accept (Defence) | The Government accepts the recommendation. Defence has appointed a Senior Physician in Occupational Health and Safety Medicine. Defence is expanding its occupational health and safety capability and has already put in place a program delivering on this requirement with an estimated cost of $9.96m, funded from within budget allocation. The Defence OHS Strategy 2007-2012 has taken into account lessons learned from previous occupational health and safety issues including the F-111 deseal/reseal Board of Inquiry. |
18 | That the ADF fund further research into the mitochondrial changes identified in Professor Bowling’s research. That as part of that research, further wider study be undertaken into the health implications of working with aviation turbine fuels and the results of these studies be reported back to the Committee at least annually. | Accept (Defence) | The Government accepts the recommendation. Defence continues to support further research into mitochondrial changes in fuel and solvent exposed personnel, and Defence is also undertaking work to assess the health implications of working with aviation turbine fuels. |
Table of Recommendations—Rejected
At recommendations 3 – 6, the Inquiry Committee recommended the continuation and extension of an ex-gratia payment scheme instituted by the previous Government. This scheme attempted a simplistic lump sum payment solution to a complex health and compensation issue. The scheme did not make payments based upon need but based upon working conditions. As a consequence the majority of ex-gratia payments were made to personnel who were not suffering adverse health conditions. At the same time, other personnel suffering from similar health conditions were not able to access appropriate health care and compensation.
The intention of the Inquiry Committee in extending ex-gratia payments to a broader work group was aimed at achieving equity. However, the Inquiry Committee was clearly faced with great difficulty in framing parameters for the broader work group. Unfortunately, the parameters selected by the Inquiry Committee suffer from many of the same difficulties as the original scheme. The majority of ex-gratia payments would be made to personnel not suffering from adverse health conditions. The Government recognises the challenge faced by the Inquiry Committee in seeking to achieve equity with ex-gratia payments made by the previous Government. However, the recommendation by the Inquiry Committee to continue and expand the scheme would continue an approach that is not based upon sound principles. In the interests of fairness, the ex-gratia payment scheme will remain open to the original workgroup of workers associated with the deseal/reseal formal programs. The approach to statutory declarations at recommendation two will also apply to Tiers 1 and 2 of the scheme and this may assist some workers associated with the deseal/reseal formal programs who were not successful in their previous ex-gratia payment applications due to the lack of official records. However, the scheme will not be expanded to a wider work group.
The Government approach is based upon providing health care and compensation through the existing statutory mechanisms to those in need. Accordingly, the Government has taken an inclusive approach to recommendation 1 and 2 that exceeds the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee. This is a principled approach aimed at supporting those whose health has been affected through their service in the unique working environment of F-111 fuel tank maintenance.
Accordingly, the Government does not accept recommendations 3 – 6.
No | Recommendations from the Parliamentary Inquiry | Accept/ Reject | Government Response |
3 | That the definition of eligible personnel for the purposes of Tier 2 of the ex-gratia scheme be extended to include personnel posted to one or more of the F-111 maintenance squadrons 1, 6 and 482 who spent between 20 and 59 cumulative working days carrying out Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) during the period 1973 to 2000 and personnel who served in 3AD or 501 WG and who undertook fuel tank entry and Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) work outside of the formal DSRS program. | Reject | The Government rejected this recommendation. The Government has preferred a response that applies a principled approach to providing health care and compensation to those workers suffering adverse health effects as a result of performing work associated with the deseal/reseal formal programs and other F-111 fuel tank maintenance involving fuel tank entry. The Government does not propose to expand the ex-gratia scheme because it believes that it did not address the adverse health effects caused by fuel tank maintenance work. In the interests of fairness, the ex-gratia payment scheme will remain open to the original work group and the approach to statutory declarations at recommendation two will apply to assessments under Tier 2 of the scheme. |
4 | In absence of evidence to the contrary and where usual documentary evidence is not available or is inconclusive, a statutory declaration by the applicant confirming: - they were posted to the squadron between 1973 and 2000; and - that they undertook Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) work for between 20 and 59 cumulative working days during the period 1973 to 2000 outside of the formal DSRS program, or 3AD or 501 WG; and - accompanied by a second corroborating statutory declaration from a commanding officer or superior officer or person who has already had a claim under the scheme approved; be accepted as evidence of qualifying service. | Reject | The Government rejected this recommendation as it was directly related to recommendation 3 that has been rejected. |
5 | That the definition of eligible personnel for the purposes of Tier 1 of the ex-gratia scheme be extended to include personnel posted to one or more of the F-111 maintenance squadrons 1, 6 and 482 who spent 60 or more cumulative working days carrying out Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) work during the period 1973 to 2000 and personnel who served in 3AD or 501 WG and who undertook fuel tank entry and Sealant Rework (‘pick and patch’) work outside of the formal DSRS program. | Reject | The Government rejected this recommendation. The Government does not propose to expand the ex-gratia scheme because it believes that it did not address the adverse health effects caused by fuel tank maintenance work. In the interests of fairness, the ex-gratia payment scheme will remain open to the original work group and the approach to statutory declarations at recommendation two will apply to assessments under Tier 1 of the scheme. |
6 | That where usual documentary evidence is not available or is inconclusive, a statutory declaration by the applicant confirming: - they were posted to the squadron between 1973 and 2000; and - that they undertook Sealant Rework ‘pick and patch’ work for 60 or more cumulative working days during the period 1973 to 2000 outside of the formal DSRS program, or 3AD or 501 WG and; accompanied by a second corroborating statutory declaration from a commanding officer or superior officer or person who has already had a claim under the scheme approved. | Reject | The Government rejected this recommendation because it was directly related to recommendation 5 that has been rejected. |
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES REPORT NO 103 ON THE CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have regard to the following issues when drafting the legislation required to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions , and when developing policies under which the personnel of the ADF operate:
Government response
Dot point 1
Noted.
In developing the legislation required to implement the Convention, the Government will have regard to the meaning of the terms ‘use’, ‘retain’, ‘assist’, ‘encourage’ and ‘induce’ as they apply in the Convention. The Department of Defence will also have regard to the meaning of these terms in developing policies under which ADF personnel will operate.
Dot point 2
Noted.
Article 1 of the Convention prohibits States Parties from using cluster munitions and also prohibits assistance in the use of cluster munitions. However, this prohibition is subject to the exception contained in Article 21 that allows States Parties, their military personnel and nationals to engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to the Convention that may use cluster munitions. This provision allows States Parties to continue to conduct operations with allies not party to the Convention who may be using prohibited cluster munitions, such as the United States. The Convention does not prohibit inadvertent participation in the use, or assistance in the use, of cluster munitions. During military cooperation and operations with States not party to the Convention, Australian personnel will nonetheless be prohibited from themselves using cluster munitions or expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions in cases where the choice of munitions used is within their exclusive control.
Dot point 3
Noted.
Article 9 of the Convention requires Australia to enact criminal offences to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under the Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control. Article 1 of the Convention prohibits States Parties from directly or indirectly developing or producing cluster munitions, or assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to develop or produce cluster munitions. While the terms of the legislation required to implement the Convention are still under consideration, the offences included in the legislation will reflect the obligations contained in Article 1 of the Convention.
I present the 49th report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, Estimates for the Department of the Senate 2010-11.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong, which took place from 1 to 12 November 2009.
I table a statement relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Green Loans Program.
by leave—At the request of Senator O’Brien, I present the seventh report of 2010 of the Selection of Bills Committee.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2010
(Kerry O’Brien)
Chair
13 May 2010
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010.
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Involves domestically grown produce, residue risk assessment and chemicals/pesticides on crops, public health and safety considerations, and State and Territory relations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Food Standards Australia
Pastoralists and Graziers Association Inc
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Australian Farmers Federation
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
15th June 2010.
(signed)
Stephen Parry
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Keeping Jobs from Going Offshore (Protection of Personal Information) Bill 2009
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Teleservices Association
Australian Privacy Commissioner
Finance Sector Union
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts
Possible hearing date(s):
September 2010
Possible reporting date:
18 October 2010
(signed)
Stephen Fielding
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Paid Parental Leave Bill 2010
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To be inquired into as part of the inquiry into the Exposure Draft of that bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Parties or individuals that have contributed to the inquiry into the Exposure Draft of the bill.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
3rd June 2010
(signed)
Stephen Parry
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2010
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2010
Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-Scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Bill 2010
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider any possible consequences of this legislation to the renewable and other energy sectors.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Renewable Energy Industry Groups
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment, Communications and the Arts
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date
10 June 2010
(signed)
Stephen Parry
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Responsible Takeaway Alcohol Hours Bill 2010
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Public Health Association of Australia
National Health and Research Council
Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
September 2010
Possible reporting date:
25 October 2010
(signed)
Stephen Fielding
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Tax Laws Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Former members of the Church of Scientology
Charity Commission for England and Wales
Mr. Paul Harpur, Associate Lecturer, Queensland University of Technology
Dr. Stephen Mutch, Macquarie University
The Church of Scientology
Peak bodies representing Churches, NGOs and Charities
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July 2010
Possible reporting date:
31 August 2010
(signed)
Rachel Siewert for Nick Xenophon
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 201.0
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
These Bills provide for more generous tax benefits that are better targeted towards genuine research and development (R&D) activities. Industry expressed concerns about the tightening of eligibility criteria in the exposure drafts of the legislation, and the effect on R&D expenditure. In particular, industry was concerned about the new definitions of core R&D and supporting R&D. A range of views have been submitted in response to a consultation paper and two exposure drafts of the legislation, and the views taken into account in drafting the versions presented to the Committee.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Title | Civet’ Name | Family Name | Organisation | Jab Title |
Dr | Ken | Henry | Treasury | Secretary |
Mr | Mark | Paterson | Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research | Secretary |
Mr | Michael | D’Ascenzo | Australian Taxation Office | Commissioner |
Dr | Gary | Banks | Productivity Commission | Chairman |
Dr | Megan | Clark | CSIRO | Chief Executive |
Mr | Greg | Evans | Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry | Acting Chief Executive |
Ms | Jaye | Radisich | Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Ms | Heather | Ridout | Australian Industry Group | Chief Executive |
Dr | Glenn | Withers | Universities Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Michael | Gallagher | Group of Eight Universities | Executive Director | |
Dr | Terry | Cutler | Cutler & Company | Principal |
Prof. | Roy | Green | Faculty of Business, University of Technology | Dean |
Prof | Neil | Warren | University of New South Wales | Head of Australian School of Taxation |
Mr | Yasser | El-Ansary | Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia | Tax Counsel |
Mr | Richard | Petty | CPA Australia | President |
Mr | Kris | Gale | Michael Johnson Associates | Managing Director |
David | Gelb | KPMG | National R&D Partner | |
Mr | Pat | Donato | BDO | Director |
Mr | Serge | Duchini | Deloitte Australia | Research and Development Manager |
Mr | Robert | Jeremenko | Taxation Institute of Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Mr | Louis | Phan | National Tax & Accountants Association | Taxation Manager |
Mr | Frank | Drenth | Corporate Tax Association | Executive Director |
Mr | Dave | Oliver | Australian Manufacturing Workers Union | Secretary |
Mr | Duncan | Jones | Science Industry Australia | Executive Director |
Andy | Sierakowski | Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia | President | |
Mr | Mitch | Hooke | Minerals Council of Australia | Chief Executive |
Mr | Ian | Birks | Australian Information Industry Association | Chief Executive Officer |
Mr | John | Hilvert | Internet Industry Association | Communications Director |
Tony | Reed | Games Developers’ Association of Australia | Chief Executive | |
Ms | Helen | O’Neill | Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences | Executive Director |
Prof | Robert | Graham | Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes | Chairman |
Mr | Peter | Verwer | Property Council of Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Mr | Tony | Battaglene | Winemakers’ Federation of Australia | General Manager |
Mr | Andrew | McKellar | Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries | Chief Executive |
Prof | Ray | Wills | Western Australian Sustainable Energy Assoc | Chief Executive |
Prof | Robin | Batterham | Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering | President |
Mr | Graham | Bradley AM | Business Council of Australia | President |
Mr | David | Hughes | Australasian Industry Research Group | President |
Mr | Robert | Marxen | Boeing Australia Holdings | Senior Manager, International Taxation |
Mr | Mark | Bennetts | Australian Coal Research Limited | Executive Director |
Mr | Craig | McDonald | UniQuest | Business Manager, Consulting and Research |
Mr | John | Best | Thales | Vice President, Research and Technical |
Ms | Sandra | Mason | PricewaterhouseCoopers | Partner |
Mr | Robin | Parsons | Ernst Young | Partner, Indirect Tax |
Mr | David | Miles | Innovation Australia Board | Chair |
Mr | Peter | Thomas | Innovation Australia Board | Chair, Tax Concession Committee |
Dr | Anna | Lavelle | AusBiotech | Chief Executive Officer |
Dr | Brendan | Shaw | Medicines Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Dr | Chris | Roberts | Cochlear | Chief Executive Officer/President |
Mr | Kieran T. | Gallahue | ResMed | Chief Executive Officer/President |
Dr | Ashley | Bates | GSK | I lead of R&D Alliances |
Ms | Megan | Motto | Consult Australia | Chief Executive Officer |
Dr | Peter | .lonson | CRC Committee | Chair |
Mr | Michael | Hartmann | CRC Association | CEO |
Dr | Leanna | Read | TGR Biosciences | Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer |
Mr | Charles | McElhone | National Farmers’ Federation | Manager —Economics and Trade |
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics - Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
20 May 2010 (Canberra); 21 May 2010 (Sydney)
Possible reporting date:
15 June 2010
Kerry O’Brien
(signed)
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Water (Crisis Powers and Floodwater Diversion) Bill 2010
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
* Professor Mike Young - The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide
* Murray Darling Basin Authority
* Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists
* Australian Conservation Foundation
* Professor Di Bell
* Mr Pat Byrne - Murray Darling Basin Water Crisis Management Council
* Professor John Williams - Adelaide Law School
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Environment Communications and the Arts
Possible hearing date(s):
June/July 2010
Possible reporting date:
24 August 2010
(signed)
Rachel Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to senators, and letters of advice in response to the continuing order relating to departmental and agency appointments, vacancies and grants are tabled.
Details of the documents appear at the end of today’s Hansard.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Nash, I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the management of aircraft noise by Airservices Australia be extended to 23 June 2010.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to amend the order of the Senate of 11 May 2010, as amended, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today.
Leave granted.
I move:
That, on Thursday, 13 May 2010:
I have just had a discussion with the Chief Government Whip about actually rearranging that again to bring that debate on at 5.30 pm. Could I ask that that matter be held over until we finalise the hours of attending to this business?
Is that matter now settled, Minister?
I seek leave to amend the motion before the chamber.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
leave, moved—
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 11 May 2010 be varied to provide that, on Thursday, 13 May 2010:
Part of the agreement under negotiation with the government was that at the conclusion of general business we would not seek to divide on the motion put before the chamber.
Question agreed to.
(Quorum formed)
by leave—I move:
That the Senate notes the Rudd Labor Government’s waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money.
I am very proud to stand here in support of this motion and in support of the evidence and the facts that we have on the table with respect to the waste and mismanagement that has been demonstrated by the Rudd Labor government over the last 2½, and a little bit more, years. It is not gross negligence; it is in fact worse—much worse. It is recklessness in the extreme. There has been a shocking amount of waste and mismanagement. In their time in office under Mr Rudd, Labor have wasted more than $4 billion of taxpayers’ money and they cannot be trusted with the public purse. Tuesday night’s budget delivery has confirmed what the coalition has been saying for months—that Australia cannot afford another three years of a Labor government.
I want to reflect very briefly on the federal budget before reflecting on other evidence with respect to waste and mismanagement under the Rudd Labor government. Labor’s mismanagement of all the major policies over the last two years has left Australia with a massive budget deficit to the tune of nearly $41 billion. That is the largest budget deficit since World War II, bar one budget. It is the second largest in all those many decades. Last Tuesday night’s budget also confirmed our fears with respect to the collapsed Home Insulation Program, the pink batts fiasco, which will cost the Australian taxpayer $1 billion to fix. This additional spending is needed only because of Labor’s mismanagement and maladministration. Labor is now spending good money after bad on this program, and I will say more about that shortly.
Labor will have to borrow more than $700 million a week to fund its reckless and wasteful spending, continuing the upward pressure on interest rates and the cost of living for everyday mums and dads and Australian families. It is wrong, dead wrong. Labor, sneakily, has set aside $126-odd million dollars of taxpayers’ money in the budget to fund its advertising in the lead-up to the federal election. That is very sneaky indeed. It has slipped it into the federal budget, and it includes advertising on climate change. ‘This is the great moral issue of our time,’ says the Prime Minister, yet he has deferred the decision regarding the emissions trading scheme for some three years—and I notice Senator Wong in the chamber today. But they are willing to spend taxpayers’ money on advertising climate change and the government’s response to it. Where is the connection? It is absurd; it is a disgrace. Those are a few reflections on the budget.
But what do we say about the waste and mismanagement? I am going to list the shocking evidence that we have from the 2½ years or thereabouts under the Rudd Labor government. I am going to list the points and then I will speak to a few of them to hopefully gain the support of this chamber for this motion. We have had Building the Education Revolution, with a $1.5 billion blow-out, and the Home Insulation Program, with $1 billion wasted. There was a promise to cut consultancies but there have been $1.2 billion in contracts awarded. We have seen a $1 billion blow-out in laptops in schools, with barely half delivered. In terms of the environment, we have seen climate change advertising, with $50 million wasted, and $1.5 million wasted on the Copenhagen delegation. In terms of the ETS, 150 public servants are doing absolutely nothing for and on behalf of the Australian taxpayers, with $81.9 million wasted. There has been an $850 million blow-out on the solar panel rebate. The Green Loans scheme, a $175 million program, has been cancelled altogether. Of course, we have seen the UN Security Council bid of $35 million by the Rudd Labor government—and I know that is of relevance to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Trood. There was a promise of $4.7 billion for the National Broadband Network before the election and that was replaced with a $43 billion plan by the Rudd Labor government. Also, $20 million has been wasted on the broadband tender process and $25 million spent on paid consultants for the broadband business plan.
What about legal fees under the Rudd Labor government? They are at record levels of $550 million last year. The tax review cost $10 million but we have seen no action. We have seen $46 million wasted on tax bonus payments. Remember the money that went overseas and the money that went to dead people. That was a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money yet again. We saw $2 million wasted on the 2020 Summit. A sum of $45 million was spent on the Indigenous housing program before one house was completed. What a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money! Of the 260 childcare centres promised, 38 were delivered—and, of course, that has now been cancelled. Of the 35 GP superclinics promised, three are fully operational. The government had a plan to stop Japanese whaling. It was promised but not delivered. They are spending $1 million on a whale envoy. Of course, the cost of living has risen under Labor, and I will speak more about that very shortly. We have had the GROCERYchoice website, and what did they spend on that? Eight million dollars—not a bad website. And this is all because Mr Rudd promised before the last federal election that he wanted to get grocery prices down. But, of course, they have gone up and they have wasted $8 million on a website, which they themselves, through public pressure, coalition pressure and obvious common sense, have closed down. But they have wasted $8 million of taxpayers’ money. It is a disgrace. What about Fuelwatch? Prices went up, and this is another broken promise. Of course, you have seen the interest rates rise and rise and rise again.
What about some of the substantial pieces of evidence, whether with respect to the home insulation scheme, to Building the Education Revolution or to the cost of living? Let us have a look at some examples to convince the Labor senators in this place that they should support this motion and hang their heads in shame at this shocking waste of taxpayers’ money. The primary schools element of Building the Education Revolution blew out by $1.7 billion to $14.1 billion, and construction has barely begun. We saw in the budget papers that they are still going to be spending on schools four years after the global financial crisis, which kicked in in 2008. They will still be spending in 2012 in response to the global financial crisis. How absurd! Millions of dollars were wasted on signs and plaques promoting Labor policy and commemorating the Minister for Education, the Hon. Julia Gillard. Fancy spending all that money for that purpose!
