2006-02-16 41 1 5 REPS 0 0 2006-02-16 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. 1 Questions to the Speaker 1 1 09:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne asked me questions yesterday about certain consequences of negativing a second reading amendment. My response is as follows: the question before the House is that the second reading amendment moved by the member for Lindsay to the RU486 bill be agreed to. If the House negatives that question, it will not be possible for her or any other member to move amendments in detail the same in substance as the policy outlined in that second reading amendment. In addition to a question about the specific matter, the member for Melbourne asked me about the general position following the negativing of a second reading amendment. In most instances, following the moving of such an amendment, the question put to the House is: ‘That the words proposed to be omitted by the amendment stand part of the question.’ If this question is agreed to, the House does not proceed to make a decision on the words proposed to be substituted. It is therefore in order for similar specific amendments to be moved during consideration in detail. 1 Bills R2500 1 Bill presented by Ms Julie Bishop, and read a first time. 1 1 09:02:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together–Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, which provides funding to states and territories for government schools and funding for non-government schools for the 2005-08 funding quadrennium. The Australian government will provide a record estimated $33 billion in funding for Australian schools over the four years, 2005-08. This is the largest ever commitment by an Australian government to schooling in Australia. The act provided for a significant investment towards school infrastructure, providing an additional $1 billion of Australian government funding for the Investing in Our Schools Program. Of this additional funding, $700 million will be provided to state and territory government schools and $300 million to non-government schools. Through this program, the Australian government is responding to the need to restore and build Australia’s school buildings and grounds by injecting much needed additional funding into schools. The standard of school infrastructure can have a marked bearing on teaching and learning in schools. The Australian government already contributes very significantly to school infrastructure funding in both state owned government schools and in non‑government schools as a means of improving educational outcomes for Australian children. The $1 billion Investing in Our Schools initiative takes the total Australian government commitment to capital works in schools across Australia to an estimated $2.7 billion over 2005-08. An estimated $1.7 billion is being provided under the Capital Grants Program over 2005‑08 to assist the building, maintenance and updating of schools throughout Australia. One of the most important features of the new initiative is that for state and territory government schools it is the school communities themselves who determine their school infrastructure priorities. For example, it may be that parents identify a need for the installation of airconditioning or heating, or that the school Parents and Friends Association, in conjunction with teachers, determines that funds should be sought to install or upgrade computer facilities or construct outdoor shade structures. Under this program we are empowering the school community—getting teachers, parents, students, counsellors and friends of the school, along with the school principal, involved in making decisions about what infrastructure is right for their school. A further important feature of this program is that it has started to deliver a whole range of often overlooked, but still important, smaller infrastructure projects that are so often desperately needed by school communities but never seem to make it on the priority list of state education bureaucracies. It is helping to alleviate the ongoing pressure on school communities to undertake their own fundraising. There has been an overwhelming response for applications under the Investing in Our Schools Program. The Australian government approved 4,034 round 1 projects in 2005, with projects being undertaken in 2,614 schools across Australia. Due to this overwhelming demand, the assessment of 2005 round 2 projects has extended into 2006. The bill amends the act to enable some 2005 funding under the Investing in Our Schools Program to be carried over to 2006. The bill also brings forward allocated program funds from 2008 to 2006 to help meet the sheer volume of need that is clearly evident in the state school sector. We are in the business of getting things done and moving these funds will allow this program to deliver results quickly. While this bill involves funding for state and territory government schools, it is also important to note that this government, through the Investing in Our Schools Program, is also delivering an additional $300 million in infrastructure funding for non‑government schools to support the long-term infrastructure needs of Catholic and independent schools across Australia. Under the Capital Grants Program an estimated $1.7 billion is being provided over 2005‑08 to assist the building, maintenance and updating of schools throughout Australia. An estimated $1.2 billion will be provided for state and territory government schools during 2005-08, whilst an estimated $471 million will be provided for Catholic and independent schools over the same period. The socioeconomic status (SES) funding arrangements are the basis for Australian government general recurrent grant funding to non-government schools in Australia for 2005-08. Schools are funded on the basis of the SES of the communities from which they draw their students. Schools serving the poorest communities receive the highest level of assistance, while schools serving the wealthiest communities receive the least amount of assistance. Under the act, non-government special schools automatically have an SES funding level of 70 per cent of the relevant average government school recurrent cost amount, which is the highest general recurrent funding level. The bill will amend the act to automatically provide maximum general recurrent funding to non-government schools that cater primarily for students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties who are at risk of leaving mainstream schooling. In some states, recognition as a special school does not include schools that cater for socially and emotionally disturbed students at risk of dropping out of the education system. The amendments to the act correct this anomaly and fulfil the intention of providing maximum general recurrent funding to these schools. This amendment is consistent with the original intention of the SES funding arrangements for these schools. In order to improve financial management of schools programs funded under the act, the bill also amends the act to provide some flexibility to move program funds between program years. This measure is being implemented by including a regulation-making power in the act. This amendment supports the intention of the act to maintain security and stability of Australian government financial assistance for the 2005-08 quadrennium. The bill also amends the act to utilise unspent funding from the pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative, which was an innovative and practical pilot program conducted in 2005. Under this pilot, a tutorial voucher valued at up to $700 was available for children who were below the year 3 national reading benchmark in 2003. The Australian government intends to use these unspent funds to provide further literacy assistance for students in need. The Australian government became aware that a large number of children in Victoria and Queensland were unable to participate in the pilot due to their respective state governments either not notifying their parents of their eligibility to register for assistance or advising them of their eligibility to register for assistance after the closing date. These state governments had previously agreed to be responsible for notifying parents in a timely way. Passage of the bill is necessary to ensure that these important initiatives for students, schools and school communities can be implemented to continue to support the improvement in school outcomes across Australia. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned. 3 Bills R2505 3 Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time. 3 3 09:11:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The establishment of Cancer Australia as a new national agency delivers on the government’s 2004 election commitment. The government will provide a total of $13.7 million over five years to establish this new agency. It will be an umbrella organisation for various cancer groups to provide leadership and vision, support to consumers and health professionals and make recommendations to the government about cancer policy and priorities. This should mean more research funding for cancer care, better support for those living with cancer, strengthened palliative care services, guidance in improvements in the prevention of cancer and better support for cancer professionals. In addition, Cancer Australia will have a role in the implementation of the following initiatives which are part of the 2004 Strengthening Cancer Care election policy: new approaches to mentoring regional cancer services; a grants process targeted at building cancer support groups; a national awareness campaign for skin cancer, to be developed in conjunction with state and territory governments; a new dedicated budget for research into cancer, to be administered in conjunction with the National Health and Medical Research Council; and funding for clinical trials infrastructure for cancer patients. Cancer Australia is being established in consultation with national and state cancer councils, other cancer organisations and people living with cancer. The national priorities and strategies for the development of Cancer Australia came from a workshop of key cancer stakeholders in March last year. Cancer organisations have shown strong support for the development of Cancer Australia, to increase collaboration and to reduce duplication in cancer control. This bill establishes Cancer Australia as a new statutory agency. It outlines the functions of Cancer Australia and includes the terms of appointment and roles of the CEO, support staff and the advisory council. The new agency will comprise a chief executive officer (CEO), advisory council and support staff. The CEO will head the agency and will report to the Minister for Health and Ageing. The advisory council will advise the CEO and will consist of a chair and a maximum of 12 other members. The chair of the advisory council, Dr Bill Glasson, former President of the Australian Medical Association, has been appointed. The position of CEO has been advertised nationally with applications closing this month. In addition to government funding, it is expected that Cancer Australia will seek funding from other sources, particularly from the private sector. An important first step in developing Cancer Australia’s role will be to map the current roles and responsibilities of various organisations in cancer policy and to determine these future roles. I look forward to Cancer Australia making an important contribution to improving cancer care in this country in the years ahead. I commend this bill to the House and present a copy of the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned. 4 Bills R2501 4 Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time. 4 4 09:15:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953 relating to the arrangements for approving pharmacists to supply pharmaceutical benefits subsidised by the Commonwealth. These amendments are the result of the fourth community pharmacy agreement between the government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and are aimed at ensuring that all Australians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, have reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. Significantly, this bill will extend the operation of pharmacy location rules and their administration by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority. These rules prescribe location based criteria that must be satisfied in order for a pharmacist to obtain approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. Once approved, a pharmacist is entitled to be paid by the Commonwealth for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The extension of these rules and of their administration by the authority until 30 June 2010 will provide stability in the pharmacy sector and help to ensure that an accessible network of pharmacies exists to dispense pharmaceutical benefits to the Australian public. On some occasions, however, the location rules are unable to take into account the unique circumstances of a community and can result in that community being left without reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. This bill will provide the minister with a discretionary power to address, on an individual and timely basis, any unintended consequences of the application of the location rules. It enables the minister to substitute, for a decision by the secretary not to approve a pharmacist, a decision to approve a pharmacist. The minister is able to exercise this discretion if satisfied that the application of the location rules will result in a community being left without reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by a pharmacist and that the approval of the pharmacist is in the public interest. The bill will also make improvements to the administration processes governing the approval of pharmacists to supply PBS medicines. A small yet important amendment seeks to clarify the secretary’s ability to approve more than one pharmacist to supply pharmaceutical benefits in respect of particular premises. Such approvals become important when a pharmacist has ceased trading but has not yet vacated the premises. The approval of a second pharmacist in these instances will allow for greater continuity of the supply of pharmaceutical benefits to those communities affected by the closure or relocation of a pharmacy business. This is because the incoming pharmacist will be able to begin the supply of pharmaceutical benefits as soon as the original pharmacist ceases to trade from the premises. The bill also proposes to simplify the approval process for pharmacists wishing to expand or contract their premises. Under existing arrangements, these types of applications must be referred to the authority, and can only be approved by the secretary if the authority has so recommended. This amendment means that it will no longer be necessary for such applications to be referred to the authority unless the secretary considers it appropriate. This amendment will reduce unnecessary administration for both the government and pharmacists alike, and promote greater efficiency in the pharmacy approval process. Finally, the bill makes several minor amendments. One will increase the membership of the authority to include a consumer representative, and the others are technical amendments to correct some references regarding the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned. 5 Bills R2497 5 Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time. 5 5 09:19:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment (Fees and Charges) Bill 2006 will facilitate implementation of the government’s cost recovery policy in providing personal insolvency services. The Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) provides personal insolvency services to the community. In accordance with the government’s policy, ITSA has undertaken a review of its fees and charges to ensure that they properly reflect the cost of providing those services. That review has also enabled the government to determine which activities should attract a fee and the type of fee to apply. It is appropriate that some services should attract a fee payable by the person receiving the service while others are more appropriately paid for through an industry levy. The government has also decided that some of ITSA’s services, in particular the cost of processing debtors’ petitions and debt agreement proposals, should continue to be budget funded. Stakeholders have been extensively consulted as part of the cost recovery review and will be consulted as part of any future reviews of fees and charges. The amendments proposed by this bill will enable me, as the portfolio minister, to make legislative instruments to determine the fees and charges that are provided in the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act 1997 and the Bankruptcy (Registration Charges) Act 1997. The bill does not set out the amounts of any fees and charges. The amounts of the fees and charges will be set in legislative instruments to be drafted. The new fees and charges will apply from 1 July 2006. Enabling the minister to determine the fees and charges in a legislative instrument will allow greater flexibility to reflect price changes as they occur. ITSA intends to review its fees and charges biennially unless there are special circumstances warranting an earlier review. The bill will empower the minister to determine by legislative instrument the following fees and charges: the fees payable as remuneration to the Official Trustee for acting as trustee, controlling trustee or administrator in any administration under the Bankruptcy Act 1966; the fees payable to the Official Receiver for issuing a bankruptcy notice and exercising a power at the request of a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act 1966; the fees imposed on persons who are not creditors of a bankrupt or debtor for access to documents required to be filed by the Bankruptcy Act 1966; the fees payable for applying to be registered as a registered trustee, being registered as a registered trustee or obtaining an extension of the registration of a registered trustee; the fees relating to the national personal insolvency index; and the rate at which realisations charge is payable. Under ITSA’s cost recovery arrangements, the realisations charge will be set at a level designed to recover the costs of the regulation of practitioners, investigation of bankruptcy fraud and administration of assetless estates. The government has decided not to apply the realisations charge to money received in debt agreements. This will assist in ensuring that debt agreements continue to be available as a viable alternative to bankruptcy for many debtors. There will be no change to the existing policy that the realisations charge must not be higher than 15 per cent. The costs of processing applications for, and extending, the registration of persons wishing to be registered as trustees under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and changing the conditions that may be placed on their registration are charges separately imposed under the Bankruptcy (Registration Charges) Act 1997. As the costs of application for registration and its extension are able to be determined by reference to the actual costs of providing these registration services, these fees will properly be characterised as fees for service and not as taxes. The new fees will be determined by the minister by legislative instrument as fees for those services. The bill will also make other amendments to enhance the delivery of personal insolvency services, including: providing for an annual payment of the realisations charge and interest charge rather than a twice yearly payment; and ensuring ITSA is able to deliver more services electronically by removing possible impediments currently in the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The bill also includes some minor technical amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to clarify or update existing provisions. The amendments to be made by this bill have been developed following extensive public consultation. They will provide a flexible and accountable way to reflect the costs of providing personal insolvency services to the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned. 7 Bills R2506 7 Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time. 7 7 09:24:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to implement recommendations of the report of the review of the regulation of access to communications, which was presented to the parliament on 14 September last year. The review examined the issue of how best to regulate access to communications in the ever-changing world of telecommunications technology. The Blunn report concluded that the interception regime is an extremely effective and necessary investigative tool that has proven remarkably robust. However, Mr Blunn also concluded that the regime requires amendment to maintain an appropriate balance between privacy protections and meeting the needs of security and law enforcement agencies. The bill is the first step in implementing Mr Blunn’s recommendation that a comprehensive legislative regime dealing with access to telecommunications be established. Mr Blunn recommended that the overarching legislative framework address access to communications for law enforcement and security purposes, while preserving the privacy principles underpinning the current interception regime. This overarching legislation, to be called the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, will continue to govern the interception of telecommunications in Australia, but will also establish a warrant regime for enforcement agencies to access stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier. The stored communications amendments create a general prohibition on access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier, subject to certain limitations. The primary exception is for access by enforcement agencies subject to a stored communications warrant. A stored communications warrant will be available to an enforcement agency that is investigating an offence punishable by a maximum period of imprisonment of at least three years, or a pecuniary penalty of at least 180 penalty points. The stored communications amendments will be strictly available to regulate the use, communication and recording of information obtained by accessing stored communications consistent with the way the use and communication of intercepted communications are currently regulated. Information obtained by accessing stored communications will only be used or communicated for a purpose in connection with the investigation of an offence that is punishable by a maximum period of imprisonment of one year, or a pecuniary penalty of at least 60 penalty units. The stored communications warrant regime will only apply to access to stored communications through a telecommunications carrier. Access to communications through end user equipment will continue to be possible through other means of lawful access to property, such as search warrants or notice to produce. The bill also implements a number of other recommendations proposed by Mr Blunn which are necessary to meet the needs of security and law enforcement agencies to combat the increasing use of emerging technologies by persons involved in the commission of serious criminal activity. The bill contains amendments to enable interception agencies to obtain an interception warrant in respect of the communications of an associate of a person of interest. This amendment will assist interception agencies to counter measures adopted by persons of interest to evade telecommunications interception, such as adopting multiple telecommunications services. The ability, as a last resort, to intercept the communications of an associate of a person of interest will ensure that the utility of interception is not undermined by evasive techniques adopted by suspects. Interception warrants are only available for investigations of serious offences punishable by a maximum period of at least seven years, and will only be available where the issuing authority is satisfied that: there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person is using, or is likely to use, the telecommunications service, and information that would be obtained by interception would be likely to assist in connection with the investigation by the agency of the seven-year offence in which the suspect is involved. The bill will insert an additional requirement that a warrant authorising the interception of the communications of an associate of the person of interest may only be given where the issuing authority is satisfied that the agency has exhausted all other practicable methods of identifying the telecommunications services used, or likely to be used, by the suspect. The issuing authority must also have regard to the following additional factors: how much the privacy of any person would be likely to be interfered with by the interception, the gravity or seriousness of the offences being investigated, how much the intercepted information would be likely to assist with the investigation by the agency of the offence, to what extent alternative methods of investigating the offence have been used by, or are available to, the agency, how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in the investigation by the agency of the offence, and how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice the investigation by the agency of the offence. The bill also amends the interception regime to permit equipment based interception. This measure will likewise assist in countering evasive techniques employed by the targets of telecommunications interception. Equipment based interception will enable the interception of communications through a single piece of hardware, such as a mobile telephone handset. Interception on this basis will be subject to the same high threshold I listed earlier, including only being available in connection with the investigation of the most serious offences. In addition, the use of interception powers by security and law enforcement agencies continues to be subject to strict reporting, disclosure and destruction provisions of the act. Agency compliance with these accountability mechanisms is monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in the case of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the ombudsman in relation to law enforcement agencies. I note that critics of Australia’s interception regime have again advanced old arguments that Australian agencies intercept communications at many times the rate of United States agencies and others. As I have pointed out on a number of previous occasions, it is simply not true to complain that Australians are intercepted more than Americans. Direct comparisons between Australian and US statistics are misleading because legislative controls on interception differ widely between jurisdictions. Statistics published in the United States do not include interceptions considered by the investigators to be too sensitive to report. Investigators in Australian law enforcement agencies do not have this discretion and therefore all interceptions must be reported. United States law allows one warrant to authorise the interception of services used by many people, for instance where it becomes possible to identify criminal associates of the original suspect. This results in fewer statistical returns than under Australian law, which allows a warrant to authorise the interception of a single telecommunications service or the services of one named person only. Comparisons of the type made both recently and in the past are therefore misleading and unfairly impugn our law enforcement agencies. The use of interception is subject to strict controls and it is a tool to be employed only in the investigation of the most serious offences. The bill also implements recommendations of the Blunn report, which propose the removal of the distinction between class 1 and class 2 offences and the removal of the telecommunications interception remote authority connection (TIRAC) function from the act. These amendments are designed to simplify complex areas of the interception regime and enhance the privacy underpinnings and real-time accountability mechanisms of the interception act. The bill removes the current distinction between class 1 and class 2 offences, and redefines the group of offences for which an interception warrant may be sought as ‘serious offences’. The amendments will also require the issuing of all interception warrants to have regard to privacy considerations. Currently the issuing judge or AAT member need only consider the privacy implications of issuing a warrant in respect of applications for the investigation of class 2 offences.  In his report, Mr Blunn also recommended the removal of the telecommunications interception remote authority connection (TIRAC) function from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). TIRAC is a historical electronic accountability mechanism which requires the AFP to authorise the warrants obtained by other interception agencies before they take effect. TIRAC’s utility has been exhausted by technological developments, and the bill replaces the current requirements for AFP to facilitate warrants by a requirement for my department to scrutinise warrants immediately upon issue and maintain a register of warrants. The act will continue to require all agencies to maintain comprehensive records as part of the interception regime which are subject to regular compliance inspections by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or equivalent state oversight body. I note that Mr Blunn made a number of other recommendations in relation to the interception regime. All the remaining recommendations remain the subject of consideration, and indeed are the subject of current consultations with affected agencies and departments. The bill also amends other aspects of the act to ensure the ongoing effective operation of the interception regime. These amendments include a clarification to the act to ensure that employees of a carrier exercise authority under a telecommunications interception warrant when assisting law enforcement agencies in the execution of interception in response to judicial comment. Further, the bill reinforces the existing privacy protections in the interception act by removing an outdated exception to the definition of interception. The government is continuing to consider the remaining recommendations outlined in the Blunn report. This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring appropriate access to communications for the purposes of combating serious crimes and threats to national security while preserving comprehensive safeguards on this important tool. I commend the bill to the House and I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned. 10 Bills R2504 10 Bill presented by Mr Brough, and read a first time. 10 10 09:35:00 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Mr BROUGH —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will amend the family assistance law, the social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to implement several measures announced in last year’s budget and some other current initiatives. These measures will be particularly important to Australian families and those helping to support themselves in retirement. Families will gain higher rates of family tax benefit through an increase in the lower income threshold for family tax benefit part A.  The current threshold of $33,361 will rise to $37,500 from 1 July 2006 and the new threshold will keep its value by being indexed according to CPI on every following 1 July.  The increase is substantially more than would have occurred through annual indexation processes. The bill will help reduce family tax benefit and child-care benefit debts by improving the way customers’ estimates of income are managed in working out their entitlements. New provisions effective from 1 July 2006 will allow income estimates to be updated where the customer has not provided a reasonable estimate of income for the current income year. Income estimates will be updated at the beginning of each income year and in certain circumstances where actual income for the most recent income year becomes known. Importantly, however, customers will continue to have the option of providing a reasonable estimate of income that would then be used to calculate their family tax benefit entitlements or child-care benefit fee reductions instead of the automatically updated amount—that is, customers will continue to have responsibility for their estimate of income. The bill contains two further measures relating to child care. Under the first, the distribution of available child-care places will be enhanced by allowing the transfer of child-care places from areas with low demand to areas where the places are needed. Secondly, from 1 July 2006, the recovery of child-care benefit debts will be improved by more closely aligning the recovery methods currently available with those available for family tax benefit debts. In particular, a customer’s child-care benefit debt will be recoverable by applying the customer’s or a consenting person’s tax refund. From 1 July 2006, the bill standardises the backdating provisions for carer allowance to allow a maximum backdating period of 12 weeks before the claim is lodged, whether the carer is caring for an adult or a child. The bill makes various social security and veterans’ entitlements amendments flowing from the government’s response to the review of pension provision by small superannuation funds. These beneficial amendments, which are backdated to 1 January 2006, allow retirees to manage their income needs better and increase certainty that they will not outlive their retirement savings. In particular, these amendments extend the term of market-linked income streams and life expectancy income streams so that payments may continue until the member or spouse reaches age 100. Similarly, if the member or spouse has a life expectancy greater than age 100, the greater age will be allowed for. These amendments also allow customers to vary annual market-linked income stream payments by amounts between plus or minus 10 per cent to mitigate the impact on annual payments that otherwise would result from large fluctuations in the value of the assets backing the income stream. The bill makes other minor amendments in this area, including to improve or enhance the operation of the income stream rules and to allow certain non‑superannuation annuities to be split as part of a divorce property settlement. Finally, the bill amends the social security law and family assistance law as they relate to payments being made overseas (known as portability). It will now be possible for a person’s portability period for a social security payment or family tax benefit (normally 13 weeks) to be extended in certain circumstances. The circumstances are that the person is seeking life-saving medical treatment overseas or needs to accompany someone else seeking such treatment, and financial assistance is payable for the treatment under the Medical Treatment Overseas Program administered by the Minister for Health and Ageing. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned. 12 Bills R2502 12 Bill presented by Mr Dutton, and read a first time. 12 12 09:41:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr DUTTON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of changes and improvements to Australia’s taxation system. Schedule 1 exempts temporary residents from Australian tax on most foreign source income, including capital gains. The exemption is confined to foreign source income and does not apply to their Australian source income, or generally to salary and wages. These amendments will also exempt temporary residents from interest withholding tax obligations associated with overseas liabilities and with some record‑keeping obligations. This measure does not favour temporary residents over Australian citizens when deciding who to employ. This exemption was introduced into the parliament twice in 2002 and was defeated twice by the opposition in the Senate. As a result the government withdrew the measure prior to the 2004 election. In the 2005 budget, the government committed to pursue the measure again, recognising it would reduce the costs to Australian business of employing highly mobile skilled labour, as currently the extra tax costs are often passed on to employers. In addition, by making it easier to relocate key staff to Australia, these changes will facilitate Australia’s growth as a regional centre. Several beneficial changes have been made to the previously introduced measure. First, to reduce complexity there are no longer any arbitrary time limits. Second, temporary residents will be treated like non‑residents for capital gains tax purposes. Finally, the rules for capital gains made on employee shares or rights have been made more explicit. Overall, these changes will simplify the rules for most temporary residents. An internationally competitive basis for taxation of mobile talent is an issue not only for small- and medium-sized businesses but also for large businesses alike. The amendments will apply from 1 July 2006, except for the interest withholding tax exemption, which will apply from the day of royal assent. Schedule 2 introduces a systematic treatment of business black-hole expenditures. It provides a five‑year write-off for business capital expenditures incurred on or after 1 July 2005. This includes pre- and post-business expenses. As part of the systematic treatment, some black-hole expenditures will be recognised by amending the capital gains tax regime and the elements of cost for depreciating assets. This schedule also introduces a new five-year write-off for payments to terminate a lease or licence. This applies where these are a business expense. The new five-year write-off for business capital expenditures will be a provision of last resort. This means that it will apply only where business capital expenditures are not already taken into account and are not denied a deduction for the purposes of the income tax law. This fulfils the government’s commitment to provide such a regime as detailed in last year’s budget. Schedule 3 amends the law to introduce a civil penalty regime to deter the promotion of tax avoidance and tax evasion schemes. There are currently scheme penalty provisions that apply to taxpayers who participate in tax avoidance and evasion schemes. This bill will provide for greater symmetry in risk by ensuring that promoters are at risk of penalty when they expose their clients to scheme penalties. This bill also provides for injunctions and voluntary undertakings. These remedies can be used by the Commissioner of Taxation to stop the promotion of schemes before taxpayers are put at undue risk. For an injunction or penalty to apply, a promoter will have to: market a scheme or encourage growth or interest in it; and receive consideration for that conduct; and have a substantial role with respect to marketing and encouragement. Implementers are only affected if they implement a scheme, promoted on the basis of conforming to a product ruling, in a materially different way. Schedule 4 amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to clarify that prepaid phone card products are ‘eligible vouchers’ for the purpose of division 100 of the GST act. This confirms the policy intent that GST applies to these products when they are used and not when they are sold.  As the amendment confirms the industry’s existing treatment of these products, it applies retrospectively from 1 July 2000. This schedule also clarifies that from 11 May 2005 GST is to be paid on the face value of a voucher. This ensures that for vouchers sold at less than their face value through a distribution chain, any value-added is subject to GST. In addition, the measure provides a simplified accounting arrangement for ‘eligible vouchers’ supplied through a distribution chain, which will apply from the date of royal assent. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP 1313 Bills R2496 13 Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Dr Washer: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Miss Jackie Kelly moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “ the House is of the opinion that the bill is unacceptable in its current form and the preferred policy approach should be: the Minister for Health and Ageing continuing to have the decision making role in relation to the approval of restricted goods as defined in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; the Minister being required to obtain written advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration prior to giving written approval or refusal to approve; and the Minister’s decision being subject to disallowance by each House of Parliament”. 14 09:47:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I rise today to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. There are those who have attempted to take the high moral ground in this debate by saying that support of this bill equates to support of abortion. That stance is not only wrong and misleading; it also overlooks the fact that there is no absolute right or wrong in this debate. Nor is there a high moral ground in either argument. Some might have reduced this debate to who is for and who is against abortion. It cannot be carved out into such a convenient, neat debate. Simplifying the debate into one about abortion overlooks the social pillar which makes this country a place in which I am proud to be the father of two adult daughters. It overlooks the rights of Australian women, and it betrays the freedom of informed individual choice. It also neglects the opportunity for experts to seek a less traumatic process for those women who have made one of the toughest decisions a human being can ever make. This is not a vote in support of or opposition to abortion. It is a vote about choice. There are those who argue that RU486 and its introduction will increase the number of abortions in Australia. Based on the experience of those countries which have already legalised RU486 I can see no evidence that the introduction of RU486 would lead to higher abortion rates in Australia. I would hope that provision of choice through the introduction of RU486, should it be seen to be safe, would lead to a greater consultation and consideration of all options by patients and their doctors before the final decision is made, and that this would in turn lead to fewer abortions. No-one is arguing for abortion. No-one is pro-abortion. I certainly am not pro-abortion; quite the contrary. But the practice is an abhorrent reality in Australia now. The question is whether we as a democratic country give individuals the choice of a medically approved and medically supervised pharmaceutical abortion option or do we, on the other hand, continue to prescribe the intrusive surgical procedure to which women currently subject themselves, having made the decision to have an abortion. This vote is about providing a medically approved option, not a political response to one of the greatest ethical debates of our time. While it is certainly a major public ethical debate, it is before that an agonising personal decision. I am not convinced that public office bearers such as us should have a guaranteed place in the politics of the personal. There are those who want to define this debate in political terms. They say it is a hard decision, so politicians should make it. This is not a political debate, and that has been signified by the fact that we are not dividing along party lines and that each and every one of us must consider the issue through a personal, not political, prism. Frankly, if it becomes a political decision, there is no guarantee that the safety or otherwise of RU486 will ever be considered by the medical experts. It runs the risk of becoming a process tainted by prejudices on both sides, one that is simply too difficult for a pharmaceuticals company to navigate. The result would be that pharmaceuticals would not be put forward for assessment because of the lack of clarity and certainty in a politicised process. Dr David van Gend said on the ABC two days ago: You cannot meaningfully assess a drug designed to take life, using the same criteria as you’d use for a headache tablet or an ulcer tablet ... I agree. Why, then, are we thinking about leaving that complex medical decision to a politician or a parliament? The use of RU486 is a medical decision for which we have an expert medical body. The TGA members are qualified to make such an exact medical decision, based on expertise, experience and knowledge. The use of RU486 is a decision which should be made in a medical environment between individuals and their doctors, with full consideration of the individual’s personal circumstances and needs. Like it or not, abortion is legal in this country, and if a woman has made that decision it is not for me to judge what method is best for her to resolve that situation. That is a matter for her and her doctor. By what means we politicians have garnered the expertise to make such a precise technical and medical decision is unclear. In the main, we do not have the experience and we do not have the medical insight. I thank those in this place who do have that expertise—the members of parliament who are doctors, like the member for Moore—who have explained the greater health and social need for a medically approved pharmaceutical option. The best path forward is to put in place a process using an expert, medically qualified body to properly approve the drug’s use. Therefore, I will be voting for a system in which those people who are best qualified to judge the risks of this treatment are able to do so. I also support the use of greater counselling and guidance as the only way to reduce the number of abortions in Australia. I agree, as do many members of this House, that that number is alarming and too high. I, like many other members who have spoken on this bill, including the member for Cowan, strongly believe that school sex education should be reviewed to play a greater role in the overall education of Australian children, thus avoiding unexpected pregnancies in the first place. In conclusion, I would like to thank the many constituents who have contacted me on this issue and expressed their views. This has not been an easy decision for me, and I know that I cannot please all of my constituents with my final resolution of my position. But I have to return to my belief that politicians do not have a place in such an intensely personal and individual medical decision. I therefore support the bill as presented to the House. 15 09:55:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —In rising to discuss the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, I acknowledge that this is probably one of the most difficult debates that we will have in this House—as was the last conscience vote, on the embryonic stem cell debate. The interesting thing is that, in looking at this debate and at the contributions, the Australian public can see that politicians are people. Politicians are painted in a very negative light in the media. They are pilloried for being colourless. They are pilloried for not having values. They are pilloried for not having principles. But we have seen a very strong demonstration of those qualities in this House during this debate over the past two to three days. It shows that when we have the capacity to debate these issues we can show who we are as people and who we are as politicians. They are inextricably linked. You can be a person and a politician at the same time. We have a debate, in my view, that has been characterised in several ways. Some have put forward the view that the debate is about a matter of process. Some have put forward the view that this is a debate about religious values and principles. Some have put forward the view that this is a debate about abortion. I think it is a debate about all of these things. Regardless of whether or not we use the term ‘process’, we as members of parliament are debating here whether or not we believe that approval for a particular drug and the power to determine whether or not that drug is released into the Australian community should be delegated to a body like the Therapeutic Goods Administration or whether the decision about the release of this particular good should be made by this parliament. I have been very much taken aback by the level of response that I have received from members of my constituency about this debate. There is some level of discussion about a disengaged electorate, a disengaged population, but on this issue I have had one of the strongest responses that I have ever received—not through pro forma emails and letters from religious groups and otherwise but from individuals who were prepared to leave their name, their telephone number and their address. These individuals were prepared to talk about their experiences as a father or a mother or about their experience of having had an abortion. They were prepared to share their lives with me. I cannot take those considerations lightly, whether they have argued for this bill or against it. But I can say to this House that in my electorate, which has a very large number of families, the overwhelming level of response that I have received has been that I should not support this bill. That has been argued passionately and strongly. This is not an easy debate to have, because it is inextricably linked with abortion. I do not think we can say that it is not. The drug that we are debating is a drug whose end process is to cause abortion. The question that we as parliamentarians have to ask is whether, when such a drug comes into this country or there is an application for a drug like this to come into this country—not just an abortifacient, which is what this drug is, but other potential next-generation drugs—we are going to allow the enormous responsibility for its approval to be carried by a body like the TGA or whether we are going to say that we have a right to make a decision on behalf of the Australian people, taking into account the Australian public’s views. One of the great things about this debate at the present time is that an enormous array of views has been provided. That is what makes Australia a great democracy and it is what makes this parliament a great democracy. We are going to get divergent views about this issue. But we are having a debate about this matter because parliamentarians put forward their point of view that the present minister should be stripped of his capacity to regulate against a drug or to regulate whether or not this drug should be allowed in this country. In reflecting upon this, my view is this: as a parliamentarian who has been elected to this place to make responsible judgments on behalf of the community, I believe that abrogating my responsibility by passing on responsibility for a drug like this or any similar next-generation drug would be a failure of my duty to the Australian people. A bond is made in a contract with people who elect you to this place. In the responses that I have received from people, they passionately want me to advocate their particular point of view in this place. As I said, it is a huge issue within the community. To say that issues like abortion and similar issues such as embryonic stem cells are not issues that we should actively debate in this parliament in my view is wrong. One of the contributors said that in America this issue has been dealt with—that the drug has been approved, that it is on the market. But I have received a letter—I think a number of parliamentarians have—from Roscoe Bartlett from the US House of Representatives, who is saying that they want to have the capacity to debate this issue again. Those who say that this issue will not come back on the table again if this bill is approved are wrong. These are issues of great social impact and moment. I am not just talking about this particular drug as an abortifacient. There are other gigantic issues. It is the inexorable march of science versus a society which has values and principles, opinions and ethics. This is the clearing house. This is the place where decisions of that magnitude must be made. They cannot be made by an unelected body. I am not here to contest that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is scientifically qualified to be making a judgment about whether or not this drug has the efficacy required or minimal side effects. I am not going to debate that in the House. These people are more qualified than I am to make that decision. But I am here to say that we, representing community values, principles and ethics, should be the ones who should make a decision about whether a drug that causes the level of unease and debate within the community should be released into that community. I will fight to the end of my political life to ensure that that principle remains. My belief is this: a minister duly elected and appointed by the government does have a right to make a decision about whether goods of this nature—restricted goods; and, as I said RU486 is one example of a drug that could come onto the market—should be allowed to be brought into this country. I believe that both of the amendments are somewhat imperfect but well intentioned. I signal to this House that I intend to support those amendments and vote against the bill. I want to mention one of the contributions I heard. The person was talking about pharmaceutical companies not wanting to apply—as though pharmaceutical companies are small backyard operations. Pharmaceutical companies are multibillion dollar industries. They have enormous clout. They have enormous lobbying power. We see their lobbyists strolling in the corridors. These are not backyard operations manufacturing drugs; they are organisations with enormous power and influence. For some time I have had some concern about the value of some of the scientific research that has been paid for and funded by some of these pharmaceutical companies. Some people use the argument that, because there is unfettered scientific research that is presented to the TGA, the TGA should be the ultimate body that makes a decision. But bodies like the TGA can be wrong, particularly on issues like this. We cannot just say that the TGA has a divine right to make proper decisions and right decisions all of the time. I reject the idea that the TGA is a body that makes a perfect decision every time. We cannot say that. What happens if we have a new-generation drug—which could, for example, be grown out of embryos or something like that—where the drug company funds the research that there are no side effects and then 15 years later we see that there are. Then we are going to blame the TGA. In essence, when a drug inspires community debate to the level that RU486 does and evokes the level of community response that this drug has, we cannot abrogate to that particular body our responsibility to make decisions about whether or not that drug should be released. The members of the TGA were not elected to contemplate the moral, ethical and values based reasons as to why a good should not be released. I feel very strongly about this point. I was very heartened by the comments of the Prime Minister about ministerial accountability and responsibility, about elected officials making decisions. I look forward to seeing a further application of that in some other issues that we will debate. On issues of our time, issues that cause huge social impact, that resonate strongly in the community, that affect large sections of the community and run against people’s faith, values and principles, this is the place to make a decision. This is what we were elected to do. As a duly elected representative of Holt, on behalf of my constituents and exercising the principles that I enunciated, I will not support the bill but will support the amendments. 18 10:06:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —In looking at this issue—and I have studied it for some time—I first of all looked at why the Minister for Health and Ageing made the decision he made. It seemed to have provoked a reaction amongst the women in the Senate. I searched, without discussing it with him, for information that was in the public arena. First of all I looked at the international experience, which is something that I think we all do. I found that, at the moment, the United States Food and Drug Administration, FDA, are currently investigating the drug RU486. They had made a decision previously but they have come back for a re-examination because of some problems that have been obvious in the American community. There is a congressional subcommittee looking into the original application and whether or not it was appropriate or flawed. There is currently before the United States House of Representatives a bill calling for the suspension of sales until the safety of RU486 is confirmed—House of Representatives bill No. 1075. I think if there is concern of that strength in the United States, the responsible minister would have to take note of that. Italy is restricting imports of RU486. A trial that was being conducted with RU486 has been suspended because accidental abortions have occurred with women taking this drug in their homes. That is the Italian experience. A trial was also commenced in Canada. It was suspended and the drug has never been registered in Canada. A responsible minister would note these things and make a decision for the Australian people, given advice that he received from the officials he asked. The Chief Medical Officer of the Commonwealth was specifically asked by the minister about the use of the drug RU486 in country areas. In addition, the same view has been expressed in a letter circulated to us by David Gawler, a consultant surgeon in the Royal Darwin Hospital. He specifically mentioned that he believed that there would be particular problems in the use of RU486 by Indigenous women in remote areas of the Northern Territory. Dr Alan Eggleston, a senator, who has practised as a GP-obstetrician in remote areas of Australia, expresses a strong point of view. He says: So, from my point of view, I cannot see any net gain to the Australian community from permitting RU486 to be made available in Australia as a means of terminating pregnancy instead of using the currently available and safe surgical methods ... I think the evidence bears that out to be the truth. It is said that RU486 is a safe drug. If one assesses the problems that have occurred with RU486, if one compares the accident rate with this drug as compared with a surgical method of abortion, it is three times more likely to cause a death up to the 49th day. Those are the world statistics. If you take it across the term of the pregnancy you get another result. For up to two months it is 10 times more likely to cause a problem. So it is not safe as compared with a surgical system. So a responsible minister, noting these things, would have to say, ‘I want to put a brake on this release and the assessment of this product for the Australian community because, internationally and from our own experience, it is not at all clear that it is a safe product.’ The history of this drug is that no large pharmaceutical company in America would take on its manufacture. One of the pro-abortion lobby groups in the United States formed a company called Danco. They registered in the Cayman Islands and they proposed, and went ahead with, the manufacture of RU486 in China. That is the current situation. On its own this drug will produce 60 to 80 per cent of successful abortions. But to achieve a 93 to 95 per cent successful abortion it has to be used in combination with another drug called Cytotec. The two drugs in combination produce that result. But there is a residual group of patients left. It is interesting the Danco firm requires women to make a statement they will consult their physicians; they will have a surgical procedure if this process fails. There are a whole lot of let-out clauses with the use of this drug. I do not think, to use the words of one of our colleagues in this place, it is ‘cherry picking’ to say that this drug should not be used. A paper by Greene in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that RU486 at eight weeks is 10 times more fatal for the mother than a surgical abortion. My colleague said that the procedure has equal risks to surgical procedures. I am afraid that is not accurate, if one looks at an authority such as the New England Journal of Medicine. With the support of Mr John Wilks and Dr Obeid we have been able to examine this matter. These two men have written extensively on this issue and live in my electorate of Mitchell. It has also been mentioned that there are already drugs on the market that will produce the same results. One is methotrexate, a drug that should not be used to achieve an abortion. The advice that I have is that to say it is equivalent and on the market already is inaccurate. This drug is used where the life of the mother is at risk and it is a last, desperate measure; it is not something that is used generally. To propose that there are already drugs available is not accurate. I am sorry that one of my colleagues has presented these facts as being accurate. I believe the arguments used in the Senate were more based on women’s rights, which is an important issue, than on the risk factors. The minister has weighed the risk factors and has said that we should not proceed to make this drug publicly available. He has exercised an appropriate responsibility. A survey of 1,200 adults was conducted by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute in Adelaide, which looked at their attitudes to RU486. When the participants were presented with eight arguments in favour of legal access to RU486 and then eight arguments against it, 36 per cent said they thought the arguments in favour were stronger than the arguments against, 43 per cent said the arguments against were stronger and 21 per cent could not decide. There was a slightly greater number in favour of the arguments against the use of RU486 in that sample. But when the arguments in some of the material on the international experience that I have spoken about were put to younger women—that is, those potentially more likely to use RU486—they responded very much more strongly against it and for holding a decision on it until there was greater certainty. Women of child-bearing age, those most likely to be affected, said there should be a delay in a decision. Over 60 per cent said that; whereas older women held about the same position as previously, without the explanation. There has been a narrow focus by some and I think it is unfortunate, because it is not a very compassionate view and does not seek the best results for women. They have focused on women’s rights rather than on the risk factors. In this parliament we need to assess the risk factors as well as the right factors, and that is our responsibility. If we make decisions people do not like, they have the opportunity to scrutinise our decisions. If the TGA make decisions, people do not have the opportunity—no matter how well trained and how well informed the TGA may be—to scrutinise their decisions. The TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is a non-elected group. From listening to some of the speeches of my colleagues, it seems to me that one future role of the parliament may be to debate whom we should appoint to boards. Then we could let them make the decisions and we could go home while they ran the country! That would be a completely inappropriate role for the parliament. We could debate whether a person has adequate status, academic level and experience to fill an important position, whether it be on a wheat board or in the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We could debate that and then we could go home and let this administration make decisions. It would get to a point where we could encourage voters to vote for whom they wanted on various boards and not have a parliament at all. The logical extension of walking away from the responsibilities for which we are elected is to build distrust in the parliamentary process, because it means that nobody can be held responsible for important decisions. RU486 is not the same as other drugs. I think that has been demonstrated. I think the minister has a role with respect to this on behalf of all of the community. To have an authority decide whether or not a drug fulfils the purpose for which the manufacturer says it is manufactured is one thing, but for it to then decide whether it should be used and whether there should be wide use of it is another. This is just one drug; there are no other drugs in this category. Why is it in this category? It is in this category because it is not a therapeutic and it is not a diagnostic. It brings about the conclusion of life. Other drugs may do that as part of their process, but that is not their purpose. This drug is different. We are elected to deal with public policy. We are not elected to administer or to give policy advice. That is the role of authorities like the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We are elected to make those policy decisions, and we should cherish that opportunity. We should value it and proceed to take the hard decisions. That is what people expect us to do. Just because we have abortions in Australia does not mean that with RU486 we are now just introducing a new technique. This is a new policy. This is something different, and we have to deal with it as a new policy. It is not a change in technique. It is like saying that, because we can have exploration across the whole face of Australia, we should go and explore in the Great Barrier Reef. We make a special policy for things that are different. This is a special policy. The minister’s decisions, as I have said, are supervised. He can confront the press and he can be questioned. The amendment to the legislation that has been moved by the member for Lindsay does the following. First of all, the Therapeutic Goods Administration gives an opinion to the minister. The minister assesses that, makes a decision and makes both public. Following his public announcement of the advice received from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, these matters come to the House as disallowable instruments. That means that within 15 days the parliament can vote for or against the minister’s decision. If it is carried, that decision will stand. If we have the opportunity, I will vote for the member for Lindsay’s amendment. If not, I will vote for the member for Bowman’s amendment. But I will vote against this bill. According to 87 per cent of Australians, there are too many abortions. Many people today have said that they disagree with the number of abortions. I am going to hold those members to that, because not one of them has put a proposal to this House for a significant change to the number of abortions. There has been no proposal for education programs, no proposal for counselling programs and no proposal for support programs. I intend to drive that, because we need to bring about those changes. 21 10:22:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —The debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has produced very diverse and colourful contributions. At the outset I was prompted to reflect on the plight of people who are denied access to lifesaving drugs because of cost as distinct from not having access to a particular drug because it is in a restricted category. The breast cancer drug Herceptin is a case in point. There is no discretion for the minister to make a determination to allow a woman access to the drug at the PBS price where that drug is the only drug which, in the opinion of her oncologist, can prevent her death from breast cancer. The cost of a course of Herceptin is $60,000. In a recent case involving a constituent of mine, the only way a woman in need of that drug could access that drug was if her parents would mortgage or sell their house to pay for the drug to save their daughter’s life. The answer to an inquiry to the office of the Minister for Health and Ageing, or indeed to the minister himself, is that he is powerless to do anything. It has to go through bureaucratic processes. So if you cannot raise the money in the case of a lifesaving drug, you die. Thus I would argue that the health minister needs more discretion, not less. I would like him to have the power to approve drugs to be cost effective to save the life of a life in being. I know Tony Abbott and I consider him a friend. I believe he is a fine health minister and administers his department as a reasonable man. I accept his assertion that a vote in favour of the bill would amount to a vote of no confidence in him as it would say the House considered that he would exercise his discretion other than in accordance with the best interests of the Australian people. I do not believe this to be the case. I will thus vote against this bill. For the same reasons I will vote in favour of the Kelly amendment. I do not believe that the TGA is the font of all wisdom; for example, I thought its handling of the Pan Pharmaceuticals manufacturing scandal was very poor. I thought its handling of the investigations into Celebrex and Vioxx was equally poor. In the course of debate on this bill I have listened to all the arguments and the opinions and considered the issues at great length. My office has received a large variety of communications, the most numerous being campaign material. Individual letters showing original thinking were very rare but valued. I found threatening correspondence contemptible. I would like to thank the people of my own electorate who took the trouble to write, to phone or to email me their thoughts. I am grateful for their wishing to participate in this discussion. 21 10:25:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 1 0 Mrs MAY —It is not often that members have the right to cast a free vote in this place and be bound not by party lines but by our individual consciences. It is a rare occurrence and the responsibility of this conscience vote is indeed overwhelming, particularly in view of the huge volume of information that has been provided to all members on this important private member’s bill. Before making my decision to support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, I weighed up and considered very carefully the facts and information provided in relation to the bill. I have listened to both sides of the debate in both chambers and read and studied the views of the community. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to all those people who have contacted my office by phone, by email and by letter. The input from many individuals, people I highly respect, has also been welcome. As members of parliament we are elected by our constituents to make the tough decisions, and there are times when not all will agree with the decisions we make. I know my decision to support the bill will upset some in my constituency, but I have not taken my position lightly or without a lot of thought and consideration. In the brief time available to me today I would like to explain why I have made this decision. This debate is not an abortion debate. It is not a debate about the morality of abortion or the principles and values of members elected to this House; this is a debate about the process of approval—a debate about separating politics from medical decision making. The abortion debate happened many years ago. Abortion is legal in this country. Men and women democratically elected to our state and territory parliaments made laws with regard to abortion and the criteria that must be met to terminate a pregnancy. These laws have been in existence across this country since the late 1970s. That is not to say that abortion is not a very difficult and sensitive issue. We have certainly witnessed that by the emotions evoked in the community over the last few weeks. There is not a person in this place, nor I would suggest in this country, who supports abortion. All of us would prefer that no woman were ever confronted with the trauma of an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy, but it is not my position to pass judgment on a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy. That decision is between a woman, her doctor, her partner and her family. As an elected member of this House it is my responsibility to ensure that a woman is able to undertake a termination in accordance with state and territory laws, knowing that this country provides the safest and most effective means available under medical supervision to undergo that termination. Of course, we would all like to see fewer abortions—that goes without saying—but that is a debate for another time. That is not what this private member’s bill is about. As I said before, this bill is about the process for approval of a drug known as RU486; it is not a debate about my position on abortion nor indeed the parliament’s position on abortion. That brings me to the bill before the House today. I think it is important that the community understands what is being debated and why we are having this debate. This debate is about who is best equipped to identify, assess and evaluate the risks of RU486, a drug which belongs to a special category of drugs under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 known as restricted goods. It is my view that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is the body to undertake that process. I do not have the expertise, nor, could I respectfully suggest, does the minister for health, to undertake an evidence based risk evaluation of RU486. In my view, members of this House and of the Australian community who are concerned about the safety and efficacy of this drug should welcome a scientific, evidence based evaluation by the TGA. That evaluation by eminent specialists, all appointed by the Minister for Health and Ageing, will ensure that women in this country can make an informed, safe and educated choice about whether or not they undertake a medical termination or a surgical termination. Women should be provided with all the options available to them so they can make that informed choice. It is important that the community understands that access to a medical termination using RU486 is not about over-the-counter, do-it-yourself termination. Access to RU486 is not about making abortion easier for women. To comply with state and territory laws, terminations—whether procured medically or surgically—require medical oversight and approval. If a state requires that a woman satisfy physical and mental health tests before qualifying for a surgical abortion, she will be required to satisfy the same tests to have a lawful termination using medical methods. So, who or what is the Therapeutic Goods Administration? What is the make-up of this body, and what is its role? The TGA is a unit of the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing. Its role is to carry out a range of assessment and monitoring activities to ensure that therapeutic goods available in Australia are of an acceptable standard, with the aim of ensuring that the Australian community has access, within a reasonable time, to therapeutic advances. The current government and former governments have trusted this body to assess the safety and effectiveness of tens of thousands of medicines, many of them dangerous, and it is my view that that trust should continue in the future. I repeat: the TGA is an arm of the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing. A committee of the TGA is the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, or ADEC, a committee that was formed in 1963 and given the role of providing independent scientific advice on new drugs, within the policy framework of the time, to the federal government. The Minister for Health and Ageing appoints the members of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. The appointments to the committee include six or seven core members and 10 to 20 associate core members. The make-up of this committee—the eminent men and women appointed by the minister—is impressive. They are leading specialists in a variety of medical fields. In my view, they are highly capable of assessing and evaluating the safety and the efficacy of RU486. These eminent people are not faceless, unaccountable, undemocratic bureaucrats; they are appointed by the minister and accountable to the minister. Based on this information, it is my belief that the TGA, with such eminent men and women, has the ability to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of this drug. With no disrespect to my colleagues, I do not believe we are qualified, nor do we in this House have the expertise or ability to undertake the assessment process of RU486. This is a job for the experts, and those experts are in place, appointed by the minister, to carry out that assessment process. I am more than satisfied, and I would like to assure my community, that this evaluation committee can and should undertake the assessment process and report back to the Minister for Health and Ageing on the safety and efficacy of the drug so that Australian women, in consultation with their medical practitioners, can make an informed decision about a medical termination if and when they are faced with that situation. Over the last couple of days there have been many speakers on this bill. There have been emotive arguments and many different points of view, and the spirit in which the debate has been undertaken is a credit to all in this House. On a final note, I would like to comment on the amendment that has been put forward to the House by the honourable member for Lindsay and on the second amendment that has been flagged by the member for Bowman. He has indicated that he will table that amendment during the consideration in detail stage. I have taken the time to read both those amendments, and I reject them. I do not support either of the proposed amendments. I will be supporting the bill as it stands. A free vote is not easy. It is up to the individual to weigh up the arguments, the issues and the public input, to do their own research and evaluation of the information that is available and to satisfy themselves on the integrity of the bill before the House. I am satisfied that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is the appropriate and best equipped body to undertake the expert assessment, to weigh up the medical evidence and to deliver a considered judgment about the risk and benefits profile of the drug. I commend the bill to the House. 24 10:34:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Yesterday afternoon in the Main Committee in the debate upon the appropriations, when I thought that I would not have this opportunity, I made some brief comments, and I welcome this chance to expand upon them. Through my duties in the chair, I have sat through three hours of this debate, a debate that I think gives great credit to this chamber. Members have taken this opportunity of a debate where their views are based upon their consciences and have done so with great thought and great deliberation. I think that that has characterised the way in which this issue has been handled in both chambers of the parliament. I would only have criticism of the actions of perhaps two of my parliamentary colleagues. The wearing of an offensive T-shirt in support of a position did not help the tenor of the debate. Whilst I defend people’s rights to sloganeer, I think that when we get to this level we have to be very careful about the way in which these gestures are construed. And I regret that the member for Hughes has made comments that are so widely open to interpretation. Five per cent of those in my electorate are Muslim. They are great contributors to my electorate. They are great contributors to the community in which they live. Given that, on balance, the views shared by those people are shared by people of wider and different religious views, I do not think that those comments added anything to the debate. The comments that I intended to make in this place when I was being driven into the house this morning have actually changed, partly because of what I have heard over the last hour and partly because Father Eugene, a former constituent of mine, is in the gallery today. He knows that we have different views. But I say to Father Eugene that I have always appreciated the way he has approached me, in a non-threatening way, and how he has always challenged me to make a decision on the matter before me based on the values that I have grown up with, acknowledging that there are different views. I never thought that I would say this but I have missed his guidance over the last few days, even if I will have failed him yet again. I can say to Father Eugene that I have been approached by his former parish, which has consistently put similar views on these matters of conscience. I have tried to be consistent as well. His successor as parish priest said to me in a letter that ‘Catholics are copping it’. I would hope that that was not how this debate was being seen, because that would be a regrettable perception. The people that I represent are from a variety of backgrounds. Ironically, when I was first elected a number of decades ago, I represented the electorate in the Australian parliament that had the greatest percentage of Catholics, with 44 per cent. They were mainly from Italian and Maltese backgrounds but, in the same way that Australian migration has changed, Catholics from all parts of the globe have come together on the basis of their faith. St Francis of Assisi parish in Mill Park is an example of this. Muslim Australians in my electorate and people of various faiths make a great contribution to the community lives of those I represent. I am always heartened that people will come to me to discuss these issues and that they will give me the opportunity to defend my position. Whilst the representations that I have received might be modest in number compared with those of other members of parliament, that is the wont of my electorate. I understand that they represent a deep body of feeling, so I do not discount them on the basis of that modest number. Why have I come to my conclusion? In part, it is because I have had the opportunity in this place to see how the TGA and the pharmaceutical industry work and how the approval of drugs has been undertaken in the past. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason that RU486 should be treated in any special fashion. This morning I was heartened by the member for Mackellar’s logical extension of the argument that this power should remain in the hands of the minister, which is that the minister should have this power with other drugs. That is the logical, consistent outcome if you believe that the present system should continue, and I do not believe that that should happen. I believe that it should be treated like the tens of thousands of other drugs. Other contributors have discussed some of the literature about the safety of RU486. If we went through the literature on a number of the other 50,000 drugs that have been approved, I would be certain that you would find similar safety issues. However, we are not expert enough to make judgments on those matters, and it is not as if we as elected officials have abrogated our responsibility. The TGA operates under a legal and regulatory framework set by this parliament to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, including those of higher risk. I would expect the TGA, as it has done in the past with other drugs, to take on board evidence that has been presented to the United States Food and Drug Administration and other bodies. This debate is not about the approval of the drug; it is about the process that might be used for that approval to go forward. To discuss it in the context that we think there is finality decries the TGA’s opportunity to go about its business. Given that RU486 can be used not just as an abortifacient but for other purposes that I think people would not debate—for instance, as an anticancer drug—let us remember that what we are asking the TGA to consider is the safety and efficacy of this drug in a process that is legal, and that this piece of legislation does not in any way go to the legality of abortion or otherwise. As I said in the Main Committee yesterday early afternoon, the fact that the member for Warringah is the minister at this particular point in time does not sway me on this bill. I regret that he would think that the passage of this bill is a vote of no confidence in him. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —I’m very sensitive. HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr JENKINS —You should not be such a sensitive petal. The context of the matter is that either his predecessors or his successors as minister may have absolutely different views that people might perceive as driving them. In that context, I do not really care what those views are. I think that we should see this as a drug that can be treated in the same fashion as other drugs. It is on that basis that I have come to this conclusion. I once again thank those from my electorate that have approached me. I look forward to continuing to discuss matters such as this with them. We have to come to a mutual understanding of what drives us. In the past I have appreciated that people have realised that we, as a collective of individuals, bring value systems and beliefs from a variety of backgrounds but with great honesty, with great directness to our electors and on the basis that we think we are using our conscience votes in the best interests of those the legislation will serve. In all conscience, if there is a process that might give a woman an alternative to consider in consultation with her medical practitioner and her family, of course those decisions will be made on an assessment of the risk and what is best for the situation. Nothing changes because of this legislation in the way that we do those things. There is risk not just in procedures like terminations, where we discuss the use of the drug in a medical procedure or the alternative surgical option. In many other processes that have a degree of risk, whether it be the use of a drug or a surgical procedure, these decisions have to be made between the medical practitioner and the patient. I believe that in this debate the chamber has done itself great credit. I indicate my support for the legislation that is before us and my opposition to the amendment that is before us and the amendment that has been foreshadowed. 26 10:48:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —I am very pleased today to be speaking to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Before I commence with my thoughts—and I have listened intently to many of the speakers that have appeared before the House—I would like to thank my constituents and the many people who have written to me and emailed and telephoned me. I thank them for their considered views. As an elected representative I value their input greatly. I also want to thank my colleagues for the manner in which they have conducted themselves. This is the third time that I have had a vote of conscience in this House. I have respected the views that others have held, even though I have not agreed with them on some occasions. The Minister for Health and Ageing is sitting here at the moment. I value and respect his enormous capacity as the minister for health, but on this occasion I will differ with him. There are very fierce emotions as this abortion debate rages. Whenever we talk about access to abortion it elicits emotional responses around the world. We have already had that debate. Abortion has been legal in this country for over 30 years, and it has been used by millions of people all around the world. An estimated one in three women have had an abortion, so it is not an unusual procedure and it is not uncommon. It is a decision for a woman and her doctor—not men, not other women and not the law-makers. Nor is it about morals or laws; it is about safety. This is what this issue is about today: safety. It is about what the research of the medical and scientific experts says—the scientific evidence that is there before us. I am prepared to accept it and base my decision on just that. I will do that with any issue placed before me in this parliament as an elected representative of the people of Petrie. I base every decision that I make on behalf of my constituents on the facts that are presented to me. Emotion will certainly come into it. How could emotion not come into any argument that comes into this place, or any bill? That is always inevitable. But it is our job, and it is our responsibility as elected leaders from our electorates and our country, to divorce emotion from fact. Under various state laws a woman’s physical and mental condition, as well as her economic status, are factors which doctors may consider in deciding whether to perform an abortion. There are roughly 80,000 abortions a year in Australia, making abortion the most common operation in this country of 21 million. The government’s medical plan covers the cost, at a huge financial cost to the community. Many forget the risks associated with undergoing any surgical procedure under anaesthetic. Anyone who has had the misfortune of going to an abortion website knows abortion is quite a traumatic experience and often causes physical trauma. And we are talking about an emotional experience here, whether we are talking about RU486 or an abortion. Simplistically, RU486 is technically just an accelerated form of the morning-after pill. It is administered orally, but the monitoring and the follow-up by the prescribing medical practitioner involved is far more intense. It is less invasive. Anyone who has been admitted to hospital for any type of surgical procedure knows that it is far less confronting and a far less traumatic experience to front up at your local family doctor to be administered the pill than to be told to strip, to be sedated, to be wheeled into an operating theatre, to be confronted with a team of strangers in surgical gowns and masks and to have a drip inserted into your arm before being knocked out. Any adverse reaction to RU486 can be dealt with by a medical procedure. The number of abortions undertaken in this country has been gradually declining, largely because of better sex education in schools and greater availability and access to contraceptives. They are the answers to cutting the abortion rate. But more work needs to be done regarding educational opportunities in schools and educating young people about better sex practices—not to deny access to the procedure of abortion, whether it be surgical or non-invasive, such as RU486. RU486 is much safer and much more accessible than other abortion procedures. Women in rural and country areas are far more likely to have access to a doctor in a medical practice than to an abortion clinic. It is more likely that the patient will be known to their local doctor, who will have the patient’s full gynaecological and medical history. The patient is more likely to be open to discussion about the procedure and its consequences if they are in a comfortable environment with their family doctor, who is experienced in handling any complications. What is the difference between interfering with the development of a mass of cells, a foetus, and the use of the contraceptive pill, which interrupts the fertility cycle of a woman, or the morning-after pill, which tricks the body into thinking it is not pregnant, through the use of hormones? Similarly, RU486 is a steroid that blocks the hormone progesterone, which enables the egg to remain lodged in the wall of the uterus. Women who take it must also take another drug two days later, which prompts contractions in the uterus. This procedure requires care and follow-up attention by their doctor, but it is non-invasive and effective in 92 to 98 per cent of cases. Many here have argued against the therapeutic goods amendment bill removing a minister’s right to veto and they say that 11 women overseas died after being administered RU486. What about other drugs? What about Viagra, which researchers in the US have found causes five fatalities per 100,000 prescriptions? In addition, how many people around the world have died taking aspirin? All drugs have risks. Even though far fewer women are thought to have died from complications arising from taking the medical abortion pill RU486, we seem to be inundated with alarmist warnings about the dangers of this particular drug. This is despite the fact that the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Rural Doctors Association of Australia have given evidence to a Senate inquiry that the properly administered and supervised use of RU486 is no more dangerous than taking aspirin or Viagra, which has been approved in this country since 1998. There are risks with every medication, just as there are extreme risks every time we go under anaesthetic for a surgical procedure, whether it be a knee reconstruction, an adenoid operation or getting your appendix out—or, in this case, termination. I cannot accept the Laming and Kelly amendments that have been put forward to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, which I am speaking about today. Both these amendments defeat the purpose of the bill, which is to remove ministerial and parliamentary oversight of these scientific and medical decisions. As politicians, we have to base our deliberations on information and facts from medical and scientific experts and evaluate that evidence. With these amendments, we would need to continue to pass judgment on the safety and efficacy of RU486. The amendments would ensure that every application for RU486 and other such drugs would be evaluated by the TGA and debated in parliament. We would then have this endless parliamentary process with divisive debates about abortion, which would go on for weeks. These amendments will be much more restrictive than the current arrangements, which have seen RU486 effectively banned in Australia. Under these amendments, not just the health minister but any member of parliament could object to the approval of RU486 and force the parliament into a long and protracted debate about abortion. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments. Millions of sensible, educated women have been seeking surgical abortions for years. They will still seek these terminations, whether by surgical termination, which carries risks and has been legal in this country for 30 years, or by ingesting a pill—in this case RU486. This drug will make a large number of surgical terminations redundant in terms of convenience, cost and accessibility. We pride ourselves on being a nation with the ability to embrace technological developments and changes—the latest in IT and the latest in biotech breakthroughs. So why bury our heads in the sand when it comes to medical advances and developments that can improve the lives of millions of women—and millions of Australian women—who are faced with this situation? It will happen anyway. Why not make it less intrusive, as safe and accessible as possible and as inexpensive as possible so that it can be of benefit to all Australian women? 28 10:58:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 0 Dr NELSON —I think this issue, issues like it and the debate in the parliament confirm something that I have believed for a long time: the science and the knowledge we acquire from science, as hard as that is, are the easy part. It is how we as human beings adjust to new knowledge and, in this case, relatively new pharmacological ways of addressing a very vexed issue that is the much more difficult task. In fact, if all the scientific problems of life were ever solved, all of the important questions would still remain unanswered. A generation ago in this country, the decision was made that under certain circumstances abortion would be lawfully available to women. There are many of us, myself included, who live uncomfortably with that fact. There are others amongst my colleagues on both sides of this parliament, for whom I have a very high regard, who in an ideal world, I suppose, would like to see those laws at the very least tightened up somewhat and in some cases perhaps even repealed. If you had listened to even a part of the debate that we have had in the last week or so through both the chambers, you would be forgiven for thinking that, in fact, we had revisited the basic issue of abortion itself. I am privileged to be not only a parent and a member of the parliament but also, in a former life, a medical practitioner. The member for Lalor said of the health minister, ‘He is not a doctor.’ People who have medical or nursing or scientific qualifications bring no more or less to this debate than anybody else. Their views on this are no more or less important than the views of those who are not trained in any medical sense. In fact, it has often been my experience that people who are not medically trained bring a greater depth of wisdom to many of these issues. A lot of the problems in the medical profession derive from doctors not knowing when to stop as much as knowing when to start. I spent 13 years of my life after graduating in medicine practising medicine, nine of them predominantly in a low-income housing area in the satellite suburbs of Hobart. Hobart is a capital city and large in many ways, but compared to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane it is not a large city. Whilst I saw surgical abortions being performed during my training, I have not ever actively participated in them, but I have had experience of women coming along to see me requesting a termination. I have also looked after and cared for women who have had terminations—and I have friends today who had terminations in earlier parts of their lives—and I can say that, with perhaps some few exceptions, there is not a woman who has had a termination of pregnancy who is not emotionally affected by it. It is just a question of degree. In a city like Hobart in the mid to late eighties and the early nineties, it was interesting to see the ways things would happen. Educated women with money would get on a plane and go to Melbourne to have their pregnancies ended in an anonymous way, and life would go on. There were pregnancies within marriage, sometimes as a consequence of infidelity, sometimes as a consequence of failure of contraception and sometimes as a consequence of assault within the marriage or, indeed, by those close to a married couple. Those who had less wealth had a choice. One choice, of course, was to continue with the pregnancy. In my own case I can only say that I did whatever I could to try to make sure that women were informed of all of the choices before them and had access to those who could counsel them in a dispassionate, humane and caring way. But those who had less wealth were required to book into the public hospital. People would know that they were there, they would know why they were there and of course the women would submit to a surgical termination. What is being considered here is not whether or not abortion should be available in Australia. It is whether or not another option for procuring abortion should be available to women. Much has been said about the maternal death rates from abortion. No-one in this place should forget that the foetal death rate from abortion is 100 per cent. But the maternal death rate is about two per 100,000 for surgical abortion, and it is about that or slightly less for the use of RU486. Anyone who thinks that women are going to enthusiastically embrace abortion because RU486 is available, whereas with only a surgical option they would continue with the pregnancy, is in my opinion seriously misguided and not sufficiently availed of the circumstances under which these decisions are made. RU486 will mean that in most cases a woman will go through a very painful, very messy and very prolonged period, relatively speaking, of having the foetus expelled from the uterus. In some ways, if you have ever had anything to do with women making these decisions, it is actually easier to submit to an anaesthetic and a surgical termination because someone else is doing it to you; whereas in consuming a drug you are obviously heavily participating in the process of procuring that abortion. Whatever any of us think, the reality is that about half a million women throughout the world will die this year from the consequences of unplanned pregnancy and from illegal abortion. Sadly, the reality is that there has always been—and there is today and there always will be—a demand for abortion. No matter how hard we try or whatever the moral values that any of us bring to the issue, that is the reality we face. The question here is whether the health minister of the day should actually have a power of veto over the Therapeutic Goods Administration considering the safety and the efficacy of RU486 and making it available in the Australian community as it currently is in many countries throughout the world. I actually feel very sorry for the current health minister, who, in every other aspect, is doing an excellent job. But something the member for Lalor said is right. She said, ‘It’s not about you, Tony.’ It does not matter in this sense whether we have a coalition or a Labor government—and let us hope that it will be a coalition government for the foreseeable future. You could have arguably the most pro-abortion health minister—if there is such a person in this place, God forbid—but that veto will not ever be lifted to allow the TGA to consider it because, within any government, the pressure brought to bear on that minister from his or her colleagues and those who feel very strongly at the extremes of the debate is such that it will never, ever be exercised. It is a similar situation with the amendments that are proposed here. Those who strongly oppose abortion—the member for Lowe, the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt, whose convictions should be admired—should definitely not support this amendment bill. But for those of us who live, no matter how uncomfortably, with the current arrangements in Australia there is no intellectually honest basis for not supporting the amendment bill. It has been said that we do not want ‘faceless’ bureaucrats making these decisions. As we have heard, these are not ‘bureaucrats’ where that is used as a term of derision to describe public servants. These are men and women who bring scientific and medical expertise to the task in terms of assessing safety and efficacy. The traditional Liberal view is that, wherever possible and practicable to do so, we should return decision making not just from the bureaucrats to the elected members of the parliament but to individuals to make their own decisions. We have invested a lot of political capital and philosophical determination in workplace relations in that regard. We do so in relation to the hard-earned money of Australians in relation to tax. There is arguably no more powerful a driver of human need and behaviour than that of reproduction. It is more than appropriate—indeed, entirely consistent with the Liberal view—to put that decision making in the hands of the woman, her doctor and hopefully also her husband or partner. That is what this is about. If the amendments proposed by the member for Bowman or the member for Lindsay are carried, we will be repeating this exercise every six to eight weeks. I do not know whether this has been covered here—I have been flat out with defence matters—but for those who are in what are known as marginal seats, imagine going through this issue every six or eight weeks. If the member for Lindsay’s amendment is carried and the health minister does not allow the TGA to consider approving RU486, the parliament will have no authority or power to overturn that veto. I am privileged to be the member for Bradfield. Many of my constituents will not vote for me after what I have said, but my task here is to bring judgment and wisdom to decision making in the parliament in the national interest. I too believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the forgiveness of sins, the death and the resurrection and the life ever after. I am a Catholic, albeit far from a perfect one, and the attacks on the health minister and others who have adherently sought to remain true to their Catholicism are despicable. Such adherence is to be the subject of admiration and not derision, under any circumstances. I will be supporting the amendment bill. I will do so, as with all my colleagues both for and against, consistent with my own judgment and free will—and thank God we live in a country where we can have these sorts of issues determined in this place. 31 11:09:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —I enter into the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 with a very troubled mind, because what should be a debate on the approvals procedure for a drug has been turned by pro-choice and pro-life proponents into one on the broader issue of abortion. I would like to place on record my appreciation to all who have made contact with my office. In most cases the views have been presented with passion and strong conviction. In all cases they have been presented through the prism of one’s values, morals, ethics or personal experiences in life—and so it is with us here in this parliament. It is no secret that I have been raised as a Roman Catholic—how good a Catholic is a matter of conjecture; I am certainly very fallible. How much the doctrine of the church influences my decisions is a question that has been asked by some of my constituents. In the last conscience vote in this House, members of the church were disappointed with my stance on stem cell research. By being a member of a government with a border control policy which includes detention centres, I have been accused of betraying the basic principles of Christianity, an accusation that I strongly reject. At moments such as these, I am reminded of a statement by one of humankind’s great intellects, Albert Einstein, who once said, ‘Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.’ In the end, as difficult as it may be, we try to enter into debates of this kind conscious of our values, experiences and beliefs, while at the same time determined to introduce good laws for our country. The debate on the approval of a drug like RU486 is one that bears great complexity due to the moral and ethical consequences it raises. We cannot run away from the fact that we are elected into this place to at times make tough decisions—there is nothing tougher than questions encased in moral and ethical clothing. Abortifacients such as RU486 are not just any other drug. To claim it is strictly a therapeutic drug and that the TGA should treat it as they would any other drug is misleading; it is not a convincing argument. In fact, it is made more out of convenience and mistrust. To ban RU486 because it will lead to an increase in abortions is also not a convincing argument. As has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, the passing or rejection of this bill will not in itself lead to one more abortion being carried out in this country. International experience with the drug attests to that claim. I am not voting on an abortion bill; my colleagues in the state parliaments have that privilege. It is in their jurisdictions that the legality or otherwise of abortion is determined. The application of the state laws governing abortion still has precedence, no matter how we vote here today. If the community want those laws changed, I urge them to reopen the debate with their state representatives. In my home state of Victoria, abortion is covered by sections 65 and 66 of the Crimes Act and its interpretation is covered by case law, a law otherwise known as the Menhennit ruling. In other words, an abortion is essentially lawful in Victoria if it is considered necessary to preserve the woman from danger to her physical or mental health. This position has stood since 1969 and it is one that I certainly strongly support. The question I therefore need to consider today is who is best able to determine the approval process for what I consider to be a non-therapeutic drug that has undisputed ethical and moral consequences—the minister for health, the parliament or a body of well-credentialed, well-meaning scientists and experts? What sets this parliament and our great democracy apart from sham democracies or even totalitarian states is the fact that we are accountable to the people for our decisions and the laws we pass. The TGA, as well meaning as it may be, is not directly accountable. It considers the scientific facts, including the safety and efficacy claims of the pharmaceutical company. I appreciate that, if the evidence is such that a drug either is found to not deliver on its efficacy and safety claims or receives community-wide disapproval, we can always revisit the TGA decision by passing another law. However, today we have an opportunity to put into place a number of amendments that will uphold our parliamentary responsibility on laws which have undisputed strong moral and ethical consequences, while at the same time making full use of relevant bodies such as the TGA. As law-makers, we turn to the experts for advice on so many tough decisions, be they in Treasury, defence, health, foreign affairs or communications. We do not turn to these professionals to make the decisions, and certainly not decisions that have undisputed ethical and moral consequences. If we abrogate our responsibilities on these matters to bureaucrats, then what are we doing here? Are we not simply giving greater currency to the poor perception of members of parliament which already exists? If we are doing it because it is convenient or we are fearful of the dilemma it places us in, then perhaps we are in the wrong job. To say that passage of the amendments will mean that we may have to face these decisions again in the future can only be a weakening of our democratic process. We have the responsibility as elected representatives—not the bureaucrats. The relevance of the claim that pharmaceutical companies may not seek approval for fear of running the parliamentary gauntlet also eludes me. Pharmaceutical companies comprise some of the most powerful and influential organisations on the planet. With the progress of science, it is only a matter of time before new, non-therapeutic drugs enter the market and, like RU486, throw up complex moral and ethical dilemmas. Passage of this legislation would set a dangerous precedent and signify a serious abrogation of our responsibility to represent the Australian people. Issues of this kind do cause sleepless nights. They cause us to reflect on our own beliefs, values and experiences. That to me is not such a bad thing to do from time to time as representatives of the people. I will be voting for the amendments proposed and, if the amendments fail to get up, I will be voting against this bill. 33 11:16:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —It has been said that the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 is not a debate about abortion. That proposition is both right and wrong. It is right in the sense that we are not debating a change to the law governing abortion, but it is wrong in the sense that we are debating the process whereby a drug to terminate a pregnancy can be approved. To suggest that RU486 is just another drug is patently absurd. I believe that to treat it as we would any other drug is unsustainable. That is why—for the reasons I will enumerate—in the end I will vote for the status quo. These are never easy issues. I want to say at the outset that I think this has been a very good debate. I am not somebody who shirks from free votes. They are good to have from time to time on these issues. I think parliament rises to its greatest heights when we have debates of this kind. A free vote encourages people to examine their beliefs, to reflect upon their experiences, values and attitudes, and to deal sensitively with a difficult issue. Every man who enters this debate should be conscious of the reality that abortion is something that has for women, and particularly those who have experienced it, a special impact and a special character. No man who enters a debate of this kind should forget that. He should not lightly pass over the trauma that would face any woman who decided on a termination of pregnancy. I do not think there are any women who have abortions happily or willingly or capriciously. As somebody who has quite conservative views on the subject, as you all know, I hold that view strongly. This debate has confirmed the fact that the Australian community is unhappy with the high level of terminations in our society. I think there are too many terminations and I think people on different sides of this debate would agree with that. I think a significant majority of the Australian community would oppose any change in the current law on abortion. I do not think a majority of Australians would support a tightening of the law. That is my view, as a representative, however inadequate, of the Australian people, and I think that is their view. However, I believe that, side by side with that conviction, they are of the view that there are too many abortions. That does not mean to say that I am happy myself with that majority view, but it happens to be the reality. All of us must bring to this place a combination of idealism and pragmatism. In those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves: given the majority view of the Australian community about the present law, what can we do as a nation to reduce the number of terminations? I believe that more can be done to provide people, on a voluntary basis, with counselling and support in relation to alternatives to terminations. I believe very strongly that more should be done, and I will be putting forward that view in the appropriate places in the weeks and months ahead. I think the Australian community is saying: we do not want to take away the choice that exists under the present law, but we want to provide women who might not want to have a termination with greater support and encouragement to continue their pregnancy. That attitude probably encapsulates what the majority of people who think seriously about this issue—and I am sure everybody does—would want to bring to this debate. The issue is, very simply: what should be the approval process? We are not dealing with a flu tablet. We are dealing with a drug that has the capacity to terminate a pregnancy. I acknowledge that, if you are looking at the morality and the ethics of this, a surgical termination has the same moral and ethical implications as a termination using this drug. It cannot logically be argued otherwise. There are obviously safety issues and there are obviously medical considerations. In relation to those who support the bill, I do not cast any aspersions on the people in the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I am sure that, if they are given the power, they will bring to this issue conscientious, professional, responsible consideration. They have served this country well. I do not reflect in any way on them. In defence of my great mate the minister for health, I do not believe for a moment that if this parliament passes this bill it is a reflection on him or a reflection on his government. Uniquely, perhaps, I had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to reflect negatively on the minister for health and I chose to retain him in the portfolio he now occupies because I think he has been an outstanding health minister. While he performs in that outstanding fashion he will continue to be not only the best friend that Medicare has ever had but also an absolutely outstanding health minister. If I am forced to choose between the status quo and the bill, the reason why, in the end, I will vote against the bill is essentially the reason outlined by my colleague the member for Deakin in a very thoughtful and moving speech a few moments ago. It is a question of us performing our representative duties. There is just a whiff in this whole debate—if I may say so, with the greatest of respect to many close friends and colleagues of mine who are going to vote differently from me on this issue—of ‘This is a little too difficult and controversial so let’s give it to somebody else.’ I am disappointed, may I say, in that attitude because, in the end, we are elected to make decisions on difficult issues. Life can be very difficult; it can be complicated; it is never simple. I do worry about a proposition which says, ‘We have got this difficult issue so let’s give it to some experts.’ In the end, on an issue like this, aren’t we, with proper advice, as expert as anybody else? It is said by some, including a number in this debate, that parliament can always come back and change the law if it is not working. The difficulty is that we all know that, once you pass control of something like this out of the hands of the parliamentary or government or political process, it really does not occur. In the nature of things it goes on and becomes all too difficult to change and that really does not happen. I have looked at the existing provisions. Whilst I prefer the status quo to the bill, I think there is a lot to be said for the amendment that is proposed by the honourable member for Bowman. I think his amendment is a very good one because it really says to those people who say, ‘Why can’t you go through the process that exists in relation to other drugs,’ that, because of the importance of this, you have a disallowance procedure at the end which is available to a majority in either house of the parliament. I think that strikes a good balance, if I may say so. There are those who argue that this is like any other drug—it is patently not like any other drug; we would not be having this debate if it were—and that we should therefore leave it to the experts. Under the amendment of my friend the member for Bowman, we are leaving it to the experts to give the advice but we are specifically reserving to ourselves, in relation to this particular drug, a power of disallowance. I think that is reasonable. I do not think it is extreme. I think it strikes a balance. It recognises the strength of feelings. It pays proper respect to the role of the experts. But it also reserves unto us, who are ultimately accountable to the Australian people, a decision-making device which is more likely to be invoked when the public really wants it than the more tortuous process of going through an amendment. There are things that should properly be assigned by parliament to others. But I say to those who may not share my view on this issue that it is never an excuse to the Australian people to say, ‘It’s not my decision; it’s been made by somebody else,’ because, in the end, if they do not like it, they will hold you accountable. That has been my experience in life. In politics, if I say, ‘I’m sorry, that was made by an independent authority,’ their normal response is, ‘You’re the Prime Minister. Fix it.’ That is not a bad response, because the Australian people have a healthy idea of what democracy is all about. We all passionately believe in parliamentary responsibility and we believe that there should be a greater esteem for our institution. We worry, in this very iconoclastic age, about the decline of respect for parliament. We should not worry too much about that because we do live in an iconoclastic age, but we contribute to that view, in my opinion, if we vote in favour of this measure. I conclude by saying that I think this has been a very good debate. This brings out the best in people. It has been characterised by the odd contribution that I wish had not been made—particularly, I have to say again, the quite offensive remarks made about a devotional practice which all of us know is peculiar to Catholics in our community. That was highly offensive and deserving of the rebuke that it received. That is not to say that people who hold the opposite point of view have not come to this debate in very good faith. And it is not something that should be determined solely on religious grounds. Whatever our own religious faith is—and mine is well known—people of no religious faith can hold a similar view to mine and equally people of strong religious faith can hold an opposite view from mine. I am not seeking to divide people—none of us should—on the basis of religious belief. But in the end I will not support this measure. As a member of parliament and somebody elected by the people of the division of Bennelong to represent them, I feel that on something as important as this I should reserve a final say to myself as their representative. That is why I will vote as I have explained. 35 11:30:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —I join with the Prime Minister in congratulating members on both sides of the House for the quality of the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I have had the opportunity to watch a lot of the debate in my office as a sort of background noise to the many other things that we do. To be able to look up and see people struggling honestly to arrive at the right conclusions on this matter has been, frankly, inspirational. I have been in politics now for a very long time—though not as long as the Prime Minister. All too few occasions like this occur in the House. It is a wonderful thing when they do. They speak well of all of us. We are not simply identikit clones of some ad agency’s decision as to what a politician ought to be; we in this place are much better people than that, and I am proud of my colleagues. On this occasion I am not only proud of my colleagues on my side of the chamber; I am actually quite proud of my colleagues on the other side of the chamber as well. From all of this I draw very different conclusions than the Prime Minister does. I think that in the end this is a fairly simple proposition about who in our community is appropriately deputed the task of determining whether a drug is safe to be let into the community and on what terms and conditions it is let into the community. Despite the many qualities that reside in people in this House, with the possible exception of one or two, there is absolutely nobody here with the capacity to make the scientific judgments concerned. On the other hand, it is the duty of legislators, state and federal, to determine whether or not there should be abortions—period. The decision to be taken by us, or more particularly by our colleagues at a state level, is this: under what terms and conditions should a termination of pregnancy take place and should the restrictions on that termination of pregnancy sit within the Criminal Code or sit within health regulations? And, if they sit within health regulations, at what particular point in a pregnancy is what particular action permissible? We legislators have to have that debate. That is the one that we confront. At the federal level, because it does not often come before us in that form, the debate we confront is how it is to be afforded, how it is to be paid for. This is certainly a debate of relevance to legislators, and it is on this debate that our constituents should act upon us. These are the judgments which we are qualified to make—by our humanity and our representivity. That is the point of time at which we ought to confront abortion issues—when they come forward to us on the basis of whether or not that procedure should be permitted under law. I will say a little more about that later, but that is an abortion debate. The question about whether or not a drug is a suitable thing for any medical purpose—and this particular drug has purposes beyond termination of pregnancies—is a matter of very difficult scientific judgment. The TGA does not simply make decisions about flu tablets. The TGA makes decisions all the time about life and death drugs—drugs which can preserve life and drugs which, if misused, can terminate life. There may be no intention to terminate life when those drugs are employed. The TGA makes decisions about drugs which can conceivably have horrendous side effects. Members of the TGA do not enter into any decision in this regard without a proper concentration on all those possibilities. By their scientific expertise, they are vastly more likely to arrive at correct conclusions about these matters than anybody in this chamber, and it should be appropriately left for them. From time to time in the debate I have heard people make statements that these are bureaucrats taking the decisions. These are not bureaucrats. There are no bureaucrats on the TGA. They are scientists, making decisions fully cognisant of the fact that, when they make errors—as was the case in the instance of the prescription of the drug thalidomide—the consequences are truly horrible. And it does come back to them and the way in which they take their decisions. If there are horrendous side effects from the approval of this drug, it will come back to them. They will have to confront the consequences of their decisions in that regard, and they are fully conscious of it. If this legislation is passed, I do not believe that this drug will be approved tomorrow. That will not happen. What will happen is that, if somebody puts up a proposition that they wish to make it available in this country, there will be an extensive series of scientific tests and examinations. Then the drug will be released, if it is to be released, under a set of terms and conditions which will apply to the way in which a doctor may administer it and the set of afflictions—and there will be more than just abortion considered if it is permitted—for which it is appropriate. Some people argue that it is a very appropriate cancer drug in certain circumstances. The TGA will need to have a view about the circumstances in which it will be deployed by doctors and will have to put down some very strict guidelines associated with it. With all due respect to colleagues here—who are amongst the most intelligent and effective human beings in this country and who have the honour to serve in the great democratic palace of the nation which this building is—none of us here knows anything about that. None of us here can make that judgment. All of us can have an opinion on abortion. There is no question about that. Were there a piece of legislation here which dealt with the issue of the termination of pregnancy period, I would trust the judgment and the expertise of every person in this chamber to arrive at a correct conclusion on that to the very best of their endeavours. But that is not a subject that is before us now. I cannot think of another issue in my 25 years in politics that has, from time to time, more exercised my mind than the issue of the termination of pregnancy. My own views on this have gone through changes in the period of time that I have been a member of parliament and the life experiences that I have confronted on the way, many of which have had nothing to do with my life in parliament. I start with the premise, and I still hold the view, that abortion is killing. Therefore, it is something that cannot be conducted lightly; it is something that has to be seriously thought through. When I started in politics my view was that the legal system and the Criminal Code ought to reflect that. That is no longer my view. Tested in the experience of community opinion and community practice, I know that to persist with that view produces a large number of very unsafe procedures and great dangers to women. Therefore, I cannot continue to hold that view, the principle being confronted with the practicality. Courts and legislators at the state level, over time, I think have arrived at a sensible modus vivendi as far as terminations of pregnancies are concerned. I have to ask myself in conscience: what is there left for me? The courts and legislators have decided that basically this is an issue between women and their doctors. I can live with that. I think that after all the testing, if you like, in the public arena, that is a position that has been arrived at. But I am neither a doctor nor a woman. So what does it mean for me? It means this for me: the acceptance of personal responsibility, should my opinion be sought by anyone, on that issue. As a father of three daughters and as a husband it is never beyond the realm of possibility—and thank God it has never happened to me—that I will be invited to have an opinion. If any woman were to approach me and seek my opinion on whether or not she ought to have a termination, my advice would go along the lines of the moral commitments that I have in that regard, with the added statement by me that, should she decide to go ahead with the child, and it was a person with whom I had a direct responsibility, I would do my very level best to make sure that she was able to live comfortably with the decision that she took. But I would also say: ‘If you take another decision on this, I do recognise it as your right to take that decision.’ I have learned over time that that is the position that I will live with. I get back to this bill. Nothing in this bill invites me to any of the decisions that I have been referring to in the remarks I have been making—either personal or public. Nothing in this bill invites me to do that. All this bill invites me to do is to make a judgment about whether or not it is the minister who is the appropriate person to approve a drug—any drug—or a body of scientists. For me it is a no brainer, quite frankly. It is simply commonsense that a minister does not have the scientific capacity to arrive at that judgment. Obviously, the vast array of drugs that are approved in this country do not come before this parliament and do not come before ministers, on the very sensible grounds that virtually nobody would conclude that we are the appropriate place for this to be considered. This is the appropriate place when the TGA may make, over time, an error; it is not an unreasonable thing for us to bring to this place a complaint and to use the grievance debate or something like that as a sounding board. But to be the ab initio judges of what ought to occur is actually absurd; it is just not sensible. We have to extract from this our feelings on the legal and moral issues related to abortion and just use commonsense about what is the appropriate way to approve a drug. I think the level of focus that has been on the minister’s moral convictions has been unfair. This minister temporarily holds the position of minister for health. I can think of ministers on both sides of the House who have a very different moral outlook from him, and I can think of ministers in the future on both sides of the House who will have a very different moral outlook from him. It really is not about Tony Abbott at all or Tony Abbott’s convictions. As I have already indicated, there is some level of moral sympathy on my behalf with his convictions in this area. And I understand his difficulty, having the moral convictions that he has, presiding in the portfolio that he does.  I happen to know the situation in Britain, where there is a member of the Labour ministry who turned down the ministry of health on the grounds that she has some profound convictions in relation to abortion which mean she does not feel that she can sit easily with that. This is a law that has been passed by the House of Commons. She does not sit easily with the notion that she has to sign off payments for the procedure—so she does not take that job, on those grounds. If it is impossible, in any part of it—I would not, for example, suggest that a pacifist along my frontbench ought to necessarily be appointed by me as Minister for Defence. I would think that that person would make a very good contribution in some other area, but it is not wise to place people in portfolio positions where their moral convictions are challenged. If it is difficult for Tony Abbott to handle these things then he ought to have a word with his boss about where he ought to be situated—he ought to do that. But what he ought not to do is suggest that we have here an issue of confidence in him. This is not an issue of confidence in Tony Abbott; this is an issue of sensible statement about where decision making ought to reside in relation to the approval of drugs, dangerous or otherwise. It is for those reasons that I take the decision to vote in the way I will. I will support the bill. I say again, as I started: I am most impressed with the way this debate has been conducted, the way views have been expressed on both sides of the House, the expertise that has been brought to it. I have learnt a lot more about the drug, I might say, than I have learnt before. I still do not think, however, on the basis of listening to that debate, that I am in any better position than I was when the debate started to be the approving authority for its distribution. Nevertheless, the research that people have done has been truly magnificent and I do congratulate all members on this. We should leave this place without any bitterness in our hearts towards any person involved in this debate but with the very greatest pride that we are elected by the people to be here. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 39 11:45:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. The purpose of this bill is to transfer the approvals process from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. However, the debate has broadened to include the drug RU486, women’s rights, the claimed advantages for rural women and the actual abortion debate. I will now attempt in the time available to address these issues separately, as they have been raised as a part of the debate. First, I will go to the issue of transferring responsibility for approval to the TGA. From the start, let me say I am against this bill for a number of reasons. I do not believe in abrogating my responsibility as an elected representative of the community on issues as important as life itself. The drug RU486 that we are debating is an abortifacient, yet it is the same drug prescribed under the name mifepristone that helps preserve life as a therapeutic drug in the treatment of certain cancers and tumours. The TGA rightly has the power to approve drugs that preserve life, but when there are moral issues attached to the use of a drug—and by that I mean the use of a drug that ends life—then the process of ministerial approval, the scrutiny of the parliament and the judgment by the community of those that made that decision at the ballot box is the correct process. On the issue of the drug RU486—and I admit that, unlike some of my colleagues in this House, I am not a doctor—I have extracted the following from expert opinion. To quote Edouard Sakiz, the former chairman of French drug company Roussel-UCLAF, which developed RU486: As Abortifacient procedures go RU486 is not at all easy to use. In fact it is more complex to use than the technique of vacuum extraction ... A woman who wants to end her pregnancy has to ‘live’ with her abortion for at least a week using this technique. It’s an appalling psychological ordeal. According to Dr Michael Green, Professor of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology at Harvard University: RU486 had 10 times the mortality risk of surgical abortion in the first 7 weeks of pregnancy (which is its recommended time limit for effective use, although even then between 5% and 8% of women will need a follow-up surgical abortion). So dangerous is RU486 to women’s health that pro-choice radical feminists such as Dr Renate Klein, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies at Deakin University in Victoria, are adamantly opposed to the drug. She describes RU486 as ‘a modern version of backyard abortion—unsafe, painful and deeply scary’. How does RU486 work? It is reported in journals that RU486 is a synthetic steroid which works by blocking the effects of progesterone, the natural hormone which is required to maintain the lining of the uterus during pregnancy. RU486 starves the womb of progesterone, the lining of the womb breaks down and it is lost along with the developing embryo or foetus. Up to four visits to a hospital or a clinic are necessary to complete the process. The success rate of RU486 on its own is not high. For pregnancies of up to nine weeks gestation mifepristone is normally taken by mouth on its own. If the embryo or foetus has not come away within 36 to 48 hours, a prostaglandin is given. For pregnancies of 13 to 24 weeks gestation, mifepristone is taken by mouth. This is followed by a prostaglandin by vagina. If the abortion does not occur within 24 hours after the start of treatment, a repeat course of gemeprost will be given. In both cases, if the treatment fails, the baby will be aborted by a surgical method—that is, either vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage. There are side effects. Is this safe? According to the journal, the use of RU486 may cause any of the following: haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion, severe pain requiring strong pain killers, incomplete abortion, rupture of the uterus, vaginal bleeding, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, flushing, chills, backache, difficulty in breathing, chest pain, palpitations, rise in temperature and a fall in blood pressure. What I am illustrating here is that the number and diverse nature of the side effects of RU486 point to the fact that these are powerful chemicals. In fact, Dr Germaine Greer, speaking at the Best for Women gynaecologists and obstetricians conference in Sydney in 2002, described RU486 as a powerful and unpleasant succession of experiences. She said: These are violently active chemicals and they have violent reactions on the organism ... What is the situation in which a woman would undergo that kind of assault? One of the most spurious arguments being put forward in this debate goes to the advantages for rural women. To quote from RU486: misconceptions myths and morals: There is much about RU 486/PG that is fraught with risk and problems. As we have queried, what is the meaning of a ‘private’ and ‘de-medicalized’ abortion that requires three or four doctor’s visits to a specialized centre, includes the taking of two and perhaps five hazardous drug combinations, is accompanied by vaginal ultrasound, and too often has complications ranging from moderate bleeding to severe pain and, for some women, blood transfusions? If this is a private and de-medicalized abortion experience, then the word ‘private’ has lost its definitional moorings. I do not profess to be a medical expert, but I am prepared to listen to expert opinion provided in the various submissions. Another argument advanced is that this is a women’s only issue. I must say I am personally and deeply offended by those claims that this is solely a women’s issue and that men should butt out. The last time my wife and I had children, I seem to recollect that I, as a mere male, actually had something to do with it. Whilst I agree that it is the woman’s body that is carrying the baby, and I accept that the physical and mental aspect of unwanted pregnancy may be greater, speaking as a male I can assure you that men suffer the same mental anguish and torment in an unwanted pregnancy or abortion. Men should never be removed from the decision-making process, not legally nor morally, to end the life of a baby. I only need to remind members in this House of how we are inundated with correspondence in relation to fathers’ rights to have access to their children for them to know that that mental anguish would be no different from deliberating and grieving over an abortion. On the issue of abortion itself, I have on previous occasions stated my personal Christian convictions not only in this parliament but also to the community that I represent. I am encouraged by the letters and phone calls of support on this issue. The number of contacts on each side of the argument from my electorate show clear support for the status quo. That being said, I do respect but do not agree with the views of many being put to me in this House to support this bill. This week I received an email from a very well-respected doctor in my electorate, who wrote: I am writing to you to encourage you to vote against the private members bill, giving the TGA the right and responsibility to license RU486. As Tony Abbott says, this is not like other drugs, this is a drug that kills human life. Having practiced obstetrics for ten years in the bush, and having continued to care for women during pregnancy here, I have no doubt that an embryo is a human life, nor do the women who grieve for their miscarriages. Even women and doctors who believe in abortion, do so with a sense of knowing it is fundamentally wrong. People are generally ashamed of terminations of pregnancy, and usually do so because it is presented to them as an option that “solves” their problem. People who argue for women’s right to choose are arguing on behalf of many premises and rights that I also believe in, BUT when it comes to a decision as to whether an individuals right to do anything in society infringes on another human beings right to simply live, then the choice must go with an individuals right to live. Recently I saw a young teenage girl who had travelled to Sydney with her mother, had an ultrasound that confirmed her pregnancy to be 19 + weeks (what does that mean was it 20 weeks? was it more?) The mother cried when she saw the baby on ultrasound, the girl would have felt that baby move inside her. That baby would have had to be cut up, dismembered to be removed from her uterus by suction curette. This is apparently legal but obviously so wrong. The termination was performed in Macquarie St. This is where our society is going. Bob its time to make a stand. If RU486 is licensed our society will continue to treat the value of human life with less and less regard. Thanks for your time, Dr. Mark Adamski Is it about right to life? But whose life? The hypocrisy that has surrounded this debate is perhaps the easiest argument to reject. I cite the example of those who argue strongly for the preservation of life in the death sentences handed down to Bali nine drug convictees Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, and the recently and sadly executed drug courier, Van Nguyen. These people go to great lengths to urge governments to do more for the unfortunate souls in Third World countries who die of starvation and disease every day, yet in the same breath advocate abortion, the wilful ending of an absolutely innocent life. As a parent of twins who were born very prematurely and as one who sat by the humidicrib for weeks on end to pray and watch a child not much bigger than a barbie doll fight for life, I find it truly amazing that today a premature baby can survive at 21 weeks and incomprehensible that today a child can be aborted at the same age or older. Why can’t those who advocate for the life of a convicted drug dealer advocate for the life of the unborn? When people argue about the morbidity and mortality of backyard abortions, they forget that the mortality of legal abortions is 100 per cent for the innocent baby. How bitterly ironic it is that people will defend abortion as somehow being a kinder alternative to the unborn child, often saying, ‘I couldn’t adopt the child. I couldn’t bring it into this world.’ What of the needs of the childless parents desperate to adopt a child? Rejecting this bill will not, unfortunately, alter the status quo of the often quoted 100,000 abortions each year. Perhaps that is an argument that needs to explored in the state parliaments of Australia, which have the legislative responsibility for abortion. The decision that I have come to will allow my mind to rest easy. But I try to understand the anguish and torment of the parents that have made the decision to have an abortion and what they must go through. I am not without empathy for the difficult and sometimes awful situation pregnancy can represent. I will stand on my decision today, accountable to this parliament and to the people I represent, and that is something that I will never walk away from. 42 11:56:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 0 Mr BAKER —As the member for Braddon, I wish to thank all those from my electorate and from all corners of Australia who have written, faxed, emailed and phoned to put their point of view forward. Many have said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that this debate is not about abortion. It is not for this House to debate the rights or wrongs of abortion, because abortion is lawfully available within all state and territory jurisdictions of Australia. This debate is about whether or not the availability of an abortive agent like RU486 should be subject to the administrative processes of a bureaucratic body which is not accountable to the constituents of Australia or subject to ministerial accountability. This debate is concerned with the proper regulatory process for the approval or disapproval of a drug designed to terminate a pregnancy. The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to regulate the availability in Australia of therapeutic drugs that are designed to prevent or cure an illness. Herein we have a dilemma. Is pregnancy an illness? Is an unwanted pregnancy an illness? In my conscience I have to say no, an unwanted pregnancy is not just another illness requiring a cure but rather the result of a range of attitudes and the consequence of behaviour. It is a tragedy that in Australia up to 100,000 abortions are performed each year. Along with many constituents in my electorate, I struggle with this sobering figure. As a parliament it is our responsibility to promote greater family planning in an attempt to reduce the number of abortions and the associated consequences, both physical and psychological. One of the arguments for increasing the availability of RU486 to rural and isolated women is that it provides choice where surgical abortion facilities are not available. However, lost in this argument is the fact that genuinely rural and isolated women do not have ready access to emergency facilities, and any time delay in reaching appropriate help could be very serious and even fatal. Therefore, this neutralises the argument that there are widespread benefits for rural and isolated women. The greatest gift in life is to create another life, and I acknowledge the agonising decision for those who decide to end the life of an unborn child—a decision not taken easily. I do not believe that it is the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration to consider the ethical and moral questions that this drug raises, and those questions are unavoidable. The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia is to regulate the availability of therapeutic goods. It is required to consider public health and safety. Therapeutic goods are those given to prevent or cure an illness, to promote wellbeing. My conscience cannot resolve that RU486, an abortion drug, is a drug designed to end the life of an unborn child. Further, the Therapeutic Goods Administration is neither elected by nor accountable to the community. Accordingly, mindful of the concerns of the majority of my constituents and after wrestling with this issue, I cannot support this bill. However, I note the proposed amendments on the table, and I will support those amendments which retain ministerial responsibility or provide parliamentary scrutiny. 