Reports of waste and rorting began to emerge, but only after sustained pressure from the opposition, members of the public and people in the media did the government finally concede one example of rorting and waste. It took all that time. Dozens more followed, and here are some examples. In New South Wales, Hastings Public School’s shade project cost blew out from $400,000 to almost $1 million—for a shadecloth! There are plenty more examples on top of that. Tottenham Central School requested a new lab under the BER; instead they received a $600,000 eight-by-2.5-metre brick canteen—a canteen instead of a lab; a canteen without any cooking facilities and rendered ‘useless’ by the school. Marulan Public School in New South Wales received $853,000 for a new library that they did not want. The building is still not complete after being promised by early February. Inclusions such as heating, solar panels and covered walkways have been omitted. Estimates suggest that the structure that has been built could easily have been completed for around $350,000.
Senator Brett Mason asked an excellent question today of the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Carr, with respect to Rawlinsons, who are very credible and well-respected quantity surveyors. They did an assessment of the government’s Building the Education Revolution projects in terms of value for money. But do you think this government is interested in value for money? Clearly not, and the evidence confirms that. What did Rawlinsons say? They said that the way the government is approaching this is ‘insane and anomalous’. In terms of value for money, this government clearly is not interested. Its approach was to spend. Reckless spending is what it is doing.
They stuff up everything they touch.
That is exactly right, Senator Corman: they stuff up everything they touch. In fact, it is a fraud on the public purse. It is just a dead wrong. They need to come clean. The Prime Minister needs to come into the chamber, hang his head in shame and say: ‘Enough is enough. I’m sorry for all the waste and mismanagement under my government.’ That is what should be done.
I want to make a few comments with respect to cost of living. An excellent summary of this was set out in the Herald Sun on Thursday, 29 April. The headline is ‘Your bills soar as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd fails to keep costs down’, and the story says:
THE soaring cost of petrol, child care, housing, electricity and health is proof Kevin Rudd is failing to deliver on his election pledge to tackle the cost of living for working families.
The Prime Minister sought to make living costs a key election issue when he courted votes from “working families” and repeatedly attacked the Howard government for having “no solution”.
An analysis by the Herald Sun, based on the latest report card from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reveals price increases in the past 12 months for utilities, child care and petrol alone have ripped $1000 from the yearly budget of a typical working family.
And the cost of housing (both rent and interest rates), hospital and medical charges, education and even haircuts eats up more of the budget than the cheaper price for clothing and computers. Grocery prices have been mixed.
In Victoria, as the story goes on to say, electricity has gone up 20 per cent; water and sewage, 17.6 per cent; gas, 7.5 per cent; petrol, 7.4 per cent; house purchase costs, 6.3 per cent; property rates and charges, 5.3 per cent—and the list goes on. In terms of the cost of living, this government has failed absolutely and abundantly. It is very sad.
In terms of the environment, the Green Loans Program has collapsed and has been cancelled, at a cost of $175 million. What has happened at the tax office? Senator Sherry is responsible for what happens at the tax office, and what happened was that tens of thousands of taxpayers were left out of pocket after tax assessment letters went out without cheques attached—that is, 140,000 letters will need to be resent, while the ATO continues to pay interest on overdue refunds. I commend shadow Assistant Treasurer Sussan Ley, who said:
After 3 months ignoring the problem this is yet another example of the Rudd Government’s delayed response in addressing problems that are affecting families and business across Australia.
In terms of the environment again, a small-town Victorian football club was recently given 17 new hot water units, one for each player—how absurd!—under the Labor government’s hot water rebate scheme, which was intended for households only. The energy efficiency minister, Greg Combet, has been unable to explain how a sporting club benefited from the program. Koondrook footy club president Rod Barrington summed up the Labor government’s mismanagement perfectly when he said:
They just didn’t do any research about where it was going. It is taxpayers that pay for it.
Too right they are paying for it! They are paying for it through the neck.
In terms of the pink batts fiasco, it has gone from bad to worse. It was confirmed in the budget that $1 billion of taxpayers’ money will be spent to remedy that program, to fix it up.
What a farce!
What a farce it is, Senator Williams! It is a disgrace. Of course, there is no commitment by this government to inspect every one of the homes insulated under the program. So you have mums and dads, families, living in homes, anxious and in fear, not knowing exactly whether their homes are safe and secure. Under this program there have been 240,000 dodgy or unsafe installations, 1,500 electrified roofs, about 120 house fires—possibly more—and, tragically, four deaths. It is not good enough. There is a Senate inquiry, but the government should come clean and reveal all the information, including the letters between the Prime Minister and the minister for the environment.
So the Rudd government are piling on the waste and their mismanagement is in the extreme. They should come in and the Prime Minister should hang his head in shame and say: ‘I’m sorry. I apologise. Enough is enough.’ I commend the motion to the Senate.
Let me say at the outset of my contribution to the motion on taxpayer money that this government has nothing to hang its head in shame over. We are a government which tackled the deepest global recession since the Great Depression, we are a government which set about supporting 210,000 jobs in this economy and we are a government which, through the initiatives that we undertook, increased the level of GDP by three-quarters of one per cent. We are a government which has taken on the challenges, and we have done that with a number of initiatives to make sure that we have quality, adequacy and efficiency in our transport, communications, energy, education and health infrastructure systems. We have moved on higher education and we have moved on innovation.
This is where money has been spent, money that was not spent during 10½ years of the Howard government lying back and doing nothing, 10½ years of economic incompetence and 10½ years of lost opportunities. We have taken the steps to make sure that the schoolkids of this country have decent accommodation—something you did not care about. You did not care whether they could get out of the sun. You did not care whether they had a school hall. You did not care whether they had any language skills. You did not care whether they had any science labs. We do; Labor do. Labor want a decent society; we want a good society. We want a society in which everyone gets a fair go, not just the mining magnates that are pouring money into the coalition for its election purposes. We want a fair go for the children of this country, we want a fair go for the mums and dads and we want a fair go for communities both here and in the regions. We want a fairer society. We want a decent society. That is why, when faced with a $210 billion downward revision of taxation receipts as a result of the global recession, we decided to move. We decided to act decisively.
What did the opposition say? The opposition said: ‘We should wait and see. We should let the market rip. We should let workers lose their employment. We should let workers get put on the dole. We should let families suffer because we want the market to resolve this.’ We as a government knew the market would not resolve this. That is why we took the action that we did. We took action to ensure that working families were looked after and that working families had income immediately and jobs in the medium term. That is what we did. We supported the income of households through fiscal stimulus. We had shovel-ready infrastructure in place and we moved to create jobs. We had longer term nation-building projects that were absolutely essential to build a strong and productive economy for the future—something the Howard-Costello government never, ever did.
With this massive contraction in the world economy, with eight out of 10 of our trading partners contracting in 2009, we took that early and decisive action. We stimulated demand to make sure more Australians were in work. As I said, we invested in roads, rail, ports and broadband to boost productivity and growth because we understand the role of government—something that the coalition does not understand. The role of government is to step in and ensure that the economy continues when the market fails, yet we have a coalition that says, ‘Everything will be okay; we’ll sit back and we’ll wait to see what happens.’ We were not prepared to go down that path. We decided in the last budget to invest in roads, rail, ports, broadband and infrastructure, to invest in clean energy initiatives and to give first homeowners a fiscal hand-up. Many young homeowners would not have houses without that initiative of this government. We always had a deficit exit strategy in place.
In this budget, we have continued to invest in families through personal income tax cuts where a worker on $50,000 will be $450 better off. We have fairer and simpler tax returns. We are supporting banking competition to make the banking area more competitive, after-hours access to general practitioners, GP superclinics, training more doctors and allied health professionals and a COAG agreement on the National Health and Hospitals Network. We are also making sure we build for the future by giving ordinary working-class Australian kids an opportunity to get an apprenticeship—something that was never done under the Howard government.
Yet what do we get from those opposite? We get a scare campaign on behalf of their mates in the mining industry. The scare campaign is that the mining industry will be doomed under this government’s approach to making sure that they pay their fair share. You have to remember that the mining industry are making huge profits—$90 billion a year. Yet what the government gets back to invest in our schools and in our health system is minuscule. This lot on the other side want to make sure that the chief executive officer of Anglo American can pick up his $1.5 million a year and that we cannot make any improvements for our school kids. Anglo American’s profit is $511 million a year. It is our resources that we should be getting a return on.
BHP Billiton’s profit in 2008 was $15.39 billion. The chief executive gets $10.399 million a year—some people do not earn that in a lifetime and he gets that a year. This lot opposite have money coming into their election campaign to run their big scare campaign in support of the richest players in the country. They are arguing that we should not get back a fair share of the tax to provide for our infrastructure, for our schools, for our health and for our pensioners. We will not accept that position. Some of that $15.39 billion profit should come back to ordinary Australians.
At the peak of the boom in 2008, Rio Tinto earned $10.194 billion. Its chief executive officer is on a pay of $5.59 billion, no million—I nearly did a ‘Barnaby’ there, sorry. Xstrata’s profit at the peak of the boom was $7.249 billion and its chief executive earned $5.5 million. I want some of that money in our schools. I want some of that money in our education. I want some of that money in superannuation for ordinary Australians. That is what we stand for. That is what Labor stands for—not the scare tactics and scare campaigns of the lot on the other side. We stand for a fair and decent society—a society that can deliver for ordinary Australian families.
The richest men in Australia are running a campaign against this government. Why are they rich? They are rich because they have our resources. Forbes has Twiggy Forrest, CEO of Fortescue Metals, as being worth $5.7 billion on its list of richest Australians. One individual is worth $5.7 billion, yet those on the other side are running a scare campaign that none of that should come back to ordinary Australian families—that ordinary Australian families should not be living in dignity in retirement, that they should not get their superannuation lifted, that they should not get decent health services, that they should not get decent education and that you should let the market rip and let the billionaires in the mining industry stay as they are.
When you hear them argue for the mining industry, always remember Clive Palmer. He has had a meteoric rise since he was a property developer, and back when he pushed Joh Bjelke-Petersen for Canberra. That was his start. He has handed $850,000 in funding to the coalition. Why would they not be standing up there denying children decent schools? Why would they not be standing up there denying decent roads to the community? Why would they not be standing up there doing what they are doing—that is, continuing an unfair tax system in this country? They are playing up to their paymasters—the mining companies that are pouring money into the coalition to try and stop this tax, and to try and keep their unfair position in this country. That is not a position that we are prepared to tolerate.
Let us go back to some reality in relation to this country’s finances. I ask any of the speakers who are going to follow me to look at the budget papers and to look at chart 1 in Budget Paper No. 1. That shows that we will be the only country with a positive GDP in three years time. Germany, Canada, Italy, France, Japan, the UK and the US will be nowhere near our fiscal position. Our debt is the lowest amongst advanced countries, and as a percentage of GDP we are the envy of the world. Let me tell you what the experts say—not what is said by Senator Barnett or Senator Joyce, the failed shadow minister, not them—the people who understand how the economy works. What did Governor Stevens say on 1 March at the ASIC summer school in 2010? He said:
We can come out of this episode as the country that didn’t have to buy their banks, where government finances are in terrific shape, where the ... debt ratio will peak at 10 per cent of GDP, with a strong regulatory framework, didn’t have to do very unconventional monetary and fiscal measures, the regular measures applied liberally worked, worked a treat actually ... how many other countries are on that list?
There are issues when you move to intervene to help ordinary workers. You do have problems from time to time. But what does the Governor of the Reserve Bank have to say? The governor says that our finances are in ‘terrific shape’, that we are the envy of the rest of the world.
What does Kyran Curry, from the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s have to say? He said:
The deficits and additional borrowings do not alter the sound profile of Australia’s public finances, which remain among the strongest of its peer group.
I have more that I could go on with. But just let me contrast our position of fiscal responsibility—of economic responsibility, of looking after ordinary Australians—with the rabble that are the opposition. How many shadow finance ministers have they had in the last period of time? Peter Dutton, member for Dickson: gone. Joe Hockey, member for North Sydney: gone. Senator Helen Coonan: sacked to put in Senator Barnaby Joyce. What an absolute joke. And now Senator Barnaby Joyce has been sacked because he is so incompetent and we now have Andrew Robb. What a rabble this lot are. (Time expired)
Thank goodness for the clock. His time has expired. I find it amazing that Senator Cameron is so much against companies like Rio Tinto and BHP making a profit.
No, he’s not.
No, he’s not.
‘Monstrous profits’, he called out. Who owns them? I asked that question of an accountant, a financial adviser, a couple of days ago and he said 10 to 20 per cent of the ownership of those companies is in superannuation funds—the $1.3 trillion superannuation funds of the workers, those very people that you are supposed to represent. They are the investors, the owners of such mining companies. But that word ‘profit’ is a dirty word over there in the Labor Party. They would much rather see businesses not make a profit. They would let everyone just go to the wall.
We want them to make a profit. We just want them to pay tax on it. That’s the whole idea.
I will take your interjection, Senator Sherry. You want them to pay tax, tax and more tax. You want to strangle the goose that lays the golden egg. Your attitude is just to tax more and more.
The motion today says, ‘The Senate notes the Rudd Labor government’s waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money.’ Let’s just take a look back at the history—
What does the Reserve Bank governor say?
and Senator Cameron perhaps might even consider listening—of these great investments by the Labor government, which just happened to fail. Let’s start with Fuelwatch: $21 million. There is silence on the other side, Madam Acting Deputy President. They might as well have thrown it in the gutter. What is the result of Fuelwatch today? It is a waste of $21 million of taxpayers’ money—or borrowed money—that will have to be paid back.
The National Broadband Network has gone from $4 billion, to $7 billion, to $43 billion and is to cost about $20,000 a connection. Where is the money coming from? We can see from the $25 million report on the National Broadband Network that it is not going to return a dividend; it is not going to attract private investment. It will have to be borrowed money that sets up and establishes it.
We will move on to GroceryWatch: $13 million. This was how Mr Rudd was going to put downward pressure on grocery prices. One of his many promises prior to the 2007 election was, ‘I will put downward pressure on grocery prices.’ So he introduced GroceryWatch, at a cost of $13 million. It is just like Fuelwatch: he might as well have thrown it in the gutter. It did not do any good; it was simply a waste of money.
Of course I will talk about the school infrastructure program, Building the Education Revolution—or the ‘builders’ early retirement’ scheme, as we should refer to it. And then there are refugees. How many boats have we had so far? Mr Rudd said prior to the election of 2007, ‘I will turn the boats back.’ What a great statement. Now, in this week’s budget, we find an extra billion dollars from taxpayers—sorry, put on the credit card that future Australians will have to pay for—to control the asylum seekers and the cost of them.
I am sure Senator Humphries, who is in the chamber, will remember the 2020 Summit—1,000 minds, 1,000 bed and breakfasts and a $2 million-plus program for nine usable ideas. I suppose that is nine more than the Labor Party would have had, anyway.
Then there is the ‘batts-in batts-out’ program, the $2.6 billion stimulus package to insulate houses. This is a very serious issue. I feel so sorry for those relatives and loved ones of the four men who lost their lives. It is darn lucky that more people have not lost their lives, when more than 100 houses have burnt down. Now we see in the budget almost $1 billion to clean up the mess. Is that money well spent? It is money wasted.
And when we talk about money wasted we should talk about the $42 billion ‘cash splash 2’: $900 to most Australians—all those on less than $80,000 gross income—to stimulate the economy. I am sure China would have been very grateful for that $900 handout spent on the new televisions and electronic items that we import from there. We do not make any in Australia these days, of course—or, if we do, it would be very few. I am glad my daughter used her $900 dollars wisely to stimulate the economy. She paid off her credit card with it, which was the way she saw to stimulate the economy. She said, ‘What a waste of money.’
We will move along to further programs. The GP superclinics: $275 million. How many of those do we have in action? I think there are two—or is it three?—completed GP superclinics. Health is a major issue. The money should be spent wisely and we should get a decent return.
The Rudd government was going to reduce consultancies by $112 million. Instead, what do we have? An increase to $800 million—6,354 consultancies. There is a blowout of almost $700 million.
It gets better. There is digital TV from Senator Conroy. In 2008 he was going to slash $22 million from the cost of the changeover. The original estimate was $16 million. It is now to cost $66 million. It goes on and on and on.
Let me look again at the Building the Education Revolution. I have had some people come to me, but I will not name them because they do not want to be publicised. They are in the education department and fear the repercussions of being named. A local builder quoted $78,000 for a covered outdoor learning area, which included the footpaths, but the government contractor came along and charged $228,000 excluding the footpaths—basically, four times the price.
Dr David Gillespie, the Nationals candidate for Lyne, is still amazed that Hastings Public School at Port Macquarie had a shade project blow out from $400,000 to almost $1 million, and the education minister only intervened after the media blew the whistle. I do not know why the local member did not raise the issue.
At Manilla Central School near Tamworth in New England, up where I live, they have two demountable classrooms off the back of a truck. That is two demountables for $1.8 million! Again, it was Senator Joyce on a television program who highlighted this waste, and again the local Independent member was asleep at the wheel. Think about building a house. Three hundred thousand dollars would build you a good brick home. So for $1.8 million you could expect to build six really good brick veneer homes. What do they do? They get two demountable classrooms. That is far from equivalent to six brick veneer homes.
The education minister was in denial. She thought this program was fantastic. But now she is not sure and is spending another $14 million to find out. Senator Mason and I, through the Senate, asked the Auditor-General to address a question of value for money. But his report, released last week, did not answer any questions. No doubt we will be asking more. No doubt the inquiry in the New South Wales parliament—in the Legislative Council—will release the information about the waste in this whole Building the Education Revolution.
I will give you another example. A school in the New England area had a barbed wire fence. The top wire of the fence around the school was made of barbed wire. Along came the experts in the Building the Education Revolution and they said, ‘That fence has to come down.’ It cost $32,000 to replace it with a new fence. The cocky next door took the barbed wire off and put a plain wire on, and $900 later the job was complete. There is a saving of more than $31,000. But, to remove the barbed wire, they had said, ‘No, we’ve gotta pull the whole fence down.’ This is a very small school I might add.
I will tell you about another school in western New South Wales. We talk about spending money for value—and we might get a reaction from the other side here. I know of a school in western New South Wales that got a new classroom for around $225,000. You might say: ‘That is a great investment. Schools need classrooms.’ But this school has a student total of three. You have three students in the whole school, and they put in a new classroom! How many classrooms do you need in a school with three students?
One each!
One each, it would seem. They go and build a new classroom for a school that has a total of three students. This is just outrageous.
What annoys me so much is that when I visit places like St Annes Nursing Home up in Broken Hill I find that they do not have enough money to expand their buildings to provide more facilities. They are a really good organisation, and Broken Hill has many people in that age bracket where they are needing care and will need care in the very near future. But we see a new classroom going into a school in western New South Wales that has a total school attendance of just three. So much for the neglect of our aged care and so much for the waste in this program.
Let us move on to the climate change and the ETS. Let us talk about climate change. It is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our age’, but the Prime Minister puts it off until 2013 and blames the opposition for it. The Copenhagen junket in December last year cost $1.5 million, with the Prime Minister and his entourage, and for what result? Nothing. They virtually told the Prime Minister to go away. Yet he is spending millions and millions of dollars advertising to raise awareness of climate change.
Back to the broadband issue. Labor promised broadband $4.7 billion and spent $20 million on a cancelled tender process and another $25 million on consultants to work out if it was viable. The end result is the $43 billion project. But we know who the seven per cent who miss out will be. They will be from regional areas—around one and a half million people.