43 12:00:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —Like other members, I have thought long and hard about this issue and the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 that has been presented to the House. The first observation I would make is that many of the speeches that I have been able to follow that have been made during this debate have been of great interest to me. I am impressed with the thought and the effort that so many members have put into considering this issue. Let me begin by saying that my view on the issue of abortion is that I feel comfortable with the laws that we have in the various states and territories of Australia. I think they strike the right balance, and I do not think that in this parliament we should be taking steps which will change the implementation of those laws. Having said that, I can obviously see—and this is why we are having a debate on this matter—that RU486 is a controversial and difficult issue. If this were simply a technical matter, we would not be having a great debate on it. The time of the Senate and of the House of Representatives would not have been so substantially devoted to it. I have said publicly before now that my in principle decision is that, if a drug is deemed to be safe and can be prescribed by a doctor, I do not have any objection to the drug being used. And it is my view that, if that were to happen in relation to RU486, that would not change the abortion law in this country at all. A lot of members have spoken about the issue of abortion. For me, this debate does not really boil down to being about abortion laws, because it is my judgment that, in the end, this is not going to change the abortion laws in this country. This debate is actually about whether the decision on final approval—not on preliminary approval, not establishing the technical safety of the drug, but the decision on final approval—should continue to rest with the Minister for Health and Ageing, or whether instead it should be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition about this; the Therapeutic Goods Administration is a body of public servants. Many public servants work with me and for me, and I have enormous respect for the Australian Public Service, but it is a decision that is made by public servants using the delegated authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. So the choice for me is whether I think that, in the end, the minister should make the decision on something which is obviously highly controversial, as is proven by the fact that we are having a debate on it, or whether the decision should be made by the delegates of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing through the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I am an elected member of parliament myself. I represent the people of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. They send me here to Canberra, and have done so on many occasions, to represent their interests and make decisions on difficult issues. I sometimes wrestle with difficult issues, but it is part of the job. In the end, I am happy to make decisions on difficult issues. I am accountable to the parliament and ultimately I am accountable to the people of Mayo. Having said all of that, the two proposals that have appealed to me most in this debate have been the amendments put forward by the member for Lindsay and the member for Bowman. In fact, of the two, I think the member for Bowman’s is the better amendment. If the first of those amendments does not get up, I am going to vote for the second one, which will be the member for Bowman’s amendment. The whole concept here of having a preliminary judgment made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration or the minister and then the parliament having the capacity to disallow that decision puts the matter back into the hands of the parliament. On something as controversial as this, I think that is entirely appropriate. So, as I have said, I am going to support the amendment of the member for Bowman in particular. I think that is a very good and very sensible amendment, and I hope other members will consider doing that. It is a compromise. It does keep the power to make the final decision with the parliament. It leaves the final decision on something which is manifestly very controversial with the representatives of the people. But, having said that, obviously the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s judgments about the safety and appropriateness—in a technical sense—of the use of this drug will be a very important consideration. I do not want to detain the House for long in expressing my views on this matter, but let me say in conclusion that some people—in the media, substantially, and one or two parliamentarians—have interpreted this debate in the context of the Minister for Health and Ageing. My view of the minister for health is that he is a person of enormous principle. Of all the members of parliament I have known over 21 years—and you can imagine that in 21 years I have known a few—I do not know any member of parliament more principled than the minister for health. He passionately believes in things. He is not just here to fill a seat or to get a parliamentary salary or a ministerial car; he is one of those people who has come here to make a difference because he believes in things. Usually I agree with him and sometimes I do not, but he is a person who deserves the admiration of the country for his passion and his principle. I have to say, without wishing to inject too harsh a tone into this debate—because it does not deserve too harsh a tone; it deserves consideration—that some of the criticisms of the Minister for Health and Ageing have been quite effective in pushing me away from this bill. I have felt very uncomfortable with some of the things that have been said about the minister for health. I was especially offended by the T-shirt worn by Senator Nettle—I was appalled that it was produced by the YWCA, or so it said on the T-shirt; I do not know whether that is fair or not—because it had not only a tone of abuse towards the minister for health but a tone of sectarianism. I am a Christian—I am actually an Anglican—but the Catholic Church is the great spiritual leader of Christianity in the world. There is no question about that. Even though I am an Anglican, I concede that point. The Catholic Church is the great Christian church. Even though I do not see the Pope as my leader, the Pope nevertheless is the great spiritual leader of Christianity. Sectarianism in Australia was one of the truly ugly components of our past, which I myself thought was well and truly out of the way and that I had seen it die in my lifetime. Some of the comments that have been made about the Catholic Church and Catholicism have caused me great offence, and I do want to put that on the record. The Catholic Church has stood for great things and does stand for great things, and it deserves great respect, even if you do not agree with them. I am an Anglican,  so there is obviously some point of theological disagreement there, but it is not substantial. My position, in conclusion, is as simple as this: I support the amendments. If either of those amendments is carried, then the amended bill would win my support. However, if the amendments fail, I will not support the bill and I will vote against it. 45 12:09:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —Like many other members in this House, I have been subject to some strong lobbying in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Some are in favour, some are against. Of course, a number of those lobbying have targeted me because I am known by many as a committed Christian. Until I stepped down at the end of last year, I served as the President of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. Therefore, there is an expectation that I will take a similar view to that of many Christians in Australia and of course take note of the views of church leaders. I would say up front that my Christian faith is a very strong and significant part of my life and one of the reasons I came into this House. I have attempted to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. It is clear to those who know me well that I have often failed, but still I press on towards the mark. However, I have taken views on issues in the past that did not reflect the popular Christian view of the time—namely, I voted for the amendment in 1984 which proposed the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between consenting adults, when the Crimes Amendment Bill was put before the New South Wales parliament; I voted for stem cell research in 2002; and now I will be voting for this bill. There is not a uniform Christian approach on these issues, and there are a number of members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship who plan to vote for the bill before the House. I am unashamedly a Liberal on these issues of social conscience. I believe it is healthy to have a range of views amongst Christians. One thing I am sure of is that Christ’s significance in my life does not diminish because of my support for this bill. Tolerance, acceptance and forgiveness are hallmarks of the Christian life, and my approach on these issues is motivated very much by the Christian concept of grace. It is this philosophy and approach which motivated me to take a strong interest in the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I was compelled to be part of a reform agenda when I was confronted with stories of detainees who had been held in detention for some years. There were many who opposed my stand on these issues, but I was encouraged by the support I was given by many church leaders. The bill before the House separates out the decision on abortifacient products from the minister to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The minister appoints a group of experts who examine the suitability of pharmaceuticals on medical grounds for release to the general public. I believe it is inappropriate for the decision to be made by the minister and should rather be made by those who are expert in the field and who, by virtue of their training, are better equipped to make a sound medical judgment based on empirical scientific fact. It is clear that the opponents of this bill are trying to turn this debate into one that is focused on the issue of abortion. They are a little late, because this issue was the subject of at times heated debate up to 30 years ago. In every state, either the parliament voted to allow abortion or common law was extended to permit it. I am personally opposed to abortion, but we are legislating here for the people of Australia and we must separate out the issues of church and state. The fact is that any woman who wishes to have an abortion in this country is already able to have one. Presently, termination of an unwanted pregnancy is carried out by a surgical procedure. The introduction of RU486 would provide for an alternative method, thereby providing a simplified and less invasive means of terminating a pregnancy. There is no doubt that we need to provide more funding for counselling services both before and after abortion and more funding for sex education and for child support for those who decide to have the child. Some would argue that there are risks of death from RU486, as has been evidenced overseas. However, it is clear that the incidence of mortality has been very low, and lower than for other drugs. The drug has already been prescribed extensively in Europe, North America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to name but a few. In each of these countries, RU486 has been found to be effective and safe. According to opponents of RU486, 10 deaths have been linked to the use of the drug. This is indeed a great tragedy, as is the avoidable loss of every life. However, the Australian Medical Association and Rural Doctors Association advised the Senate committee that the proper and supervised use of RU486 is no more dangerous that the use of the off-the-shelf pain killer aspirin. The President of the AMA, Dr Haikerwal, believes that, in relation to the deaths caused by infection and septicaemia: The cases reported of people dying from infections really are the same... complications that you get with any gynaecological procedure. But he goes even further. He states that he believes that in some cases the use of RU486 is indeed safer than the current practice. The use of RU486, being a non-invasive method of terminating pregnancy, could in fact improve health outcomes for women. The current surgical method means that if things go wrong, such as a doctor perforating the cervix during the procedure, a woman can be rendered infertile or have reduced likelihood of having a successful pregnancy later on, when her circumstances may be different. It is also argued that the availability of this drug would lead to a significant increase in abortion. This has not been the experience in overseas countries where the drug has been introduced. Some would also argue that the approval of an abortifacient is a moral decision and would be more appropriately decided by this parliament. This may have been the case when the legality of abortion was decided, but that issue was settled long ago. We are now debating the question of the means of termination and who should make the decision on what medical and surgical options are available to women who have decided for one reason or another to terminate their pregnancy. Because we are talking about a medical procedure, surely this decision should be taken by a medically trained and expert board. The minister has the ability to appoint not only people of professional expertise but also people of moral integrity. Then there is the question of the amendments proposed by the members for Lindsay and Bowman. I believe these amendments are basically red herrings to the real issue. The creation of disallowable instruments will simply mean that any member can raise the issue again anytime, and this parliament will end up having this debate again, again and again. No, I will be supporting the bill and will not be supporting these amendments. I have been criticised by some for saying that men should butt out of the debate and allow the decision to terminate a pregnancy to be left to the woman to decide. I certainly listened to my wife and daughter. It is women who have to deal with the issues of disruption to their career and the provision of care for a child and to bear the social stigma that can accompany single parenthood. We have come a long way since the wearing of the scarlet letter, and well-meaning men may express their affirmation, but it is certainly not them that have to deal with the consequences of finding they are pregnant. Yes, I am a Christian, but I am also conscious of the real issues facing many young women in Australia each day. The provisions of the bill will ensure that important issues affecting women and their reproductive health are decided by a panel of experts, based on the best scientific information, and not by the minister of the day, who in many cases would have no real expertise in the area. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—In the interests of the gallery, there are two more government speakers on this particular bill, and then I believe the bill may be put to the vote. 47 12:16:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —At the outset I must state my respect for all my colleagues in this place and the honourable and forthright way in which this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has been conducted. The issue of abortion, which has some relevance in this debate, is an emotive one. I am conscious of the strong and deep convictions of many here in this place, many people across Australia and of course many in my own electorate of Hasluck. Those convictions, I feel, have been well represented in this debate in the Australian parliament. I have received many phone calls, emails and written submissions on this issue. I do very much appreciate the effort those who have contacted me have made to share their views and their experiences in order that I can make an appropriate and informed decision. I must confess that my position has wavered many times over the course of recent weeks, before I have been able to stand in this House to speak on this private member’s bill. In coming to my final position on this issue, I took great comfort from a submission from UnitingJustice Australia, an agency of the Uniting Church. I quote from their letter: It is our view that the current campaign against RU486 confuses medical, moral and political issues. As the Uniting Church understands it, the issue is whether or not this particular drug is safe to be released for use in a country where abortion is legally available. This is a decision that should be made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration using sound medical evidence and advice. It is our belief that RU486 should not be made an exception from this independent process purely due to its application as an abortifacient. Termination of a pregnancy is legal in Australia, however fraught politically or morally. I also quote from a Uniting Church media release: The decision to have an abortion is not just a moral issue but a social one. While the current debate attempts to pass moral judgment on the act itself, it ignores the many emotional, physical, financial and social issues that often create a situation where a woman is forced to consider an abortion. I rise to speak in favour of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, and I do so after carefully listening to the debate, both here and in the other place, to my constituents and to my family. Prior to my election I said that I would represent the constituents of Hasluck without fear or favour. Unfortunately, on this occasion, I know that a number of my constituents will feel that I have let them down. However, I feel that in leaving the decision on the use of RU486 in the hands of the executive we are confusing the method of abortion with the legality or availability of abortion. Abortion, by and large, is legal, under varying circumstances and conditions, in all states and territories of Australia. This is, and always has been, a matter for state parliaments. Through Medicare rebates, the Commonwealth government funds surgical abortions in this country, rightly or wrongly. In light of these facts, I do not see how we can justify special conditions for the approval of abortifacients. These drugs are classified as restricted goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Abortifacient drugs are the only type of drug classed as a restricted good. Evaluation, listing, registration or importation of restricted goods requires written approval from the minister for health. That approval must then be put before each house of parliament within five sitting days. Every other drug merely applies for approval to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which evaluates the drug and regulates its use. The minister is not involved in this process for non-restricted goods. The TGA is a respected organisation, recognised internationally for its standards and competence. It is the equipped authority to make decisions on the safety and appropriate use of therapeutic goods and for monitoring and reviewing the long-term effects of those same goods. The TGA does not operate in isolation, as the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee carries out an oversight role on the activities of the TGA. This group of independent experts is appointed by the health minister and includes highly qualified medical practitioners, pharmacologists, toxicologists, manufacturing chemists and others. Through the minister, this committee ensures an effective level of public accountability. The Drug Evaluation Committee is part of the regulatory framework and risk management approach approved by parliament. The TGA has so far evaluated more than 50,000 therapeutic goods. It has earned the trust of the Australian parliament and the Australian people. Surely it can be trusted to impartially assess products such as RU486. This should not be a debate about abortion. The question really is: what is the best and most effective way of assessing the safety of drugs in Australia? The medical experts at the TGA are surely the most experienced and qualified to do so. I do not say this to reflect negatively on the Minister for Health and Ageing, who is an excellent minister and an honourable man. My opinion is that any health minister, whoever they may be, should not be the gatekeeper for the approval of any drug or product. This should not be a political decision. The decision to approve or not approve a drug should be made by qualified medical professionals. Ultimately, we, as members of the Australian parliament, will be held accountable by the people of Australia. The oft-repeated argument that faceless bureaucrats should not be making this decision is weakened by the fact that the decision to approve every other drug is made by those so-called faceless bureaucrats. If we are so concerned about this process, why have there been no calls to bring the approval of other classes of drugs within the purview of the minister? There is no shame in parliament legislating for an independent body of experts, with general oversight by government, to make decisions regarding particular matters. This has happened in Western democracies for hundreds of years and it is an effective way of ensuring that complex matters are given the due consideration they deserve rather than being reduced to sometimes trite simplifications of political debate. Our Australian society is divided in its opinion on abortion. There is no clear consensus on this issue. While I am sympathetic to those with alternative views, I must err on the side of personal choice. I believe that parliament must also respect the individual’s right to personal choice. I personally believe that there are far too many abortions in Australia. It is a sad and traumatic event for any woman who makes the decision to take this action. I do not believe that anyone takes this decision lightly. I am sure that everyone in this place—indeed, everyone in this country—would prefer to see fewer or no abortions performed. The reality is that we live in an imperfect world; abortions are legal. However, this debate is not about increasing the incidence of abortion but ensuring that Australian women, in consultation with their medical practitioner, are able to choose the best method. Given the very unfortunate circumstances where individuals need to make such a choice, is it not appropriate that, with medical advice, we ensure that a full range of medical procedures and choices are available? Rather than, as I see it, artificially limiting people’s options to deal with their situations, we should be providing greater resources to help people make better decisions and to help them be aware of the consequences of their actions. In this regard, young people are particularly vulnerable. The abortion rate is highest in women aged between 20 and 24. By putting in place better information and education programs, we can inform young people more effectively about contraception and sexuality, provide them with better life skills and teach them about parenting. When our young people have full and frank access to this information and the support of their parents and communities, we will see a reduction in abortion rates. A blanket ban on RU486 does not reduce the abortion rate; it just reduces the options available to Australian women. Indeed, it has been shown in respected and thorough research in many of the countries where RU486 is used that the introduction of RU486 has not triggered an increase in the rates of abortion. At the end of the day, we should subject RU486 to the same scrutiny as any other drug—that is, the rigorous independent expert evaluation of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If RU486 is approved for use by the TGA, access to this drug will be subject to the normal safeguards provided by consultation and counselling with a doctor. It will also mean that patients can make a fully informed choice, knowing in detail the effects of the drug. I am in no position to make a decision about the safety or otherwise of RU486; I humbly suggest that very few members of this parliament are. That is why I support this bill to move approval of RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. 49 12:26:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —At the end of this very extensive debate, I rise to voice my opposition to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I do so because the system of regulation proposed by this bill is, in my belief, fundamentally inadequate. At present, as honourable members know, final approval for drugs such as RU486 rests with the Minister for Health and Ageing. It is argued by the proponents of this bill that this arrangement—that is, final approval resting with the Minister for Health and Ageing—lacks in transparency and accountability. They seek to resolve this lack of transparency and accountability by replacing the decision made by the Minister for Health and Ageing with a decision made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. If, as many proponents claim, this issue is not about abortion but about the best process of decision making, this bill is flawed for the very same reasons that the proponents claim the current system is—that is, it contains no more transparency and accountability than the current arrangements. Having spent much of my professional life advising governments—I should say, both Liberal and Labor—and health care institutions on appropriate approaches to the regulation of biotechnology and reproductive technology, it appears to me that both the current arrangements and those proposed in the bill are inadequate. Much has been said about the appropriateness or otherwise of the Minister for Health and Ageing alone having the decision, but little attention has been given to the alternative proposal. There are a number of reasons why I believe that the TGA alone should not have these powers. First, the TGA’s purview is limited to technical questions of quality, safety and efficacy. It does not consider other criteria. It is not empowered to take into account any ethical or other consideration that may pertain to this issue. Secondly, the TGA’s technical consideration is limited. For example, there is no requirement that doctors or pharmacists report any adverse reaction to the drugs. Yet we know that the use of this drug, in combination perhaps with other drugs, has caused a number of maternal deaths. Indeed, a major investigation into this issue is currently under way in the United States of America. It would be a pity if, out of all of this, the only winners were the drug companies and members of the legal profession. Thirdly, the work of the TGA is largely funded through the industry that it regulates. Indeed, part of the reason advanced in favour of this bill is that, with the costs of making an application being so high, the CEO of a drug company would not make one, if the decision were to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I find this disturbing—not for the reason which was advanced by my friend the member for Moore, but because it may give rise in the community to a perception that the TGA will be a rubber stamp for applications. That would be regrettable, as far as the reputation of the TGA is concerned. This bill proposes that a group of medical experts will decide, on narrow grounds, what pharmaceutical companies in Australia wish to market. As Justice Michael Kirby once observed, the regulation of new technologies is not a matter to be resolved behind closed doors by committees, however expert and sincere they are. For these reasons, in my view this bill contains a very inadequate system of regulation. Indeed, I find it quite strange that parliamentarians who day in, day out defend the concept of ministerial responsibility and parliamentary scrutiny in other areas would wish to abandon them in this instance. To the contrary, the amendments foreshadowed by both the members for Lindsay and Bowman provide more checks and balances and a higher level of accountability and transparency than the current bill. I prefer the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay, because it involves not only the expert advice of the TGA but also the minister and the parliament. For those who say that this argument should be based on a level of accountability and transparency then obviously both sets of amendments provide more accountability and more transparency than is provided in the bill before the parliament. Accordingly, I will support the amendments. May I make a few comments about the issue of abortion. I find it disingenuous to say that this debate is not about abortion. That is purely a technical argument. The whole purpose of RU486 is to induce an abortion. If the subject matter were aspirin, we would not have been having this debate in the parliament over the last few days. Indeed, many speakers both here and in the Senate have explicitly stated their stance on the bill and related their stance on the bill in relation to their view about abortion generally. Two things appear clear to me about abortion in Australia. The first is that there is no desire generally in the community to change the current legal approach to abortion. Contrary to what many have said, abortion is illegal in most Australian states unless certain circumstances are established, which usually relate to a threat to the health and wellbeing of the mother. However, in practice we know we have abortion on demand. Secondly, there is a growing unease about the high number of abortions. Many Australians are concerned that there are 80,000 to 100,000 abortions performed in this country each and every year. Many believe that we have trivialised a profound issue and many also worry that this bill will compound that view. I believe that this level of abortion in Australia is a blight upon our nation. Many speakers both here and in the Senate have voiced concerns about the high abortion rate. Anecdotal evidence is supported and reinforced by surveys. A national poll conducted by the Sexton Marketing Group found, for example, that 87 per cent of people wanted the number of abortions in Australia reduced and 78 per cent wanted mandatory counselling before the procedure was undertaken. I note that this bill proposes absolutely nothing that would reduce the incidence of abortion in Australia, something which I think overwhelmingly Australians would like to see. Indeed, the comment by Serena Williams, a young Melbourne woman reflecting on the unwanted loss of a pregnancy, in the Herald Sun last Sunday succinctly summarised the concerns of many people. She said: I cannot understand why we are fighting so hard to promote less counselling, less help and debilitating bleeding at home without medical supervision, which is what would happen with RU486. Given the level of concern in the community about the prevalence of abortion, I urge my colleagues in the government to consider what support and counselling can be provided for people facing this choice—and, by counselling, I do not mean services provided by abortion clinics. The reality today is that we have abortion with very little or no support for the women and the men facing these significant decisions. I urge the government—indeed, I urge this parliament—to address the issue. I believe a program that provided counselling and some time for people to consider all their choices would be widely supported in the Australian community. We need more discussion, not less, about the causes for such a high incidence of abortion. For far too long we have danced around the subject—like the elephant sitting in the middle of the living room that we all know exists but whose existence we do not want to acknowledge. I hope this debate will not be the last word on the subject in this parliament but the beginning of a mature reflection on a matter of concern to so many Australians. Question put: That the amendment (Miss Jackie Kelly’s) be agreed to. 12:39:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 49 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Bishop, B.K. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. * Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Hardgrave, G.D. Hayes, C.P. Howard, J.W. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Lloyd, J.E. Markus, L. McGauran, P.J. Murphy, J.P. Neville, P.C. O’Connor, G.M. Panopoulos, S. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. 96 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Billson, B.F. Bird, S. Bishop, J.I. Bowen, C. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Burke, A.E. Cobb, J.K. Corcoran, A.K. Costello, P.H. Danby, M. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Entsch, W.G. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Gambaro, T. Garrett, P. Gash, J. Georganas, S. George, J. Georgiou, P. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Haase, B.W. Hall, J.G. * Hartsuyker, L. Hatton, M.J. Henry, S. Hoare, K.J. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Keenan, M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Livermore, K.F. Macfarlane, I.E. * Macklin, J.L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Pearce, C.J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Prosser, G.D. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Ruddock, P.M. Scott, B.C. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, A.D.H. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thompson, C.P. Thomson, K.J. Ticehurst, K.V. Vamvakinou, M. Washer, M.J. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. GK6 Kelly, Jackie, MP Miss Jackie Kelly —by leave—I present a copy of the bill that is in my name so that it can become part of the House records. I would like to thank David Elder of the Clerk’s office for his assistance to my office in the preparation of this bill. Original question put: That this bill be now read a second time. 12:54:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 95 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Billson, B.F. Bird, S. Bishop, J.I. Bowen, C. Brough, M.T. Burke, A.E. Cobb, J.K. Corcoran, A.K. Costello, P.H. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Entsch, W.G. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Gambaro, T. Garrett, P. Gash, J. Georganas, S. George, J. Georgiou, P. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Haase, B.W. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Henry, S. Hoare, K.J. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Laming, A. Lawrence, C.M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Livermore, K.F. Macfarlane, I.E. Macklin, J.L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Pearce, C.J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Prosser, G.D. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Scott, B.C. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, A.D.H. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thompson, C.P. Thomson, K.J. Ticehurst, K.V. Turnbull, M. Vamvakinou, M. Washer, M.J. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 50 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Bishop, B.K. Broadbent, R. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. * Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Hayes, C.P. Howard, J.W. Katter, R.C. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Lloyd, J.E. Markus, L. McGauran, P.J. Murphy, J.P. Neville, P.C. O’Connor, G.M. Panopoulos, S. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Somlyay, A.M. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 53 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 53 13:04:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) together: (1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item. (2)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item. (3)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute: 4  Section 23AA Repeal the section, substitute: 23AA  Evaluation and registration of restricted goods          (1)    Subject to this section, restricted goods may be evaluated and registered in accordance with the provisions of this Division as they apply to therapeutic goods.          (2)    In spite of any provision of this Division, if the Secretary’s decision under paragraph 25(4AA)(d) is to register restricted goods, the Secretary must as soon as practicable notify the Minister of the decision to register the goods.          (3)    The notice under subsection (2) is a legislative instrument.          (4)    The registration of restricted goods must not take effect before the expiration of time within which a House of Parliament may disallow the instrument.          (5)    If the instrument is disallowed or deemed to be disallowed under section 42 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the decision that the Secretary made ceases to have any effect. (4)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 13), at the end of the bill, add: 6 Subsection 25(4) After “therapeutic devices”, insert “and are not restricted goods”. 7 After subsection 25(4) Insert:    (4AA)    If: (a)  the therapeutic goods are not therapeutic devices and are restricted goods; and (b)  the evaluation of the goods for registration has been completed;                   the Secretary must: (c)  notify the applicant in writing of his or her decision on the evaluation within 28 days of the making of the decision and, in the case of a decision not to register the goods, of the reasons for the decision; and (d)  if the decision is to register the goods:                     (i)    notify the applicant in writing that he or she has notified the Minister under section 23AA; and                    (ii)    after the expiration of time within which a House of Parliament may disallow the instrument, and subject to disallowance of the instrument under section 23AA:                        (A)    notify the applicant in writing as soon as practicable that the goods will be included in the Register if the applicant gives the Secretary the certificate required under subsection 26B(1); and                         (B)    include the goods in the Register and give the applicant a certificate of registration if the applicant gives the Secretary the certificate required under subsection 26B(1).                   To avoid doubt, subject to disallowance of the instrument under section 23AA, if the applicant gives the Secretary the certificate required under subsection 26B(1), the Secretary must include the goods in the Register under subparagraph (d)(ii) without inquiring into the correctness of the certificate. I mean no disservice to the great civility, the grace and the thoughtfulness with which we have participated in this debate over the last 2½ days. But as a person of scientific training I put it to you that this question is no longer just science, and I summarise the amendments that I put to the chamber today as follows: if there is in the mind of every member in this place no doubt that RU486 is just another medication, then you will strike down my amendments. If it is your view that the laws we have for abortion in every state are immutable and that everything within those laws, everything that subscribes to those laws and is simply added to the menu of options for women, will never change, then you will strike down my amendments. And if you believe that there is no counter to that libertarian view that every individual, given the right information, can simply work their way through all the information and make an informed decision, that there is no need for a corridor of tolerability in the social services we deliver and that government has no role in that, then you will strike down these amendments. But, more importantly, we will uphold first and foremost that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is unimpugnable in its efforts to analyse the science. The debate is not about the science. We move beyond that with these amendments. But it is vital that the analysis of science never trumps the option to consider more detailed views in this place, and that is why many of us left our professions to come here and consider just those issues and never walk away from them, never avoid the truly tough decisions that we believe in our own hearts to be right. The unintended consequence of this bill is that it strips away that final look at decisions made by well-meaning, highly educated and expert bodies—and I list the TGA among those. This is an issue of science and then some, and we simply cannot airbrush away those extra issues. I do not share the views of the extremes of both sides of this debate, but I will fight for those views to be heard after we have had an informed debate. We have had an informed debate using overseas information filtered to us through different agencies but never—and this is a good thing in this bill—has that evidence been taken to the TGA. When it comes through, it will most likely recommend this drug as safe and this drug will come here and probably not be stopped by the proposals I recommend. They will go through both houses without a disallowable instrument ever being effective in stopping the drug. So do not mistake my actions today as an effort to scuttle RU486. Do not mistake my view, either, as one to complicate the debate. I stand here purely to leave that option open—to leave the option open for the tough decisions, through community views, to filter up here so that we do the things that we have, after all, been elected to do. Isn’t it ironic that the very 2½ days of energised debate we have had, without my amendment, will become impossible in the future? This amendment is about having the option to come back and do just what we are doing today. I take no pride in the fact that we keep the issue of abortion out of this chamber. We have managed to do it for decades on end and we think it is not something we want to raise here—it is too venomous and too difficult to resolve. That is not the attitude that we should be taking. Nor should we view this as just another pill—that is completely obvious. One hundred and thirty-seven of us have come down here in a conga line to express our feelings one after the other for 2½ days. So let us not fool ourselves that RU486 is anything as simple as a general therapeutic to be decided by an expert body. This is a medication; we know the mechanism of action and it raises great concerns with some. I am not asking us to adjudicate upon this as experts; clearly we are not. The TGA are the scientific experts aiding the women in this terrible predicament when they have to make these tough decisions. They have the frustration of infertility, to which we dedicate enormous efforts and resources. But, in the end, it is the community that sets what we do. It is not left to an expert body. So cast this not as politicians stepping into bedrooms nor parliamentarians stepping into consulting rooms. This is done with embryonic stem cell research and with therapeutic cloning. It is done in every state House when these tough decisions on abortion come back to parliament. I have argued that the use of a disallowable instrument is the best of the three options we have. One is to live with tough decisions; one is to use a disallowable instrument; and one is to legislate every time this question arises. 55 13:09:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 0 Dr STONE —I rise to reject the amendments moved by the member for Bowman. We have already rejected the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay, which did not change the status quo. Sadly, the amendments by the member for Bowman do not change the status quo, which has now persisted for more than 10 years. In 10 years, not a single pharmaceutical company has applied to have RU486 evaluated because the 1996 Harradine amendment politicised the process. His amendment exchanged the scientific evidence based evaluation of the drug by the TGA with a unilateral decision by the health minister of the day. It is not our task as elected representatives in this place to decide by what medical method a woman is given a pregnancy termination by her doctor. If we followed such logic to its conclusion we would be deciding by what surgical method a termination was performed. That is not our task as elected members in this our great democracy. Why? It is because abortions are a lawful procedure under certain circumstances in every state and territory, and that debate was settled some 30 years ago. This debate is not about women’s access to terminations. All of us would prefer, of course, fewer unwanted pregnancies and all of us, because of the personal trauma that is associated with having to have a termination, would want to work towards reducing the factors that lead to unwanted pregnancies. But this bill is not about better sex education and counselling. That is a debate for tomorrow. Nor can we ever accuse this parliament under our leadership of shirking any difficult decision. The bill being debated here today ensures that our parliament can again be assured that Australian doctors have the safest and best possible options available to help women patients who need to have a termination. It is as simple as that. The Laming amendments continue to politicise the decision about what the TGA recommends as the best, most safe options available to doctors. For example, we now have before the government three requests for approval of RU486 for use by individual doctors for their own patients. These three applications were lodged last December when the clinics saw the process had a chance of being returned to scientific assessment. Under the Laming amendments, each of these cases would be brought before the parliament and you could virtually guarantee they would be debated, even if the TGA had approved their applications. Ultimately, you would expect those debates to end up with the right outcome, but they would, I am quite sure, make our pharmaceutical companies in Australia think twice about trying to have a general application for this drug brought before the TGA. I repeat: it is not our political task to assess the safety of this or any drug. The TGA are amongst the world’s best and were set up to handle the evaluation and monitoring of all drugs in Australia. It is their business. We need to reject these amendments, well meaning as they are, and simply get on with the job. 56 13:13:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I was appalled at the statements by the Leader of the Opposition. He made them very definitively. He said that the Prime Minister should not have appointed a person to this portfolio who had certain beliefs. He then proceeded to use the example of appointing a pacifist as defence minister. My mind immediately leapt to the fact that one of the ALP’s greatest ever leaders, their war leader—Curtin—was a very avowed pacifist. Most people in Australia, the vast bulk, would say that he made a very good war leader. The sectarian nature of the attack upon the minister appalled me. I asked for the Hansard because I did not believe that he said it, but, if there was any doubt in anyone’s mind, he went on to give an example. So Kerry Nettle’s T-shirt lives on in this place. The Hansard speaks for itself. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —I am loath to do so, Mr Speaker, but I rise on a point of order. The stage of the debate we are in at the moment is addressing the amendments moved by Mr Laming, the member for Bowman. These remarks are not in any way relevant to that question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business is a valid point of order. I would ask the member for Kennedy to come back to the amendments before the chair. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —I have said what I have said, Mr Speaker. 57 13:14:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Bowman. In principle, this is because I recognise—and I commend this to the chamber—that the debate on the bill that is before the chamber today is more than merely a debate on the safety and efficacy of RU486. It is more than merely a debate about saying whether or not we as a parliament can delegate authority to the TGA or whether we as a parliament can rely solely on the advice of the TGA when it comes to restricted goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Much more than this, the reason the member’s amendments should be supported—the reason an amended bill should go through the chamber—is that the fact we have had 2½ days of debate on this topic underscores the fundamental importance and recognition in the Australian community that this debate is about more than safety and efficacy. There is a third dimension to this debate, and that is the question of morality in these kinds of debates. In saying that, I hasten to add that I am not someone who is seeking to impose my personal viewpoints on others—quite the contrary. What is clear from survey after survey throughout the Australian community is that Australians—irrespective of whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist or agnostic—hold very strong views on the issue of abortion. The simple fact that there are strong views highlights the fact that this issue embraces so much more than merely a consideration of safety and efficacy, particularly with respect to RU486. So if we accept the notion that there is more at stake than merely the safety and efficacy of RU486 and that there is this third issue dealing with the morality of these kinds of drugs and dealing with the fact that in the future we can expect there to be an increasing encroachment on moral and ethical issues with respect to restricted goods as science develops them further, then surely there is no better place than the floor of this parliament for us to consider whether or not we wish to have these kinds of drugs imported, legalised or restricted in any particular way by the TGA. I readily admit that the structure of the current bill is flawed. I indicated that in my speech last night. But we now have before us an opportunity to correct that flaw. We now have before us an opportunity to make an informed decision whereby this parliament can take the very best advice offered to it by the TGA and then put it in a much greater and more detailed matrix—one that looks at those other considerations and does not merely say that the only issues here are safety and efficacy. If we do only that it will be a sell-out for the Australian people. We could say to them that we are doing this because those who are opposed to the bill as it currently stands do so because they seek to impose their will on others, but that would be untrue. This is not about the imposition of any particular religious faith. This is not about whether or not the minister for health happens to be a Catholic. This is a fundamental decision that is underwritten by the Australian people, who have indicated their very strong views that abortion needs to be debated and that we as representatives of the people must exercise the will of the people by making these decisions come back to us to incorporate that third element. Certainly, no-one would argue that safety and efficacy considerations are best left to the TGA. This bill in no way undermines the ability to do that. But to deny that there is this third element—a third consideration—is to close one’s eyes to the fact that, irrespective of background, all Australians know that there is this third element to be considered. I strongly urge all members to get behind the amendments moved by the member for Bowman. They are considered amendments. They enable us to take the very best advice from the TGA, but also ensure that supreme in the decision making is the will of the Australian people. We, as representatives of the Australian people, should be the final arbiters on these very facts. 58 13:19:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I rise to speak against the amendments moved by the member for Bowman, though I believe he has moved them in extreme good faith and has argued very well for them in this place. The amendments before the chamber, and indeed this bill, are not, in my view, about the legality of abortion. That has been decided elsewhere in this country in the parliaments of our states and territories. It has been inevitable that in the course of dealing with this bill in the chamber people have made comments about their attitude toward abortion, and I understand that. Many members, including the minister for health, have adopted the Bill Clinton terminology that they would like to see a circumstance where abortion was safe, legal and rare. I agree with those comments. We would all like to see a circumstance where abortion was safe, legal and rare. But we need to be honest enough to say that that is not about parliamentary oversight and disallowance motions. If we were to truly live in a world where abortion was safe, legal and rare then we would need to live in a world where there was no sexual violence against women. We would need to live in a world where no woman was ever bullied or pressured into having sex. We would need to live in a world where the mass media did not continuously say to women that the sum of their self-worth was defined by their sexual desirability to men. We would need to live in a world where contraception never failed. We would need to live in a world where people understood how to use contraception. We would need to live in a world where medical science had defeated some of the most profound and disabling birth defects. I wish we lived in that world, and we should all be striving to attain it, but the stark reality is that we do not. When we do not live in that world it is inevitable that women from time to time—many with the heaviest of hearts—will exercise the decision to have an abortion. What we are debating today is no more than this: when they make that choice within the legal frameworks of the states and territories in which they live, should they have an option other than surgical abortion, provided that medical experts say that is safe and effective? I say that they should. I am pro-choice—I strenuously object to the terminology ‘pro-abortion’; I have never met anybody who is pro-abortion and I am not. I understand that those who have a different view about abortion to mine—those who are not pro-choice—might be concerned if there was evidence that the availability of RU486 increased the abortion rate. There is no such evidence. If you look around the world, there is no such evidence that RU486 increases the abortion rate. Whilst I respect the moral compass of those who do not believe in choice, I do not understand a circumstance where people say ‘morality lies in the method’. That is what I think we are looking at today. I do not see why people should say there is a moral difference between surgical abortions or medical abortions. I do not see how that can be put. The amendments moved by the member for Bowman would cause, if the TGA decided that RU486 was safe and effective, a disallowance debate on that. It would be inevitable that one member of this House and one member of the Senate, if not more, would move for disallowance. Let us just imagine that we were having that disallowance debate. Is anybody seriously suggesting that people would be coming up to the dispatch box and putting more expert views on the question of safety and effectiveness than the TGA had? No. People would be coming up to this dispatch box and putting their views on abortion. I do not think a disallowance procedure should be set in law which would mean that we refight the abortion debate inappropriately in this parliament time after time. I do not think that is right. I also think if these amendments were passed we would have an effective ban because no manufacturer would seek to put RU486 to the TGA for a safety and effectiveness assessment and spend all the money to get that done if they were then going to face the political vagaries of this place. It is on those grounds that I ask people to reject these amendments. I respect the fact that they were moved—I think it is good that we have canvassed the issue—but, ultimately, they are not acceptable, they should be rejected and we should vote for the bill. 59 13:24:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 0 Dr WASHER —I also wish to speak against the amendments of the member of Bowman. The amendments were moved in good faith, and I respect the member for Bowman. The amendments would not only defeat the purpose of the bill, allowing political interests to outweigh medical and scientific advice, but also magnify the existing uncertainty surrounding this drug. This uncertainty would almost certainly guarantee that no sponsor company would apply for importation and distribution of RU486 in Australia. In the unlikely situation of a company or companies applying, every application for RU486 and other abortifacients evaluated by the TGA would need to be again debated by this parliament. I respect every member who has contributed to this debate, but I do not think we need to repeat the arguments over and over. I urge all members to vote against these amendments. 59 13:25:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Mr HUNT —I wish to make three simple points in support of the Laming amendments. The first is that I believe, for those who wish to maintain the status quo, they should support these amendments because they preserve the sovereignty of parliament. On the alternative side, for those who would prefer change—and I respect and actually agree with the position outlined by the member for Lalor that the essential question in this debate is whether or not a new class of termination be made available to Australian women, that is, the class of medical termination—these amendments do not prevent that. It means that the ethical decision we take is not before the TGA makes its decision, which is what we are doing if we vote yes now, but afterwards. Why is that important? It is because the TGA (1) sets out its medical opinion, which I think it is consistent for this House to look at, but (2) sets out conditions for use. As somebody who supports the extension of the right to medical termination through the use of RU486, I believe that the appropriate time for the parliament to make the ethical decision is after the TGA has provided its information and set out the conditions in which it would apply. On either account, we are making an ethical decision, because if we decide yes now we are making the ethical decision that we give in-principle support for medical termination, if the TGA agrees. Alternatively, we would also be making an ethical decision but an ethical decision which says, ‘Given that the TGA has made its decision, we now give our ethical support but we do so on the basis of the best advice in Australia and the available conditions.’ So I respectfully disagree on that point. The final point on which I wish to respectfully disagree with all three speakers who have spoken against the amendments is the ‘time after time’ proposition. That is the notion that we would face a series of disallowance instruments over coming years. With great respect, that is a misconstruction of the bill and contrary to the information I have. It is a misconstruction because we would be called to decide not upon the circumstances of individual applications but upon a generic TGA application. The best advice I have is that, on the pipeline of abortifacients and their likelihood of being brought to Australia, this chamber is likely to face one disallowable instrument over the coming five years. I repeat: on the best advice I have available, it is not a question of ‘time after time’; it is one decision that is likely to be faced over the next five years because none of the other possible drugs is likely to be brought before the TGA for an application. For those reasons, I strongly support the Laming amendments. 60 13:29:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I rise to urge support for the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bowman and to plead with those people who voted to give the bill second reading approval to consider that the amendments of the member for Bowman actually incorporate what they principally want to achieve through the passage of this bill. The first part of the explanatory memorandum points out that this bill is designed to repeal ministerial approval and to leave approval with the Therapeutic Goods Administration over access to RU486. It goes on to say: The purpose of this bill is to remove responsibility for approval for RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing and to provide responsibility for approval of RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The amendments currently before the House pass that responsibility to the Therapeutic Goods Administration while also reserving to the House the opportunity, were the House to agree, to disallow that determination by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. These amendments enable honourable members on both sides of this debate to vote for them with a great sense of confidence and a great sense of comfort, knowing that the situation which will result in the event of the enactment of these amendments will be much better than the situation were these amendments to be defeated. Similarly, those members who opposed the second reading of the bill could vote for these amendments with confidence, knowing that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia will have a right to debate, if the parliament so desires, a determination of the Therapeutic Goods Administration with respect to RU486. I believe that the member for Bowman’s amendments are worthy of consideration, even by people who were very strong proponents of the bill in its unamended form. I plead with people who support the bill in its original form to consider that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bowman enact what they want to see while still reserving to the people’s representatives in both houses of the parliament the opportunity of expressing a view. The people of Australia elect us to make decisions on their behalf. I would be the first to admit that, as elected representatives, we cannot be technically expert in every aspect of medicine or every aspect of law. The proposal put forward by the member for Bowman recognises the primacy of, I suppose you would say, the scientific knowledge of the Therapeutic Goods Administration while also reserving to us, the representatives of the people, the opportunity to pass a view in the event that either house of the parliament might not agree with the decision of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I commend the amendments to the House. 61 13:32:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I want to encourage the parliament to see an opportunity today to arrive at something approaching a consensus view on this bill. We have that opportunity. I am one who did not support the bill when given the opportunity during the second reading debate. A lot has been said about the bill. Speakers from all perspectives have had their say on it. And do you know what? We are all respectful of our representative democracy—our parliamentary representation. We would be mugs if we did not accept the outcome of this vote, which very clearly will be to see the passage of the bill through the parliament. I may not be very happy about that; I may prefer that it fail. However, in good faith, what anyone of us can do is to least accept the outcome. The verdict of this chamber will be that the bill, either amended or unamended, will pass this chamber—hopefully amended—and returned to the Senate to be ratified. But let me ask this: why don’t all the speakers who have begun their speeches by saying ‘I respect the view of others’ put that into practice and show some respect for the people who, in good faith, have put up an amendment which basically seeks to deliver the broad outcomes of the bill, which is the repeal of any ministerial involvement in the approval of an abortifacient drug? Show some good faith. In fact, both the Kelly and the Laming amendments sought to give some ground in good faith. We are now only debating the member for Bowman’s amendments. I think they show good faith; they give some ground. Equally, it has to be said that not one member who has spoken against the Laming amendments has been willing to concede the point that abortifacients do amount to a different and separate class of drug—not one. Why can’t we hear somebody acknowledge—if you are not a fundamentalist on this issue then please acknowledge—that a drug which does not have a therapeutic use, a drug which does not actually cure a medical disease, should be treated differently? This is not a difficult intellectual argument. If you are not an ideologue, if you are not a fundamentalist on this issue, then please take some sense from this. Equally, if this is not in any way linked to a moral issue then why are we having a conscience vote? Why have our respective party leaders recognise that this is not just about process, that there is more to this issue than just expert advice? With great respect, the Minister for Workforce Participation said that it is not our political task to assess the safety and efficacy of medicines. I absolutely agree. That is quite true. The purpose of the Laming amendments is not in any way to molest that concept. In fact, one of the Laming amendments supports what the minister has said but adds a further dimension by recognising that members of the TGA are not appointed on the basis of their ethical background or ethical expertise. To say that this class of drug should be the domain of only scientific experts is greatly disrespectful of parliamentary democracy. I am prepared to concede that to say that the TGA is not able to provide advice is disrespectful to science and to the Public Service. I ask this chamber to again consider whether it is fair and reasonable to obtain consensus on this issue. We can deliver it. We can send a message to the Australian people that we believe that the parliament has an important role in assessing the future use of these drugs while, at the same time, accepting expert medical advice where that is appropriate. I urge all my colleagues and others involved to show good faith, to give some ground and to acknowledge that we have an opportunity to achieve consensus on this issue. So I beg you, I urge you, to support the Laming amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Laming’s) be agreed to. 13:41:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 56 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Bishop, B.K. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. * Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Hardgrave, G.D. Hayes, C.P. Hockey, J.B. Howard, J.W. Hunt, G.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Lloyd, J.E. Markus, L. McGauran, P.J. Murphy, J.P. Neville, P.C. O’Connor, G.M. Panopoulos, S. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Somlyay, A.M. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. 90 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Billson, B.F. Bird, S. Bishop, J.I. Bowen, C. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Burke, A.E. Cobb, J.K. Corcoran, A.K. Costello, P.H. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Entsch, W.G. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Gambaro, T. Garrett, P. Gash, J. Georganas, S. George, J. Georgiou, P. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Haase, B.W. Hall, J.G. * Hartsuyker, L. Hatton, M.J. Henry, S. Hoare, K.J. Hull, K.E. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Livermore, K.F. Macfarlane, I.E. Macklin, J.L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Prosser, G.D. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, A.D.H. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thompson, C.P. Thomson, K.J. Ticehurst, K.V. Vamvakinou, M. Washer, M.J. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —I just want to record that, the amendments having been defeated, I support the bill—if that just could be recorded. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and that will be noted. 63 Dr WASHER (Moore) 13:51:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 63 Committees 63 63 63 13:52:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Chancery, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to construct a new purpose-built chancery for the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia at an estimated cost of $19.93 million. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade accepts and will implement those recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction would begin in September this year, with practical completion and occupation scheduled for March-April 2008. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 63 63 13:53:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Chancery, Rangoon, Burma. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to construct a new purpose-built chancery building for the Australian Embassy in Rangoon, Burma at an estimated cost of $12.87 million. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction would begin in September this year with practical completion and occupation scheduled for March 2008. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 63 63 13:54:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: 171st Aviation Squadron relocation, Holsworthy Barracks, NSW. The Department of Defence proposes the construction of facilities, at an estimated out-turned cost of $92 million, to enable the relocation of the 171st Aviation Squadron to Holsworthy Barracks, New South Wales. In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Defence accepts and will implement these recommendations. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is planned to commence in May this year and be completed by mid-2008. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 64 Motions 64 13:56:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 4, private members business, relating to the Avoiding Dangers Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2005 being called on forthwith to provide the House with an immediate chance to further debate and vote on the bill in the light of the following reasons: the fact that today is the first anniversary of the Kyoto protocol coming into effect after being ratified by 158 countries in the EU; climate change remains the number one environmental challenge facing the global community; not ratifying the Kyoto protocol means that Australia is restricted from the economic opportunities arising from the global carbon trading market; not ratifying the Kyoto protocol means that Australian companies will not be able to benefit from the clean development mechanism; not ratifying the Kyoto protocol means that Australia cannot benefit from the joint implementation mechanism of the protocol; not ratifying the Kyoto protocol and establishing a national emissions trading scheme means Australian companies cannot minimise the cost of adjusting to a carbon constrained economy; as Australia is on track to meet our Kyoto protocol target of 108 per cent of 1990 emissions by 2012, there is no logical reason for Australia to remain outside the international framework; Australia’s ability to influence UN climate change agreements is undermined by our isolationist position—the December 2005 UN Montreal Climate Summit agreed to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012; international security is advanced through agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, which promote a common purpose; and climate change is the ultimate intergenerational issue—our response will determine the quality of life of our children and grandchildren. I do this because if debate on the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2005 is not brought on today the matter will drop off the Notice Paper. One of the things that we need to do is make sure that there is appropriate discussion and determination in this parliament. In spite of the rhetoric of those opposite, the Montreal conference agreed to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012. That means that, by Australia being isolated through not being a party to the protocol, we are excluding ourselves from participation. Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 13:58:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 64 13:58:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I second this very important motion. This is a very critical issue. Today is the first anniversary of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Australia stands out in being isolated from the rest of the global community on the No. 1 issue facing the world. As the member for Grayndler pointed out, Australia and the United States alone have refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol; yet, when the issue was first debated, at the time the government talked about Kyoto being a win-win situation. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Why don’t you put Australia first? JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms GEORGE —I am putting Australia first. We saw on the Four Corners program recently the extent to which this government is interfering with the objective scientific information that should be available to the whole Australian community about the No. 1 global challenge facing mankind into the future. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 65 Ministerial Arrangements 65 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. As some members may be aware, his father died at midnight last night. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —I would be grateful if the Prime Minister could pass on the best wishes of members on this side of the House to the Minister for Trade in what is a very sad situation for him. 65 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 65 14:00:00 65 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s 31 October 2005 statement to parliament: ... having received in the case of Australia full responses and cooperation and full documentation, if there were anything lacking in the behaviour of Australia in relation to her obligations the Volcker inquiry would have so reported. I also refer to the fact that the WEA provided no documents to the Volcker inquiry. Given that the Wheat Export Authority was the government authority responsible for monitoring AWB export contracts and that its documents were of direct relevance to the Volcker inquiry, why did the Prime Minister totally mislead parliament on 31 October when he said that he had provided full documentation to Volcker? 65 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I did not mislead the House. Let me repeat that the information that I gave in that answer was a very fair and accurate reflection of the way in which the government had responded to Volcker. Let me further inform the House that the Chief Executive Officer of WEA has advised his minister—and I have in turn been advised—that he and senior members of his staff met with the UN senior investigator, Bernard O’Donnell, and his assistant, Mr Trevor Sutton, at WEA offices in Canberra on 25 February 2005. WEA informed O’Donnell of the role of WEA and of the confidentiality constraints of the Wheat Marketing Act as well as those between WEA and AWB International. WEA advised that, in order to provide material to the Volcker inquiry, WEA would require the consent of AWB International. The authority suggested that the detailed material being requested by Volcker would most likely be held by AWBI. O’Donnell acknowledged the WEA’s position and informed the authority that he would shortly meet AWBI people in Melbourne. It is perfectly plain from that that we have followed a transparent process. Once again, this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to misrepresent the behaviour of the government, to slur decent public servants and to slur decent ministers is being exposed for what it is. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition—who prances around this country feigning outrage—that, alone among the governments of this world, the government I lead has established a transparent inquiry with the powers of a royal commission, and they will get to the bottom of it. I look forward to debating the conclusion of that inquiry with the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament. 66 66 14:04:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of steps the United Kingdom has taken in response to the Volcker report. 66 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Blair for his question and his interest. As I think the House is beginning to know now, the final Volcker report was issued in October 2005, very recently. Like Australia, the United Kingdom government fully cooperated, to the best of my understanding, with the Volcker commission, but in the final report there were 14 British companies named as having been involved with illicit payments, including two from the giant pharmaceutical group Glaxo, which I think honourable members would be familiar with. By the way, the report also named a number of UK personalities as having received barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein, including the member of the House of Commons for Bethnal Green and Bow, Mr George Galloway. Honourable members will remember that this once Labour member of parliament was a very strong supporter of Saddam Hussein. Following the publication of the Volcker report—and there is absolutely no evidence that the British government had any involvement in or complicity with the payment of kickbacks by the 14 British companies—the British government stated, on 22 November last year, that it would bring the report to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office and they would review Volcker to determine whether further investigations were warranted. But what the British government did not do—and made perfectly clear it would not do—was set up a separate independent inquiry or a royal commission. In saying that, I make no criticism of the British government, despite the fact that there were 14 British companies involved. What is interesting is that there are not allegations in Britain that the British government should have known all about those 14 companies being involved in making illicit payments to entities in Saddam Hussein’s regime. It simply follows that in this country the government has set up an independent commission of inquiry with all the powers of a royal commission, and that independent commission of inquiry is able to review all of the evidence and to make findings. We look forward to hearing what the Cole commission has to say on or around 31 March when it is scheduled to complete its work. But I make the point that, of the 65 other countries which had over 2,000 companies that Volcker found had been involved in kickbacks—14 in the UK, four in Canada, 15 in Sweden, over 50 in Germany, two in New Zealand, 21 in Denmark and over 50 in Switzerland—none has set up an inquiry that is commensurate with the Cole inquiry. None of them has set up a transparent and open process in the way we have. And I know, from the response our diplomats are getting around the world, that what the Australian government has done in response to this has been well received and well regarded. 66 66 14:07:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows my previous question, in particular the character of the answer he gave. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement to parliament this week: We established this inquiry because Volcker had made an adverse finding about AWB Ltd and other companies; he did not make an adverse finding about the Australian government. If he had, then the terms of reference— for the Cole inquiry— would have gone further than they have. How can this claim have any credibility, now that we know that the Volcker inquiry did not receive full documentation from the Australian government, as your last answer amply demonstrated? Isn’t the Prime Minister’s entire Volcker defence constructed on the basis of a lie? 67 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The answer to the question is no. The chain of events is very simple. Volcker carried out an investigation. He had the full cooperation of this government. Whether he had the full cooperation of other governments, or the full cooperation of AWB Ltd, is a matter for those respective parties to answer. It is worth reminding the House that even Volcker said in his finding that there was no direct evidence that AWB Ltd knew of the kickbacks, rather that they should have known. There was no finding against the government—none at all. And not a skerrick of evidence has been produced by the Leader of the Opposition to justify the falsehood that he continues to assert in this parliament. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to produce some evidence as distinct from just rhetorical assertions. They have spent a couple of weeks slurring the reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister. They have spent a couple of weeks slurring the reputations of senior public servants in the government. All the while, we have an inquiry going on in a manner transparent beyond, I believe, any other government’s investigation in the aftermath of the Volcker inquiry. Australia alone has established an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission. No other government has been willing to do that. And as a result of that inquiry the blame will fall where it may. We have established an inquiry under the chairmanship of an outstanding Australian lawyer. He says clearly that he has ample powers to make findings of fact ‘in relation to the behaviour of the Commonwealth’. He does not say ‘the public servants’. He does not say ‘the WEA’. He says generically ‘the Commonwealth’. That includes everybody who is part of the Commonwealth. If he needs additional terms of reference, he will ask for them; and undoubtedly that request will be met. In the light of all of that, this is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to mislead the Australian people, to assert falsely that there were 10, 12, 13—what will it be at the weekend: 20?—warnings given to the Australian government. In reality those assertions are falsehoods. I reject them on my own behalf and I reject them on behalf of my government. 67 Distinguished Visitors 67 14:11:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Phil Gramm, a former US senator. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 67 14:12:00 Questions Without Notice 67 14:12:00 67 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the United Nations’ role in the oil for food program and what steps it took in response to the Volcker report? 67 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —Mr Speaker, first I would like to join you in saying how pleased I am that Phil Gramm is here. It is good to see a former distinguished senator in this place. I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. As I said in answer to the previous question that I was asked, the Volcker report was issued at the end of last year. It made clear that the oil for food program was administered by the United Nations. On page 28 of volume II in a section entitled ‘Management of the Oil-for-Food Program’ Volcker said: The contract was forwarded through the company’s home country mission to the ...  Contracts Processing and Monitoring Division, where it was subject to review for the details of pricing and value ... ... the contract was then subject to the 661 Committee’s— that is, of the UN— review and approval ... Upon approval of a goods contracts, the goods could be transported into Iraq. Volcker makes conclusions about the central failings of the United Nations in administering the oil for food program. He says that Benon Sevan, who was the Executive Director of the Office of the Iraq Program, ‘failed to maintain and support the officers’ responsibilities’. He also said that members of the Security Council and of the 661 Committee ‘must shoulder their share of the blame in providing uneven and wavering direction in the implementation of the program’. In a press release Mr Volcker said: The central conclusion of the Volcker Committee was the failures in UN oversight in management. He also said: The need for stronger executive leadership, thoroughgoing administrative reform and more reliable controls and auditing with the UN is understood. I do not think there is much debate—the Secretary-General of the UN would agree with this—that the UN did fail in administering the oil for food program. Kofi Annan, as the Secretary-General, has accepted responsibility for that. Had there been warning signs for the Australian government in the information that the opposition argues are warning signs, then it logically follows that there were warning signs for the other 65 countries who had companies involved in the so-called kickbacks. Yet we were apparently the only country in the world, according to the opposition, which was supposed to have detected those warnings. The fact that the other 65 failed to detect the warnings is all right! We should have been able to detect the warning signs. It simply demonstrates two things. First of all, the opposition do not know how the program worked. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that they have spent a long time making puerile party political points, and I am sure the great public of Australia reject their cheapskate politicking. 68 68 14:15:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister point out to the parliament where it says in this document—that is, Mr Volcker’s terms of reference—that Mr Volcker was able to make any findings about national governments, including the Australian government? 68 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I merely draw the member for Griffith’s attention to the Volcker report. He was not reluctant to make adverse findings about anybody who deserved criticism. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. 68 68 14:15:00 Draper, Trish, MP 0L6 Makin LP 1 Mrs DRAPER —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the benefits to state services from tax reform? Are there any other views on the benefits of tax reform? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I distinctly heard the honourable member make a disparaging remark about the Prime Minister, and I would ask him to withdraw it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Which member? XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —The member for Griffith. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith will withdraw. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —To assist the House, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. 0L6 Draper, Trish, MP Mrs DRAPER —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. As I asked before, would the Treasurer advise the House of the benefits to state services from tax reform? Are there any other views on the benefits of tax reform? 69 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I can inform her that in 2000 as part of A New Tax System the government introduced the largest tax reform in Australia’s history, abolishing wholesale sales tax, bed tax, financial institutions duty, bank account debits tax, stamp duty on marketable securities and other taxes in return for the introduction of a uniform rate 10 per cent GST. Every single dollar of that GST goes to state governments. Every single dollar, by legislation, goes to state governments. Since 2000, $150 billion has gone to the state governments of Australia and of this South Australia has received $17.3 billion, including a $402 million windfall over and above what it would have received had it kept the old taxes and had they been adjusted in accordance with the growth. That is the basis of the South Australian economy at the moment, and that is what is underpinning government services in South Australia. So I was concerned to see the member for Makin send me a leaflet, which is now being circulated in South Australia on behalf of the South Australian Labor government, which claims: The federal Liberals are collecting tax revenues and the Rann government keeps delivering quality services. What does it say the tax revenue is that the federal government is collecting? GST. Let me make it clear that every last dollar of GST is being received by state governments and in South Australia in 2005-06 that is $3,394 million. It is projected to be $3,573 million the next year and $3,723 million the year after. This leaflet, which carries disgusting lies, is authorised by one D. Feeney, who I believe is a Victorian Senate candidate. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Who’s he knocking off? CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —He is in the anti member for Hotham cabal, in the pro-Conroy faction. I welcome the member for Hotham back today. I hope the doorknocking went very well! It is good to see you, and we hope to see you back here far more often! He is part of the Conroy-Marles-Shorten-Pakula disgusting factional group down there in Victoria and has moved across to South Australia, where he is running leaflets claiming that the federal government collects GST. I call on Premier Rann today to dissociate himself from Mr Feeney, to withdraw that leaflet, to apologise to all South Australians and to not go into an election on the basis of disgusting lies like that. If Mr Rann, the Premier of South Australia, has a shred of honesty, he will have that leaflet withdrawn. I will make another offer. He could leave that leaflet out there and return $3,394 million to the Commonwealth government. We will give him the choice. He can keep the leaflet and send back $3,394 million or he can keep the $3,394 million and get rid of the leaflet. The choice is yours, Mr Rann. How about a bit of honesty in the South Australian elections? 70 70 14:21:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, could I assure you that we do accept the Treasurer’s expertise in disgusting factionalism! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the legal opinion— Government members interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —You are such a gutless goose, aren’t you? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I withdraw. My question is to the Prime Minister. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The remark is quite in order. Nobody better than the Leader of the Opposition would know a disgusting, gutless goose if he saw one! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to legal opinion provided by former president of the Law Council of Australia and former commission of inquiry head, Mr Bret Walker SC, which states: The full deployment of the royal commission’s power— talking about the Cole commission— to investigate and make findings of fact cannot squarely address the question whether there has been any Commonwealth wrongdoing. Given that Mr Walker’s legal opinion is based on an analysis of both Mr Cole’s existing terms of reference and Mr Cole’s subsequent statement explaining his terms of reference, will the Prime Minister now widen Mr Cole’s powers so he is totally unfettered in uncovering the truth of who is responsible for this $300 million wheat for weapons scandal? 70 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Without in any way criticising the legal expertise of Mr Walker, which I do not seek to do, the unavoidable reality for the Leader of the Opposition is that Mr Cole QC—whose repute in the legal profession is at least the equal of that of Mr Walker if not, given his greater experience, superior—has made it very plain that he has ample powers to make the relevant findings of fact. He has made it perfectly plain that if he wants additional terms of reference he will ask for them. Both by our response to date and by what I have said, if he asks for wider terms of reference, he will get them. 70 70 14:24:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 Mr VASTA —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House how the government is boosting the number of doctors in Queensland? What barriers does the government face in lifting doctor numbers in my state? 70 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I can assure him that this government does not just talk about more medical student places; we are actually delivering more doctors for people right around Australia, particularly in the great state of Queensland. Since 2000 the number of publicly funded first-year medical student places has increased by 30 per cent. By 2011 the number of medical graduates a year will increase from the current level of about 1,300 to 2,100—that is a 60 per cent increase—thanks to already implemented measures by this government. Premier Beattie persists in claiming that Queensland’s doctor shortage is somehow all the federal government’s fault, even though the number of medical graduates a year in Queensland has increased by 25 per cent since 1996, even though the Howard government has established three new medical schools in Queensland and even though the number of publicly funded first-year medical student places in Queensland has almost doubled from just over 200 to over 400 since 1996. The problem in Queensland is not so much a shortage of doctors but a shortage of doctors who are prepared to work in hospitals run by the Beattie Labor government. Last year 761 doctors resigned from Queens-land public hospitals in just eight months. That is a 20 per cent staff turnover in just six months. What does it say about the quality of the management of the Queensland public hospital system that in two years they have lost 1,691 from Queensland public hospitals? That is a 40 per cent staff turnover in just two years. That is a disgraceful, appalling result and it is wholly and solely the responsibility of the Beattie Labor government. Premier Beattie says that this does not matter because they have recently appointed some 825 doctors to Queensland public hospitals. So they are replacing experienced doctors with inexperienced doctors and they are replacing Australian trained doctors largely with foreign trained doctors. That certainly does not encourage people to have confidence in the public hospitals of Queens-land. I ask the people of Queensland: who do you trust? Do you trust the Howard government, which is delivering more medical student places, or Premier Beattie? Why would you ever trust a government which has lost 40 per cent of its own public hospital doctors in just two years? 71 71 14:28:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr Brendan Stewart, the AWB chairman, told Mr Volcker in a letter dated 20 September last year that: AWB did not make or conceal any illicit payments to the former Iraqi regime. And elsewhere: For example, it is obvious from your latest report that the committee is concerned about the use of fees for fictitious trucking services paid to alleged transport companies. AWB played no part in this. We did not sit within this category. Given these statements and many others that I could have read out by Mr Stewart, which have now been shown to be demonstrably false, why did the Prime Minister yesterday invite Mr Stewart to join the delegation to Iraq? 71 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not have direct knowledge of that letter, but I will have a look at it. But let us accept for the purposes of the question that the letter was written. It remains the assertion of Mr Stewart—repeated to me and to my colleagues yesterday—that he was not aware of the matters that are the subject— Opposition members interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I have been asked a question. I am precisely responding to the question that was asked. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has the call. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —It goes, Mr Speaker, to an orderly investigation of this matter. I know that a lot of evidence against AWB people has been given before the Cole commission, but unless and until the company and all of its officers, including its chairman, its former chairman and its managing directors, and any other directors who may be called, have had an opportunity to give their evidence and until the Cole inquiry has made a finding in relation to these matters, we must respect the process. We are big in this place, when it suits our political purposes—the Labor Party is a good example of this—on saying, ‘Let’s have a process. Let it be examined.’ I know it does not look good at the moment for AWB, but let them have their full day in court. That is what is meant to be the rule of law that governs this place. It is meant to be the rule by which all of us live. Let us have a full laying out of all of the facts before the Cole inquiry, and let this very fine lawyer bring down his findings. The Leader of the Opposition asked me against that background why Mr Brendan Stewart will accompany the Deputy Prime Minister to Iraq. It is for the very simple reason—and I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have understood this; I would have thought it was obvious why he is to accompany us—that AWB Ltd holds the pool. The advice I currently have is that, if you are to sell wheat into Iraq and you are to participate in the latest tender, the only wheat that is available is the wheat legally controlled by AWB Ltd. Unless the Leader of the Opposition is into acquisition of property on unjust terms, unless the Leader of the Opposition is into breaking the Constitution of Australia, we have to deal with the legal holder and controller of that wheat. So I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that, of all the questions he has asked on this issue, that really is a very silly question to ask. Mr Brendan Stewart is going for that reason. In the delegation there will be representatives of the wheat industry and there may be others who represent the interests that are involved in this issue. But this is a government mission. It will be led by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. The purpose of the mission is not to score political points, like the Leader of the Opposition. The purpose of the mission is to look after the Australian wheat growers. 72 72 14:32:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House what the federal government is doing to provide students in government schools with adequate facilities all across Australia and, in particular, in my electorate of Kingston? 72 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the member for Kingston for his question, and note his deep interest in schools in his electorate. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that recently I announced the outcome of round 2 for the $1 billion Investing in our Schools Program in the ACT, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Under round 2 for these areas, $36 million has been invested in schools. Under round 1 of the $1 billion Investing in our Schools Program, the Australian government has funded $100 million in 4,040 projects in 2,614 schools across Australia. Let us remember what this program is about. The Australian government is responding to a failure on the part of state and territory governments to adequately maintain schools owned and operated by state and territory governments. That is why $700 million of this billion dollar program is directed to state and territory government schools for basic infrastructure for those schools. This has been an incredibly popular program. Members on this side of the House will recall how excited teachers, parents and students were to be able to get funding for some basic infrastructure needs for their schools. We have been able to provide funding for airconditioning, for shade structures, for toilet blocks—some had not been renovated in 20 or 30 years. The member for Kingston will be delighted with the outcome in his electorate. Over $639,000 was provided to schools in his electorate, and I trust that schools in his electorate will also apply for funding in round 2. I suspect that one of the biggest fans of this program is the member for Jagajaga. She would have been so excited to have been able to announce that 28 Victorian government schools in the electorate of Jagajaga received over $883,000 for basic infrastructure. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —See what a fan she is of this billion dollar program on the part of the Howard government! This program is evidence of the Australian government’s commitment to ensuring the best outcomes in education for all Australian schools. That is why we are investing $33 billion over the next four years in Australian schools. 