What about the home insulation program? The government was warned there were problems with this program, but the Prime Minister put his hands over his ears and ordered his environment minister to roll out the program. It was payday for the crooks and conmen out there. It cost $1 billion to fix the home insulation debacle. There were 240,000 dodgy or unsafe installations, 1,500 electrified roofs, 120 house fires and four deaths. That $1 billion could have built 32 cancer clinics. It is $1 billion wasted—not of taxpayers’ money but of borrowed money—that could have built 32 cancer clinics.
And what has happened to those businesses who took the Prime Minister at his word? They ordered in the batts and put on workers and then had the rug pulled out from underneath them. Many legitimate businesses are still owed thousands of dollars by the Rudd government for work done before the program was closed on 19 February. This would have to be the biggest waste of any government program in Australia’s history, and the ‘economic conservative’ is presiding over it.
I want to go on to talk about the buyback of water. The Kahlbetzer family was paid $303 million to buy back their water licences. Two of the rivers—the Gwydir and the Lachlan—do not even run into the Murray. The Gwydir empties out into the Gwydir wetlands. In a once-in-100-years flood, the Lachlan may get to the Murrumbidgee, but it is unlikely. Then we have the Macquarie River going through Dubbo, where a licence was bought back, and it runs out into the Macquarie Marshes. But the Kahlbetzer family said, ‘You buy all or none.’ That is $303 million to let more water go down the Murray, and three of the rivers do not even run into the Murray. The wasteful spending that we are seeing in this whole program is outrageous.
When you look back at the Whitlam era, and the borrowing and waste, this government today makes the Whitlam government look conservative. The wasteful and reckless spending will cause interest rates to rise. That is a big thing about this whole program—the borrowing of money. We had a debt of—what? A couple of days ago it was $140 billion of gross debt. That will run at about $150 billion before the end of this financial year. Add another $41 billion onto that, and that is $191 billion by 30 June 2011. Add another $13 billion after that, and we are looking at about $204 billion gross debt. Even in two years time, that is $6.5 billion to pay the interest alone. Imagine what $6.5 billion could do. We realise there is a global financial crisis and we realise that you need some stimulation, but—
You voted against everything.
You betcha we voted against the wasteful programs. If you had not borrowed so much money and not spent so much money, interest rates would have fallen further and stayed lower. You would have grown the economy through the private sector and not had a clayton’s growth, where the government borrows money and spends it and you call it economic growth. That is clayton’s economics. That is what it is.
Now we have had six interest rate rises in the last eight months and more to come. My home loan has gone from a start of 4.99 per cent to now almost seven per cent and I know there are a lot more to come because you are simply releasing the fiscal handbrake and the Reserve Bank will have to pull harder on the other handbrake for interest rates. Those who will suffer will be the battlers, the ordinary families paying for their homes, the people in small business, the farmers who have suffered drought—in many areas since 2002. They are the ones who will suffer most. The waste of these programs has just been humungous. (Time expired)
It is very interesting in this budget week that, rather than having any constructive response to a very well put together budget by the Treasurer, Mr Swan, and the Labor Party, the opposition goes back to its old mantra that it has been trying to push for so long now and moves the motion: ‘That the Senate notes the Rudd Labor Government’s waste and mismanagement of taxpayer money.’
This is a push fuelled mostly by the Australian, which has been plugging away at it for a long time. I would like to take the opposition senators back to the time of their government when waste and mismanagement were a hallmark of some of their policies—and pork-barrelling, as Senator Sterle points out. I know that this is something that we on this side of the house often quote, but I think it so clearly illustrates what the Howard government was about that I take this opportunity to quote it again.
The Senate committee inquiry had its origins in concerns raised about the approval of grants for certain projects. In this respect, in the first three years of the Programme examined by ANAO, departures from the published guidance were a feature of the Programme.
Of course, this is the regional rorts program. I continue:
For example, in that period:
Is it you or us you are talking about?
That is the Howard government, its regional rorts program. We are dealing with mismanagement and the Howard government provided the rolled gold standard of mismanagement under this program. It goes on to say:
... ANAO analysis revealed that Ministers were more likely to approve funding for ‘not recommended’ projects—
I repeat ‘not recommended’ projects—
that had been submitted by applicants in electorates held by Liberal and National parties and more likely to not approve funding for ‘recommended’ projects that had been submitted by applicants in electorates held by the Labor party.
I will quote back to the opposition their favourite source, the Australian:
Jim Nelson’s jaw dropped in surprise when he heard John Howard announce three years ago that his railway society had just received $845,000 for a tourist project in the southwest of Western Australia.
Mr Nelson didn’t know anything about the announcement and neither did the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, which was supposed to assess all projects funded under the Regional Partnerships Program.
That is the kind of management that the Howard government conducted. So the opposition are once more giving us this golden opportunity to remind them of their gross incompetence in this area and gross rorting of a great deal of federal government money—the waste that was poured into a number of those projects that were not adequately assessed and, indeed, never really got off the ground. That is what waste and mismanagement is about.
The opposition have come in here and said that we should have done more in the time we have been in government. I am standing here looking at page 26 of today’s Notice Paper, which has nearly three pages of bills discharged or negatived because of the current opposition not allowing the Rudd Labor government to get on with the job, to fulfil its programs and to work efficiently in the best interests of the Australian public. The opposition come in here time after time with their negative comments and their negative votes without putting forward any alternative. The opposition have not put through revenue measures from the last budget and have not allowed us to proceed with well-structured programs that would allow benefits to the Australian people. Indeed, they have signalled that they will do that again with this budget. I do not know what we will hear from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, this evening in his budget-in-reply speech. We are all hoping that we might hear something substantial rather than the ‘No, we will not pass the resource rent tax; no, we will not pass this and we will not pass that’ because they are bereft of any ideas. Of course, it is perfectly easy to criticise programs and we heard Senator Williams address the Building the Education Revolution Program and the Home Insulation Program, which were part of the government’s stimulus package. I have been to two openings of BER schools.
I have not been to any.
Senator Williams has not been to any. I feel very sorry for him. If he had he might not have come into the chamber, like he has, and criticised them. Anyone who has been to one of those openings has been overwhelmed by the appreciation of the school and the community for the facilities they have been given as part of that program. The two schools I have been to have been in rural South Australia, and they each made the point that, in a small community, it is very hard—very difficult indeed—to raise funds for this kind of capital expenditure. They are very grateful to the government, as building these facilities means that they can now concentrate their fees and their fundraising on improving resources for their students, improving curriculum and doing the other things that schools need to do, rather than saving their money for capital expenditure or making do with substandard facilities.
I know as a former member of a state parliament where the state government had responsibility for the upkeep of those resources how difficult it was to put money aside for that sort of essential maintenance and renewal of school facilities. Too many schools, particularly schools in rural and regional areas, had substandard facilities. This program under this government has set about addressing the problem—and has set about addressing it in a climate of global financial crisis.
The Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, has put in place an auditing program through the implementation task force, which ensures that the taxpayers of Australia are getting full value for money. The terms of reference for this task force are comprehensive and will ensure that, where there have been problems and where there has been outright rorting of the system, that will be pursued vigorously. There is also the opportunity for that program to be stopped if that is found to be the case. So rather than allowing a regional rorts type program to proceed, as under the Howard government, the minister and the Rudd government have acted quickly to ensure that, if there is any problem with the program, it is stopped and stopped now.
Similarly with the insulation program, part of the stimulus program, once the problems were identified—and unfortunately it cost the lives of four young men, and that is tragic—the Rudd government moved in to stem the results of that loss and redress the problems of householders who received the grant under that insulation program. Many of those households, of course, have got perfectly good insulation. They are very happy with it and it is performing the job that it is required to do. But there are households—and we do not yet know how many—where there are problems with either the installation or the safety of that installation. The government has put in place programs to ensure that those problems are redressed, and most certainly that it does not happen again. Furthermore, not content with that, the government has put in place programs to make sure that the workers in that industry are not simply abandoned, that there are programs in place that they can access to make sure that they have the best chance of getting another job—to keep intact the aims of the government’s financial stimulus package.
Senator Williams said, ‘Why didn’t we leave this to growth through the private sector? Why put in a government stimulus?’ Because it works, Senator Williams. That is why it was done. It was done because the private sector was pulling back on their investment. It was well documented that business investment was pulling back, particularly from small to medium businesses. They were not prepared to take the risk, given the global financial situation. In order to stop massive unemployment and in order to stop a decline in confidence in the economy and a spiralling downturn, the government stepped in and performed the role that the private sector was not going to perform. Rather than having the battlers suffer—as Senator Williams said—we have put in place programs to ensure that there will be far fewer battlers than there would have been if the Howard government had stayed in place.
I am astonished at the hubris of the opposition to come in and complain about waste and mismanagement and a lack of activity by the Rudd government. Clearly, it is a case of people in glasshouses should not throw stones. They make themselves far too easy a target. But the Rudd government is not, I have to say, spending too much time with the opposition here; the Rudd government is getting on with the task that it was elected to do—that is, to build Australia’s future. Despite the negativity and the willingness of the opposition to vote against any piece of legislation that is brought into this place, the Rudd government has still had a number of sterling achievements in the last couple of years. Apart from dealing very decisively and officially with the global financial crisis, the Rudd government has funded 1,000 new nurse training places; supported record investment in solar and wind power; very critically, abolished Work Choices; helped to secure our water supplies by buying back water licences from the oversubscribed water of all rivers—not just the Murray-Darling Basin—and therefore helped the health of the Murray-Darling Basin; invested in new cancer research and treatment centres; funded increases in GP training; and worked very hard in general in education and skills development.
I thank the opposition for giving us this opportunity to stand up and run through the achievements of the Rudd government and contrast them with the appalling record of the previous Howard government.
There is a song of which the refrain comes to mind, ‘If it feels good, do it’, but in the case of the Rudd government it is more like, ‘If it sounds good, let’s promise it and keep promising it for as long as we can get away with having it sound good. And when it comes to D-Day’—that is, delivery day—‘we will break our promise or, if we proceed to try and deliver, then we will mismanage and the botch the delivery and create nothing other than waste in the process.’
If it sounds good, promise it. ‘If it sounds good, we will promise Fuelwatch.’ It sounded good, all right. Did it do any good? No. ‘GROCERYchoice sounds good, so we’ll promise it.’ Did it do any good? No. ‘Computers for every school kid: sounds good; let’s promise it.’ Did it do any good? No. ‘The Building the Education Revolution: sounds good, so we’ll promise it.’ Has it delivered value for money? No. And that is the least of it. ‘The Home Insulation Program—stimulating the economy, creating jobs and protecting the environment: sounds good; let’s promise it.’
In this process the Rudd government has turned its back on the most fundamental of its promises that could have helped it to deliver some good from what sounded good. That most fundamental promise, given by the Prime Minister himself, was evidence based policy. With any of these promises, had the government bothered to keep that promise—to actually do a cost-benefit analysis, to map the problem that they were trying to fix or the good that they were trying to do and show that their policy was going to achieve it—then they might have avoided the waste and mismanagement that is tragically unfolding with broken promises and botched delivery daily.
The Home Insulation Program: sounds good—stimulate the economy, create jobs and help the environment. There was no evidence base for the Home Insulation Program. It was characterised instead by haste to get the money out the door at all costs—pun intended. The top priority was to get the money out the door; little else mattered. Those were the writing instructions. That is the evidence behind the scenes that we would get, if we could get it, through the Senate committee process attempting to do its best to show the Australian people what they deserve to know about the management of the Home Insulation Program.
The Rudd government promised that the Home Insulation Program would stimulate the economy—we were told at the time. It is a broken promise, particularly with the budget, because we now see that all the Home Insulation Program is going to do is realise the warnings that the government got in its own independent risk analysis from Minter Ellison. More than a year or so prior to today, and certainly months in advance of rolling out the program, the Minter Ellison risk assessment foretold that if the risks identified in that assessment were not addressed, then there was every prospect that the program would cost more than any money it was ever going to bring into the economy. Sadly, that is exactly what is now set to happen with the home insulation debacle, as most recently proved by the budget delivered by the Treasurer this week.
All that the Home Insulation Program is going to do is break the first plank of what the program was supposed to do and which sounded good: stimulate the economy. No, it is going to back money out of the economy. Create jobs? Please, tell that to the Australians who came to the industry at the behest of the government. They answered the government’s call yet many of these workers had their jobs destroyed overnight by the stroke of a ministerial pen when Minister Garrett first suspended and then scrapped the Home Insulation Program—not that I am suggesting that that was not the right thing to do. It was just after too many months, too many millions and too much waste—too late.
The third plank of the Home Insulation Program was to supposedly help the environment. How can a program help the environment when it has not been evidentially assessed and when the wrong insulation is put in the wrong sorts of houses in the wrong places for the wrong sorts of climates? How can a home insulation program help the environment when in tropical Queensland, insulation is laid underneath corrugated iron roofs, which naturally attract condensation due to the tropical climate? How can that insulation help the environment when it collects moisture and risks not just the insulation becoming mouldy but also ceiling collapse? How can the wrong insulation in the wrong sorts of houses in the wrong sorts of climates help the environment?
How can the Home Insulation Program help the environment when everybody other than the government seems to be saying that every home that has had insulation laid under this program must at the very least be inspected? There will be quite a few damn carbon miles created in inspecting all that has been laid. What to do once it has been inspected? There are electrical risks waiting to be realised. There is dangerous and dodgy insulation waiting to be realised. What to do then? It is not so simple as to rip out the foil insulation, for example. There is evidence to the Senate inquiries into the Home Insulation Program that much of the insulation that has been laid is not biodegradable. What about the environment in that?
What is to be done if insulation—for example, foil—is ripped out and the electrically risky staples remain, which the electrical experts say still leaves electrocution waiting to happen who knows when? What to do about that mismanagement and the waste that comes therefrom? The Home Insulation Program sounded good but did no good at all. Indeed, it has created—I am sure unintentionally, but it is so nonetheless—tragedy and destruction rather than construction of anything good.
Round 1 of the National Broadband Network sounded good in its promise to connect some 98 per cent of Australians at a cost to the taxpayer of some $4.7 billion. The $4.7 billion debt, of course, did not sound very good to the Australian public, but some 18 months after the making of that sound-good promise, and some $30 million of taxpayer expenditure on that promise later, the government decided to up the ante with something that sounded even better. So it broke the NBN round 1 promise and made the NBN round 2 promise. In making the NBN round 2 promise, the government is now telling us that it will spend up to $43 billion of taxpayers’ money to connect some 90 per cent, maybe, of Australians to a fibre-to-the-home network. It sounds good, but look at the government’s track record on promises broken thus far and botched delivery and look at the clues as to why. The clues, as I have said, are no cost-benefit analysis and no delivery on the promise of evidence based policy.
With the National Broadband Network round 2, Minister Conroy suggests all will have been revealed by now in his implementation study, which he has belatedly released. All that the implementation study, that $25 million taxpayer spend for some 500 pages—and we do not want to contemplate how much taxpayer money has been spent per page on that diatribe—
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
You can work it out. All that the implementation study tells us is that it is a very optimistic forecast of what the National Broadband Network will cost. Yet there is still no mapping and no empirical analysis of the benefit of this sounds-good National Broadband Network.
But, if you dare to question the National Broadband Network, you are branded, just as you were branded a climate change sceptic when you dared to question the Prime Minister’s solutions to so-called climate change. If you dare to question the National Broadband Network, you are branded as a National Broadband Network sceptic. Why should you not be so when thus far the only thing that we have seen from the government is the $25 million taxpayer funded implementation study, which is very robust when it comes to how much this thing is going to cost but very light on telling us the benefits?
The implementation study projects take-up rates of between 70 and 90 per cent, so it is suggesting that between 70 and 90 per cent of Australians will take up fibre to the home. For example, it suggests that if 70 per cent of Australians take up the National Broadband Network and there is a small blow-out in costs then the profit—I wonder if it is super profit; no, of course not, because this is NBN Co.—will be in the range of some three to five per cent. The study then goes on to say that if 80 per cent of Australians take up fibre to the home and there is no blow-out in costs then NBN Co. will realise some six to seven per cent in profit. Then it goes even further and suggests that if 90 per cent of Australians take up the National Broadband Network and costs come in—yes, you have guessed it—slightly below par, slightly below what is predicted, then NBN Co. will make a profit of some eight or nine per cent, which of course is not a super profit in the mind of the Rudd government, because after all this is a government that clearly has two standards. This is an implementation study that is very conservative on the cost and totally light on when it comes to benefits.
If you look at the broken promises and the botched delivery of this government thus far, Australians are entitled to question what is looking set to happen with the second round of the National Broadband Network. Let us not forget that today, finally, this government has fessed up. Yes, it is going to break its promise made to the Australian business community, supposedly, about the Do Not Call Register. It sounded good to promise the business community that they would not be bothered anymore if they did not want to be by unsolicited business calls, but the government forgot to do what it promised to do, which was to deliver evidence based policy with a Do Not Call Register. It did not map who was going to benefit from the bill and it did not map at what cost that bill would come. So they waltz into parliament this week needing coalition support to deliver their breaking of their promise but more importantly to deliver ongoing registration for households that want to continue on the Do Not Call Register.
All that waste could have been avoided. The Australian public is entitled to continue to ask the Rudd government what it is going to deliver in terms of the National Broadband Network, how it is going to deliver it, when it is going to deliver it and what they are going to have to pay to enjoy the benefits. They are all the more entitled to ask that when you look at the Rudd government’s record of broken promises, botched delivery, waste and mismanagement.
This is the third day in a row that I have had the pleasure of rising to support the record of the Rudd government in the face of motions moved by the opposition. On day one we had the Rudd government’s litany of broken promises, on day two we had the recklessly spending, high-taxing Rudd Labor government, and today, perhaps as a finale for the week, we have the Rudd government’s misuse of taxpayers’ money. I am not sure what those opposite think that they are achieving with this string of vague, tendentious and misleading motions. They are clearly in danger of breaching standing order 196, which prohibits tedious repetition. If they think they are doing any damage to the Rudd Labor government, I will not try to disillusion them.
Senator Birmingham interjecting—
As Napoleon said, ‘Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’—or perhaps, as Senator Birmingham may take note of, never argue with the guy with the microphone. I can assure them that my colleagues over here and I are enjoying the opportunity to work up some campaigning material for the months ahead.
Today we are being accused of wasting taxpayers’ money. I said yesterday that the motion introduced by the opposition, accusing the Rudd government of reckless spending, required cheek of a very high order. Today’s motion goes even further: it is positively reckless. For the Liberal and National parties to raise the issue of wasteful use of taxpayers’ money in this Senate shows a truly reckless disregard for their own political safety. We knew that they would abandon the truth, but now they have abandoned caution as well. Senators opposite seem to think that they can come into the Senate and berate us for allegedly wasting taxpayers’ money, without anyone pointing to the monumental hypocrisy that this charge entails, coming as it does from the most shameless misusers of public money in the history of Australian politics—and that is indeed saying something. They must have very short memories; they must imagine that we all have the memories of goldfish and they must assume that the electorate does too.
Fortunately for the forces of truth and virtue, however, I have a very long memory, and I also have a big fat file on the record of the Liberal and National parties misusing taxpayers’ money. It is now my privilege to share with the Senate some of the contents of that file. Perhaps fortunately for those opposite, the time available to me will not allow me to go through every example of their gross waste of taxpayers’ money. The rest will, however, keep for another occasion.
The first item from this file is the report of the inquiry held by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Reference Committee entitled Regional partnerships and sustainable regions programs and dated 6 October 2005. This was the notorious ‘regional rorts’ program, as it came to be popularly known—a program which the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government referred to in such a timely way in question time in the House of Representatives just today.
What did that committee inquiry find? It found:
In six case studies involving grants in excess of $15.5 million, the Committee uncovered major deficiencies … “In these projects the Committee found common problems—funding criteria were bypassed, the department and area consultative committees were cut out of the picture and ministers and their advisers intervened to fast track the approval of select projects at the expense of due process” …
There you have it—but the story continues. It is very clear from the committee’s report that the Regional Partnerships program was used by ministers in the Howard government as a way to channel taxpayers’ money to their own marginal electorates. The clinching proof of this dire allegation is that the committee found that over half of the grant approvals, amounting to over $70 million in funding, occurred in the three months leading to the federal election of 2004. Fancy that! They were timed so that coalition members and candidates could announce these projects just before or during the election campaign—what a coincidence!—and then, of course, take credit for them. They were, in other words, a blatant exercise in vote buying. These are the people who now come into this place and seek to lecture us about the misuse of taxpayers’ money.
Let me give some striking examples of this magnificent program. The Beaudesert Rail project was the recipient of four grants totalling $5.7 million, including a $600,000 grant under the Regional Partnerships program. Beaudesert was, of course, in the marginal Liberal electorate of Forde, and the committee concluded that the $600,000 Regional Partnerships grant to Beaudesert Rail approved in November 2003 was made for political purposes. The committee said:
Documents provided in evidence to the Committee reveal that in the final days leading up to the government decision on BR the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. John Anderson MP, who was also the portfolio minister for RPP, was involved in discussions with the Prime Minister’s office about the matter of government assistance.
Next we have the notorious Tumbi Creek dredging project—and, I must confess, it is one of my personal favourites. Surely senators opposite remember Tumbi Creek. They might have recalled this matter before they came into the Senate and tried to raise the issue of misusing of taxpayers’ money. Let me remind them that two grants totalling $1.5 million to Wyong Shire Council for dredging work at the mouth of Tumbi Creek were approved by the National Party parliamentary secretary De-Anne Kelly in mid 2004. Tumbi Creek happened to be in what was then the marginal Liberal seat of Dobell. It has of course since been liberated from the forces of darkness and evil and is held by Mr Craig Thomson.
The committee found that there was ‘a high degree of political collaboration’ involving ministerial advisers and the federal member’s office in relation to this project. In one instance a ministerial adviser countermanded departmental advice. This meant that, even though the dredging project was actually ineligible to receive funding because it did not have the relevant state licence, the grant announcement could still be made by the Prime Minister just days before the 2004 federal election was announced. Fancy that!
If I had the time, I would offer the Senate some more fine examples that were set out in the Senate committee’s report on the Regional Partnerships program—more examples of the gross and deliberate waste of taxpayers’ money by the previous government. Alas, if I did that, I would not have time to remind the Senate of an even bigger abuse of public funds by the government to which senators opposite belonged. I am referring, of course, to the huge amount of money spent by the Howard government on government advertising.
During the 11 years of the Howard government, something in the order of $1 billion was spent on government advertising—a truly extraordinary sum, and there was not even a pink batt to show for it. The biggest ticket items in the Howard government’s advertising budget were blatantly political campaigns designed to further the government’s agenda. There is no person active in politics in this country who would doubt for a single moment that those campaigns were tasked with anything other than the re-election of the government that paid for them.
The campaign to promote the GST cost something in the order of $400 million. This was a campaign launched before the relevant legislation had been passed by the Senate—that is to say, the coalition government launched the television campaign to support their policies before they even bothered putting the legislation into the parliament. This was not a legitimate advertising campaign designed to explain a new tax system to the taxpayers. It was a political campaign designed to put pressure on this Senate to pass the legislation, to persuade the electorate at large that that legislation was desirable and to do that before even legislators had had the opportunity to consider it. It was a campaign that met all of the tests of an outrage.
The other big-ticket item on the Howard government’s advertising bill was the campaign to promote the Work Choices legislation, a campaign that cost taxpayers well over $120 million and which was one of the most blatantly political campaigns ever seen in this country. It is true to say that it was a terribly unsuccessful campaign. It is true to say that the coalition government’s campaign to sell Work Choices was a complete and miserable failure. It proves that old advertising adage that nothing kills a poor product like good advertising. Notwithstanding the abject failure of that campaign, the intent and the reasoning that gave rise to it make it clear that it was one of the most blatantly political campaigns ever seen in this country. Australian working families were forced to watch their own taxes being used to pay for advertisements telling them that they would be better off under an industrial relations system that stripped away nearly all of their workplace rights. Most importantly, of course, they could see through its transparent political agenda.
Today’s motion seeks to criticise the Rudd government for wasteful misuse of taxpayers’ money. It comes from senators who were themselves part of a government that was guilty of massive and systemic misuse of taxpayers’ money. They wasted taxpayers’ money on middle-class welfare, showering money on their own supporters at every budget and during every election campaign. The Australian newspaper famously calculated that, in his 2004 election announcement, former Prime Minister John Howard spent $94 million a minute—an extent of largesse and an orgy of pork-barrelling that even appalled their friends at the Australian newspaper.
Those opposite are not strangers to misuse of taxpayers’ moneys. Even some of the Howard government’s strongest supporters became queasy about the reckless spending of the Howard government. In December 2006 Greg Lindsay, Barry Maley and Peter Saunders from the Centre For Independent Studies, a conservative think tank—which, I might wryly remark, was neither independent nor guilty of much study—wrote in the Australian about their concerns at the Howard government’s wasteful spending:
We are among those who have expressed concern about the federal Government’s family policies …
We were appalled by the $3000-per-child cash handouts showered on parents at the time of the last election, and we are increasingly convinced that the Government’s new family relationship centres are a waste of money.
… … …
The Howard Government is spending record sums of taxpayers’ money providing for families who could provide for themselves if only it taxed them less.
Earlier in the article, they also stated:
Families are losing their financial independence as they become habituated to receiving handouts from Canberra.
This motion today is a masterpiece of hypocrisy. It comes from a coalition which has no credibility when it comes to the subject of wasteful spending and whose leaders were members of the cabinet that presided over some of the most wilful and exposed rorting of the public purse of any government in Australian history. No-one who has had the patience to listen to this debate would be fooled by this motion.
Let us remember that the stimulus package and the expenditure of the Rudd Labor government were designed to fulfil an important macroeconomic task. That macroeconomic task was the preservation of our economy in a period of unprecedented turbulence. The global financial crisis raised the very real spectre of a global recession and even, some feared, a global depression. It was in those circumstances that the Rudd government acted boldly and decisively. It introduced a stimulus package which saved the Australian economy. A technical recession was avoided and the Australian economy is now the envy of the world. This was the great macroeconomic task that our expenditure was aimed at.
Those opposite might whinge and wail about some of the implementation of some of the smaller parts of that stimulus package, but let us remember that the stimulus package was conceived by a government concerned for the national good. Compare and contrast that to the behaviour of those opposite, because these abuses of taxpayers’ money that I have cited here today were not conceived in the national interest. They were not part of a broader program aimed to preserve and protect Australian jobs. They were not part of a program to bring about better government in this country. They were not conceived by politicians anxious to protect Australians from a global financial crisis. No, their atrocities were nothing more than the small-minded plotting of politicians desperate to protect and preserve their own election. The opposition come into this place with such a miserable record and seek to berate this government, when in fact what they should be doing is looking at their own record and the fact that not only have their own abuses of the public purse been dramatically exposed but the reasoning that gave rise to them was utterly bereft of anything other than a greed for power.
Last night Australians tuned into the ABC 7.30 Report with Kerry O’Brien and were staggered by Prime Minister Rudd’s behaviour. It reminded us all here in the chamber of the appalling mistake that the Labor Party made when they chose Mark Latham to be their leader. It was only due to the total rejection by Australians of that choice that the Labor caucus dumped him. After last night’s gripping performance—about which we have heard and seen a lot of editorial comment today—I can only ask: can the real Kevin Rudd please stand up? No matter how much he would like us to believe that he is a calm, conciliatory, approachable family man, those who have the misfortune to be close to him in the political arena seem to know otherwise. Air stewards, restaurant owners and waiters in Melbourne and even Labor caucus members, along with many former staffers, know only too well that this man is a fraud who has delivered a big-taxing, big-spending budget which is not only fiscally inept and unmanageable but also totally unrealistic. He wishes he could turn the clock back to his schmoozing days on the Sunrise breakfast program.
Last night he lost the plot, and with it he lost the support of the electorate. After taking a sharp dive in the polls following the shelving of his ETS legislation, not only Kerry O’Brien but also Mr Rudd’s party and his staunch followers are starting to question the Prime Minister’s leadership qualities. Even Dean Mighell recently said on Melbourne radio that he hoped Julia Gillard would be more of a Labor Prime Minister than Kevin Rudd. Her coy, smiling responses to that, though, do not cut the mustard. At last, we hear an honest word from a well-known comrade in the ALP ranks.
The Australian public are now evaluating the so-called achievements of this government, and with good reason. At last they are realising that it has nothing to show but a huge debt. Mr Rudd has failed the Australian people like no other Prime Minister before, and this government is arguably the most appalling and inept in Australian history. Even the supporters of Gough Whitlam now have a smile on their faces. There is nothing left of the last election promises of this government. They either have simply failed to get off the ground or have amounted to little more than unprecedented mismanagement, bungling and outright failure.
Let us go through just a few of them. We are only months from the next federal election and what do we have? There is no ETS. There is no human rights bill, which was pledged. We do not see the 266 childcare centres that were pledged. We do not see all the GP super clinics that were pledged—or the extra aged-care beds or all those trades training centres. What about Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch? What a catastrophic disaster they were. What we have instead is one illegal boat after another arriving and a massive black hole in the budget which, as we all know, will not return to surplus in 2012-13. Speaking of the boat arrivals, that inept social public policy position on border protection has seen a blow-out of a billion dollars and we are now up to a record 125 boats. This government is on the skids and this budget is built on a house of cards.
Mr Rudd’s economic outlook depends entirely on a new tax grab which he will not be able to put into action. The coalition will not support what is nothing but a 40 per cent slug on the profits of resource mining, and he very well knows this. He also knows that Senator Fielding is opposed to this irresponsible and knee-jerk measure. So there is $12 billion of revenue gone that is necessary to return the budget to surplus in the next two years. No wonder the Prime Minister is losing it on public television, and I doubt very much if he is sleeping very well of a night.
The budget deficit this coming year is a massive $40.8 billion. This is the second-biggest deficit since World War II. Labor will have to borrow more than $700 million a week to cover its net debt, the interest payments and to keep the cash flow going. Let us just put that into language that we all understand because I cannot, for the life of me, think how any government could borrow that amount of money. That is over $30 that the government is borrowing for every man, woman and child in this country each week to cover net debt interest payments and to keep the cash flow going. Government debt will be a massive $94 billion in 2012-13, requiring $6.5 billion a year in interest payments; and, with his philosophy to spend billions while saving millions, this will not change. Instead of being economically prudent, as stated so many times, Mr Rudd again flushes Australian taxpayers’ money down the toilet.
But the biggest broken promise of all is the one where the Prime Minister declared himself to be an economic conservative who would keep the budget in surplus. I stand in this chamber today with the message for Mr Rudd: you cannot achieve this goal if you blow a billion dollars on the computers in schools program because you forgot to calculate funding for software, for the training, for the teachers and for the lockers that the kids need to secure the computers in. It is inconceivable that anybody would put together a program like that without appreciating what the add-on needs were.
You cannot return the budget to surplus if you blow out another half a billion dollars for cleaning up the mess you have caused by not administering the catastrophic pink batts bungle, ignoring warnings and risks. When we are talking financially about the fiasco of the insulation program, we must not forget those families who are still traumatised by the loss of loved ones sadly lost in fires. It is just an appalling failure of public policy. You cannot return the budget to surplus if you blow another $1 billion on your failed border management policy, inviting boat people to this country, promising VIP flights and four-star hotel accommodation. You cannot return the budget to surplus by blowing money on the ill-conceived Building the Education Revolution program, which, in my opinion, should be renamed the ‘Building Expensive Restrooms program’.
Mr Rudd has gone on a reckless spending binge which can only be described as economic vandalism. In less than three short years he has replaced a $20 billion surplus with a deficit nearly three times as large. We have repeatedly said in this chamber that it took the former coalition government 10 long and hard years to pay back the staggering $96 billion dollar debt which was the result of the prior Labor government’s spendathon. The list of Mr Rudd’s waste is indeed very impressive. He created a phantom department where 150 public servants implement and administer the government’s ETS, at a cost of $81.9 million, despite the fact that a scheme currently does not exist and, from what we can gather, probably never will exist.
Solar panels, on the other hand, do exist and are very popular with the electorate. Yet this is the very reason why we do not have a solar power program anymore: it was too effective and too successful. They were not able to predict the high demand for this very program, resulting in an $850 million blow-out. Labor, in their infinite wisdom, intended to spend $150 million over five years on solar rebates but instead splurged $1 billion in just 18 months, so the program was abolished. Yes, the bill for fighting the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ has been a very costly one. A similar fiasco was Labor’s $175 million Green Loans Program. The audit of the program alone cost taxpayers more than $4 million.
But let us move on, because, as they say, ‘Yes, there is more.’ Labor promised broadband for $4.7 billion but broke that promise, replacing it with a $43 billion plan. Let us not forget that, whilst getting there, they have wasted $20 million on a cancelled tender process and spent $25 million on yet another report. Labor spent over $10 million on legal fees defending the rights of nine Sydney terrorists who were found guilty of terrorism offences. This is more than $1 million for each terrorist. Then taxpayers received the bill for almost $2 million in consultancy fees as Mr Rudd tried to find ways to save money on travel. Just imagine what would happen if all households worked like that! Two separate consultants were hired, one for $1.4 million and the other for almost half a million dollars, to do scoping studies on how to meet the goal of saving $26 million on travel. Every Australian could give him the answer—that is, stay home, fix up your problems here in Australia and look after the interests of all that you are responsible for and accountable to.
The cost of refurbishing Australia’s embassy at the Vatican also cost much more than originally budgeted for. Then we have a bill of $1.3 million to stop accidents that never have happened—this is the amount of money Mr Rudd has spent realigning roads around Parliament House in Canberra. It was something that was raised in the last estimates, and government officials could not remember if a single accident had ever happened on the road around here.
But let us stop looking at the waste from the past; let us have a look at what this budget holds. There is—deeply buried, of course—a $10 million grant to a so-called Trade Union Education Foundation. One could reasonably ask why they are the recipients of a $10 million grant and whether it is to fund union bosses and their efforts to support the Labor government at the forthcoming election. Then we have the proposal of the Rudd government to waste $126 million on taxpayer funded political print, radio and television advertising—government advertising that they pledged they were going to stop at the last election. That $126 million includes $30 million for another climate change advertising campaign, despite the government having no climate change policy.
The same principle applies to paid parental leave. Although the PPL legislation is before parliament, the Rudd government have already committed $12 million to advertise the scheme. We have not even seen the legislation and yet they have allocated $12 million for the scheme. Mr Rudd is also proposing a new $29.5 million advertising campaign to sell his health changes, even though Western Australia has not signed on and all new beds will not even be delivered until 2013-14.
There is only one thing that is consistent about this government and Prime Minister Rudd—that is, their fixation on maxing out on the cash in all programs. I saw today in the Australian in ‘Cut and paste’ his very consistent claims that everything is the biggest ever in the history of Australia. This is an absolute disaster for all Australians.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Rudd government’s strong economic record and about the threats posed to our economy by the opposition—threats that make a mockery of this motion’s claim that we have wasted and mismanaged taxpayers’ money. When the Rudd government’s nation-building economic stimulus plan was announced, we were facing the prospect of a recession and a million Australians out of work. We took the view that we should do all that we responsibly could do to cushion the economy from the global downturn and to protect Australian families, Australian jobs and Australian small business. Because 70 per cent of our fiscal stimulus spending was investment in critical economic and social infrastructure—investments in road, rail, social housing and community facilities—we have been able to bolster consumer and business confidence while expanding Australia’s future economic capacity and boosting local community infrastructure.
The Rudd government’s stimulus strategy has been all about protecting jobs now while building a better future. I think that today’s labour force figures are a further tribute to Australian workers and businesses. They have really got behind our stimulus measures. Australia created 225,000 jobs while other countries were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is 225,000 people who have been able to tell their families, ‘I’ve got a job.’ That is 225,000 people who are still paying tax, still paying their mortgages and keeping our economy going. That is 225,000 people much better placed to pay and provide for themselves and their families. Is that a waste of taxpayers’ money? The results are remarkable given the headwinds generated by the global economic crisis that occurred elsewhere. In the US and Europe, unemployment remains stuck at around 10 per cent while here it is now 5.4 per cent and is expected to keep falling to 4¾ per cent by the June quarter of 2012, we hope. While these figures build confidence in our recovery, they also I think caution against complacency.
Our stimulus program was specifically designed to have its peak effects in the June quarter of 2009 and to phase down gradually after that. I think pulling the plug on stimulus overnight would risk the future of critical nation-building investments and the jobs and small business that depend on them. It would be an act of economic insanity, especially when 600,000 Australians remain unemployed, 60,000 in my home state of Western Australia alone, and when in WA unemployment remains more than two per cent higher than it was in October 2008 when this crisis began and when we recall that after the last recession unemployment took more than a decade to come down to prerecession levels. The fragility of the global recovery has also been underlined in recent weeks by the news from Greece and Spain highlighting the ongoing fragilities in many of the advanced economies of the world.
In this context, the demand from the opposition for the stimulus measures to be wound back is reckless in the extreme. Either the opposition are economically illiterate or they simply do not care about Australia’s unemployed. But Labor does care. We care about those thousands of unemployed Australians, tens of thousands of them in WA alone. Our unemployment data confirms what we on this side of the chamber have been hearing from the community, that times are still tough for many Australians, especially those in small business. Unlike the opposition, who appear to be deaf to these community concerns, we recognise that our stimulus initiatives continue to play a critical role in protecting the living standards of Australians by securing employment and building the productive capacity of the nation.
The Rudd government sees this as the beginning and not the end of the battle—the battle to ensure Australia’s prosperity and to combat the insidious effects of unemployment. Nation building for recovery lies at the heart of the Rudd government’s fiscal stimulus strategy and it also lies at the heart of the budget released by the Treasurer—nation building that will ensure the recovery brings with it new jobs and new investment, greater prosperity and better living standards for all Australians. With the ongoing demand for our commodities from rapidly growing economies in our region, Australia is well placed to benefit from a global recovery. The Rudd government’s policy settings have done much to keep Australians working and to protect Australian living standards.
We must continue to be vigilant. It is about investing in our infrastructure that will support our recovery, unlock our full economic potential and create the jobs of the future, protecting our living standards and ensuring our future prosperity. This government is determined to do the hard yards, the yards required to reform our economy and build a new era of sustainable prosperity. The Rudd government recognises that improving long-term productivity growth will be crucial for Australia’s future productivity and prosperity. It is about sustaining long-term productivity growth in the face of an ageing population. To do this, we must build advanced 21st century infrastructure—things like the NBN. We have to invest in a skilled workforce and we must tackle social exclusion, particularly by removing barriers to work and increasing workforce participation—all things that we have invested in in this budget and all things that will help promote the productivity of this nation. Then there is the $661 million for skills and training, including 70,000 new training places and support for 22,500 apprenticeships over five years. Again, surely this is not a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Order! Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today the debate is interrupted.
Debate resumed.
Everyone hates getting annoying phone calls during dinnertime from telemarketing companies trying to sell them something. It is the last thing that anyone wants after a hard day’s work. Family First supported the creation of the Do Not Call Register back in 2006 to stop these kinds of calls and we support the changes in the current bill, which will extend people’s registration from three to five years. For many people, telemarketing calls are unwanted—they are a nuisance and an invasion of family time at home. For almost three years now, four million Australians—that is a lot of Australians—have exercised their right to get rid of these unwanted calls by registering themselves on the Do Not Call Register.