73 73 14:36:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows from the one I asked him previously. It goes further to the letter from which I quoted, where Mr Stewart, on behalf of AWB, says: AWB did not use or make payments to a fictitious transport company. As far as AWB knew, the inland transportation component of its UN approved contracts was legitimate. Given that this letter was copied to you, Prime Minister—even though you seem to think you have no knowledge of it—and that the materials in it are so demonstrably false in terms of everything that has been presented to the Cole commission and to Volcker’s own inquiries, is there no other person in the grain business capable of conducting this foray to Iraq effectively other than Mr Stewart, who is so deeply compromised by these things? 73 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, as of now, as I understand it, there has not been evidence presented which directly contradicts the position taken by Mr Stewart—and he is yet to be given his opportunity. I would have thought that ordinary principles of justice entitle that man to be heard. I thought the Labor Party once stood for ordinary principles of justice. I thought the once-great Australian Labor Party believed in the Aussie fair go. I thought the idea was that you were innocent until you were proven guilty. But apparently the Labor Party does not believe in that. I am following the evidence that is being presented to the Cole inquiry very closely, but I intend to withhold judgment until that very learned commissioner, widely respected in Australian legal and corporate circles, has brought down his conclusions. I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that AWB Ltd is a public company. I would remind him that many of the shareholders of AWB Ltd are in fact Australian wheat growers. I would further remind him— WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne Ports is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —that it is in the interests of Australian wheat growers, being shareholders in AWB Ltd, that the difficult situation in which the company now finds itself is not further aggravated by statements made without any basis in fact. The proper thing to do, the decent thing to do, is the approach that was advocated by a former Labor trade minister before the Senate estimates committee on 23 June 1994—and I refer to the member for Canberra, I think it was; a former trade minister—when he was asked certain questions in relation to an inquiry, believe it or not, into Centenary House. Do you remember that? This is what he had to say: But this is a matter, I understand, being inquired into by the judicial inquiry and I think it should be left there. And, properly enough, Senator Kemp, on behalf of the then opposition, said: I take your point. I am aware that there is a major inquiry— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was about the delegation going to Iraq and whether in Co-operative Bulk Handling, the Grains Council or somewhere else there is not a person capable— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition asked quite a wide-ranging question which covered quite a few areas. The Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Brendan Stewart is the executive chairman of AWB Ltd. No adverse findings have been made against him by Commissioner Cole. The commission goes on. AWB Ltd is the holder of the wheat pool. If we are to have a satisfactory outcome for the wheat growers of Australia and not some kind of political hit scored by one side or the other in this parliament, if we are really interested in selling wheat to Iraq, we really do need to have the company that owns the wheat involved in some way. It is in fact quite hard to sell wheat that you do not have. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could sit down and think about that. Here he is, saying: ‘Get the wheat into Iraq. Find our market. Save our farmers.’ In order to do that, you have to at least deal—at a minimum—on a commercial basis with the holder of the wheat. Doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition understand the way in which AWB Ltd is involved? It has acquired the wheat from the wheat growers. Why doesn’t he talk to the member for Hotham? He would tell him. Why doesn’t he talk to Gavvy over there? He would tell him. They know something about primary industry in Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, in order to try and score a political point, is completely losing track of how all this works. We have an inquiry. Let it get on with its job. In the meantime, let the Deputy Prime Minister lead a delegation to Iraq on behalf of Australian wheat growers. 74 74 14:42:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 Mr LINDSAY —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister advise the House of how the government is investing in new capabilities for the Australian Defence Force? 74 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Herbert for his question, and I say to the 3½ thousand defence personnel in Townsville that they have no stronger advocate in this country than the member for Herbert. If there is anything in particular that they want me to know, he will transmit that directly to me. The first responsibility of any government is the defence of the country, the defence of Australia. All the people on this side of the House—and, I suspect, former senator Phil Graham—know this only too well. There are two things that are required if you are going to be well equipped to defend your country. The first is that you have to have political will. There has to be a determination to ensure that Defence is well equipped and well ahead of the technological and strategic changes throughout the world. The second thing you need is money. When this government came to office in 1996, 10 years ago, we had at that stage a defence force where only 42 per cent of our troops were combat ready. Today it is 62 per cent. We had a $10.3 billion deficit. We had serious problems with our submarines, given to us by a Labor government. What this government did in consolidating the finances of the country and to make sure that Australia had a strong economy was to make sure that Australia spent less than it earned. But the one area that was not reduced in expenditure at all was defence. At that time, this coalition, the Howard government, transferred through efficiency programs some $900 million from the tail of Defence, from the back-end offices, to the front end of Defence. The government’s vision for Defence was set out in a white paper in 2000, and over the 10-year period we committed to spending an extra $28½ billion on defence capability. We have already rolled out an additional $7 billion and that means, in plain language, almost 60 Abrams heavy tanks as well as unmanned aerial vehicles. We are also going to build three Australian air warfare destroyers. We are committed to building and purchasing two amphibious ships, which will carry up to 1,000 troops. We are also committed to 140 defence capability projects as a result of this. This government is also determined to strengthen our Army. In December last year we announced a $1½ billion increased investment in the Australian Army to make sure that it is mobile, that it can protect and that it also has significant fire power—something that the Leader of the Opposition certainly does not have in relation to the member for Hotham or the member for Corio. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that this government, under no circumstances, will be spooked by a political party of Paris Hiltons into doing anything other than making sure that the defence of Australia, the security of our region and the commitment to our international strategic interests are our No. 1 priority. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take offence at the minister referring to any political party which includes a distinguished veteran, the member for Cowan, as a ‘party of Paris Hiltons’. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think the member for Prospect has made his point. 75 75 14:46:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the former AWB chairman and National Party candidate Trevor Flugge was a representative of the Howard government on the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq? Can the Prime Minister inform the parliament how long this appointment lasted, whether his position was funded by the Australian taxpayer to the tune of $700,000 and whether this amount was paid to Mr Flugge by Australia’s aid agency, AusAID? 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I certainly know Mr Trevor Flugge; as indeed do those opposite. Mr Flugge was appointed to the Australian Wheat Board in 1984 by the Hawke government. He was Deputy Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board from 1990 to 1995, presumably an appointment made during the terms of office of both the Hawke and the Keating governments, and he was a director and chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, as it was then known, from 1995—that would have been under the Keating government—until 2002. I do not disguise for a moment the fact that the government sought the involvement of Mr Flugge in post-Saddam Iraq. I will tell you why we sought his involvement: it was because our principal concern at that time was to stop American wheat growers from getting our markets. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Griffith has asked his question. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —It is about time the member for Griffith understood and recalled his own rhetoric from those days. His own rhetoric in 2002-03 was essentially that the government should get out of the way and leave it all to the AWB. That is what the member for Griffith was saying. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Come on! We want to know how much he was paid. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Griffith continues to interject, having been constantly reminded. He is warned. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He would have been remunerated. As to the precise amount and the precise source, I will obtain information on that and I will advise the member for Griffith. We are not disguising for a moment the fact that we encouraged the appointment of Mr Flugge. We thought Mr Flugge would fight hard for the Australian wheat industry. I do not remember the opposition saying at the time that it was a bad appointment. In fact, they said the opposite—just as in 2003 he was yelling from the rooftops that Downer and Howard should get out of the way and leave it all to the Australian Wheat Board. That is what he was saying. I go through those press statements with great interest—with great relish. The Labor Party are so hypocritical on this subject. Way back in 2002-03, they would not have a word said against AWB Ltd. Now they invite us to believe that, all along, they knew about it, we knew about it, the alarm bells were ringing and the warning bells were there. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Yes. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. 76 76 14:50:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 Mr CIOBO —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House of measures the government is taking to ensure the safety of air traffic between Australia and Indonesia? 76 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr TRUSS —I am very pleased to inform the honourable member that the Indonesian government is set to trial a new air surveillance system developed by Airservices Australia in alliance with the international airline data communications provider, SITA Inc. This trial will involve a new airspace surveillance technology, called Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcasting, or ADSB, and it will begin in Indonesia in May 2006. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —I would have thought honourable members opposite would be rather interested in the safety of air traffic between Australia and Indonesia, but it would seem that their minds are on other things. The reality is that there are about 60,000 flights in and out of Australia and through Australian-Indonesian air space every year. Close to half of those flights are operated by Qantas. There have been concerns about the safety of Indonesian air space management and this, therefore, is a significant step forward. It is sophisticated new technology and it involves aircraft broadcasting their position every second, with the signal being picked up by ground based ADSB receivers and forwarded to air traffic controllers. This technology is particularly well suited to countries with difficult terrain, and it is being assessed with the potential of it being introduced in Australia. We hope, in fact, that Australia will become the first country in the world to introduce this new technology by 2007. It has greater capacity to cover an entire country than the existing radar networks and will undoubtedly improve the management of international airspace. In addition to these initiatives, we are moving close to completing a $1.1 million project focusing on improved screening of passengers at Denpasar and Jakarta airports. We have got three transport specialist security people in Jakarta to work cooperatively with the local people to endeavour to upgrade security arrangements, and our last port of call project will help countries which operate flights into Australia to upgrade their security. That is important not just for the safety of travellers in those countries but also to protect our own skies so that we do not import into this country from a last port of call someone with ill intent to our country. So we are undertaking very significant steps to improve the security and the management of our airspace to our near north. This development of ADSB technology and its introduction in Indonesia is a world first and will make a very significant improvement in the safety of the region. 77 77 14:53:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether Mr Flugge and Mr Long had a role in providing advice to the Coalition Provisional Authority on the implementation of the June 2003 memorandum of instruction which directed that a list of oil for food contracts which had 10 per cent kickbacks to them be prepared? 77 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not know. I will find out and let him know. 77 77 14:54:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House of the government’s national security information campaign, in particular the work of the national security hotline? 77 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr RUDDOCK —I do thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. I know of his interest in matters relating to law and order and security. Of course the national security public information campaign has been very successful in raising awareness in the Australian community of the hotline and its role. The fourth and final scheduled burst of advertising for the current campaign will start this Sunday for three weeks. The campaign will feature television, press, transit and outdoor advertising. Of course it is there to remind people of the importance of being vigilant in identifying possible signs of terrorism and to report on any suspicious activity. The hotline is an integral component of our national counter-terrorism arrangements, and a high proportion of calls have provided helpful information in relation to investigations that we are undertaking. I am aware that there was a recent Morgan poll which reported that the overwhelming majority of Australians are aware of the national hotline and its role. That is clearly evident from the fact that 73,300 calls, letters and emails have been received since it commenced operations in 2002. Over half of these have provided information which has been of assistance to security and intelligence authorities as well as police. The number is prominently listed in the White Pages. I hope it is still on some fridges. The number, of course, for all of you, if you do not remember it, is 1800 123 400—not all that difficult, I might say. It is disappointing that the opposition has sought to deride and undermine the effectiveness of the national security hotline. It is obvious that the Labor Party does not recognise the value of engaging the community in relation to terrorism. I want to assure the House that the government remains committed to protecting the safety and security of Australians and that the national hotline is integral to our national security arrangements. 77 77 14:57:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House what responsibility Mr Flugge and Mr Long, representatives of the Howard government on the Coalition Provisional Authority, had in providing advice to the CPA on the September 2003 US Department of Defense report into the misuse of the oil for food program which required ‘additional documentation from suppliers for all potentially overpriced contracts’? 78 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I will be very happy to see if I can provide the honourable gentleman with any information in relation to that question. I must confess my inadequacy, in that I do not carry all of that minute detail around in my head. I lack the honourable gentleman’s soaring capacity to do that. But I will do my best to find out. What I do happen to have, not in my head but in my hand, is a press release dated 20 August 2002. It was issued by the shadow minister for foreign affairs. It is headed ‘2003 Wheat sales to Iraq’. It says: The Federal Opposition welcomes the announcement by the Australian Wheat Board on the likely resumption of Australian wheat sales to Iraq in 2003. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister has been asked a very simple and clear question which goes to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order. I call the Prime Minister. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Let me repeat: The Federal Opposition welcomes the announcement by the Australian Wheat Board on the likely resumption of Australian wheat sales to Iraq ... He then goes on to say: The Opposition congratulates the AWB for achieving a commercial outcome in the midst— listen to this— of the difficult foreign policy environment, which had been delivered to them by Foreign Minister Downer. There is an old saying which I am sure the member for Griffith would be aware of, and that is: would that my enemy would write a book. Let me vary it to say: would that the shadow minister would put out a statement. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —That’s just as obscene as Truss’s tie! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan is warned! 78 78 14:59:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 Mr TICEHURST —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Would the minister advise the House of how the government is training more young Australians to meet our nation’s future skills needs? 78 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —I welcome the question from the member for Dobell. In this country today we have an incredibly strong economy—a nation where we have too many jobs and not enough people. We have an amazing circumstance and it is such a big contrast to 10 years ago. The demographic changes in the world have fed into the fact that this is a very challenging environment for businesses to attract young people to the enormous and wide range of choices that they have. As a government, we have spent a decade undoing Labor’s neglect. The ‘recession we had to have’ trashed a generation of could-have-been-trained Australians. It trashed 30,000 in one year under the leadership at that time of the member for Brand. In the electorate of Dobell, we had some 2,300 people in training as at June 2005. That is a 211 per cent increase on the number in training in 1995—and I know the member for Dobell is happy about that. In the publicly funded system today, 1.6 million people are being trained, which is half a million more than in 1995. The system is a world leader, but this government is not happy with that distinction. We can do, we will do and we are doing much more. In June last year, 391,200 people were in training, whereas in 1995 there were 143,790. Over the next four years we will be spending $10.1 billion—nearly $5 billion to the states and $1.4 billion in new incentives. That is the biggest-ever contribution lift to the task of training young Australians from any Australian government in this nation’s history. For the Australian technical colleges proposal, there is $343 million for 25 colleges and we will announce soon on the Central Coast of New South Wales the outcome of our negotiations there—and I know the member for Robertson joins with the member for Dobell in being happy about that. There is the Tools for Your Trade Initiative, for which almost 35,000 people are eligible, and there are 42,300 people who are eligible for the trade learning scholarship. Last Friday’s COAG saw the Prime Minister’s leadership on this issue hit a new height. We are now in an environment where it is no longer just lip-service to but the delivery of recognition of skills across the state boundaries, easier pathways for overseas qualifications to be recognised in this country and, in particular, an end to the ‘time served’ approach—the concept of ‘if you serve for four years, you are suddenly qualified’. We will see a defeat of that and we will see that before the end of the year. In particular, in New South Wales and Western Australia, we will see opportunities for school based apprenticeships as well. Opposition members interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —Those opposite are interjecting with their complaints and lack of interest in this issue. They would be very wise to look at what Sharan Burrow and the ACTU have said today, where they are supporting the government’s efforts on competency based training and reflecting the calls from Australian industry for this to happen. 79 79 15:03:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister has provided Commissioner Cole with no powers to investigate how the $300 million paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime was used, will the Prime Minister now establish an independent investigation into: (1) where the money went; (2) what the money was used for, including the question of funding Palestinian suicide bombers, Saddam Hussein’s military and the current insurgency; and (3) how much of the money remains unaccounted for, given that AWB’s kickbacks to Iraq continued for 18 months after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime? 79 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The premise on which the question is based is false; therefore, the rest of the question is also false. 79 79 15:04:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 Mr BARTLETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. Would the minister update the House on the government’s plan to help young people equip themselves with better personal financial management skills. 79 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr DUTTON —I thank the Chief Government Whip for such a wonderful question. Financial literacy is a very important issue to young people in this country. Opposition members interjecting— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Those opposite might laugh, but last year this federal government made an announcement committing $21 million to help children in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 to understand money, the use of money and the peer group pressure that is put on young children in relation to the purchase of mobile phones, the use of text messages and all those things that have the potential to create debt for young people. They cause enormous pressures not just on children but also on parents and families. This government is keen to work with the states to talk through, educate and make children understand the value of money and the acceptance of personal responsibility. This government remains very committed to this program. We are very serious about it. Those opposite might jibe and laugh about it, but this is a serious attempt to help young children who are in very difficult circumstances, some of whom they portray themselves as representing. This is a program that we will continue to roll out to help young people around the country in order to provide them with a better future. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 80 Personal Explanations 80 15:06:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 1 0 Mrs VALE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? VK6 Vale, Danna, MP Mrs VALE —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. VK6 Vale, Danna, MP Mrs VALE —In an article on page 4 of the St George & Sutherland Shire Leader of today’s date, allegations were made, which I will read into the Hansard: Sutherland shire based New South Wales ALP Senator Michael Forshaw described Mrs Vale’s comments as disgraceful and offensive. ‘It is irresponsible and inflammatory conduct by a member of parliament to peddle these spurious, bigoted falsehoods, particularly given the racially motivated violence that occurred in Cronulla and other parts of Sydney last December.’ I totally deny and utterly reject the senator’s allegations against me. I have made no statements that could be described as ‘spurious, bigoted falsehoods’ or ‘disgraceful’ or ‘offensive’. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The chair is having considerable difficulty in hearing the member for Hughes. I suggest members allow the member for Hughes to be heard and we can find out where she feels she has been personally misrepresented. VK6 Vale, Danna, MP Mrs VALE —The comments I made in issue were based on demographics, and on demographics only. I consider these allegations and comments to be offensive. I totally reject them, and I consider them to be defamatory. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you clarify for the benefit of members that the rule regarding misrepresentation is about clarifying untruths and not stupidity? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business is well aware that members are given the opportunity to make personal explanations where they claim to have been personally misrepresented. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Where was she misrepresented? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The chair will give members that opportunity and listen carefully. If it becomes obvious that it is not a place where they have been personally misrepresented then the chair will ask them to resume their seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Hughes said that she found the comments offensive. She did not say that they were untrue or indicate where she was misrepresented. I found her comments extremely offensive, as do a number of members of my community. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think the member for Hughes also said ‘defamatory’. I would have thought that that would qualify. 80 Questions to the Speaker 80 80 15:09:00 Kelly, De-Anne, MP FK6 Dawson NATS 1 Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY —Mr Speaker, could you answer a question for me, please? Is it appropriate, when members are seeking to clarify a misrepresentation against them, for others in the House to claim that it is stupidity? It is intimidation. I would like your advice as to whether people can raise in this House a matter that they see as misrepresentation without being intimidated. 81 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The parliamentary secretary raises a valid point. I believe it would be obvious to all members that the chair intervened in order to try to allow the member for Hughes to be heard. I would ask all members to show more respect for other occupants in this chamber when they seek to make a personal explanation. 81 81 15:10:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr PRICE —Mr Speaker, under standing order 105, I draw your attention to a series of questions I placed on the Notice Paper on 6 September 2005 concerning grants under the National Crime Prevention Program and addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs. They were Nos 2241, 2242, 2243 and 2244. Could you write to the Attorney-General, as he is the relevant minister representing that minister, and see whether I could have an answer to those questions? 81 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Chief Opposition Whip, and I will follow up his request. 81 81 15:11:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr BOWEN —Mr Speaker, on Monday this week the President of the Senate told Senate estimates that the $2 million retractable bollards at the three entrances to this building would not operate between 8 am and 9 am this week and in the next sitting weeks. This morning the retractable bollards were working as normal at that time of the morning. Mr Speaker, were you consulted about this, and are you aware if this decision has anything to do with the television program A Current Affair indicating to the Department of Parliamentary Services yesterday that they would be in Parliament House today to film a story on this issue? 81 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Prospect. I am aware of the question to the President of the Senate. I am also aware that the bollards have been operating since. I am not aware of the last point he raises. I would also make the point that all members would be interested to know that the operation of the bollards is something new and the Presiding Officers intend to review it shortly to see how effective it is proving to be. 81 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:12:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:12:00 —I present documents on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House: Relating to the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign—from the member for Wills—770 Petitioners Relating to the tactics used by the Opposition during Question Time—from the member for Mayo—1 Petitioner Relating to the changes to the industrial relations system—from the member for Chisholm—6 Petitioners In support of the 8 UN Millennium Development Goals—from the member for La Trobe—129 Petitioners Relating to the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign—from the member for La Trobe—43 Petitioners Relating to concessions paid to holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card—from the member for Lyne—1612 Petitioners Relating to the proposed brickworks on the Westavia Golf Course site—from the member for Hasluck—4990 Petitioners Relating to the illegal trafficking of women and children—from the member for Sydney—229 Petitioners 82 Special Adjournment Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:13:00 —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 27 February 2006, at 12.30 pm, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Question agreed to. 82 Committees 82 82 82 15:13:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Villawood Immigration Detention Centre redevelopment, Sydney, NSW. The Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs jointly propose to undertake a major redevelopment, at an estimated cost of $175.83 million, of the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, which is located in Sydney, New South Wales. The Villawood Immigration Detention Centre needs to be upgraded to: replace ageing infrastructure; provide appropriate facilities to meet general community standards; improve the living conditions and amenity for detainees; improve operational efficiency and modernise security; and incorporate relevant recommendations from the Palmer report. Subject to parliamentary approval, early works are planned to commence in mid 2007 with high-priority facilities to be completed by late 2008. The whole project is programmed for completion in late 2009. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 82 Matters of Public Importance 82 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government placing its short term political interests ahead of the long term national interest in relation to AWB Oil for Food scandal. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 82 15:15:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —What a disgraceful performance we saw from the Prime Minister in question time today—the ducking and shoving away of responsibility for this tragic scandal from himself. The one thing on his mind is: how can I and my ministers escape blame? How can we make absolutely certain that, whatever comes out of this, we will not have to accept responsibility for the worst scandal in many a long year in federal history? It is the most incompetent performance by a government: the trashing of our national reputation, the wreckage of the interests of the major trading components of our economy, our farmers—the trashing of all of that. How could the Prime Minister evade responsibility for that and throw as much smoke, as much of a camouflage, as he possibly can all over it here in question time? He even got to the point where he was blaming the opposition shadow spokesman on foreign affairs for his ‘lack of attention’ to his job, as though it is the responsibility of the opposition to sit down and read the intelligence reports—all the cables, all the materials, that come in from all the diplomats—and stick up a flag and say, ‘Hey, Mr Prime Minister, take a look out for this,’ as though that was the opportunity we had and as though that was our responsibility. The simple fact of the matter is that he and his ministers were responsible. They were getting the cables and the analyses and they had day-to-day control of these matters—and they failed. Then we saw another performance yesterday. What bold analyses there were out there in the editorials. What extraordinary things were to be expected of the Prime Minister. What did he let out then? The view that he was really going to get to grips with the situation which had emerged. He was going to put together the best possible mechanism for ensuring that we had a decent outcome in Iraq. We were going to cut adrift the elements of the scandal that the Iraqi government was objecting to, to wit AWB. We were going to be there; we were going to be decisive. What a damp squib he produced—as though the only person he could send to effectively represent the grains interests was the chairman of AWB! It was sheer lack of courage on the part of the Prime Minister that he selected Mr Stewart when so many others were available in the Grains Council from any of the other organisations. All he needed to get from AWB was AWB’s permission, if you like, to stand aside from the contract. The Prime Minister did not effectively achieve that sufficiently to ensure that he went away with a delegation that looked as though we were making a fresh start on this as we approached the Iraqis. They should be able to succeed; they ought to be able to succeed. The simple fact of the matter is that, if the government’s connections with Iraq mean anything at all, it ought to be a simple matter for that delegation to succeed in its objective in getting the Australian farmers back into that market. But they decided that they would handicap themselves on the way through. The Prime Minister should be on his knees begging for forgiveness from the wheat farmers of Australia. When they needed him to protect them from this $300 million bribery scandal, he turned his back on them. Instead of protecting the Australian farmers, he is scrambling to protect himself and his ministers. This is an arrogant government. They have been abusing their total power, scrambling to save themselves at any cost, blatantly ignoring the national interest in pursuit of blind political self-interest, covering up their sorry hides, trashing our farmers’ livelihoods, damaging our national economy, undermining our reputation as an honest player, endangering the lives of our troops in Iraq, turning a blind eye to what we know was a systematic and deliberate rorting of the oil for food program and channelling hundreds of millions of dollars into Saddam’s coffers. But, for the Prime Minister, this counts for nothing. Instead of coming clean, the Prime Minister and his ministers have swung into damage control—they stonewall, dissemble, evade questions and use their total power to close down parliamentary scrutiny. When ministerial heads should be rolling, they gag public servants and curtail Cole to quarantine their ministers. They are a law unto themselves, accountable to no-one—least of all, the Australian people and, far less, the hapless wheat farmers, who are the innocent victims of a shameless scandal, unwitting pawns in this disgraceful mess who will pay with their own economic security. The farmers now know that Saddam made almost as much out of Australian wheat as they did. But, instead of going out to our wheat farmers and begging their forgiveness, what does this Prime Minister do? What is the best political spin he can come up with? What answer does he give? ‘I don’t know; no-one told me; I wasn’t informed.’ He pleads ignorant stupidity. How badly are you travelling when stupidity is the best you can come up with—the Forrest Gump defence? Then, in a bizarre example of policy on the run, the Prime Minister hastily dispatches a rescue mission to Iraq that includes executives from AWB, the very people who presided over the regime of kickbacks and bribes. Frankly, it is like sending the burglar back to the scene of the crime! The government persistently hide behind this fiction that the Cole royal commission can answer all the questions in relation to their own behaviour. Our shadow spokesman on foreign affairs will have a bit to say later about Bret Walker’s opinion. But let me make this absolutely clear: what that opinion demonstrates is what all of us here know by commonsense—that there is a different treatment of the AWB executives in this and of the potential Commonwealth officers involved, including ministers. They cannot escape that. That is simply a fact. There is different treatment between the two. On one side, they will face the full blast of Cole’s independent scrutiny; on the other, that has caveats attached to it. That is the first point. The second point is this: there is a lot more that the Australian people want to know about this particular scandal which has so dishonoured our nation. They want to know, for example, where the money went. There is nothing in Cole’s terms of reference which will establish where those hundreds of millions of dollars went where we had the rescue contracts, on the last occasion in 2003, one of which we revealed here yesterday. The Prime Minister accuses us of presenting no evidence, yet we do document after document at every question time. This particular document demonstrated that Saddam, in this last rescue mission of Mr Vaile, got as much out of the wheat contract as the Australian farmers. That was pretty spectacular. That certainly was the best performance, if you like, of the corrupt other end on this. As to where that money went afterwards, there is no inquiry as far as we are concerned. What was the money used for? There is no inquiry. Yesterday the Prime Minister got on television. I admit that, from time to time, I am reasonably accused of using the odd abstract or difficult word. But when asked by the interviewer whether he could tell him and the Australian people what this money was used for, he used this expression: ‘Kerry, money is fungible.’ Let me say this: money is not fungible in this sense. What the Prime Minister has decided is that this issue is ‘fudgeable’—a much more readily understood term. He does not want an inspection of this because manifestly it demonstrates the culpability of this government for turning a blind eye to a set of events that saw the funding of some of the more horrible things around the globe. A further thing that the Cole inquiry cannot inquire into is how much of this money remains unaccounted for, given that AWB’s kickbacks to Iraq continued for 18 months after the collapse of Saddam’s regime. This is an interesting thing. Who got the money in those 18 months? We know that Saddam got the money before then. We do not know who got the money after then. There seems to me to be three candidates for this. First, the Australian wheat farmers might have got it. It would have been a change, if they got the price that was paid for the wheat that was sold to Iraq. It would have been good if that happened, but I suspect that is not what happened. Second, it might have gone into the hands of Wheat Board agents and ended up in the back kick of some of the people who are going to be appearing before the Cole inquiry, though this is not an area that is going to be inquired into. Three, I am afraid to say that it is much more likely that it kept going to Alia; it kept going to the transport companies. And if it kept going to the transport companies, it was directly funding the Ba’athist component of the insurgency. The Australian people are entitled to an answer on that. They are entitled to know what the truth is as far as that is concerned. Everything the Prime Minister does is to take the edge off any parliamentary scrutiny on him, to get rid of the Senate processes associated with it, to get rid of the Senate estimates committees—what is now demonstrated to be, or has been, one of the most effective mechanisms of accountability of government. You come into this chamber and shut down every censure debate that we have moved, bar one, at the outset. You obfuscate on every question that is asked of you by the opposition. You tell the public that the opposition is presenting no evidence here, despite the fact that at every question time we have presented a document, a new strand of evidence that was readily available to and could have been picked up by the government. It could have had knowledge of this and saved the honour of this country. This slothful, lazy government is great on spin but, when it comes to delivering solid administration of any particular area, it is an absolute no-account bunch of bottom-feeding fish. That is what this government amounts to when it comes to any effective accountability or any effective administration in this place. We saw a bit more of what we had to deal with here. I have nothing against Mr Stewart—he is obviously a person of interest in this situation—but his job now is to sit down and work his way through his papers and prepare his organisation for the further inquiries of the Cole commission. Talk about obfuscation! When I first raised this letter with the Prime Minister, I asked, ‘Have you seen this letter?’ ‘Of course not,’ says the Prime Minister. ‘No, you are springing this one on me’—a letter that was copied to the Prime Minister, I might say, and I thought would have sat indelibly on his mind, given that he has said he has devoted a great deal of attention to it. He has said things in this letter which are so blatantly untrue. You cannot tell me, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—and you would know something about this as a National Party member—that there is not somebody in the Grains Council or in Cooperative Bulk Handling in Western Australia who could take Mr Stewart’s position in this particular delegation. All you needed to do was to sit down with Stewart and say, ‘Listen, you fellows have disgraced us—admittedly, we’re in it with you—and you’re out of this. You sign one letter saying that as far as you’re concerned you waive your rights over this particular trade to Iraq at this particular point in time, full stop.’ That is what would be protecting the interests of the farmers. But they cannot do this because they have no moral authority—and they know it—because the AWB people whom they are addressing know that they are in on the joke. The simple fact of the matter is that they cannot deal straight with AWB because AWB know that they have partners in crime. They know all about you; everything out there is confected. There is this brolga dance around this heap, this mess, of corruption that has to be danced by the ministers, pretending they are doing something and praying that AWB do not cough up that at least some of them were in on the joke. This is going to go on for some considerable period of time in this place, because this is a major scandal that goes to the heart of the way this government governs. The fact is that this government cannot defend the Australian national interest because it is too lazy, too slothful, too unprincipled to be able to sensibly administer our foreign policy and our domestic affairs. (Time expired) 86 15:30:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —First, let me make this observation. The week before last, at the National Press Club, the Leader of the Opposition said: ... I promise you and every Australian— that this session of parliament— will be the most aggressive parliamentary interrogation this government has faced in its ten long years of office. We have now reached the end of that parliamentary session. In my particular case, I make the observation that there were 70 questions asked by the opposition. All 70 questions were about AWB Ltd, despite the fact that this is a subject which is being considered by the Cole commission. I make the observation that not one of those questions—out of 70 questions—was put to me. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The member for Griffith interjects. I want to say that I am disappointed. I am a bit more than that: I am hurt! The fact is that we had all the answers ready to go—and the jokes with them. But unfortunately the questions never came. More seriously, the opposition claims that this is an issue of enormous concern. The fact that AWB Ltd may—and it is a subject that is yet to be proven before the Cole commission—have been involved in kickbacks is a matter of great concern. But the opposition’s proposition here is that the government has been involved in this. We have had two weeks, 70 questions, several censure motions, attempted censure motions, MPIs, an enormous amount of parliamentary time and a very fair wind, if I could put it that way, from some elements of the media—I think we all know who I am talking about. I forgot to mention the hearings in the Cole commission as well, and all the evidence that has been presented in the Cole commission under questioning—I must say it seems to me to be very forensic questioning—by the senior counsel, Mr Agius, to AWB Ltd officials and former officials. Despite all of that there is no evidence that the Australian government has been involved in this affair at all—none, not any evidence at all. For all the bluster and the confected passion—from the Leader of the Opposition, in particular—and after two long weeks of labouring in the parliament, the Leader of the Opposition has achieved precisely nothing. He has taken up the time of the parliament without focusing on issues that might have a little more resonance from the opposition’s point of view—if I could be so bold as to suggest that their tactics could change—and would be of greater moment to the Australian people. Not a skerrick of evidence has been produced that the government is complicit or involved in this, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition on two occasions prior to the parliamentary session accused the government of being corrupt. ‘Corrupt’ is a big word to use—but there was no evidence. The Leader of the Opposition stood up outside parliament—which is an interesting thing to do, but accusing people of being corrupt is an extremely serious accusation. The trouble for the Leader of the Opposition is that this whole issue and the way it has been handled in parliament has gone very much to the heart of his own credibility and the longevity of his leadership. The Leader of the Opposition established a series of benchmarks, all of which he has failed to meet. He said it was going to be the most aggressive parliamentary interrogation that government has ever faced. To be honest, I think a lot of members have been rather bored with the constant repetition of the questions and the hyperbole that we have seen during MPIs, censure motions and attempted suspension motions. The Leader of the Opposition said that the government was corrupt. He came into the parliament for two weeks and never provided any evidence; nor has any evidence been provided anywhere else. He said that the government was complicit. The truth of this matter is perfectly obvious, I would have thought. The truth of this matter is demonstrated by what has happened in other countries as well as this country. There were 66 countries whose 2,000 or more companies were involved in oil for food kickbacks under Saddam Hussein’s regime. Everybody agrees that that was a bad thing. As Mr Volcker pointed out in his report, the responsibility for this failure rested with the United Nations and the officials in the United Nations who were meant to run this program. But in 65 of the 66 countries the government did not pick up what was going on; they were not able to identify what was going on. In this country, we did not either. We are the 66th country. But we in this country were supposed to set a standard of detecting what at least allegedly is fraud—certainly a breach of United Nations sanctions and possibly even worse. We in this country were supposed to detect something that 65 other countries—including the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, France, New Zealand and so the list goes on—were not able to detect. Somehow we were supposed to have the miracle powers of transparency that no other government on earth had. We may be a miracle government, a great government and a strongly supported government, but we do not have miracle powers that no other government on earth has. We do not have those. We just have a lot of determination and we do a lot of hard work. The opposition talks about ‘the warning bells’. It picks out obscure documents and says, ‘Look, if you read this sentence here on page 973, and surely the Prime Minister did, you can interpret that as being a reference to food. And if you mention food, that could be wheat, and that could be that the Wheat Board was corrupt and therefore the government should have known.’ It is one of these typically contorted—and, if I may say so, from the public’s point of view, completely unconvincing—arguments. The other 65 countries presumably had about as much access as we had to any of those reports—particularly the UK, because they were part of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and to a much greater extent than we were. The argument is that, by some miracle, they failed to pick this up, but we should have; and it is dereliction of duty that we failed to do that. At the end of the day that kind of an argument is simply not going to wash. In this country we have taken the Volcker inquiry very seriously and we have established a commission with the powers of a royal commission to look into all of these issues. The opposition suggests that in this country we are involved in a cover-up, but none of the other 65 countries—only two of which have set up an inquiry at all: one in South Africa, which has not even convened yet, so I cannot speak of that beyond the fact that they have established it; and one in India, which was an in camera inquiry—has set up the transparent and public process that we have set up in this country. But the argument of our Labor Party is that we are involved in a cover-up. It beggars belief that anybody could push that argument and that anybody, including in the media, would ever believe that. We are perfectly happy—and I have said this over and over again throughout all of this—for all our files to be gone through, for our officials to be interviewed and for there to be complete transparency. Mr Cole made the point in the statement he made, I think on the Friday before last, that he does, under the terms of reference, have the capacity to look into the government. This is the point that I do not think the opposition understand—or, they might understand it, but they certainly do not want to understand it. But Mr Cole makes this point very clear. If AWB Ltd was lying to the Commonwealth, that is potentially an offence. But to lie to the Commonwealth and to endeavour to mislead the Commonwealth, you have to establish whether the Commonwealth knew the information or not in the first place. So he needs to establish, as he has pointed out, what the Commonwealth knew in order to establish whether anyone misled the Commonwealth, which is potentially an offence. You do not have to be a QC to work that out; it is pretty obvious. Therefore, as a result of the way the terms of reference are written, the Cole inquiry has enormous breadth. Mr Cole has also made the point that, if there were any suggestion that a Commonwealth officer—including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, me, the agriculture minister, whoever else; the education minister sitting here—has been involved in fraud, corruption or whatever it may be—I have forgotten the exact term he used—then he will ask for his terms of reference to be expanded. But he said that so far there is no such evidence. Of course there is not. I have never seen such evidence. This suggestion that the government has been complicit is a suggestion that I can only regard as absolutely absurd. It is politicking of the worst kind. I have read and I have heard some people say that the way the Public Service is handling this shows that they have been politicised. That suggestion is an extraordinarily insulting thing to say about our diplomats and our public servants. It is suggesting, if you like, moral corruption on the part of those people. I have been a minister for 10 years and before that, at one stage, like the member for Griffith, I worked in the Public Service. I worked as a diplomat, like he did, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. My experience of our public servants is that they are good, impartial people. They tell you if they do not agree with you. They would draw my attention to mistakes I had made—if I did make mistakes. They are people of true honour and integrity. I read in the Australian that I had a new doctrine that I would not stand by them, that I would separate myself from them. That is complete nonsense. I stand by the public servants in my department and I stand by their integrity. These are good people, these are honourable people, these are hardworking people. I do not know how they vote—they probably vote in all sorts of different ways—but I do know how they work: they work hard and they work in a determined way. And, contrary to what the Australian suggests, I stand by them. I stand by these people; I stand by their integrity. They work for me. As their minister, I am the leader of the organisation and I am prepared to take all of the responsibility that comes with that. Let me conclude by coming back to the issue of warning bells. The member for Griffith and the Leader of the Opposition make great play about how many warning signs there were out there. I have made the point already in this debate that 65 other countries did not pick up the warning signs but by some miracle we were supposed to. The member for Griffith, I discovered, has actually on several occasions met with the Australian Wheat Board in the wake of the warning signs that he now says everybody should have seen. Some of these warning signs he refers to are available on the internet! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —It is incredible. There they were on the internet. He did not bother to read them, but we should have all been reading them—and so should the other 65 countries involved. All these ministers—Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Persson of Sweden, the list goes on—should have been poring over these websites. But not the opposition, because, as the member for Griffith said: ‘It wasn’t my responsibility.’ I thought they did have a responsibility to scrutinise the government and keep the government honest and all these pompous sayings that they use—which, actually, I pretty much agree with; but they are rather weak at doing it, if I may say so. The member for Griffith in a Sky interview, by the way, said, ‘Oh, I only once met with AWB Ltd.’ Two days later he said he met several times with AWB Ltd. There is no evidence he even asked them, ‘By the way, this stuff on websites all around the place about possible corruption in the oil for food program: are you guys involved in that?’ Apparently, he did not even ask that question, despite the fact that this material was out there. My last point, because my time has nearly expired, is this: the wheat mission that will be led by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will include Brendan Stewart. The opposition says Brendan Stewart, the Chairman of AWB Ltd, is guilty and should not go. There has been no evidence presented to the Cole commission that I am aware of—and I am aware of a lot of it; and the opposition has people sitting in the Cole commission as well—that Brendan Stewart is guilty of anything or has been accused of being involved in kickbacks. One day that evidence might or might not appear, but I have never seen that evidence. We on this side of the House—and the minister at the table here, Ms Julie Bishop, is a lawyer—believe in the timeworn principle that all men and women are innocent until proven guilty. Brendan Stewart for us is not guilty, even if the opposition thinks he is. (Time expired) 89 15:45:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Cole has two powers: to investigate companies under the oil for food program that have been mentioned adversely by Volcker and to make recommendations concerning whether or not they have breached the law. Mr Cole has no such parallel powers in relation to the Commonwealth government—that is, as the commission currently stands. Mr Justice Cole made this point very clearly in his 3 February statement. He said: The present terms of reference permit me to make findings of possible illegality only in relation to the three companies mentioned in the Volcker report. They do not permit me to make findings of illegality against the Commonwealth or any of its officers. The Prime Minister has on several occasions quoted selectively from Mr Cole’s 3 February statement in this place. But he has taken care, of course, not to repeat the crucial element of Mr Cole’s statement, and I repeat it: The present terms of reference ... do not permit me to make findings of illegality against the Commonwealth or any of its officers. Mr Cole has said that in order to make a finding about whether the AWB defrauded the Commonwealth it is necessary for him to make a finding about the Commonwealth’s knowledge. In this regard Mr Cole has said that he will address and make findings about the role and knowledge of DFAT. But it is important to note that his investigation of the government extends only to what the government knew about AWB wrongdoing. In other words, he can investigate whether the government knew that someone else was acting illegally, but there it stops. He does not at this stage have the power to investigate whether the Commonwealth breached Australian or international laws, nor does he have powers at this stage to make findings as to whether the Commonwealth has breached Australian or international laws. Mr Cole has indicated that if, in his current investigation into Australian companies, he comes across evidence pointing to a breach of Australian laws he will then request an expansion of his powers accordingly. But such evidence about the Commonwealth now can only be obtained as an incidental by-product of the investigation into the four companies, not as an explicit focus of the investigation now, as the Prime Minister and the foreign minister well know. In other words, Mr Cole’s investigations now are conducted in a manner such that he effectively has one hand tied behind his back, courtesy of the limited powers the Prime Minister has given him in the original letters patent. Furthermore, Mr Cole has been placed in this difficult position. If, incidental to his primary investigation of the four companies, he happens to come across evidence concerning the lawfulness of the Commonwealth’s own action or actions in relation to the AWB, the commissioner can request that the Commonwealth give him more powers to then investigate and reach findings in relation to the Commonwealth itself. Mr Cole should be given those powers now so that his investigations can be conducted and findings made in a totally unfettered environment now. Labor has sought an opinion on these matters from Bret Walker SC, without doubt one of Australia’s most accomplished and respected lawyers, a former President of the Law Council of Australia and importantly a lawyer with previous experience as a commission of inquiry head, including most recently on the commission of inquiry into the Campbelltown and Camden hospitals. Mr Walker advised: ... the Royal Commission, as presently restricted by its Terms of Reference, definitely does not have full power to investigate whether there has been any relevant wrongdoing on the part of the Commonwealth or its officers. In his opinion: ... full deployment of the Royal Commission’s powers to investigate and make findings of fact cannot presently squarely address the question whether there has been Commonwealth wrongdoing—as opposed to mere Commonwealth knowledge or suspicion of AWB wrongdoing. In this respect, Mr Cole in his 3 February statement said that, if he ‘encounters material’ which suggests criminal behaviour by the government, he will seek to have his terms of reference expanded. Mr Walker describes this as an invidious position for Mr Cole to find himself in and notes that ‘it will be a serendipitous or incidental chance’ by which the commissioner might in the course of his inquiries stumble upon information which ‘turns out also to indicate the possibility of Commonwealth wrongdoing’. Contrary, therefore, to the Prime Minister’s assertions that Mr Cole will look at every aspect and that he will ask all the questions, the terms of reference clearly restrict Mr Cole’s ability to look at the whole picture. Let us consider for a moment some of the matters that Mr Cole cannot under his current terms of reference investigate or make findings about. First, he cannot investigate or make findings about whether the government or any officials breached any domestic Australian law. Second, he cannot investigate or make findings about whether the government breached international laws—for example, whether it upheld its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, including resolution 661, to prevent Australian citizens and companies making payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime. Third, he cannot investigate or make findings about whether the government, including ministers, performed its functions competently or negligently under domestic or international laws and, if negligently, whether recklessly negligently in terms of the discharge of its responsibilities. Fourth, as we indicated in question time today, he cannot investigate or make findings about where the money went. He cannot investigate whether the kickbacks paid by the AWB and approved by DFAT were used to reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, to buy weapons, to fund the insurgency in Iraq or for any other purposes that are blatantly illegal under a range of domestic and international instruments. On 13 February the Prime Minister told the parliament that the inquiry was established as a result of the findings of Volcker. He said that Volcker: ... did not make an adverse finding about the Australian government. If he had, then the terms of reference would have gone further than they have. The Prime Minister’s statement tells us two things: first, that he knows that Mr Cole’s terms of reference do not include an investigation of the Australian government’s wrongdoing, belying his constant claims that they do; and, second, that his justification for not expanding the terms of reference is that the Volcker inquiry has cleared the government of any wrongdoing. The problem with Mr Howard’s Volcker defence is that the Volcker inquiry did not have in its own terms of reference the power to investigate the actions of the Australian government. Furthermore, Volcker himself in making his conclusions, in relation to both the AWB and other matters, had not been provided by the Howard government with full documentation. The Howard government had not provided Volcker with the documents provided by the Wheat Export Authority. Furthermore, we know from Senate estimates that DFAT’s electronic files were not provided to Volcker either. Therefore, it is now an established fact that Volcker was not given full documentation by the Howard government. It is an established fact that Volcker had no powers to make findings against the Australian government anyway. But even if they had such powers, how could Volcker have reached any informed finding in relation to the government’s actions when the Howard government had deprived the Volcker inquiry of huge slabs of relevant documentation? The Prime Minister has used explicitly the absence of adverse findings in Volcker to justify the fact that the Cole commission of inquiry was not given wider terms of reference. It is for these reasons that the Prime Minister’s defence of the narrow terms of reference given to Mr Cole collapses in a heap. What we have seen in the debate over the last two weeks is a government which has been clearly found out for having not done its job—for not having had its eye on the ball, for not having discharged its most basic of national security responsibilities; namely, to prevent hundreds of millions of dollars being paid over to the enemy. In question time today we had a Prime Minister, by contrast, rather than recognising that his government had done something wrong, determined instead to deliver the parliament and the opposition in particular a moral lecture. A moral lecture is what the Prime Minister gave us today. He told us what the decent thing to do was. He told us that the only decent thing to do was for the Australian Labor Party basically to button up—that the responsibility of the opposition at this stage was not to provide proper scrutiny. He lectured us that the decent thing to do was not to presume that the AWB had been in any respect guilty of anything. This comes from the Prime Minister seven years after this whole corruption scandal began. It comes two years after the Volcker inquiry began. It comes six months after the Volcker inquiry reported the fact that this $300 million scandal is the worst contribution to Saddam Hussein’s regime worldwide, and it comes one month after the Cole inquiry began. And still this Prime Minister has the audacity to stand in this House and deliver the Australian Labor Party a moral lecture about what the decent thing to do is. Well, Prime Minister, the decent thing to do would have been to have told the truth about ‘kids overboard’. The decent thing to do would have been to have told the truth about Iraqi WMD. The decent thing to do would have been to have told the truth and done the right thing in response to each of the warnings that you had about what the AWB was up to. The decent thing to do would have been to have provided full documentation to Volcker. The decent thing to do would have been to have provided decent terms of reference to Mr Cole for his inquiry and the decent thing to do would not have been to gag public servants from telling the truth to the Senate estimates committee because you fear what the truth might contain. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Griffith is stepping a little too far with the word ‘truth’. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —If the Prime Minister is going to give us a lecture about decency— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Griffith will listen to the chair! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Prime Minister adhere to basic standards of decency. Those standards of decency should be upheld in this parliament. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the member for Maranoa, Member for Griffith, I will not be ignored. The member for Griffith will withdraw the word ‘truth’, which is implying in some way that there was a lie. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not at any stage accuse the Prime Minister of lying, so on what grounds are you asking me to withdraw my statement concerning the government not telling the parliament the truth? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask you to rephrase it because of the obvious inference. The opposite of truth is obviously the opposite, isn’t it? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —With respect, again, Mr Deputy Speaker, on multiple occasions during question time today we stated that the government had misled the parliament. That means to not tell the parliament the truth. The Speaker on each of those occasions did not seek to cause either the Leader of the Opposition or me to in any way withdraw in relation to any of those observations. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will allow it to stand, but can I tell the member for Griffith that I will not tolerate it again. 92 15:56:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon to speak on this matter of public importance submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to read into the Hansard what it says: The Government placing its short term political interests ahead of the long term national interest in relation to AWB Oil for Food scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I reject outright this MPI introduced by the opposition. It is this government, following the Volcker report on the UN oil for food program, that established the Cole inquiry. The inquiry headed by Justice Cole will investigate all matters from the Volcker report. It has the powers of a royal commission. As the foreign minister said this afternoon in this debate, of 66 countries, we are the only one that has established an inquiry with royal commission powers into the Volcker report and the findings that relate to the Australian Wheat Board. The other 65 countries that were mentioned in that report are not doing anything like establishing a royal commission into the adverse findings against them in the Volcker report. The Labor Party has spent the last two weeks attacking the Prime Minister and government ministers—the trade minister, the foreign minister, the agriculture minister—and anyone else they thought that they could slur under the privilege of this parliament, because they are trying to imply that they had knowledge of the kickbacks that are alleged under the Volcker report. In that two weeks they produced no evidence, but they continue to slur the reputation of decent people. That is what they are doing—slurring the good names of good people. They spent two weeks asking 70 questions and putting up MPIs and censure motions, and they still have not brought forward a shred of evidence to back up their claims. Some of the slurs are so offensive to me and to other members on this side of the parliament that I believe those on the other side should apologise to our ministers. Those opposite are bringing slurs against these ministers, alleging that they knew of these kickbacks and that the money was being used to fund Palestinian suicide bombers. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull —Shame! YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —That is a shameless claim. Members opposite are saying that $100 million has gone to the enemy in Iraq—the enemy that was the Saddam Hussein regime. These are despicable slurs on anyone’s character. Those on the other side should apologise to our ministers. The Leader of the Opposition has now started his attack on the executive chairman of the Australian Wheat Board Ltd, AWB Ltd, Brendan Stewart. I know Brendan Stewart; he happens to be a constituent of mine. He is a fine man. Not only is he a fine man, and the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, but he is also a practising wheat grower, so he knows how hard it is to grow wheat. In his position, and from his experience with commodity boards and representing farmers in the organisation in Queensland, he knows how corrupt the world markets are. The world markets are corrupted by the subsidies that are paid by the Americans to their growers under the disguise, in some cases, of export enhancement grants designed to get American wheat into world markets. These grants distort the markets for our growers here in Australia.  Brendan Stewart is a man who understands that the international wheat trade is not a level playing field. He is the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, which holds the pool of wheat. If we are to be able to continue sales of our wheat to Iraq during the Cole inquiry and have those sales negotiated during that period, it is from the pool of the Australian Wheat Board that we will have to draw that wheat. I call on the Opposition to come into this place—or outside; anywhere will do—and say that they support the single desk arrangement for the Australian Wheat Board. The single desk arrangement is in the best interests of the Australian wheat growers. We have not heard the Labor Party come into this place and say, ‘We support the single desk arrangement for the Australian Wheat Board.’ They are attempting not only to slur the good names of ministers on this side of the parliament but also to undermine the Australian Wheat Board’s vested power of the single desk arrangements, which are so essential in delivering the best outcome in corrupted world markets for the hardworking Australian wheat growers. The Labor Party, in their attacks on this government and on Brendan Stewart and the Australian Wheat Board, have become the best friend the American wheat farmers have ever had. The shadow foreign affairs minister has become a lobbyist for the American wheat lobby, not for the Australian wheat growers. It is worth casting our minds back to the period of the first Gulf War, when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the government; he was a minister. In the period after the first Gulf War he became the Deputy Prime Minister. We should examine the actions of those opposite during that first Gulf War when wheat growers, through the Australian Wheat Board, had made sales to Iraq that were not covered by anything more than the export finance insurance that was taken out by the Australian Wheat Board. It was very important that we involved ourselves in the first Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but tied up in the middle of that were export sales of wheat to Iraq through the Australian Wheat Board that have cost the Australian wheat growers money. Fifteen per cent of that pool, and the interest on that money, has never been paid to our Australian wheat growers. The Leader of the Opposition, who was then in government, could have said that the government would make those payments to the wheat growers that were outside the export finance insurance. The government could have covered the non-payment—which occurred because of the war—for those sales into Iraq. On this side of the House, we have the best interests of Australian wheat growers foremost in our minds. We understand the importance of the wheat market in Iraq. Through the single desk arrangements—once again—of the Australian Wheat Board and its predecessors, this nation has been supplying wheat to Iraq for more than 50 years. The Iraqi Grains Board understands that we are a reliable supplier of quality wheat. Even during the oil for food program the wheat we were selling to Iraq was providing much needed food. Those who suffered at that time under the Saddam Hussein regime were at least able to be nourished by the good wheat that came from the Australian wheat growers. The Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile—we all send our condolences to him and his family at this very sad time for him on the loss of his father overnight—will be leading a delegation to Baghdad to endeavour to find ways to continue wheat sales to Iraq during the period of the Cole inquiry. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is concluded. 94 Committees 94 94 Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) 16:06:00 —In accordance with standing order 220, on behalf of the Committee of Members’ Interests, I present the report on the operations of the committee for 2005, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 94 94 Mrs DRAPER (Makin) 16:07:00 —I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. Report—by leave—adopted. 95 Bills R2498 95 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 95 Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin —Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues) 16:08:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 95 Bills R2499 95 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 95 Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin —Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues) 16:09:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 95 Bills R2476 95 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 95 Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin —Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues) 16:10:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 95 Bills R2486 95 Debate resumed from 9 February, on motion by Dr Stone: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Kelvin Thomson moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for allowing Ministerial standards and accountability to decline at the same time as Ministerial salaries are increasing”. 95 16:11:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to continue my presentation in the parliament today. It was interrupted on a previous occasion. Let me resume where I finished off—that is, at the point of totally repudiating the member for Wills in his presentation to the parliament. The amendment that he suggested is of course fanciful and ought to be rejected by this House, without any doubt at all. Like a lumbering dinosaur over there, the federal Labor Party continues to be stuck in the prehistoric age. It continues to fight old battles, old wars and old issues while the coalition government is moving on into the 21st century. We are talking about water conservation—$2 billion over five years to establish the Australian water fund. We are talking about record spending in health. We are talking about aged care funding going up substantially to $45 billion, up from $20 billion when we came into office. We are talking about workforce participation, getting more people into work—young people, mature people and those with disabilities who still have the capacity to work. We are talking at the COAG meeting about committing $660 million to improve the health of Australians who are suffering from mental health issues and related issues. So we are on about the business of government. We were elected to govern. We were elected in 2004 for the fourth occasion in succession because the people of Australia invested very strongly in their future. In the meantime, as the member for Wills and most of his colleagues on the other side reflect in their presentations, they are only in the business of dealing with the past. The issues of Iraq and issues of weapons of mass destruction that the member for Wills went on about are completely irrelevant to the Australian people at this time. We have had that debate. We have had a referendum in the most important forum of this country—that is, in the public arena. The electorate voted. They voted very strongly. They voted very decisively. I was delighted to have an increase in my vote, as I am sure that the minister at the table, the new Minister for Education, Science and Training, had in her vote. That reflects the people’s preferences about the policy focus in this parliament. Albeit very briefly, I must absolutely repudiate the charge by the member for Wills that this government is engaged in hard-core, deep corruption through the Australian Wheat Board matters that are being currently aired. We reject that absolutely. We repudiate it. The Cole inquiry has been set up by the government. As the Prime Minister and senior ministers have said, let that commission pan out. Let it deliberate, and then the debate can start, following its report. Most importantly, in this parliament, this government is on about the state of the national economy. The people of Australia and the people of my electorate want to know what we are doing about schools, universities, hospitals and health care, transport and the highways, byways and freeways of this country. That is what this government is focusing on. Let me give an example in relation to the economy. Unemployment in this country is at three-decade lows under this government. Interest rates remain very low, so families in the Ryan electorate can afford to purchase their own homes again, after struggling under the burden of interest rates which peaked under Labor at record levels of 17 or 18 per cent. We all know that the budget is in surplus, to the tune of $8.9 billion, in stark contrast with when Labor was in office and left us with a massive deficit. Our focus is on issues that are important to the people of Australia—for example, providing $100 million to an energy technology fund to finance solutions and new ideas for the challenge of the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the things that matter to everyday people in Ryan. These are the things that matter to everyday Australians the length and breadth of this country. While it is not my place to counsel the opposition—and certainly not the shadow minister, the member for Wills—I would encourage them to focus on policies and issues that matter to the Australian people. I will continue from where I left off—I had to rebuke and repudiate the inferences by the shadow minister—by saying that this bill this is an important one. It provides a significant amendment to the Ministers of State Act 1952. This act allows for the appropriation of government revenue for payment of ministerial salaries and determines the maximum number of ministers of state. The remuneration of members and senators is set out in section 48 of the Constitution. Section 66 sets out additional payments for ministers of the state by virtue of their position and office. The Remuneration Tribunal, empowered by the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, is required to report to the government annually on the salaries of members and senators and also on the additional salary payable to ministers. The additional salary payable to ministers is expressed as a percentage of the annual allowance. The tribunal’s report No. 1 of 2005 made no changes to the percentage of annual additional allowance for ministers. Previously, however, the tribunal had recommended that the annual allowance for senators and members be linked to a reference salary under the Principal Executive Office, or PEO, Classification Structure. The government created this link in the Remuneration and Allowances Regulations 2005. The PEO was adjusted on 1 July 2005 following a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal. This had a flow-on effect and increased the annual allowance to members and senators and additional salary for ministers of the state. Currently the Ministers of State Act 1952 limits to $2.8 million the amount that can be appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund to cover the additional salaries of ministers. This amendment bill increases that limit to $3.2 million to cover the increase in the additional payment to ministers and to allow some latitude for future increases. So it is an important provision, expanding the figure from $2.8 million to $3.2 million. This allows me an opportunity to comment on the salary structure of members of parliament, senators, ministers and the Prime Minister. I have had the privilege of being the federal representative for Ryan, covering parts of the city of Brisbane, for four years. From time to time constituents and other residents talk about the salaries of members of parliament—from the Prime Minister down to a member of this parliament who holds no office. They are on the public record—it is all available, and it is transparent. Any citizen of this country can find out the salaries of members of parliament. I want to say in the parliament today that I think an overwhelming number of members and senators of this parliament are paid appropriately for their work but perhaps there is scope for that to be re-examined. Certainly every member of this parliament works very hard and is very dedicated in their contributions to this parliament and to this country. That is the nature of our profession. As the Prime Minister touched on in question time the other day, I think all of us should stand firm, shoulder to shoulder, when our profession is denigrated and the media or individuals in the community take it upon themselves to ‘bash’ members of parliament, their work and their salaries. It is very easy to be a passenger in life and to criticise the hard work of people in politics from the sidelines, but I think it is a noble profession. Many of us on this side of the parliament, including the minister at the table, could earn far more outside this parliament. However, none of us comes into this place for reasons of profit. We come into this parliament because we love this country. We are deeply proud Australians, and we want to make a contribution to the future of our land and the generations of Australians to come. Most of us have children or grandchildren. We are no different from the rest of this country in terms of our love of this land and wanting to improve it. I thought it might be of interest to my colleagues, to those who might be listening and to those in my electorate of Ryan to get an understanding of the salary structure of members of parliament in comparison with others in our community. Let me give some examples of some of the better known figures in Australia who receive substantial amounts of money for the work that they do. I refer to an article in the BRW magazine of 15 December 2005 about the salaries of certain high-profile individuals. According to the article, Cate Blanchett, a very fine Australian actress, earns $13 million per annum. Kylie Minogue receives $6 million. The great Rove McManus earns some $5.5 million. Eddie Maguire, who is from Victoria and is well known throughout the country from his time on television, earns $3.5 million—no doubt that will increase with his rise to the rank of CEO of the Nine Network. Megan Gale, a model, earns some $3 million. I am sure that Shannon Noll, for his talent, deserves every bit of the $1.4 million that he receives in his pay packet. The list includes sportsmen and sportswomen, either in a playing capacity or a coaching capacity. Cyclist Stuart O’Grady receives $1 million a year. The Essendon football coach, Kevin Sheedy, earns $600,000. Basketball player Lauren Jackson earns $200,000. Turning to businesspeople, Mr Chip Goodyear, CEO of BHP Billiton, receives $5.38 million; Gail Kelly, the Chief Executive Officer of the St George Bank, $4.48 million; Dawn Robertson, the Managing Director of Myer, a well-known store in this country, $2.68 million; the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Stock Exchange, Mr Tony D’Aloisio, $1.47 million. Let me take you back to the sports section for a second: Mr Bruno Cullen, the Managing Director of the very successful Brisbane Broncos club, receives a salary in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. Mr Russell Glasser, chief executive of CARE Australia, receives a $190,000 salary. Let me continue with some of these figures, because I think it is quite interesting. Let me take you to Jeffrey Lucy, the head of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, who receives $370,000; the very fine and distinguished public servant Dr Peter Shergold, head of Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, $355,000; and Mr Michael Carmody, commissioner for the Australian Taxation Office, $353,000. These are all Australians who do very fine things in their work and with their talents—sportspeople, businesspeople and public servants like Jeffrey Lucy, Peter Shergold and Michael Carmody. They all deserve the salaries they receive. They have an important role in the body politic of this country. In terms of the sportspeople and the likes of Megan Gale, the market sets their salaries. Let me take you now to people who serve in this parliament, because it is quite interesting that there is a significant contrast. I think the community will be interested, for those who might be listening. Members of my electorate will be very interested to know, if they do not already know, what politicians receive. The Prime Minister, for running this country—with the enormous responsibility and burden of high office that he holds—does not receive anywhere near the millions of dollars that those in the business world receive. His salary is under $300,000—it is $288,990. The ministers in cabinet receive $191,000. The federal Deputy Leader of the Opposition receives $175,000—quite a salary. A backbench member of this parliament or a senator with no portfolio or parliamentary secretary responsibilities is on $111,000. That is a small insight into the figures that members of this parliament receive. All these figures are on the public record. It is very important that it is transparent. As a sitting member of the parliament, as the federal member for Ryan, I want to strongly reiterate my position that it is very important that the community knows what members of parliament are receiving, what the Prime Minister’s salary is and what ministers and public servants receive. It is, after all, at the end of the day, taxpayers’ money. What should be pointed out in the context of this bill is the salary contrast. TV entertainers like Rove McManus receive $5.5 million a year, yet the Prime Minister’s salary is less than $300,000 and he is the official representative of this country—he represents us as the head of government in this country and as a duly elected leader of the nation in our system of government. The comparison is a very interesting point for Australians to ponder. That we pay our top businesspeople like Chip Goodyear from BHP in excess of $5 million a year is a very interesting observation to make. We must remember that they also run major organisations. BHP Billiton has a $43 billion turnover and almost 40,000 employees. By contrast, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have responsibility for the national economy. Our economy is valued at in excess of $800 billion. The federal budget that the Treasurer very finely manages and has carriage of is valued at in excess of $220 billion. The prosperity and growth of this nation of 20 million people hinge very much on how the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the cabinet and the government run it. It is an interesting point to make that the Minister for Defence in the cabinet has enormous responsibility with the protection of the country—Australian troop numbers in excess of 50,000 and a budget of almost $18 billion—yet his salary is nowhere near the salary of CEOs of the likes of Chip Goodyear or the salary of the delightful Megan Gale, whose talents are no doubt quite worthy of her millions of dollars. In conclusion, it is vital for the successful administration of this country that this parliament continues to attract the best and brightest into its ranks. At the moment, one can come to this parliament through being a member of one’s own party or through being voted in here independently. I am sure that all members would agree with me that it is imperative that we place a great emphasis on attracting to this parliament the very best, the very brightest, those who have a passion for the future of our country, who have a passion for bringing prosperity into the homes of our fellow Australians. My concern is that there is a danger, perhaps, that politics might become an option only for the very wealthy—those who have enough wealth to try and come into this place. Alternatively, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might see a salary in this place as a very high income indeed. I would hope that parliament can look into this and that we can have a discussion on this as well. As a sitting member of parliament, I have the great honour and privilege to represent the people of Ryan. I continue to work very hard at bringing to this parliament and to the government issues of concern to them and, in return, representing back to the constituency important issues and policies that the government sees fit to discuss. Debate interrupted. 99 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 100 100 16:30:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise to speak today in relation to the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. As the AWB scandal unfolds, despite the government’s best efforts to thwart this process, we are seeing repeatedly how the Howard government is failing Australians. As each scandalous detail is revealed, it is becoming clear how the Prime Minister and his ministers are motivated not by the national interest but purely by self-interest. In particular, this scandal, if nothing else, serves to highlight the shameless betrayal of our wheat farmers and regional Australia by this government. Regardless of the fact that we cannot get a straight answer from the government about how Australia is now in the middle of this scandal, the result of it is indeed unequivocal. Iraq has now suspended all wheat exports from Australia. Australian wheat farmers—hardworking families who are already doing it tough on the land—will now suffer directly because of the actions of this government. Here we have National Party cabinet ministers who are smack bang in the middle of this $300 million ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. At the very best, they could be accused of incompetence and neglect; at worst, they are at the centre of appalling deception and cover-up. Day after day, like pulling teeth, we find that this arrogant government has been instrumental in propping up a culture of cover-up and has consistently turned a blind eye to repeated warnings that AWB was involved in paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. In fact, the government has had no fewer than 14 separate warnings that AWB was paying bribes and kickbacks to the Iraqi regime. It has repeatedly ignored warnings from the United Nations, Canada and wheat farmers in Victoria. So many warnings have been ignored. If this government and, in particular, National Party cabinet ministers had done their jobs properly and investigated these warnings, we would not be in this dire situation today. What is the situation that we are in today? Our international reputation has been tarnished, our position as a trading nation has been undermined and the livelihoods of our wheat farmers are seriously at risk. Despite this situation, repeatedly all we have seen from this arrogant government is a demonstration of its utter contempt for the people of Australia by its refusal to answer the most basic questions about this scandal—questions that have been put to it in parliament. Last year, government ministers told this parliament that the government had assisted the Volcker inquiry into the oil for food scandal to the fullest extent and that it had provided all available information. We now know that this was completely untrue. It has become clear that the government’s own Wheat Export Authority was not forthcoming with all the information to that inquiry. We also now note that the Volcker inquiry had no access to electronic files held in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. But the truly frightening question now is: how much more is there to find out? Why aren’t there extended terms of reference for the Cole inquiry? How much more has to be revealed? How deep does this cover-up go? The Howard government, for once, should stop serving its own interests and do the right thing by Australians. In particular, National Party MPs should stand up and do the right thing by regional Australians—because it is regional Australia that will suffer from this scandal. As an MP from a regional electorate, I am acutely aware of how the National Party has continued to let down the people of rural and regional Australia. I am listening to the anger that is growing in regional Australia about how its needs are being forgotten by a party that is too busy dancing to the tune of the Liberal Party to represent properly the people who elected it to this place. Australian farmers, who traditionally form the basis of the National Party’s heartlands, are scratching their heads and wondering what happened to the party that once claimed to represent them. The National Party sold out the bush when it refused to fix Telstra and, instead, supported the cutting of services to regional Australia so that the telco could be fattened up for sale. It also sold out Australian families by supporting the Howard government’s attack on our industrial relations system. This AWB scandal must truly be the last straw for farmers, who have been left hung out to dry by a diminishing and irrelevant National Party, which is bereft of principles, ideas and backbone. What we are witnessing here—apart from an arrogant government which is drunk on unlimited power—is the final demise of the National Party. National Party cabinet ministers are responsible for damaging the interests of Australia’s hardworking wheat farmers and wheat exporters. They have failed repeatedly to respond to warnings about this scandal. I call on National Party MPs here to stop focusing on their internal fighting with their coalition partners and to start focusing on their constituents. I call on them to have the guts to stand up in this House, take responsibility for their actions and show regional Australia the respect that it demands and deserves. With the inaction that we are now seeing from these National Party members, how much longer will this scandal continue? How much longer will the government fail to take responsibility for its actions in relation to this? It is time for the National Party and Nationals MPs here to start standing up for their constituents—because this scandal is directly affecting their constituents. (Time expired) 101 101 16:35:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —I rise today to talk about the gut-wrenching subject of young people with disabilities in nursing homes. I am constantly reminded of this subject by the people of Gilmore. It was refreshing and inspiring to see the Prime Minister and the premiers put health at the top of the list of issues of importance at COAG. I hope it is the start of a process that soon sees the issues of young people with disabilities in nursing homes being addressed. We have all heard stories of young people with disabilities being placed in nursing homes because there is nowhere else for them to go—young people who are mentally sound and capable but who have a disability. But some families deal with very young people who have severe brain injuries—injuries so severe that parents do not know what the future holds. It is this uncertainty that I wish to address today. With his knowledge, I use the example of a member of my staff. Shawn Burns, my media and policy adviser, and his wife, Gina, have a severely disabled son. Mac is almost three years old. After being born 3½ months early and weighing just 498 grams, Mac survived four months in a neonatal intensive care ward, defying the odds and overcoming more than his share of hurdles—including an operation to remove part of his bowel, when he weighed just 700 grams. As I say, he beat the odds and left the neonatal intensive care ward relatively unscathed and, for all intents and purposes, well. Tragically, however, Mac fell ill just 10 weeks after getting home; he caught the flu. While most children catch the flu and get better, Mac’s flu almost killed him several times. His still immature lungs could not handle the pressure and subsequently put too much demand on his heart. He suffered multiple respiratory arrests. While Mac survived, his brain was starved of oxygen for too long and he suffered global brain damage. The damage left Mac with severe cerebral palsy and immeasurable cognitive disabilities. In his father’s words, ‘He is a beautiful boy.’ Mac is, however, a living and smiling personification of a question. It is the question his parents ask themselves only when they dare look to the future: who will look after him when we are gone? Mac’s parents are far from elderly. Both are in their mid-30s, and hopefully they will grow old. There is one thing guaranteed, however: they will grow old prematurely if more is not done to assist them and those like them. In not too many years Mac will no longer be a baby. He will be a teenager, a 20-something, a 30-something and so on. Mac will grow to be a man, a man in a disabled body and, in all probability, with severe mental disabilities. We do not want to face a situation where today’s beautiful baby boy, the topic of television stories, newspaper articles and calendar shoots, becomes the forgotten man. Mac’s parents, their families and their friends are determined to look after Mac and to do whatever it takes to give him quality of life. Mac must never be forced into an aged care nursing home because there is nowhere else for him to go. Let it not be said that this country did not act. Do not let the fight that Mac fought as a 498-gram baby to survive and the battle he and his parents face every day be in vain. While this story is being written, there is only one way a final chapter of tragedy can be avoided. When Mac’s parents are not able or around to look after him, this country must. Facilities must be established now to cater for the needs of young people with severe disabilities. We cannot continue to put them in nursing homes, and we cannot pretend Mac’s story will be the last of its kind. There are many more Macs in our community of Gilmore and many parents who cannot even find a respite bed for them. It is just too awful for words to describe the torment that these families go through. I thank Gina and Shawn for allowing me to present their story. It would not have been easy to admit that they must now look to the future at this early stage. Nursing homes are places where the elderly are cared for and given peace of mind. They are not places for healthy, young disabled people. I am indebted to the Prime Minister for placing this on the agenda of COAG and assure him there are many families in Gilmore awaiting the results of that meeting. I have already had discussions with Minister Cobb on this matter, as he has the responsibility for ensuring the carriage of this with the state government. This issue is not acceptable in today’s society. As a government, we must ensure we do something about it—and soon. 102 102 16:39:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise this afternoon to comment on the government’s trashing of very important principles in this place. It is clear by the actions of the government, indeed by the Prime Minister, that those supposed long-held principles of ministerial accountability and federalism have been jettisoned by this government since it managed to take control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate at the last election. In the first term of the Howard government we saw at least some attempt to respond to ministerial accountability. Some ministers resigned when it was clear that they had breached those principles. In fact, a whole host of ministers in the government between 1996 and 1998 resigned because they believed they had breached those fundamental principles. But since that time there has been not one minister who has clearly breached ministerial accountability and responsibility who has taken the honest and dignified decision to resign. Since 1998 we have seen a government that refuses to accept the long-held Westminster values that I thought the Prime Minister cherished. Clearly, his code of conduct and his attitude towards ministerial accountability have never been true, have never been an article of faith. Indeed, he has shown that again this week, where we have clearly illustrated that the government has been responsible for allowing for a $300 million bribe, most of which, it appears, has gone directly to the Saddam Hussein regime. That money has been directly paid to what the Prime Minister was saying only some years ago was an enemy of this country. We have seen that bribe go from the Australian Wheat Board. Under the purview of the government, that board has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to Saddam Hussein. We do not know where that money has been spent, what that money has been spent on or when it was spent, and the actual royal commission does not provide terms of reference for us to investigate those matters. Indeed, not only has the Prime Minister failed in upholding those very important principles of ministerial accountability by ensuring that Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister Vaile resign because of the fundamental breach we have seen in this place; instead we have witnessed stonewalling, lying and denying. We saw it last term. We saw it with ‘kids overboard’. We are seeing it time and time again by this government because it refuses to accept that there are values in this place. There are principles that are supposed to be upheld, and none of them are being adhered to by this Prime Minister and his ministers. I say of the Prime Minister and the government: it is about time they remembered that there are values that our community expects us to uphold and adhere to. We are role models for our community. If the Prime Minister does not know that, he will find out soon, because in my electorate, and I am sure in every electorate that is represented in this place, more and more people are asking why it is that the Prime Minister will not allow proper terms of reference to ensure that all things are examined in this disgraceful scandal that has beset us. Why is it that the Senate committee that should be investigating some of these matters was not allowed to properly examine the Public Service in a way to ensure that the community is provided with answers to this dreadful situation? Why is it that the Prime Minister is abusing his power in this place and, indeed, in the Senate—in both houses—by denying a proper examination of the facts? We know the answer to that. It is because this government is about lying and denying the truth. In fact, when the truth is clearly evident for all to see, this government is refusing to accept the long-held principles of ministerial accountability in this place. I think ministers erred before 1998 in the first term of this government, but at least the ministers then had the dignity to resign when they were fundamentally in breach of those principles. Clearly, there has not been any acceptance of responsibilities by ministers in this AWB scandal. It is about time they did something. The wheat farmers are hurting. Their long-term interests have been trashed as a result of the government’s failure, and no doubt it is also the case with the sugar farmers. The sugar farmers were sold out by the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, and now the wheat farmers— (Time expired) 104 104 16:44:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —I rise today to speak on the one resolute feeling that I share with all my wheat growers in the Riverina, with the Deputy Prime Minister and The Nationals—that is, the continued operation of the single desk. I share with the House a letter that one of my constituents has written to the Prime Minister in anguish. He said: I am writing to you as a wheat grower who depends on the AWB conducting a National Pool(s) in conjunction with the Single Seller Monopoly to have my returns maximised. I beg you not to take any action that will jeopardise this system which is the only aid which we as growers, in a country of small population, have to compete with treasuries of USA and Europe. Changes to the AWB Power of Veto over Bulk Export permits will destroy the ability of AWB to run pools, and lead to multiple sellers disposing of our grain at discounted prices. In another letter to me that same constituent indicated: Why have we as a Nation allowed our National Wheat Marketer to be so undermined ... As far as I am aware there have been no other companies investigated in other countries—there were over 2000 named in the original Vokker report. We can see by the discussions held in this House day after day who is allowing our wheat growers and our national wheat marketer to be undermined. Let me tell you that the Labor Party are without doubt the best friend the American wheat growers have ever had. It is without question that they are in favour of the American wheat growers, because they are inflicting too much damage on the wheat growers of Australia by continuing this unrelenting and unswerving attack. The innuendo and accusation that have been directed at the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade are unparliamentary and absolutely unforgivable. Anyone who takes on the National Party and undermines the Deputy Prime Minister is no friend of the National Party and no friend of the coalition. As I said, there is one resolution that I have in common with the majority of wheat growers in the Riverina and hopefully right across Australia—that is, the Deputy Prime Minister and The Nationals’ support of the operation of a single desk. Our policy is to support a single desk, and we will fight to the end to achieve that policy. The single desk policy cannot be allowed to come under question. I have always supported single desk marketing. I have stood in this House time and time again and supported it, because I happen to represent the people who do best out of single desk marketing, whether it be in wheat or in rice. I will continue to do this. I have never, ever been convinced as to how multiple sellers competing and discounting against each other with the hard-worked product of Australian wheat or rice growers bring our growers better returns. Nobody has ever been able to convince me of that. I remember that in long-gone years we had multiple sellers, and that is why we developed this clear and concise way of delivering a good single desk policy that brought about better returns for our growers. It is my view that a single seller monopoly maximises returns to our growers over the long term, sometimes through difficult, drought affected years. There is no doubt in my mind that the push to dismantle the single desk comes from the fiercely competitive and highly subsidised United States farm lobby. I have to say that the opposition is assisting that cause to the very end. We simply cannot allow the single desk to be the victim of the opposition’s and the US’s anticompetitive views and their anticompetitive behaviour. So I rise in support of all farmers and producers across my electorate of Riverina—and the majority of them support the single desk—to urge everybody to get their mind on the damage that is being caused to the growers that we represent and to ensure that they will do everything possible. (Time expired) 105 105 16:49:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —The core of the Australian Wheat Board scandal, or the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, is really no longer a case of whether there were kickbacks or bribes, because we all know for a fact that there were $300 million worth of kickbacks and bribes. That is a fact. What we now need to understand is just how culpable and involved the federal government was in all this. The fact that this government has denied that it had any knowledge of the bribery and about what has taken place in terms of the kickbacks should not diminish the fact of the government’s involvement. By any measure, this government should have known, and would have known by a range of ways, that there were massive kickbacks directly back to Saddam Hussein. There has been plenty of discussion about where that money ended up and what it was used for. I want to deal quickly today with a number of issues. I want to list all the occasions on which the government should have been made aware of the situation, apart from the occasions on which the Labor Party raised questions of concern and issues with the government directly in questions about potential breaches, saying that the government should look into it. That is not to mention that halfway through the election campaign itself in 2004 the Prime Minister sent his most highly qualified diplomat to Washington to stave off, cut off at the pass, a possible inquiry into this very issue in case it was damaging to the government’s re-election chances. In my mind, I think it is unbelievable how the government can continue to come into this place and say, ‘Well, you can’t prove it because you haven’t got the documents; provide us with some documents.’ We say, ‘Give us the keys to the locked cabinets and we’ll find you the documents—give us the key to the bottom drawer and we’ll find them.’ On no less than 14 separate occasions were the warning alarm bells ringing. In January 2000 UN customs experts warned Australia’s UN mission about the Iraqi government demanding some $US700,000 from the Canadian Wheat Board to cover suspect trucking fees. In March 2000 Austrade commissioner Alistair Nicholas briefed AWB’s executives in Washington telling them of official corruption in this area. In June 2000 trade minister Mark Vaile apparently met with AWB chiefs Flugge and Lindberg over the kickback claims. He denies that the meeting took place, even though records of the meeting showed it did. In September 2000 there were emails between former BHP executive Norman Davidson Kelly telling senior AWB manager Charles Stott about the Tigris petroleum deal. In November 2000 and July 2002 the Prime Minister wrote to the AWB head. The list of correspondence goes on and on: August 2002, May-June 2003, July et cetera. There was a plethora of warning bells, of signals of government ministers being involved at some level in the information trail. Surely the government must have known, would have known and should have known—and should have done something about it. But, of course, when you are deeply involved you will do everything you can to hide it and not let anybody else know. I want to quote something very important which may explain why we have not been able to find that specific evidence—that smoking gun, as it were—to prove the government’s direct involvement. It comes from an article in crikey.com. It is a very interesting piece about how ASIS, our intelligence organisation, is involved in what we just heard about from the member for Riverina, in terms of US wheat farmers and how Australia protects our wheat exports through our intelligence services. I will read some passages: When the Prime Minister says that nothing has been reported to him about knowledge of the oil for food scandal, he is skipping through a semantic and procedural minefield. Crikey understands the procedures go like this: If ASIS, the Australian government intelligence agency responsible for collecting foreign intelligence gets information regarding an Australian company, they are forbidden from naming it in formal reports. And if such information came into ASIS, it would not necessarily be passed on to ONA, the security body cited by the Prime Minister on the Sunday program last weekend in a formal report. However, Crikey is told anything of any significance is certain to be disclosed to the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—but not necessarily on paper. This whole government’s defence is that you cannot find a piece of paper. We do not necessarily need to find a piece of paper, because I think there is already enough evidence of the government’s complicity in this whole issue. Just because it is not in writing does not mean it did not happen. The government knows this and understands this. The questions need to be asked: has the Prime Minister any knowledge, or has there been any reporting to him, in any form? Has he got anything in any form? I would be very interested to hear his response on that. How common are these sorts of things? How commonly does this happen? Is this only happening with AWB or is this happening elsewhere? The Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, who is well known to many people, made some interesting comments on this. (Time expired) 106 106 16:54:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —My attention has been drawn to press reports of Senate estimates committees and the Australian Labor Party’s effort to discredit Hillsong Emerge. Hillsong is a large church within my electorate and has an outreach and welfare arm called Hillsong Emerge. Emerge has many aspects, including youth and drug rehabilitation programs. Some sections of the press have not been slow to pick up these criticisms and grossly misrepresent what has actually occurred. I must pay credit to the local members in the area, federal and state, because not one has picked up these criticisms. I think we all understand the work that is done by Hillsong Emerge. Most of the funds which come to this dynamic community support group are from the congregation of the Hillsong Church. There are some funds from government, but most of the funds they use are from the generous gifts of the members of the congregation. Hillsong Emerge is a separate and distinct organisation with a separate charter, management and legal entity. The reputation of this group was the reason why an invitation to submit an application to apply under the federal government’s crime prevention program was taken up by Hillsong Emerge. A funding offer of $414,479 was made to a partnership comprising Hillsong Emerge, the Riverstone Aboriginal Community Association, Riverstone sports centre, Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service, Australian Sudanese Youth Union and the Blacktown Police Citizens Youth Club. The administrative costs of this program, to assist in preventing crime and work with youth in western Sydney, was modest for a program of this type and amounted to about 19 per cent of total costs. The program’s aim was, as I have said, to assist young people in western Sydney. A sour-grapes outburst at a meeting from the Labor Mayor of Blacktown, Alderman Kelly, resulted in him calling in partners of this project and encouraging them to break out of the project and establish a separate organisation or separate application of their own. Blacktown City Council receives $14.7 million from the federal government each year, and recently boasted that it has a nest egg of approximately $42 million. The mayor’s manipulation of the Riverstone Aboriginal Community Association did eventually result in their breaking from the group and, despite months of negotiation, it was not possible to have them rejoin. The other five partners of the group were enthusiastic for the project’s continuation. Eventually, the Attorney-General’s Department made an inquiry, after being kept informed of the process and what was going on in the community, as to whether the original contract could be fulfilled. Of course, the answer to that had to be no, because one partner had decided to withdraw. As I said, the five continuing partners wanted to proceed with this excellent project which would have been of great benefit to the young people of western Sydney, particularly the Indigenous and ethnic communities, but that was not able to go ahead. Hillsong Emerge have been advised that they would be eligible to apply for further funding with a different composition in the group. I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the Mayor of Blacktown. Not only did he succeed in pulling down what was an excellent project, purely out of sour grapes and for party political advantage, but he is now, in the press, blaming Hillsong for poor administration and for being the cause of that process. Nothing could be further from the truth and nothing could be a greater lie. The fact of the matter is that when these matters are reported in the press, extravagant language is used, such as Hillsong being stripped of its funding and that it deceived the Aboriginal community. They are the falsehoods that the mayor is basing his arguments on. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 107 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 107 Notices The following notices were given: FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson’s private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of item 2 of Schedule 7 of Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 240, Migration Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 9), Division 1.4E—Sponsorship: trade skills training (incorporating Subdivisions 1.4E1 to 1.4E4) and made under the Migration Act 1958, being called on immediately. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That this House: reject arguments stating that intelligence is related to race; acknowledge that such comments have been inflammatory and have led to the vilification of people in the African community; reassert the need for a non-discriminatory immigration policy; call upon the Australian government to provide increased support for recently established communities; and recognise the contribution that these new communities are making to the wider Australian community. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull to move: That this House: note that: ageing parents and carers of disabled children face a crisis of lack of accommodation options for disabled children; any ageing parents and carers of disabled children are in need of aged care accommodation for themselves; due to limited available accommodation options for disabled people, many aged carers of disabled people are significantly disadvantaged; there is an urgent need to assist ageing parents and carers of disabled children to access quality accommodation and care for disabled people; in October 2005 the Prime Minister announced a $200 million package to assist parents to establish private trusts for the future care of their disabled children; and there is an expert advisory group established to advise on the implementation of the package; and call on: the Minister to instruct the advisory group to consult widely on the merits of establishing a new financial and insurance product that would assist all parents of disabled children to plan for their future care; and both the State and Federal Governments to work together to urgently resolve this accommodation and care crisis. (Notice given 16 February 2006.) HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to move: That this House: note numerous calls by the international community, including motions passed by the European Union, the United States Congress, the United Kingdom House of Commons and others, for a cessation of human rights abuses in Burma; note also statements by the Australian Government including most recently at the International Labor Conference in June 2005 concerning the current situation in Burma in relation to forced labour practices; recognise that there has been no meaningful progress towards democratic rule in Burma and that opposition leader Aung San Suu Ky remains under house arrest; recognise that the National Convention established by the Burmese junta cannot in its present state achieve a state constitution that will guarantee human rights, democracy and federalism in Burma, and to date has made nil progress; call on the Australian Parliament and Government to reject the sham National Convention; repeat calls for the urgent cessation of human rights abuses in Burma; repeat calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Nobel peace laureate Aung San San Suu Kyi, U Tin Oo, Khun Tun Oo and remaining political prisoners; urge the United Nations Security Council to act immediately, in concert with the international community, in relation to the current situation in Burma; and further call on the Government to continue to engage vigorously with regional states, including the People's Republic of China, and India, with a view to encouraging support for the placing of Burma on the agenda of the UN Security Council. (Notice given  February 2006.) 16/02/2006 109Thursday, 16 February 2006 ————— The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. 109 Statements by Members 109 109 09:30:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I rise to speak about the current inquiry by the Regulation Task Force into the subject of reducing the regulatory burden on business. Whilst recognising the significance in corporate cost structures and productivity, the inquiry’s initial discussion paper seems largely preoccupied with ways of reducing regulation as opposed to actually accomplishing good regulation. The discussion paper quotes from various business sources at length, yet makes no reference to consumer needs and demands. To this end, whilst not seeking to pre-empt the outcome of the inquiry, it is essential the task force gives serious consideration to valuable, easily obtainable consumer views. In their submission to the inquiry, the Australian Consumer Association, ACA, stated: We want as little regulation as possible—but as much as is needed. The idea that the size of the problem can be measured by the amount of regulation in the statute books—the “quantity theory of regulation”—is dangerously simplistic. Much of the regulation introduced in the past 20 years has been required by new developments in technology, markets, demography, societal expectations or government policy. The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs. The Productivity Commission task force discussion paper borrows heavily from the recent Business Council of Australia report titled Business regulation action plan for future prosperity. The BCA’s report is essentially concerned with reducing regulation for big business whilst ignoring the impact such reform will have on consumers and their small business competitors. Whilst it is important for governments to consider the cost of regulation on all business sectors, nevertheless the guiding motivation underpinning any regulation or government reform should always be the public benefit. Again, in their submission to the task force the ACA argued: The public interest should be the fundamental motivation of regulatory decision-making in the market sphere. In particular, will consumers benefit from regulation? A test for successful regulation should therefore hinge on a broad test of consumer interest. Ultimately consumers endure the burden of both failed regulation either as victims of market failure or increased prices resulting from compliance costs. The BCA position essentially posits that regulation should be the last, not the first, response of government. The approach adopted by regulators such as the ACCC and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission takes a very pragmatic handle whereby regulations can sit in view of the purpose and the aim of intervention; the nature of industry, whether it is service or goods, emerging or mature; the size and the structure of the industry; the geographic spread and cohesiveness of the industry— (Time expired) 110 110 09:33:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —The ancient Greek physician Galen said as far back as 172 AD, ‘Employment is nature’s best physician and is essential for human happiness.’ Imagine what Galen would say if he knew that in Australia 75 per cent of people with a mental illness were unemployed—I repeat: 75 per cent. This is truly disturbing when you realise that people with a mental illness are 12 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a mental illness. Two-thirds of people with a mental illness desperately want to get back into work, but there is a range of complex reasons why it is difficult for them. In financial terms, there is also a huge cost to taxpayers as people with mental illness receive disability support pensions. In La Trobe I have had meetings with locals with mental illness where they have told me, ‘All I want is a job; that is all I want’. Why do people with a mental illness have difficulty obtaining jobs? Sometimes it can be at the interview, where they are too honest about their mental condition or signs of mental illness become apparent. There are also no guarantees that, even when a person with a mental illness on the right medical treatment gains employment, sooner or later they will not have a bad day at work. A bad day at work may include bizarre behaviour that will probably end up costing them a job or simply the person does not meet the productivity required when compared with a so-called normal employee. So how do we help people with mental illness obtain jobs in the first place and, more importantly, keep jobs even when they have had a bad day at work or cannot cope with a full day? That brings me to what is called a social firm, which is an exciting development in psychiatric rehabilitation and reintegration. It is a supportive work environment with approximately 40 per cent of its jobs designated to people with disabilities. These workers are integrated with workers who do not have a disability, so workers without a disability can work around others on those slow or bad work days, knowing that things will be right tomorrow or in a day or two. On 30 January, along with Tony Smith, the member for Casey, who is also a strong advocate for people with mental health issues, I attended a meeting focusing on what is known as the ‘imagination tree’ in Monbulk. Social Firms Australia was also present. We were looking at obtaining a Regional Partnerships grant to assist buying a business which focuses on cultivating bonsai trees. Also present at the meeting was Carolyn Crosse, David Young and Andrea Tindall from Social Firms Australia; Paul and Trish Sweeney, the owners of the business; Michael Traill and Jane Laity from Social Ventures Australia, SVA, who are putting the business project together; and SVA business consultant, Mike Kerr. I am a strong advocate for this project. So is Tony Smith. I also acknowledge the Howard government’s great work on mental health. (Time expired) 110 110 09:36:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I want to talk today about the misuse and misappropriation of funds by Hillsong Church. Questions on notice asked by the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and media reports have revealed that over $1.2 million in business development grants to the Hillsong Church’s benevolent organisation, Hillsong Emerge, have been wasted. There are very few visible results from the grants, apart from well looked after Hillsong Emerge staff. These are grants that are supposed to assist disadvantaged Indigenous Australians. Hillsong Emerge spent $315,000 from a federal government grant to employ seven people for a microcredit program in Sydney that gave just six Indigenous people a loan. The total grant for the microcredit program was $965,421, with 93 borrowers across Australia. Only $362,673 of the grant ended up in the hands of Indigenous borrowers. The sum of $610,000 was also spent by Hillsong on projects for ‘business development’ and ‘self-confidence for young women’ in Sydney, which are supposed to help Indigenous people find employment. Answers to questions asked by the shadow minister reveal that, from 74 clients, Hillsong Emerge advise that to their knowledge ‘none of those assisted have moved to full self-employment’. This shows a frightening lack of oversight and monitoring on behalf of the federal government in administering these grants and indeed in making them in the first instance. It shows how the Howard government has reached a new low of incompetence in Indigenous affairs. It forces us to question the government’s decision to remove responsibility for programs like this from Indigenous organisations. The government scrapped ATSIC, citing mismanagement and poor financial accountability. Unwisely, responsibility for programs like that administered by Hillsong Emerge were taken away from Indigenous Australians. What we see here is a terrible waste of funding under the government’s new arrangements for Indigenous affairs that were supposed to improve accountability. This funding has been squandered by non-Indigenous people who are completely unaccountable and who cannot show any real results for their spending. We know in the case of Hillsong what it was all about. It was about the member for Greenway. It was about the Prime Minister flying the flag and showing how beneficent he was to the Christian community, not caring about the accountability measures that should be provided. On 14 February an article appearing under the headline ‘Hillsong stripped of grant’ stated that Hillsong Church’s benevolent arm had been stripped of a $414,000 grant it obtained from federal funds because of its deception. Hillsong was deceiving Aboriginal people. Let us understand what is happening here: these people got these grants by deceiving not only the government but also Indigenous Australians. (Time expired) 111 111 09:39:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —I rise this morning to speak about an important local issue that I am currently working on in the Bonner electorate. Logan and Klumpp roads are notorious in the suburb of Upper Mount Gravatt, and local residents, schools and businesses are only too familiar with the heavy traffic congestion that builds daily on these two roads. At the intersection where these roads meet are two local schools—St Bernard’s Primary School and Clairvaux Mackillop College. Each weekday morning and afternoon this intersection becomes heavily congested as the peak hour traffic combines with hundreds of parents attempting to drop off and collect their children from school. This is an issue that has caused frustration and concern in the local community for some time now and it is an issue that needs addressing. In recent months I have been meeting regularly with the Principal of Clairvaux Mackillop College, Ms Laura Keating, in relation to a project that proposes the development of a road that would cut behind the two schools and facilitate safe student drop-off zones. A road like this would enable parents to turn off Logan and Klumpp roads, thereby allowing a more easy flow of traffic along these main roads during peak hour times. The proposal has been well researched and engineered as the best possible solution to the problem that exists. It is, however, an expensive project and one that requires consultation and support from the local community. As the local member, I will be making every effort to assist the process and I am determined to find a way in which this project can be funded. The current situation is a disaster waiting to happen. In addition to the heavy traffic, accidents are occurring on a regular basis. Upper Mount Gravatt locals would easily recall the tragic events that occurred some years ago when a student was run down and another killed by a vehicle outside St Bernard’s School. The principal of Clairvaux Mackillop College has described the vigilance with which she and fellow teachers supervise the students leaving the premises each afternoon. She shared her feelings of dread each time a horn blows or a car tyre screeches in fear that one of her students may have been seriously hurt or even killed. The situation is unfortunately only going to get worse and, although this issue is not a federal matter as such, I believe that through the government’s flexible initiatives, such as the strategic Roads to Recovery program, the opportunity may exist to present the current problem and a community supported solution with the aim of securing funding. I understand that through the program local governments will be given the opportunity to apply for funding for projects such as this that would never be funded otherwise. Therefore, I can assure local residents and commuters that I will be encouraging the school communities involved to work with the Brisbane City Council to ensure that this problem and proposed solution are given the priority and attention that they deserve. 112 112 09:42:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —On several occasions in this place I have raised the impact on my constituents of rising petrol prices. I have never received any satisfaction from the ACCC in response to submissions that I have made on their behalf, particularly about what appeared to me to be evidence of collusion, with price rises occurring quite simultaneously at the end of the week over the period of months that I investigated. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —It was just coincidence! JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms GEORGE —That is right. In my electorate, over a period of 20 months the price of petrol rose by 50 per cent, from 94c a litre to a high at one stage of $1.40. It was clear to anyone examining these price hikes that excessive profits were being bagged and that refiners were lifting their profit margins, ripping off consumers in the post-Hurricane Katrina period—or using that as the reason. The government sat on its hands making excuses but offering no solutions. It was not even prepared to direct the ACCC to undertake a formal inquiry into soaring petrol prices and to establish what was going on in refining margins. As well as the impact of petrol prices on the community, my constituents have raised with me their concern about the steep hikes in the price of LPG. At the time they raised these concerns the local price of LPG had risen as high as 59c a litre. They wanted me as their member to investigate the reasons for these price hikes and bring the matter to the government’s attention. I am pleased to say that the Parliamentary Library has assisted me in establishing what has been occurring in the LPG market. As we know, in 1991 the federal government deregulated the wholesale price of LPG in Australia. That price is now set in world markets, as is the case with petrol. Local producers set prices on the basis of import parity tied to a benchmark for international prices known as the Saudi CP. That is related to crude oil prices, so it is inevitable that prices that move internationally will be reflected here. But what worries me is the substantial fluctuation in the retail price of LPG. For example, in November 2005 the LPG price in Australia’s five major mainland cities ranged from around 44c a litre to about 68c a litre. Constituents in Hobart and Darwin always suffer from the burden of much higher prices. If you look at the average monthly LPG price in Sydney over a period of years, it has risen from 35c in January 2000 to 58.7c in January 2006, an increase of more than 50 per cent. The ACCC, which is there to protect consumers, is not performing any formal price monitoring for either petrol or LPG. The time for action is now. The government should instruct the ACCC to undertake consistent formal monitoring of both petrol and LPG prices. (Time expired) 113 113 09:46:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —In January I had the great privilege of being a guest of the United States Navy onboard the USS Ronald Reagan, the aircraft carrier that is named in honour of the former US President Ronald Reagan. Brisbane was the USS Ronald Reagan’s first port of call overseas. It was very warmly welcomed by all Queenslanders. I had the great privilege of being a guest on this incredible warship, which the captain of the vessel called ‘97,000 tonnes of democracy’. This massive ship is home to 6,000 crew. It is 77 metres high, 344 metres long and 78 metres at its widest point. This 97,000 tonne aircraft carrier is the biggest vessel ever to visit Brisbane. The USS Ronald Reagan cost about $5 billion to build and costs about $3 million a day to operate. If you compare that to the Australian defence budget, which is about $17½ billion, it gives an indication of the sheer sums of money involved. Australia and the United States are both committed to democratic and representative forms of government. We are committed to open and free markets, we believe in strong, robust and transparent economies and we are committed to APEC and free trade. Our two nations have much in common and this visit is a fine example of the strong relationship between us. I want to encourage the government to continue to work with the United States, and the United States with Australia, to improve the things we cherish and believe in, namely, democracy and greater human rights in countries of the world that might not subscribe to our views. As the member for the federal electorate of Ryan in the western suburbs of Brisbane, which it is my great privilege to represent, I will continue to very strongly advocate that this country remain a very close ally of the United States. Our relationship is enduring—the test of time reflects how close we are—and it is important for international and regional stability that the US have an important place in this part of the world. I finish my remarks by quoting the former US President Ronald Reagan. He said: … the ultimate determinant in the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish … (Time expired) 113 113 09:49:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I welcome the statements by the Treasurer and the member for Fisher this morning concerning AWB’s $300 million payment to the regime of Saddam Hussein. They are displaying a much greater appreciation of the seriousness of the situation than the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade. The member for Fisher has said there is now a question mark over the future of Trade Minister Vaile. He is absolutely right. For the Prime Minister to send Minister Vaile off to Iraq to try to retrieve Australia’s wheat contracts is to send a boy on a man’s errand. He has got us into this mess. Who really believes that he can get us out? The member for Fisher is also right to raise question marks about the future of AWB and the decision to include AWB in the delegation to Iraq. The present Iraqi government has locked Australia out of wheat contracts. Money which should have gone to starving Iraqi men, women and children instead went as bribes to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government has changed the locks because it thinks it has been burgled. We are sending a delegation to ask for the locks to be changed back, but the delegation includes the burglar. This is the wrong way to go. Like the member for Fisher, the Treasurer seems to have a greater understanding of the seriousness of the issue. He has suggested that AWB directors may have breached the law as well as the UN sanctions regime, and he has referred to the avenue of criminal prosecution. He is right to do so. Both the Cole commission and the Australian Federal Police should examine whether AWB or any of its officers and directors have breached the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act 2002. This act, in response to a UN resolution which followed al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks, established the offence of financing terrorism, providing that anyone who provides funds and is reckless as to whether the funds will be used to facilitate or engage in a terrorist act is guilty of an offence. The offence can be anywhere in the world; it is not limited to Australia. It can be committed by a corporation like AWB where the penalty is a fine of up to $1.1 million or by an individual where the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life. There is now no doubt AWB provided kickbacks to the Iraqi regime and no doubt it did so after July 2002. The Prime Minister has said that the Iraqi regime funded international terrorism, including Palestinian suicide bombers. Therefore, I believe that breaches of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Act may have occurred here, and I call on the Cole commission and the Australian Federal Police to fully investigate these matters. 114 114 09:51:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 0 Miss JACKIE KELLY —In a recent debate, of which members would be aware, Deputy Speaker McMullan drew the attention of members to page 361 of House of Representatives Practice. I would like to discuss that article of practice. As the House has never agreed to a ‘reasoned amendment’, it is uncharted waters as to what would happen in the event of the House agreeing to a reasoned amendment. House of Representatives Practice refers to a reasoned amendment, but I will call it a ‘principled amendment’ when it stands for a particular principle which we would like voted on before the vote on a second reading of a bill. Page 361 of House of Representatives Practice argues that, at the end of a successful vote on a principled amendment, if there is nothing on the Notice Paper, the House can then move to have a suspension of standing orders—which would need an absolute majority of the House—to place the matter on notice so that debate on the principled amendment can proceed, as it has done to date. If that is not the way that the House chooses to go, the principled amendment would need to be incorporated into the main bill and put on the Notice Paper for future debate. It is one practice that members can use in these types of discussions to give them the opportunity to vote on an amendment before they have to commit themselves to a yes or no vote on a difficult bill. It is different from other types of amendments. This is a wonderful opportunity for members to chart the order of votes in this House. Later today the Speaker will be making various decisions on this procedural amendment. I would like to draw the attention of members to page 361 of House of Representatives Practice and ask them to read the several paragraphs regarding what happens with these divisions in the House. Quite frankly, the government has never negatived a second reading motion. We have not had that situation. It may occur with a private member’s bill, but in this instance there is an opportunity for a different outcome. (Time expired) 115 115 09:54:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —Earlier this week I tabled the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I ran out of time when speaking during the debate and I would like to put on the record some very important matters from that report. Most importantly, I want to talk about an ASIC undertaking on superannuation switching. With super choice nowadays, people are seeking advice on whether they should change funds. ASIC has monitored the advice being given to people to see if it is appropriate or not and, sadly, it is not. Firstly, ASIC found in investigations of the ‘from’ fund—the fund you are transferring from—that most advisers recommending a switch had made little or no investigation of the fund that they advised their client to switch from. Secondly, ASIC discovered poor disclosure of costs, loss of benefits and other significant consequences if this advice is followed. As a result of limited or no investigation of the ‘from’ fund, most advisers under our surveillance did not comply with the specific obligations to disclose the cost, loss to benefits and other significant consequences of the recommended switch. Thirdly, there was a tendency to recommend a fund related to the licensee. Based on statistics provided by licensees, there is a strong tendency among advisers to recommend switching to a fund related to the licensee. In these cases, there is a conflict of interest that must be carefully managed in order to avoid the perception that the advice is inappropriate or is not given on a reasonable basis. Fourthly, there was a tendency to oversell life insurance. There were a number of examples where advisers appeared to recommend life insurance to clients where there did not seem to be a reasonable basis to do so. This is a glaring report and the case studies in it are quite frightening. But most frightening of all, it seems that the majority of this mis-selling occurred among people of low to middle incomes—people who already had limited superannuation were being advised to take that limited super and put it into another fund, which in most cases was detrimental to their own financial wellbeing. They were losing money by having to pay the cost of going into funds, switching funds and then buying life insurance products that they had no need for. Most of our superannuation provides us with good death and disability cover; most of us do not need the additional life insurance products that these people are being sold. This is a real concern to us as a society, where more people are taking out their super and retiring