Not just four million Australians; it is four million Australian families
That is four million Australian families who do not want to get unwanted marketing calls—four million Australian families who do not want their time wasted by these annoying calls. But guess what? Up until just a week or so ago, many of these people faced the prospect of dropping off the Do Not Call Register and once again becoming fair game for those nuisance calls. Why? Because their registration on the Do Not Call Register was going to expire. That would have meant many people would drop off the Do Not Call Register leaving them exposed when they thought they were protected by the register. It would also have meant no more quiet dinner times sitting down with the family and catching up on the day’s events; no more undisturbed TV—perhaps watching the Senate—when you get to plonk yourself on the couch after a long day at work; no more quality time with the kids or helping them out with their homework without annoying phone calls. Instead, the government finally got the message that people on the Do Not Call Register really do not want to have to keep on registering over and over again. So what did they do? They drafted an amendment. Did they draft an amendment to ensure that people would be permanently registered on the Do Not Call Register unless they asked otherwise? No, of course not. That would be doing what most people would probably want them to do. Instead, they have extended the length of registration from three years to five years. What that means is that the problem of people dropping off the Do Not Call Register unwittingly has not been fixed; it has been simply delayed. Because in two years from now the people who rushed to put themselves on the register back in May 2007 will be in the same position they are now. Sure, people can re-register themselves on the Do Not Call Register but let us face it, how many people do you think are really going to do this? How many people do you really think actually know that they are going to drop off the list and will need to re-register themselves? The government will probably say they will have some sort of campaign but we all know that that is not as effective as allowing people to register permanently.
I spoke to a number of people and asked them about the Do Not Call Register. None of them had the foggiest idea that you need to re-register. Maybe up in government circles—maybe in 7.30 Report land, I do not know—this is the topic of conversation at dinner parties, but I can tell you that out on the street most ordinary Australians would not have a clue. And now, because of shonky public policy, all these people will again be fair game for telemarketers, not now but in two years time. The government is delaying the problem, not fixing it. And what about those vulnerable Australians who most need this protection from those nuisance calls? Those Australians, many of them elderly, who unfortunately are more susceptible to high-pressure tactics and need the protection that the Do Not Call Register provides. There are many vulnerable Australians who really hold on to the fact that their number is not on telemarketers’ lists and I think the government has totally underestimated how much people rely on this register. Does the government really think that these people know that they have to re-register? I cannot believe it.
The worst part about all of this is that it would be so easy to fix this problem but the government refuses to act. In the United States and the United Kingdom registration periods have been removed, so registrations remain permanent. Maybe this is a tactic of the Rudd government to make another election promise and say they will fix it next time around and do it permanently. But in the US and the UK registration periods have been removed so that registrations remain permanent. Claims that permanent registration present a problem are just rubbish. In the US and the UK when a number is deactivated, such as when a person moves house, the register is notified and updated, meaning that even an owner’s new number will not be registered without their knowledge. This shows that permanent registration is possible and can work. There is no evidence of any problems with this system in other jurisdictions. It staggers me that the government will not go the full mile and let people register themselves permanently on the Do Not Call Register. It also staggers me that the government is still giving an exemption to—guess who?—politicians. That is right! Politicians are exempted from the Do Not Call Register. Even if you are registered on the Do Not Call Register, guess what? Politicians are exempted and, yes, they can make those calls. That is a cop-out. It is a disgrace that we ban all other companies but politicians are exempt.
You should be able to talk to your constituents.
The issue here is why. Why would they do that? Think about all those pre-recorded messages from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition going through to the phone. Pollies are exempt. We cannot wait for those phone calls again—maybe from this Prime Minister. I do not know. Maybe those in 7.30 Report-land will be exempt! But this is a very serious issue. There are many vulnerable Australians, and to think that politicians are exempted! In my home state of Victoria there are two elections this year, and you can bet your bottom dollar that families across the state are going to be called up and hassled. It is a double standard and I think it is pathetic. It is not just the Labor Party that is guilty of this double standard; the coalition under the Howard government also supported this decision. I have been firm in my position from all the way back in 2006: politicians should be treated just like every other telemarketer or company and made to follow the Do Not Call Register.
Both of these issues—the issue of letting people permanently put themselves on the list and the issue of getting rid of the special exemption for politicians—are matters which need to be dealt with, not put off again for a couple of years. I have circulated amendments which address both of these issues and will continue to hold the government of the day to account on these two matters. The Do Not Call Register was put in place for a very good reason. We need to make sure that we continue to protect those Australians who want to be on the Do Not Call Register, not make it more difficult for them to avoid these annoying nuisance phone calls.
It is good that we have got to this amended Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 now before the chamber, but it is bad that it has taken so much to get to this. What a waste in getting to this. What a waste of time. What a waste of money. What a waste of work. The government announced its Do Not Call Register proposition at budget time last year. It took them another six months to release discussion papers to start to get legislation drafted. What a waste of time, particularly when it is now incumbent upon this place to pass the bill with amendments to keep existing homeowners’ do-not-call registrations alive. What a waste.
What a waste that it took stakeholders; business, which was supposedly going to benefit from this bill; and the parliament, in particular the opposition and Senate committee processes, to do the homework that the government should have done but, as usual, failed to do in preparing the Do Not Call Register proposal without any sort of evidence based policy. Why all that waste when all this bill was ever based upon was a ministerial whim? That is what it was. In evidence given to Senate inquiries into the bill, Senator Conroy said:
It has been a particular concern of mine that unwanted and unsolicited calls and faxes are wasting valuable business resources …
He said that in an attempt to justify the proposition that businesses should be able to register themselves on the Do Not Call Register—a proposition which is now no longer part of the bill. I then asked:
Do you have evidence from business?
Senator Conroy said:
Businesses that choose to register their number clearly want protection against telemarketing calls. If they do not, then they do not have to.
That is code from Minister Conroy for ‘We will build it and they will come’—the same sort of code that he is using for the National Broadband Network. His faith was ‘Build the Do Not Call Register and they will come.’ Through the Senate committee process he finally learnt that business would not come. The Senate committee heard, ‘What conscientious CEO would care to register his or her business on the Do Not Call Register, effectively saying, “My business is closed for business”?’ Minister Conroy would have realised, had he done his homework, that the very businesses that were supposedly going to benefit from the Do Not Call Register would not have put themselves on the register in the first place.
He also would have realised that his proposition would not work, because the bill failed to distinguish between so-called telemarketing calls to business and normal business-to-business calls—so much so that pretty much every business making everyday commercial phone calls would have been forced to call a Do Not Call Register authority to check that the very business they wanted to call was not registered on the Do Not Call Register. This presented the absolutely absurd proposition that almost every business would have to call a register to see if a recipient of their call was on it when, in fact, the register would likely be empty. That was proven through the Senate committee process by the relevant department confessing, firstly, that they had no proof of how many businesses would register for the Do Not Call Register if the bill were to proceed in its original form. Secondly, they had no idea, no mapping and no cost-benefit analysis of the number of occasions on which a business wanting to make outgoing phone calls to another business would have to check with the Do Not Call Register, what it would cost them to do so, for what period of time a so-called washed list of numbers you could call would last and what the consequences of that would be. The government had not done its policy homework.
So we have wasted all this time and all this industry resource and effort essentially on a minister’s whim: ‘Let me build it and they will come.’ The Australian people are entitled to ask whether it will be exactly the same with the same minister and his ‘Let me build the National Broadband Network and they will come’.
I thank senators for their contributions on the Do Not Call Register Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. This is, of course, noncontroversial legislation. This bill expands the class of numbers that can be listed on the Do Not Call Register and allows for a change to the registration period which initially will be set at five years for both existing registrations and future registrations. I commend the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I will be brief, yet again, because yet again we are running out of time. As the minister just said, this is uncontroversial legislation, but the handling of this legislation by the government is anything but. It is a disgrace that we are here in the last 15 minutes of this week in parliament, the last possible opportunity to deal with this legislation. If we do not deal with this legislation in the next 15 minutes, more than four million families across Australia might be exposed to those nuisance calls from telemarketers that they do not want. Here we are in this position. The government, through its mismanagement, is putting the Senate in this position. Because we are focused on the national interest, because we are focused on the interests of more than four million families across Australia, we are doing the right and the decent thing. The coalition, the Greens and Family First are all facilitating the speedy passage of this bill, but the way this is being handled is a disgrace.
Of course, the whole handling of this legislation since it was introduced in November last year has been a disgrace. The reason the government get themselves into trouble again and again is that they have these ideological slogans, these grandiose statements. They come up with these announcements with great fanfare: ‘We’re going to include all the businesses across Australia in this as well.’ Not thinking things through is what gets them into trouble again and again. That is what delivered us the failure on GroceryWatch, on Fuelwatch, on the ETS. Everything they have touched they have stuffed up.
I did promise that I would keep it short and Senator Fisher explained in some detail the many flaws that the minister had to address belatedly in a late Friday afternoon backflip which he thought he could get away with while no-one was watching, on 30 April. Here we are. This inclusion of businesses in the Do Not Call Register was never going to be workable. We told you so right from the outset. It only took you five or six months to figure it out, and eventually you came onboard with what we told you all along. It is incompetent government. It is a government driven by grandiose ideological statements. They do not think things through. That is why we always end up, under this government’s mismanagement and maladministration, in the sorts of circumstances we are in.
While I am on my feet, and so that I do not have to get on my feet again, I am just going to quickly make a comment in relation to the amendments that Senator Fielding has foreshadowed. The coalition will not be supporting those amendments. Essentially, in relation to the exemption of political parties, we take the view that allowing an exemption for political parties from the register is consistent with other exemptions in the bill which seek to balance the ability of organisations to undertake socially important work. Political parties, Independent MPs—including you, Senator Fielding—and nominated candidates play a vital role in a democratic society and it is important that they be able to continue to make a range of calls to enable them to continue to fulfil their roles.
In relation to permanent registration, we agree with the government that permanent registration on the Do Not Call Register would lead to many practical difficulties with keeping the register accurate and relevant. Industry figures suggest the Do Not Call Register would be 40 per cent out of date within five years if permanent registration were introduced, and 10 per cent of phone numbers, incidentally, are disconnected every year. We agree with the proposition that it would unfairly disadvantage businesses, because they would be forced to comply with a register that does not reflect consumer preferences in relation to receiving telemarketing calls.
With those few words, I conclude my contribution on this particular piece of legislation but yet again point out that it did not have to come to this. We did not have to waste the last five or six months. It came down to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee, with coalition senators under the leadership of Senator Fisher, to expose the many flaws in this legislation which the government had to address at the last minute. They thought they could do it under the cover of a late Friday afternoon announcement. It is one backflip after another. We are dealing with an incompetent minister, we are dealing with an incompetent government and it is time that they actually learnt that public administration is something that involves a little bit of thinking from time to time.
I assume that Senator Fielding is interested in speaking to the amendments that he has proposed.
I am assuming he will actually move them shortly.
I presume that they will be moved when we give him the opportunity. I gave a speech in the second reading debate that I think lasted for about 15 seconds when we were trying to conclude this—
They were good seconds.
They were. They were great. It was a great speech. We were trying to conclude the debate before two o’clock and I think Senator Feeney thought that my complimenting of the government was a little bit backhanded, so I will just make clear what it is that I mean. This is obviously a bandaid. It is a quick fix, but it is one that is appropriate. I would prefer that the government do this, even though they are going to cop a bit of a flogging from the opposition and the crossbenchers for the awkward way in which it is being passed. Better that than to just persist with something that is broken and wrong. I would always prefer, and the Australian Greens would always prefer—and we will not be giving you much of a kicking for—coming back with something that works, with improved legislation that saves the Commonwealth money, rather than pig-headedly persisting with something that is obviously flawed. So we appreciate the opportunity and the consent of the coalition for at least bringing this back so that we can debate it.
We are keenly aware of the consequences if this is held over for another month. Every day that this lapses costs the Commonwealth money, and so we are happy to see it pass this evening. For many of the reasons that Senator Cormann outlined, we will not be supporting the amendments proposed by Senator Fielding, although I have some affinity for them. We believe that maintaining the list in perpetuity will perhaps leave us with many of the issues that the government has used to justify giving us a couple of years extension to sort the system out in future. Presumably we will be revisiting this legislation some time in the new parliament. Hopefully we will be doing it in a fashion a little bit less awkward.
by leave—I move items (1), (3) and (4) on sheet 6049 revised:
(1) Schedule 1, item 42, page 13 (lines 9 to 14), omit paragraph 17(1)(b), substitute:
(b) remains in force unless removed from the Do Not Call Register:
(i) under paragraph 16(f); or
(ii) in accordance with a determination under paragraph 18(1)(e); or
(iii) in accordance with an application by:
(A) the relevant telephone account-holder; or
(B) a nominee of the relevant telephone account-holder;
in the form (if any) specified in a determination under paragraph 18(1)(aa).
(3) Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:
43 Subsection 17(2)
Repeal the subsection.
(4) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 24), after item 49, insert:
49A After paragraph 18(1)(a)
Insert:
(aa) the form of applications for Australian numbers to be removed from the Do Not Call Register;
We oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(2) Schedule 1, item 42A, page 13 (lines 15 to 18), item to be opposed.
I will talk to both types of amendments—and I spoke to them in my speech quite well. What I will say is that they do permanent registration in the US and the UK. When a number is deactivated, or when someone changes their number, it is taken off the Do Not Call Register and you have to reregister. I understand the Liberal Party’s comments but I am not sure they are really well thought through. But the fact that the US and the UK do it indicates there is a reasonable way of making sure that numbers which have been deactivated do not remain on the register, so that the next owner of the number does not have a do not call number. There are ways around that.
On the removal of exemptions for political parties on the Do Not Call Register, I think a classic example is that of prerecorded messages from the Prime Minister. I think they would be classified as being pretty close to being a nuisance call. I am pretty sure Labor would agree with me, because they called those sorts of calls nuisance calls when the previous government used them. This would be a way of making sure that that did not happen, given that they complained so bitterly about them at the time. There would be consistency if Labor did support it. It is important that there is at least a two-year extension. That is the only reason I agreed to make this legislation non-controversial. I appreciate the chamber allowing me to speak and to raise my concerns, which I have been consistent on, and I am hoping that Labor may do a backflip and support my amendments.
The question is that items (1), (3) and (4) on sheet 6049 Revised be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is with respect to item (2), that schedule 1, item 42A on page 13 stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move item (5) on sheet 6049:
(5) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 4), after item 67, insert:
67A Clause 3 of Schedule 1
Repeal the clause.
We oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:
(6) Schedule 1, item 71, page 17 (line 8) to page 19 (line 6), clause 3 of Schedule 1A to be opposed.
I put the same arguments as before.
The question is that amendment (5) on sheet 6049 Revised be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The question now is that schedule 1A stand as printed.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Order! The President has received letter from party leaders requesting changes in the membership of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Farrell to replace Senator Lundy on 24 May 2010
Senator Bishop to replace Senator Lundy on 25 May 2010
Senator Marshall to replace Senator Lundy on 26 May 2010
Senator Bilyk to replace Senator Lundy on 27 May 2010
Senator Carol Brown to replace Senator McEwen on 15 June 2010
Senator Milne to replace Senator Ludlam for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2010 and related bills
Participating members: Senators Ludlam, Lundy and McEwen
Reform of the Australian Federation—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Furner and Lundy
Participating members: Senators Bilyk, Bishop, Carol Brown, Cameron, Collins, Farrell, Feeney, Forshaw, Hurley, Hutchins, Marshall, McEwen, McLucas, O’Brien, Polley, Pratt, Stephens, Sterle and Wortley
Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Collins
Appointed—Senator Pratt.
Question agreed to.
Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate that Mrs Mirabella has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library.
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and may be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010 makes amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000.
The Bill amends the table in subsection 14B(1) of the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to include additional funding for the Sporting Chance program, in order to bring it into the Commonwealth’s suite of targeted assistance measures and to adjust the 2010 to 2012 appropriations agreed as part of the new Federal Financial Relations Framework.
By amending the appropriations under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 the Australian Government can continue working with a range of stakeholders to develop and implement innovative measures to close the gap.
In education the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous students is stark.
Most indigenous students meet minimum standards of reading, writing and numeracy – but not nearly as many as their non-indigenous classmates.
For example, the 2009 NAPLAN results reveal a gap of 26.4 percentage points between the reading levels of indigenous and non-indigenous Year 5 students.
When they reach Year nine, NAPLAN reveals a 30 point gap between the writing levels of indigenous and non-indigenous students.
The Act provides an excellent vehicle to action good ideas – ideas that deliver results.
The Act maintains commitments to initiatives introduced by the former Government including the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Sporting Chance program.
$10.93m over three years will be used to extend the activities under the Sporting Chance Program – using sport to engage with Indigenous students and show them the value of education.
An example of the program’s achievements can be found in the work of the Clontarf Foundation.
The Foundation has been the major single provider of school-based sports academies for boys under the Sporting Chance Program since projects commenced operations in 2007.
They consistently achieve improvements in attendance, and reports significant success in attainment to Year 12 in schools of which they operate.
Mid year 2009 reporting indicates that average attendance of students in Clontarf academies was 76 per cent compared with 70 per cent.
Mr Speaker
Record Australian Government investment in education is geared towards giving students from all backgrounds and all locations a chance to access a good education.
By focussing on programs—like the Sporting Chance—that are delivering better education outcomes for indigenous students the Australian Government is actively working to close the gap.
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2010 can make an important contribution to that effort and I commend it to the House.
Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 2) Bill 2010
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 amends the non-commercial loan rules in Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to prevent a shareholder of a private company (or an associate of the shareholder) accessing tax-free dividends through the use of company assets, for less than their market value.
This Schedule also makes a range of other technical amendments to strengthen the non-commercial loan rules by ensuring that they cannot be circumvented by the use of corporate limited partnerships or by interposing entities between a private company and its shareholders.
The Government announced that it would tighten the non-commercial loan rules in Division 7A as part of the 2009-10 Budget. After listening to the community, particularly the farming and small business communities, the Government has introduced a number of exceptions into this measure to cover the minor use of company assets, the use of assets for income producing purposes where that use would otherwise be deductible and the use of certain dwellings for private purposes.
These amendments will strengthen the operation of Division 7A as an integrity measure, providing greater equity and fairness to taxpayers.
Schedule 2 amends the taxation laws to extend tax file number withholding arrangements to closely held trusts, including family trusts.
Generally, the new tax file number withholding arrangements will apply to the trustees of closely held trusts and family trusts where the trustee makes a payment of income to the beneficiary or the beneficiary is presently entitled to be paid a share of the income of the trust and the beneficiary of the trust has not provided their tax file number to the trustee.
To allow the Australian Tax Office data matching and ensure the effective operation of the system, the new tax file number withholding framework includes various reporting and remittance obligations.
This measure will improve the fairness and integrity of the taxation system by equipping the Tax Office with the information necessary to match amounts assessable to beneficiaries of these trusts, with amounts reported in the beneficiary’s income tax return and thus help ensure that beneficiaries of these trusts pay their fair share of tax
Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the value of the HECS-HELP benefit received by an eligible applicant.
The HECS-HELP benefit, or Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Programme benefit, was an initiative first introduced in the 2008-09 Budget. The benefit gives eligible recipients a reduction in their HECS debt repayment and/or their HELP debt repayment or, in some cases where a repayment is not required due to low income, a direct reduction in their HELP debt.
The benefit was initially introduced for mathematics and science graduates and early childhood education teachers. In the 2009-10 Budget it was announced that the benefit had been extended to nurses and teachers generally.
The amendments ensure that no income tax is payable on the value of the benefit received by eligible recipients.
Schedule 4 amends the list of deductible gift recipients, or DGRs, in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status assists the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities.
This Schedule adds two new organisations to the 1997 Act, namely the Sichuan Earthquake Surviving Children’s Education Fund and the Bali Peace Park Association Inc.
This Schedule also extends the period that the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project Limited can collect deductible gifts for another three years.
Schedule 5 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to make the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Limited income tax exempt for a four-year period.
The Institute is a not-for-profit-organisation that aims to accelerate the development and global adoption of safe, commercially and environmentally sustainable carbon capture and storage technology.
Carbon capture and storage technology aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels burnt during industrial processes, such as coal powered electricity generation. It involves the capture, compression, transport, long-term storage and monitoring of carbon emissions that would otherwise be released to the atmosphere.
The Institute’s purpose is to drive the commercial uptake and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, which would have significant positive consequences for the global environment.
There may also be an economic benefit to Australia of investing in environmentally sustainable industries through carbon capture and storage technologies. Australia has the fourth largest coal reserves in the world, and is the world’s largest exporter of coal.
The information and expertise developed by the Institute is to be disseminated broadly and globally to the benefit of both the Australian and the global carbon capture and storage communities.
Supporting the Institute by making it income tax exempt is a part of the Government’s strategy to mitigate the risks of climate change.
Schedule 6 repeals over one hundred provisions in the tax laws that provide the Commissioner of Taxation with an unlimited period to amend taxpayers’ assessments.
Generally, under the current law, amendments to the taxpayers’ assessments may be made within specific time periods, including in certain circumstances, time periods that are unlimited.
The repeal of the unlimited amendment period provisions within this Schedule include provisions where the standard two to four-year amendment period would provide sufficient time for the Commissioner to examine and make any necessary amendments to the relevant assessment. For these provisions, the standard amendment period will also retain an unlimited amendment period in cases of fraud and evasion.
This will have the effect of reducing the volume of unnecessary and redundant provisions in the taxation laws, as well as assisting in providing more certainty to taxpayers in their taxation affairs.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Income Support Measures) Bill 2010
I am pleased to present legislation addressing minor but necessary measures that will remove anomalies between veterans’ entitlements law and social security law.
These amendments are a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to continually review, update and improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel.
They remove anomalies between related laws that might otherwise frustrate veterans and their families through inconsistent treatment of income and assets in certain circumstances.
The bill includes amendments that will exempt, from the veterans’ entitlements income test, payments associated with part-time work experience under a Labour Market Program.
This measure aligns the veterans’ entitlements law with the social security law and ensures the consistent treatment of these types of payments across both Acts.
The bill will also amend the Veterans’ Entitlements Act so that the partner of a service pension or income support supplement claimant or recipient, will be required to claim a comparable foreign pension if the partner is entitled to such a pension.
This provides consistency between the veterans’ entitlements law and the social security law and can result in a pensioner couple receiving more income overall.
For those persons currently receiving a service pension or income support supplement, their partners, where entitled to a comparable foreign pension, will be given six months to claim the pension.
The bill will also change the income test treatment of arrears payments of comparable foreign pensions so that the treatment of such arrears payments parallels that under the social security law.
This treatment generally provides a better result for the pensioner and will close a potential loophole in the legislation.
Instead of treating the arrears payment as income in the 12 month period from the date of grant of the comparable foreign pension, these amendments will mean that the arrears payment is treated as periodical payments for the period of the arrears.
The majority of cases will benefit from this change and the amendments will remove the opportunity for pensioners to change to a social security pension to potentially avoid the income test in relation to the arrears payment.
The bill will repeal from the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, all references to benevolent homes.
The provisions have become redundant as benevolent homes no longer exist and there are no longer any Veterans’ Affairs beneficiaries who are affected by these provisions.
Finally, the bill will clarify that the value of certain superannuation investments specified in a determination by the Minister to be disregarded for the purposes of the assets test, are not disregarded for the purposes of the deemed income rules and the asset deprivation rules.
The exceptions will ensure that the veterans’ entitlements means test will continue to operate so that those most in need will receive the most benefit from our repatriation pension system.
These corrections to the legislation will protect the integrity of the means test and the pension system by ensuring that specified superannuation investments are treated as originally intended and are counted as financial assets when calculating deemed income and will continue to be regarded as assets if the asset has been disposed of for less than adequate or no consideration.
This Bill continues the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Australia’s veteran community and their families and ensuring their well-being now and into the future.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I table a statement relating to the order for the production of documents concerning quarterly spending reports from the states and territories relating to primary schools.
Sitting suspended from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm
Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Senator Sherry:
That the Senate take note of the Budget statement and documents.
I seek leave to incorporate for the information of honourable senators the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the budget speech, delivered by Mr Abbott in the House of Representatives earlier this evening.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Of the three budgets delivered by the Rudd Government, this is the most political, the least believable, and the most damaging to Australia’s long term future. It’s a typical, old-fashioned, tax-and-spend Labor Budget that also features all the debt and deficit that can be expected from Labor, only covered up by clever accounting and a great big new tax on mining.
If the government’s revenues really had exceeded expenditure, it would be entitled to claim prudent economic management. What the government has actually delivered, though, as opposed to talk about, is a $57 billion deficit this year – the biggest ever. What the government is actually doing now, as opposed to promising in three years time, is borrowing $700 million every week till then.
Brazenly, the government wants credit for a surplus that doesn’t yet exist and that it’s unlikely ever to achieve. The surplus that it says will happen in three years time is based on increased taxes and on the growth that those increased taxes will almost certainly strangle.
That $1 billion surplus is roughly the amount required to fix the pink batts program that’s been linked to four deaths; the amount required to pay for the extra detention measures needed because the government has lost control of our borders; or the blow out in the computers in schools programme. It’s roughly half the blow-out in the school hall programme.
Does anybody seriously believe, based on this record, that a re-elected Rudd government could avoid another, surplus-shattering disaster sometime in the next three years?
It took the last Labor government thirteen years to accumulate $96 billion of debt but this Labor Government expects to do the same in less than half the time. It took a change of government to get Labor’s debt paid off last time and, once again, the quickest way to get rid of this debt will be to get rid of this government.
Everyone wants our country to succeed and many still hope that our Prime Minister is up to the job but there’s always this question: why should his latest promises turn out to be more credible than the ones that he’s already broken? Amidst all the self-congratulation about how historic this budget is, you almost expected the Prime Minister to declare that fixing the deficit is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
In his 2007 Budget reply, the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister said “we must remain committed to keeping taxes low”. But he has just increased the cigarette tax and added a new mining tax to the 125 separate taxes that Australia already has.
He said then that a Labor government would withdraw an existing regulation for every new one imposed on business. In office, he has introduced 9997 new or amended regulations and withdrawn just 52.
He said then that he would pursue “a conservative fiscal policy” but proceeded to unleash the greatest spending spree in Australian history, turning a $20 billion surplus into a $27 billion deficit in just one year.
The Prime Minister said then that he was committed to “working families hit hard by the cost of mortgage repayments, food prices, petrol…and childcare”. His spendathon has contributed to six interest rate rises in the last eight months, with housing affordability at record lows and a $4500 a year hit on families with a $300,000 mortgage.
He’s abandoned his fuel watch and grocery watch schemes, though prices keep going up, and he’s dumped his childcare commitment after building less than 40 of the promised 260 centres.
The Prime Minister said then that the “economic cost of not acting (on climate change) will be far greater than the cost of taking early and responsible action”. As recently as November he said that to delay action would be “absolute political cowardice”, and an “absolute failure of leadership”.
But he now won’t do anything about it till sometime next term for fear of fighting an election on tax. Instead, there’s a different great big new tax that will now be the issue on which the election turns.
Mr Rudd observed in 2007 that “mining booms don’t last forever”. They certainly don’t when governments threaten to kill them with a new tax that will eventually choke the goose that’s laid the golden egg for Australia. Despite its name, this is not a normal tax on super profits. It’s a super tax on normal profits.
Every company extracting non-renewable resources will have to pay an additional 40 per cent tax, as well as normal tax, once its rate of return on capital exceeds the long term bond rate or about 6 per cent. The new tax applies to the extraction of phosphate, sand and stone as well as to the extraction of minerals, oil and gas. It’s a tax on small quarries as well as big miners.
It will impact on the price of fertilisers and building materials as well as on the price of energy. It’s a triple whammy tax on the jobs of half a million mining and related workers, on the superannuation of millions of retirees with mining shares and on the cost of living of everyone who uses power.
It will increase the effective rate of tax on all mining from 44 to 57 per cent. Already, Australia heavily taxes the extraction of resources. The proposed new 57 per cent rate would make Australian taxes the highest in the world.
It’s amazing how quickly BHP and Rio Tinto have gone from being lionized to demonized. The government says that this new tax is needed to stop foreign companies ripping us off. In fact, there would be no wealth to redistribute if those same companies and their shareholders had not invested serious money to turn untapped resources into national wealth.
Imposing a prohibitive rate of tax on returns above 6 per cent sends an implicit message to business people that they would be better off putting their money in the bank. After all, who would bother to take the risks of investing in actual production if there’s an extra penalty on success?
This great big new tax has already put all investment decisions on hold. Rio has said that its investment in Australia will be reviewed. Xstrata has indefinitely suspended new exploration in north Queensland. BHP has raised doubts about new coal mines in Queensland, iron ore and uranium mines in Western Australia and, particularly, the $22 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia.
It is hard to overstate the seriousness of this. A 40 per cent tax on so called super profits coupled with a 40 per cent government rebate for losses penalizes good projects and rewards the duds. Perversely, it gives an unfair advantage to projects backed by foreign sovereign wealth funds which won’t need to satisfy normal commercial risk assessment. These projects could then transfer price profits out of Australia and sell ventures at a loss subsidised by Australian taxpayers.
By this budget’s bizarre logic, putting a new tax on cigarettes means less smoking but putting a new tax on resources means more mining. If this tax is going to be so good for the resources sector, why aren’t other industries lining up to beg for a super profits tax to be imposed on them?
The budget formula assumes the best terms of trade in 60 years, assumes that higher taxes have no impact on investment, assumes a 4 per cent growth rate and, presto, the deficit disappears three years early without the need for any hard decisions. If only company promoters could get away with such a prospectus.
Yet if growth really is such a sure thing, why does the government also keep warning that “we’re not out of the woods yet”?
A responsible government would understand that it’s better to reform your way through hard times than to try to spend your way out of them. Even the worthy-sounding measures in this budget are unlikely to make much difference to the real problems that people face.
The government’s savings cameo, for instance, has a person earning just $40,000 a year putting aside $50 a week for several years to generate $20,000 in savings bank deposits for a $177 a year tax break. No one with any idea of the cost pressures on low income earners would find this very plausible.
More GP “super clinics” sound like a good idea too except that 36 were promised at the last election and only two are actually operational. In fact, fee-for-service under Medicare has already produced hundreds of private sector equivalents and these don’t deserve unfair competition from government-funded rivals.
Of course, there should be an electronic health record but hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent to make this a reality and no more should be spent until it’s certain that we’re not throwing good money after bad.
Of course, there should be more defence spending but not to produce 1500 more “suits” and 500 fewer “uniforms”. In these respects, this budget is more about looking good than doing good.
Before the last election, Labor promised to eliminate wasteful government advertising. Instead, it’s eliminated auditor-general scrutiny of government ad campaigns and has just put aside $74 million for taxpayer funded pre-election blitzes about climate change, the national broadband network and hospital reform.
Then there’s the dishonesty of the government’s sales pitch. The mining tax was not a recommendation of the Henry review. Henry recommended a replacement tax not an additional one and an offsetting 5 per cent not a 2 per cent cut in corporate tax.
The mining tax does not fund the increased superannuation. That’s funded by a separate 3 per cent levy on payroll that will be an additional cost to business or forgone wages to workers.
The mining tax is not an onshore version of the existing resource rent tax on offshore projects. That tax substituted for state royalties which don’t apply offshore, was prospective not retrospective, and only cuts in after a much higher rate of return.
If a 6 per cent rate of return is a “super” profit for mining, how can it be just “modest” for the government-owned national broadband network – as one minister claimed - and what other unpopular industries might be the next target of penalty taxes?
It’s true that Australia has so far survived the Global Financial Crisis in better shape than almost any other nation. The issue is whether this success is due to the spending spree of the current government or to the reforms of previous ones; whether it’s due to the government’s management skills or to our resource exports to China? The question, I think, only has to be asked for the answer to be obvious.
There is a low road and a high road to achieving a surplus. The high road is expenditure restraint and economic reform. The low road is increasing taxes and making assumptions about economic growth.
The budget’s projections depend more on the success of the Chinese economy than on any decisions that the Rudd government has taken. In opposition, Labor often accused the then government of riding the China boom.
Say what you like about John Howard and Peter Costello but they didn’t shirk the hard reform and they didn’t need to hit miners with extra tax to generate a surplus. Their surpluses were the result of tough decisions, not new taxes.
Let me make this clear: the Coalition will oppose the mining tax in opposition and we will rescind it in government.
I have one message for Mr Rudd. It’s one he should be familiar with: this reckless spending must stop.
Until Labor’s debt and deficit has been dealt with it’s not hardness of heart but economic prudence to say “no” even to good causes. In other circumstances, you could fund a company tax cut and depreciation allowances for small business but not at the cost of an economy-stopping tax on our most successful export industry.
It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul and playing to the kind of class war envy that Mr Rudd’s Labor predecessors have mostly been too honourable to exploit.
It’s my goal to return the budget to surplus at least as quickly as the government proposes but not the lazy way through a great big new tax that threatens miners’ jobs, retirees’ incomes and everybody’s standard of living.
Fostering a savings culture is important but the government should come clean about whether higher superannuation contributions are to be paid out of workers’ pockets or by their employers. If it means an extra three per cent tax payroll tax on every business, that’s a $20 billion a year handbrake on economic growth.
The Coalition will spend more on health but only where we’re certain that extra spending will produce extra services. Improved Medicare rebates, for instance, would be a better way than phantom clinics to deliver improved primary care.
I’m happy to let the Labor Party win any race to raise taxes. Taxes and spending will always be lower and government will always be smaller under the Coalition. That should also mean that economic growth will be higher and that the size of government will always be about one per cent of GDP less under the Coalition.
For nine years, I was a minister in a government that delivered lower taxes and higher surpluses because it did not shirk the hard decisions needed to reform our economy. I was part of a government that understood that you can’t spend what you haven’t got and that you can only create real wealth by hard work.
I know, as anyone who has spent time in remote indigenous townships should, that you can’t have much of a community without an economy to sustain it.
The first principle of government should be: “do no harm”. The Coalition wants lower taxes, smaller government and greater freedom. It wants a fair go for families and respect for institutions that have stood the test of time. These instincts are in our DNA.
The Coalition wants an Australia that is prosperous, united and respected; where families’ choices are taken seriously by government; where pensioners and carers are regarded as people who have served and are serving our country; where officials understand that the public are their masters not their servants; where migrants are welcome but borders are secure; where people’s taxes give them decent hospitals and proper highways; and where the armed forces represent our country’s best values. But we also know that government can’t solve all problems immediately and that over-promising and under-delivering politicians are the cause of so much cynicism about public life.
A good cause never justifies wasting money. On coming to government the Coalition would immediately restructure the school hall programme and provide further funding to school communities, not to state bureaucracies. Parents are normally better than bureaucrats at getting value for their school.
The latest industry data suggests that, had parents been distributing the money, they could have obtained almost twice the build for half the spend.
Likewise, the Coalition won’t go ahead with the National Broadband Network avoiding the creation of a $43 billion white elephant. Better access to faster broadband should not mean a new nationalized telecommunications monopoly and Telstra shareholders should not have their assets subject to coerced acquisition.
The former government’s workplace reforms went too far but they helped to create more than 2 million new jobs, lift real wages by 20 per cent and more than double net household wealth between 1996 and 2007. We’ll seek to take the unfair dismissal monkey off the back of small businesses which are more like families than institutions.
We’ll make Labor’s transitional employment agreements less transitional and Labor’s individual flexibility agreements more flexible. We have faith in Australian workers who are not as easily pushed around and exploited as the ACTU’s dishonest ad campaign is already making out.
If elected, we will be faithful to the liberal conservative tradition. But we will strive to be better than the former government, not just a copy of it. We will be a contemporary government, not just a conservative one.
For starters, there’ll be a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme which gives women six months leave at their full pay. That’s real time and real money to care for their newborns.
Parental leave is a workplace entitlement not a welfare one. It should be paid for by business but not in way which could lead to discrimination against female staff or hurt small business. Only the Labor Party habitually increases businesses’ cost burden and if the current government had not completely blown the surplus it wouldn’t be necessary.
But all benefits have to be paid for and the fairest way to have a paid parental leave scheme anytime soon is through a modest levy on companies’ taxable income over $5 million a year. It will be a universal scheme but, importantly, won’t mean any extra cost for small business.
The Coalition’s paid parental leave policy is good for women who will finally have more realistic choices to combine work and family. It’s good for all those families that need two incomes to pay the mortgage helping them when they are most financially vulnerable.
And it’s good for the economy which won’t lose some of the best workers because they can’t do justice both to their jobs and to their families. More freedom for mothers to work, if that’s their choice, is a productivity measure not just a social reform.
The Coalition will fight Mr Rudd’s means test on the private health insurance rebate because it’s yet another one of his broken promises and because strong private hospitals take the pressure off public waiting lists.
It’s previously been calculated that every dollar the government spends on the rebate brings more private money into healthcare saving two dollars that government would otherwise have to spend on health. As well, we’ll ensure that Medibank Private really is private by selling it and using the proceeds to reduce government debt.
Before becoming Prime Minister, Mr Rudd attacked the “bloating” of the federal bureaucracy but has since added nearly 20,000 to the 258,000-strong Australian Public Service.
To rein in spending, the Coalition will introduce a two year recruitment freeze to reduce public servant numbers through natural attrition. The freeze will apply on an agency-by-agency basis but uniformed and frontline service positions including, for example, the federal police, customs and quarantine, the Australian Defence Force and Centrelink customer service staff will be excluded.
There will be no redundancies but for two years 6,000 bureaucrats who retire or resign each year will not be replaced. This should deliver a modest reduction in public sector numbers without compromising essential services and save about $4 billion over the forward estimates.
As well, the Coalition would not proceed with the budget increase to the renewable energy future fund and will cut government advertising by 25 per cent. These savings will pay for the Coalition’s direct action on climate change policy, the Green Army and the retention of the current private health insurance rebate.
Next Wednesday at the National Press Club, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey will announce further measures to reduce spending and to increase productivity including a detailed response to the new spending and new savings proposals in the budget.
The final costing and funding details of Coalition policy will be released nearer the election but all policies will be fully costed and fully funded because the Australian people are entitled to reassurance that the alternative government’s promises are responsible and achievable.
The Coalition has changed over the past two and a half years. We’ve heeded the lessons of defeat. We’ve learnt from our mistakes.
We know, unlike our opponents, that governments shouldn’t ignore expert advice about the lethal dangers of their programmes, shouldn’t decide to change the health system without taking the premiers into their confidence and shouldn’t decide, with minimal Treasury input, to put a new tax on mining without first talking to the people whose livelihoods are on the line.
The government has changed too. It no longer seems to stand for many of the things it used to, like combating climate change and ending the blame game. Conversely, it does seem to stand for things that no one would once have expected, like a chronic inability to take advice and a dangerous tendency to make policy on the run.
In the end, it’s a judgment about who can be trusted with the fate of the country that decides elections. This budget rests on the government’s new mining tax and the election should turn on this too.
Australia’s future depends on the bulk carriers travelling to Asia just as surely as it once rode on the sheep’s back. This election, like the budget, will pit a party that thinks it’s reasonable to make Australian miners the world’s highest taxed against one that doesn’t.
The die is cast. Neither side will retreat. The only way to stop this great big new tax on the people who saved us from the recession is to change the government.
It gives me great pleasure to speak tonight on the alternatives which the Australian Greens would have put forward in the budget context and will be moving to implement in this parliament, in the consequent parliament and in coming fiscal years. I first of all want to pay a tribute to my colleagues, Senators Christine Milne, Rachel Siewert, Sarah Hanson-Young and Scott Ludlam, who are prodigious workers in this place and who ensure that the Greens as the third political party in this nation are not only across all issues but in advance of the big parties in advocating alternatives for a nation which badly needs a lead, which badly needs innovation, which badly needs imagination in politics and which badly needs a closer connection with the Australian people, who pay us to be here.
A little less than a year ago, the country was faced with the prospect of recession. All of us will remember the projections from Treasury, which showed that by the final quarter of last year we would be in recession unless the government acted swiftly in the face of the global downturn. In that circumstance, in February last year the government brought forward a package of some $42 billion to stimulate the economy. The first thing the opposition did, the Liberal and National parties, was to announce that they would block that stimulus program. That immediately threw the challenge to us Greens. In consideration with my colleagues, we recognised that while we did not support all the components of such a huge taking of taxpayers’ money and applying it to, in no small measure, the big end of town as well as to such worthy projects as a building program for 9,000 schools across this country, we would support that package and we did so.
We took the responsible option of negotiating with Treasurer Swan, the Prime Minister and several other ministers to improve that package. As a result, a jobs dividend came from the Greens work and thousands more Australians were employed. Not only that, those people who did not survive with their businesses or jobs intact got a much better deal from the government to tide them over until the worst of the recession had passed. We Greens are proud of that arrangement we made with government. It did involve $100 million to stimulate jobs right across rural and regional Australia, including in the refurbishment of this nation’s great heritage, for which there was no budget line until the Greens arrived and got $60 million put into these job-rich projects, and another $40 million for bikeways in all states and territories of the country.
We are also aware now that, in hindsight, it is the consensus of social commentators and economists that it was that stimulus package which the Greens made possible—and I pay tribute to our two crossbench colleagues, by the way, who were essential to its success—that prevented the country from heading to double-digit unemployment, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of Australians out of work had the coalition succeeded in its negative attitude, which is ‘block everything the Labor government puts forward’. In this budget the country now has a forecast of 4.75 per cent unemployment by next year. What a remarkable achievement that is. Without the Greens that would not have happened. We are very proud of the role we took, responsibly, in the economic management of this country when the National and Liberal coalition failed at a moment of crisis for the nation.
Climate change is still coming rapidly upon the planet, and Australia is one of the most exposed and potentially damaged countries in the world. Yet the government has decided to set aside for three years further action on climate change, and the opposition have a polyglot of proposals which do not take government responsibility seriously should they be elected to government. Faced with a proposal which included a $20 billion waste of public money, if I correctly interpret the Grattan report of just a couple of weeks ago, the Greens have been proven right in not accepting the government’s proposal nor its failure to adequately tackle climate change with a prescription for five per cent downturn in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 rather than 25 to 40 per cent, which is required if we are really going to be successful in protecting the Great Barrier Reef, our snowfields, the productivity of the Murray-Darling Basin and a great deal more that is at stake in Australia in the coming century.
Instead, the Greens earlier this year took up Professor Garnaut’s proposal for an interim carbon tax. You will know the details of that. I want simply to point to what some of the commentators have said about the Greens’ proposal, which in this parliament and in the run to the election is the only consistent, nationally directed action plan to tackle climate change. I might add that, rather than costing taxpayers billions of dollars, as the government’s ETS proposal would be doing in this and subsequent budgets, the Greens’ proposal would bring in some $10 billion a year from a pollution tax on the 1,000 biggest polluters in the country, $5 billion of it earmarked to help households facing climate change right across the country. It would be a community dividend as well as a stimulus to business and a reorienting of our economy to green in an age when we must do that if we are going to face the challenge of much bigger and stronger economies—witness China and India for two.
Dr Frank Jotzo, a leading environmental economist from the Australian National University and an adviser to the original Garnaut review, said the Greens’ proposal:
… is a very sensible proposal. It was first suggested by Professor Garnaut to start the emissions trading scheme system with a fixed price and I believe that it’s even more relevant now in the political deadlock that we’re finding in Parliament.
Mr Acting Deputy President, on carbon tax generally you might listen to these comments from Geoff Carmody—no Green but a co-founder of Access Economics and before that a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury—who said:
A carbon tax allows a steady, predictable, ramping up of the price of carbon over time, allowing business (and, ultimately, consumers) to plan against this prospect and shift to lower emissions technology and more efficiency in energy use.
Professor Joseph Stiglitz from Columbia University, a Nobel laureate, said:
Economic efficiency requires that those who generate emissions pay the cost, and the simplest way of forcing them to do so is through a carbon tax … Indeed, it makes far more sense to tax bad things, like pollution, than to tax good things like work and savings.
Dr Richard Denniss is Executive Director of the Australia Institute and an adjunct associate professor in economics at the ANU. He said:
But the beauty of a carbon tax compared to an emissions trading scheme is that it is easy to design complementary policies, such as investments in energy efficiency, public transport and renewable energy, to augment the impact of a carbon tax.
Professor William Nordhouse, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale, said:
The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.
These are comments that absolutely back the wisdom of the Greens’ proposal for a carbon tax at $23 a tonne of emissions now, ramping up at four per cent plus CPI into the future, allowing the way for a much more successful emissions trading option or carbon tax option in the future. It is to be noted that carbon taxes have been imposed in Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, for example. As Kenneth Davidson commented in the Age last year:
Sweden is the most successful country in the world in reducing its carbon footprint … Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its emissions by 9 per cent, exceeding the target set by Kyoto, while at the same time real growth increased 44 per cent.
This Greens prescription is central to the emerging political reality that it is the Greens who will present a positive alternative when neither of the big parties steps up to the mark with proposals that meet the biggest potential economic challenge of the age, which is climate change.
Finally, I quote Professor James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute and dubbed ‘the godfather of climate science’, who was in Australia recently and was quoted in the Age. He said:
If we had a democracy where decisions were based on the public’s best interest, then that—
that is, the Greens’ proposal—
would be taken up in a heartbeat … Neither of the major parties gets it—or they don’t want to get it.
That speaks for itself.
The mining boom tax has been seriously panned by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, in the House of Representatives tonight. It cannot pass notice here, of course, that the government’s proposed mining boom tax, which the Greens support, is a progressive tax on the huge, multibillion-dollar profits coming to the big mining corporations, which, as the Prime Minister pointed out, have massive transfer of funds overseas from those profits, using the Australian people’s own ore resource in the Australian ground.
I remember, because I was in this place, that the GST was favoured by Mr Abbott in the Howard government. It was a regressive tax which hit people right across the board. The lower your income, the greater was the impact of the tax. Mr Abbott tonight spoke about the impact of a mining boom tax on average Australians. As the Greens see it, properly applied it will be a boon for average Australians, not like the GST, which as a fundraiser has added a great deal to Australian society but which hit the poor much harder than it did the very wealthy, the multimillionaires, who are organising the current protest against this mining boom tax.
The Greens would, however, see a sovereign fund set up, as the Norwegians have done with their windfall profits from mining and from the petroleum and gas reserves of the North Sea. That small country, with fewer than five million people, has put aside $450 billion for its future infrastructure and the progress of its society. The Australian government would do well to do the same. The Greens will be pursuing that strongly when legislation comes into this parliament, if it does, in the coming year to ensure that we wisely put aside money for the nation’s future and not simply return it, as the government would do, to instant proposals, including the building of infrastructure for the very same mining corporations to export coal faster through taxpayer funded railways and port facilities—including those on the Great Barrier Reef—to line the pockets of people other than average Australians.
The Australian Greens support the government’s $7.3 billion per annum health reform package, as we did the private health insurance rebate, which was unsuccessful in this Senate but which was supported by the Greens alone when the government brought it forward earlier this year. We are very strong advocates for better spending in the areas of mental health and dental health for this country. We believe we now have the resources to do that and we should be pursuing it. The Greens are calling for a minimum of $350 million per annum for mental health over the next four years. That would put $100 million a year worth of incentives at the primary care level to target those in need—the vulnerable and long-term clientele within the community and the NGO sector. That would also afford $150 million per year for early intervention mental health programs, including the youth mental health service, ‘headspace’, and early psychosis prevention services. It would also mean $100 million a year for alternatives to emergency department treatment such as multidisciplinary community based subacute services that support stepped or two-stage prevention and recovery care for people suffering mental problems or illnesses.
Denticare is the clear concept of paralleling Medicare by ensuring that all Australians have ready and easy access to dental health care. The failure of government to provide dental health care to everybody in this country remains a black hole—caries—in the delivery of health care in the country. A full national scheme would cost about $4.8 billion per annum. One billion dollars or so is spent on dental health care in current schemes. We could well fund that amount by, for example, reducing the fuel tax credit scheme for miners by $1.7 billion. How much better to be putting that into dental health care for people who have to wait months otherwise for treatment of their dental problems. We could add to that the rethinking of the $0.7 billion for coal and mining infrastructure out of the mining boom tax, which I just referred to. The $1 billion per annum dished out each year in the fringe benefit tax rebate on corporate vehicle fleets could be diverted to a national dental healthcare system. This is no great difficulty. It is just a failure of policy, imagination and carry-through from both the big parties. This has been advocated for decades, but it is the Greens here who have funding proposals for a national dental healthcare system—funded from the wealth of this country at the moment.
On some particulars from the Rudd government’s budget, I note that there is $27 billion over six years on roads. We are in peak oil. We are facing an enormous cost, both in pollution and in real costs for transport, if we depend upon the road system. We Greens would do much more to advance public transport, bikeways and a high-speed rail system. It will not have passed your notice that the government and the opposition both in the last few days have voted down the Greens proposal for a feasibility study into high-speed rail. It is an extraordinary failure not just of imagination but also of determination not to look at this proposal. The proposal is a must for this nation’s future. It is a proposal for high-speed rail linking the big cities of the eastern seaboard, and later all the big cities of this country. We see it going ahead apace in Saudi Arabia; in Argentina; in the United States; in the United Kingdom; in China, where a train recently reached 510 kilometres an hour; and in France, where standard high-speed rail is at 340 kilometres an hour. But in Australia we have two major parties who cannot step up to the plate, who are failures when it comes to the delivery of innovative public transport and who have even voted down a proposal to even look at high-speed rail in 2010. It is a proposal which I wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese, about today—again—saying, ‘Let’s get together and talk about this.’ A $10 million injection of funds would get world’s best expertise into Australia in the coming 12 months so that we could look at this fantastic high-speed rail facility—not least between Sydney and Melbourne, the third or fourth busiest air route in the world. Passengers could comfortably travel between those two cities in peak hours as quickly as, if not faster than, they can at the moment by air. They have to travel through peak hour traffic and go through all the delays in airports. Instead, they can travel in comfort while being able to access computers, mobile phones and entertainment en route.
Unemployment benefits still sit at $231 per week. Through the actions of the Greens, pensions were raised last year by $30 to $332. We would lift the decreasing number—if projections are right for the next year—of people employed in this country. Unemployment is decreasing because of Greens actions—following on a Labor government proposal for the stimulus package—out of that level way below the poverty line.
The $2 billion being spent on Christmas Island at the moment is the most expensive way to deliver a system for vetting refugees coming to this country from extraordinary circumstances. Senator Hanson-Young has put forward the much more cogent, humane and cheaper options that the Greens would pursue there.
Overseas aid languishes at 0.33 per cent of gross national income, and the government’s target is 0.5 per cent by the year 2015, when it should be one per cent. Included in that aid is $760 million, or some proportion of that, committed by the government at Copenhagen for helping poorer countries in our neighbourhood and elsewhere tackle their own problems with climate change. This was taken out of our aid budget, against the United Nations’ wishes, instead of coming from other funds.
Now we have a childcare rebate pegged at $7,500—that is $500 less per child for eligible parents—which saves only $86 million in an area where there is a need for an injection of funds to meet the quality performance that government quite rightly is now putting into the area. But it is an area that is being neglected and squeezed because the government is applying the squeeze. The Greens see that as a basic need for parents and children across this country if the country is going to have the future it should have.
I might note here some of the other innovations which do not strictly come into the budget speeches of the government or the opposition but which the Greens have initiated in this place in recent years and which we are proud of but which have been knocked off because the big parties simply will not move in the region. One is euthanasia legislation, backed by more than 80 per cent of the Australian populace. Even when I moved to restore the territories’ right—the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory—to legislate in this area, again both the big parties opposed it. Another step was legislation to ensure that Australians are not involved in aiding the Japanese killer whaling fleets of the south—opposed by both parties. Container deposit legislation has had no chance in here under either coalition or Labor governments. Senator Milne’s national feed-in tariff, which would be a great boon to renewable energy, is not seeing the light of day despite experts in the field and business calling for this innovation, which other countries have had for years. A referendum on the republic gained great applause at the Prime Minister’s 2020 forum but there has been no action there at all. Truth in political advertising, which has been proposed by the Greens, was voted down by both the big political parties—that speaks for itself. I referred to high-speed rail earlier. There was the proposal that junk food advertising be banned in children’s TV viewing hours—the scourge of obesity cuts across the health and lifespan of increasing numbers of Australian citizens but, ‘no’ say the big parties to a simple move towards offsetting obesity by banning junk food advertising aimed at children in children’s TV viewing hours.
Yesterday I brought forward legislation to give citizens a far better go in the banking system, including to prohibit the rip-off $2 which banks charge at ATMs to citizens from pensioners right through if they happen to go to an ATM which is not that of their own bank. The legislation requires basic no-cost banking services for people who have simple banking needs wherever they might be in this country. Also, of course, there is the 26 weeks paid parental leave with super, which the Greens not only have before this parliament but will continue to promote, because that is at best standard fare in similar countries around the world. It is every parent’s and every child’s right in this nation in 2010.
I note tonight that the coalition is about to extend the threat to the Australian Public Service with a freeze for two years on new public service jobs. Imagine the incentive that will be for young people who have aspired to study hard and gain themselves a place in the service of the nation when we have an Abbott government saying, ‘If we get in, your road will be blocked now for at least the next two years.’ I quote from the opposition’s shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, on ABC TV’s Lateline as recently as April—apparently not understanding that there are 200-plus members of parliament here who do not bake bread, who do not fill potholes and who are not serving in Afghanistan—slinging off at the Public Service, without which this country would not be what it is and who work in the country’s interest. This sneering by the coalition had Mr Hockey saying:
There are 5,000 people in the Department of Health in Canberra and they don’t treat one patient—
and—
There’s 5,000 people in the Department of Education and they don’t teach one pupil.
The threat of the axe hangs above public servants right across this country. There are 2,000 facing it in the current Labor budget, but that will extend to tens of thousands if an Abbott government is elected. The voters of the ACT in particular, but also in my home state of Tasmania, which has a very healthy public service, will be looking carefully at that threat because it cuts right across their future employment and the employment of their children.
There has arisen to public notice in the last few days a wonderful opportunity for this government if it will take it—that is, to end the many decades of contention about the fate of the great forests of south-east New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. There is a current collapse of that industry. It is due to a glut of wood from around the world. It has been predicted by the analysts, including Judith Ajani from the Australian National University, for many years. It has arrived. The industry is in such a parlous state that it has asked the Greens in Tasmania to meet with it in council to find some way forward. This is a remarkable opportunity to do as Labor Premier Geoff Gallop, following on the work of his Liberal predecessor in Western Australia, did in 2004. When the industry was restructured 29 national parks were created. They are now a huge boon for jobs and productivity in the south-west region of Western Australia. The contention, which pitted people so much against each other, was taken out of that issue. I note that over 80 per cent of Australians in all opinion polls want the end of the destruction of our great native forests and their wildlife. Here is an opportunity for the Rudd government to work with the three south-east states of Australia to indeed achieve a historic outcome for a very small, I believe, outlay which will be in the interests of that industry and, of course, in the interests of Australia’s heirloom forests going on into the future.
As we head for the election, the Greens have a very proud record of responsibility, of taking government proposals in this place and treating them genuinely, of working hard on them and of getting better outcomes. Unlike the coalition, we are not simply naysayers. We do not block simply for the sake of blocking. We are not simply oppositionists, as the coalition is. We believe that if you say no to something you should come up with a better alternative. That is our credo and we will continue to do that. We have a long-sided view for the security of this nation and its future. That is why we are the experts, with the only standing positive proposal on climate change before this parliament.
We will go to the election with a fresh and alternative but very progressive and economically sound outlook and a raft of policies for the people of Australia to consider. We will continue in our role in the Senate to be responsible and economically forward thinking, and we will do so should we win seats in the lower house. Post election, we commit to negotiating responsibly for better outcomes with whichever government is elected. We will go to the people of Australia with the policies I have put forward tonight and more. We look forward to this exercise in democracy and a greater green presence in this parliament—and not least in this Senate, the constructive backstop of democracy for the Australian people.
It is a great privilege to provide Family First’s budget-in-reply speech. On Tuesday night the Treasurer delivered a budget which was all smiles on the outside but, beneath the surface, it was hiding a dark underbelly. The budget might be more aptly called a gangland budget—smiles on the surface but a dark underbelly. It is a budget that promises financial responsibility but abandons its responsibility to ordinary, hardworking Australians—or, as the Rudd government calls them, working families.
Family First welcomes the news that the budget figures are better than last year. We are pleased that the return to a surplus will come three years earlier than expected. But the question is: at what price has this come? Where are the cuts and what are the clawbacks the Rudd government has forced onto the Australian people? Fiscal responsibility is more than just balancing the numbers; it is knowing where to spend and knowing where to cut. We need to ask if the government has got its priorities right. The answer is a clear no, because the Rudd government has ripped into some of the most important items for ordinary Australians while looking after its own den.
Firstly, the Rudd government’s budget has ripped into child care. That is right: our kids; our future. It has ripped into our kids and their parents. Of course, this means that the government has abandoned its pledge to help its ‘working families’ when it comes to accessible and affordable child care. It has done this by slashing the childcare rebate and putting mums and dads out of pocket by an extra $278 per child per year. For a family of two children, this means that the family budget will be worse off by more than $500. Any parent who pays more than $57.70 in childcare fees per day for five days a week will be worse off under this budget announced by the Rudd government. It is a kick in the guts to mums and dads who are already struggling to pay their childcare bills as it is. What is more, on top of this, the childcare rebate will no longer be indexed to the CPI like it has been in the past. This means that, as the childcare expenses go up and up each year, Australian families will be left more and more out of pocket. Instead of listening to the recommendations of the Henry tax review which suggest giving low-income families a 90 per cent subsidy for child care, the government has gone out and done the exact opposite, by hiking up the childcare costs for those who depend on it most.
This latest attack on working families comes only a few weeks after the government broke its election promise by scrapping plans to build 260 childcare centres. These 260 new childcare centres were badly needed because there are already many families who have trouble finding an affordable spot for their kids. The Prime Minister claims he is committed to helping working families. But how are working families supposed to go to work if there are not enough childcare centres to look after their kids at an affordable price? If childcare is too expensive for them to afford, how are they supposed to be ‘working families’? We know where that promise of 260 new childcare centres has gone. It has gone to the Labor election promise graveyard.
The second dark underbelly of the budget is housing affordability. Family First believes that the government has missed the mark when it comes to addressing this core issue for ordinary Australians of housing affordability. People trying to enter the property market will find it just as hard to buy a house, as the government has done nothing to make housing more affordable. Housing affordability is a crisis that is getting worse and worse and is being compounded by the fact that the government does not seem to care.
Housing prices in my home city of Melbourne went up 28 per cent in the 12 months to March this year, and in the past eight months interest rates have gone up by 1½ per cent. Put in real terms, this means that first home buyers who could not afford to get into the market last year have had to stump up $98,000 more to afford the average median home this year. And those who were under mortgage stress last year are now under even greater pressure and have to pay $270 more to the banks each month. What about the great Australian dream? It is the great Australian dream to own your home, and we should be doing everything we can to make it easier for people to live that dream. Instead, we have a government that does not care about housing affordability—and this budget does not give any hope to first home buyers.
I would liked to have seen the government look at the idea of letting first home buyers access part of their superannuation to put a deposit on a house so that they can at least get a foot in the door and have that great Australian dream of owning their home. Instead of making people wait 40 years until they can access their super, this money should be allowed to be partly put to another good use like owning your own home. This would not cost the taxpayer any money in government funding but would help go towards solving a housing crisis that is spiralling out of control. This would be a lifeline to thousands of young families desperately trying to escape the rent rut.
The third dark underbelly of the budget is medical costs. Family First is at a loss to understand the government’s decision to increase the net medical expenses tax offset from $1,500 to $2,000. It sounds like an increase but it is a slug on Australian families and their medical costs. I understand that some costs need to be reined in if we are to get this budget back into surplus but why would you go out and increase basic medical costs for those who need treatment the most? Why would you go out and make those people who are already paying the most for medical bills pay even more? The Rudd government has done this in a mean and tricky way by raising the net medical expenses tax offset. It sounds like it is better; it is worse. It does not make any sense. It is a heartless policy that slugs the sick and unwell.
What makes it all the worse is that, while the government is leaving families short-changed with their medical bills, the Prime Minister has given himself an extra 86 staff on top of the 65 additional staff he took on in last year’s budget. How many more people do you need? It just stinks to think that this is the second year in a row that Prime Minister Rudd has increased his staffing levels by more than 60 people. It is a real smack in the face to all Australians who are struggling to stay afloat when they see the Prime Minister feathering his own nest. At a time when Australians are told to cut back and make do, this excess by the Prime Minister is obscene.
The government cries poor and says it does not have the money to keep the net medical expenses tax offset as it is but it has no problems splashing out $18 million of taxpayers’ money to boost the Prime Minister’s office budget. I find the government’s priorities in this gangland budget amazingly warped. I find the government’s priorities all the more disturbing given that it is willing to spend cash on itself but when it comes to our veterans community this government is once again silent and pretends it has empty pockets.
Once again there is no mention in the budget of plans to implement a more appropriate and equitable indexation arrangement for the military superannuation schemes. It is a national disgrace the way this government has chosen to treat our veterans community and failed to recognise the unique nature of military service—and I think the government is going to get a whacking at the ballot box at the next election.
Family First does recognise that the budget allocates more spending on health reform and it is certainly a good thing that more money is going into this area of health; however, it is not enough just to pour money into health and leave it at that. We have to make sure that we are spending this money wisely. We need to get the best bang for our buck and ensure that this money actually goes towards fixing the health system once and for all—not just splashing it out on ineffective and useless reforms.
I still believe we need to be looking at the basics—that is, how many doctors, how many dentists, how many nurses, how many beds, how many other resources and how many other health professionals do we need per thousand people or per thousand families? This is what we have got to start to see. Once we work that out we need to look at whether there are enough doctors, dentists, nurses, beds, other resources and other health professionals in each region. Rather than just throwing money at it, surely we cannot continue to allow things to happen where we are turning away thousands of our young kids from studying medicine when we keep on importing doctors. It is ridiculous.
We should do this demand and supply planning immediately and urgently. Then we can look at this on a city basis, on a regional basis, on an outer suburban basis, on a country area basis and then on a state basis. Then you can work out whether we have got real health reform. The money needs to go directly to where the shortages are so that we stop living in a first-world country with a substandard health system.
This budget does not do enough for families and it does not deliver on the key areas which affect ordinary Australians. This budget is disappointing and Family First look forward to sitting down with the government and working together with them on making it work better for all Australians.
Debate (on motion by Senator Arbib) adjourned.
I table a statement relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the mako shark and porbeagle shark.
Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
I rise tonight to pay tribute to the work of St Vincent de Paul, especially in my home state of South Australia. More particularly, I want to draw the attention of all Australians to its national fundraising campaign, the CEO Sleepout. As I am someone raised and schooled in the Catholic tradition, St Vinnies, as perhaps the most identifiable Catholic charity, has long been on my landscape, particularly in its work for the homeless in South Australia.
Because of the depth and breadth of the Adelaide parklands and their heavy use by pedestrians and cyclists, homelessness is perhaps more readily apparent in Adelaide than in many other places. It is hard to ignore the scruffy camps, the makeshift swags of old blankets and cardboard and the blue plastic carry bags stashed under the bushes while the owners move around the city in search of food and lodging.
As I am sure you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, it is hard to ignore the people drifting across the lawns of Whitmore Square as evening draws near—homeless men hoping to get an early place in the queue for a bed and hot meal at the Vincentian Centre. The Vincentian Centre is a special work of the St Vincent de Paul Society in South Australia. The St Vinnies Night Shelter, as it was known for a long time, first opened in May 1961 and it has never closed its doors since. The new Vincentian Centre was built in 2002-03 at a cost of just under $3 million.
The centre is funded by the Saint Vincent de Paul Society South Australia Inc., by the South Australian Department of Families and Communities under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, and by corporate and private sponsors. Professional staff—I had the opportunity just recently to meet them—deliver services to the homeless, and volunteers play a vital role in supporting the shelter in areas such as food preparation, maintenance and cleaning duties. The Vincentian Centre can accommodate up to 49 homeless men from the ages of 18 years up every night of the year and it also provides a range of services such as crisis accommodation, meals, showers, assessment needs, comprehensive case management services, referrals to other organisations and social support.
During the 2008-09 financial year the Vincentian Centre provided 9,531 bed spaces, 2,698 breakfasts, 6,573 evening meals and 4,797 suppers. St Vinnies also runs Fred’s Van—as you would be aware, Mr President—a mobile food service for homeless people comprising four vans operating in seven Adelaide locations: Adelaide city, Salisbury, Elizabeth, Gawler, Christies Beach, Semaphore and Ferryden Park.
The causes of homelessness make for a depressing litany of social ills. There is family or relationship breakdown, drug and/or alcohol addiction, mental health issues, income support issues, lack of access to affordable and safe housing, lack of living skills and gambling addiction—indeed a wide range of issues. The Vincentian Centre seeks to assist clients to address their problems in all of these areas. Homelessness is tsunami-like in proportion and charities like St Vinnies cannot even begin to address the magnitude of the problem without help and support from government, the private sector and the general public.
The mining magnate Lang Hancock once said that the best way of helping the poor was not to become one of them. I never took too much notice of Lang Hancock and in this instance he was clearly wrong. On Thursday 17 June 2010 the St Vinnies major homeless fundraiser, the CEO Sleepout, will take place in capital cities across Australia. Despite Lang Hancock’s exhortation, the CEO Sleepout invites people at the upper end of the socioeconomic scale to become one of the poor for the night to experience directly for themselves the humiliation, the desperation and the privation of homelessness.
Money is raised, certainly, but it is hoped that the people who participate go out into the community with fresh insights to drive change and progress on this very serious issue. The CEO Sleepout is a really creative way of engaging our business and community leaders, helping those of us who are fortunate enough to confront homelessness and destitution firsthand to understand just what the realities are. It is only by becoming one of the homeless ourselves, by experiencing it ourselves, that we can even begin to understand. It is only by truly understanding that we can start to put together truly meaningful solutions.
There are a range of CEOs and community leaders sleeping out on 17 June in Adelaide. I do not have time to acknowledge all of these South Australian participants, but they include, in no particular order: Ian Stone, the managing director of RAA; Claude Piscioneri, the district manager of ANZ Bank; Kristin Jeffery, the sales manager for Scott Salisbury Homes; Leesa Vlahos, the very new member for Taylor in South Australia; Stuart Price, the CEO of Kelly and Co. Lawyers; Philip Rundle, the managing director of CB Richard Ellis; Tom Kenyon, the recently re-elected member for Newland in South Australia; Rainer Jozeps, the chief executive of the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra; Jenny Brinkworth, the director of Catholic Communications for the Archdiocese of Adelaide; Tony Sherbon, the chief executive of the Department of Health; Matthew Evins, the managing director of Banner Hardware; Richard Ryan, the chairman of Editure Limited; John Haren, of course, the CEO of St Vincent de Paul itself; and last, but by no means least, Vickie Chapman, the member for Bragg and my local member of parliament. For those of you who do not know, she is a member of the Liberal Party.
In the case of homelessness, I know all sides of politics are committed to addressing this critical issue. This is beyond politics; it is an issue that touches all of us and our common humanity. I am delighted to be sponsoring South Australian Liberal parliamentarian Vickie Chapman’s sleep-out. I think it is terrific that she is doing this and she has my respect and support—moral and financial, but not political! They say the most intense hatreds are not between political parties but within them. Mr President, I can see you smiling there.
Will you sponsor me?
Yes, I will sponsor you if you ask, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. That is certainly the case with the South Australian Liberals. Having said that, for a great cause and across party lines I am delighted to be able to contribute in some small way to Vicky’s discomfort on this particular night. If others would like to contribute to this worthy cause by sponsoring one of the participants, I refer people to the website at www.ceosleepout.org.au and I urge people to log on and make this commitment.
I rise tonight to acknowledge the passing of an Australian who may not exactly be a household name but whose mark on many Australians has been very significant. In particular, his mark on the city of Canberra is very heavy indeed.
The person I refer to is Sir Laurence Macdonald Muir, who died on 21 April this year, a man who played a notable part in the development of Canberra, particularly the Canberra business sector and many of its national institutions, including, incidentally, the building in which we now sit. The Canberra Times in November 1979 in fact described him as, ‘The man to be considered the shaper of Canberra’s future’.
He was born in Yallourn, Victoria in 1925. He later indicated that his parents were ‘migrant battlers’ who sacrificed much to give him and his three siblings a good education. That education was gained at Scotch College, where he was obviously showed talent, being made school captain in 1942. Like many other young Australians at the time, he served for four years in the Royal Australian Navy. He gained a law degree at Melbourne University and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria in 1950.
Having worked for a firm of stockbrokers during university vacations, he was offered a position with the firm on the day of his admission. It is perhaps a reflection of his practical business sense that he weighed up the security of the underwriting firm against the ‘insecurity but glowing prospects of the bar’. He opted for the security of underwriting. For the next 30 years he was a leading sharebroker, specialising in underwriting major capital raising for large Australian companies. It was this specialised knowledge and background that in fact proved very helpful in the development of Canberra’s business potential.
He had a number of major goals that he set himself throughout his life, some of which will have touched people in this place. For example, in the mid-seventies he was challenged by Sister Fabian, the then head of the Sisters of Charity at St Vincent’s, to raise $13 million to build St Vincent’s Private Hospital. Urged on by the sister, who used the phrase, ‘God will find a way, Mr Muir,’ the goal was achieved by persuading the state government to provide a government guarantee, thereby making the loan a 30-20 semi-governmental, which the institutions were happy to subscribe to at a rate the hospital could handle. The hospital was indeed built.
In the seventies he chaired a two-day conference of independent school headmasters and Catholic school representatives, resulting in the formation of the National Council of Independent Schools. In 1980 he chaired a two-day conference in Canberra involving federal ministers, opposition spokespeople, trade union leaders, Treasury officials, academics and 40 business leaders. The agenda explored the need for a business roundtable to be available for consultation with the government, and the result was the Australian Business Council, formed about 20 months later.
He was a man who set himself plenty of challenges and met, it seems, every one of them. In October 1979 the then Mr Muir established the Canberra Development Board for the federal government and as its chairman for eight years he was responsible for stimulating the private sector growth of the ACT economy. During this time he assisted the government in attracting and staging the IAAF World Cup in athletics in Canberra.
Described as an instinctive lateral thinker, he said that his work satisfaction came from ‘creating something that was not there before’. That certainly seems to have been the case in relation to his role in developing the private sector of the ACT. Although he was based in Melbourne, Sir Laurence was a staunch advocate for and promoter of private enterprise development in Canberra. He felt that ‘what is good for the capital is good for Australia,’ and that ‘Australians who did not live in Canberra should nevertheless feel a sense of belonging and a sense of pride in their national capital’—never a truer word was spoken.
In those days, Sir Laurence indicated that one of Canberra’s major disadvantages was its economic dependence on the public sector. He was reported in the Canberra Times as saying, ‘If the ratio in Australia at that time was 30 per cent public sector to 70 per cent private sector, Canberra was almost exactly the other way’. While we have not yet got a complete reversal of that percentage to 70 per cent private and 30 per cent public in the ACT we have come a very long way down that path, thanks in large part to the Canberra Development Board of which Sir Laurence Muir was a long time chair. It is interesting to note with current comments about population sustainability that he forecast a population for Canberra one day of 750,000 people.
I mentioned that he was a member of the Parliament House Construction Authority, and he was for many years the chairman of the Artworks Advisory Committee of that establishment. As a result he was a person very largely responsible for the development of the very fine collection of mainly 20th century art, which is a feature of this building and which I am sure every member of this place enjoys samples of in his or her suite.
Between 1981 and his death, Sir Laurie, as he was known to many people, served on a range of eminent boards. He served, for example, on the Council of the Australian National University and was the inaugural chair of the Canberra Development Board. He worked in 1986 with Sir Ian McLennan and Mr Baillieu Myer and the Minister for Science at the time, the Hon. Barry Jones, to establish the National Science and Technology Centre, now called Questacon. In 1988 the centre was built in the Parliamentary Triangle, enabling science to take its place with the arts and the law. The Board of the National Science and Technology Centre was asked by the government to take hands-on science to every part of Australia, an important task for the development of scientific endeavour and learning in Australia. Certainly, that role was amply achieved. He also worked with Professor Michael Gore, the CEO of Questacon, to develop corporate sponsorship, which was very successful.
Sir Laurie came into contact with many amazing people during his life and he wrote of some of them, including such people as Sir Reginald Ansett, Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop and Lyn Swinburne, in his book Some Inspirational People. In the foreword to that book he wrote:
They are all great achievers who have enriched my life and the lives of others. It has been a privilege to share experiences with each of them and to watch them succeed.
They have much in common; in particular they are linked by qualities of dedication and passion.
Hopefully their stories will help to inspire others and in particular will be of interest to young Australians.
Ironically, the words used by Sir Laurence Muir about other people could well describe him. He dedicated himself passionately to many important things and succeeded in providing a great many institutions and other facilities still enjoyed today by the people of Canberra and Australia. I trust that the young people of Canberra and indeed Australia will note his achievements with pride and thanks and today, with his passing, pay tribute to the benefits that he has conferred on them.
I rise to speak tonight on the terrific efforts of volunteers around Australia and, in particular, those in Tasmania. As senators are aware, this week is National Volunteer Week, a time to recognise the fantastic efforts of all of our volunteers. The theme for this year is ‘Volunteering: now, more than ever’, so I feel that it is fitting to mention some of the volunteers that Tasmania is privileged to have within our community, particularly those who have contributed over many years. Australian communities have over 5.2 million volunteers who give up their time to help others, all of whom are essential to our society, especially to our smaller communities. These volunteers are estimated to contribute over 710 million hours of volunteer assistance—a truly remarkable effort, for nothing more than positively contributing to their communities. In order to give a full understanding of what volunteers mean to their respective organisations, I have gathered information about some wonderful Tasmanians to share with you this evening.
Firstly, there is Tasma Lapham, who has been volunteering for over 80 hours each week to assist the North Launceston Football Club. This commitment dates back to 1976. Her initial involvement began with one son playing junior football with the club. Since those early days when Tasma and others like her rolled up their sleeves and began to work for no monetary return, this proud club has grown from a club struggling financially to a strong and stable club with membership in the Tasmanian state-wide league. From Tasma’s first days making sandwiches for over 80 players, she has added many other facets to her input at the club. Tasma has now served for 15 years as a member of the board, but this does not excuse her from catering duties at the end of the final training session or her weekly Wednesday bingo management duties at the Launceston country club. As with each of the people I draw to your attention tonight, Tasma does not expect anything in return for nourishing these young, sometimes disadvantaged, players and helping them through difficult times in their lives. This lady does not measure success in premierships. She takes pride in what these young men achieve on and off the field. To Tasma, friends and friendships are highly valued, and she feels that the volunteers get more out of helping the players and the club than they ever give. She is a true example of the incredible amount of nourishment and support that is given to our community by thousands of volunteers.
Who would have thought that one of Tasmania’s biggest hearts would beat in tiny Alberton in the state’s north-east, which has a population of only four people? Jeffrey Harper has two passions: the local Lions club and Community Transport Services Tasmania. This man has been assisting the frail, disabled and elderly to get out of their homes and into the community for over 12 years. Sometimes, three or four times a week, Jeff will drive 34 kilometres to get the community transport vehicle and then drive these people to wherever they need to go. It is sometimes as far as Hobart, making this a round trip of more than 520 kilometres. Such friendship and care for the clients is mirrored only by the pride that he takes in maintaining the CTST vehicles, which is an example of the way that volunteers such as Jeff are invaluable to Australian communities. It is people such as Jeff who help to make our communities strong.
The president of the Launceston General Hospital central auxiliary is certainly following in the family’s footsteps. Margaret Moore AM is proud to relate that five generations of her family have volunteered in this organisation. Margaret and her husband, Colin, currently work with a team of over 80 like-minded individuals whose primary goal is to raise funds to purchase equipment which improves the care and treatment of patients at the Launceston General Hospital. With a turnover of approximately $500,000 last year, the input from Margaret and her co-volunteers is highly significant and an extremely valuable contribution to society.
While we are focusing on some individuals and their stories, one who comes to mind is our own federal Labor candidate for Bass, Geoff Lyons. He reminds me that when people wish to assist others in society they are often not limited to one particular area. Many volunteers find themselves donating their time and skills to a variety of organisations. Geoff Lyons is a prime example of such socially motivated people. Listing Geoff Lyons’s achievements within the Bass community in this forum would be far too difficult. At last count, he has volunteered for at least 16 groups in the last 12 months, from working with sporting clubs such as surf lifesaving, netball and football through to being a member of the board of the aged-care facility Peace Haven as well as being a justice of the peace. It is not only in the last 12 months that Geoff Lyons has been volunteering. He has had many years of association with volunteer groups. His involvement is not superficial, unlike his opponent’s. His knowledge of his community and its challenges is why he will make an outstanding federal member for Bass after the next election.
It is not only the older generations of Australians that are volunteering. Many of our younger generations are also getting involved. The Rural Youth Organisation of Tasmania is an excellent example of a group of young people, all between the ages of 15 and 30. This group puts together an agricultural field day every year, which runs for three days. It is called Agfest and was in fact held last week, from 6 May to 8 May inclusive. Agfest boasts an impressive 700-plus stalls and over 75,000 visitors each year. This is an outstanding effort for a group of young people, clearly showing the dedication and hard work of volunteering that they all contribute in their spare time. It is not only this but the fact that these young people have the chance, through their volunteer work, to gain lifelong skills and friendships. It is people like these young volunteers who help to strengthen our communities and make them special. No matter how big or small—whether it is reading to children at the local school, visiting the elderly in nursing homes or helping out at the local football or netball club—every effort counts and is appreciated greatly.
Through these examples it is clear that helping our mate is still dominant in today’s society, and these people do so with enthusiasm and pride. During this week especially, it is important to pay special attention to these efforts and to acknowledge the wonderful work that these volunteers in each of our communities give to our country and to our state. I would encourage more Australians, and in particular more Tasmanians, to give of their time.
I remind senators that legislation committees will meet to consider budget estimates in the weeks beginning 24 and 31 May. Details of individual hearings will be available on the Senate website.
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
Commissioner of Taxation—Public Rulings—Class Rulings CR 2010/12-CR 2010/13.
The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 24 June 2008, as amended:
Departmental and agency appointments and vacancies—Budget estimates—Letter of advice—Veterans’ Affairs portfolio agencies.
Departmental and agency appointments and vacancies—Budget estimates—Letter of advice—Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 24 June 2008:
Departmental and agency grants—Budget estimates—Letters of advice—
Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Veterans’ Affairs portfolio agencies.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship.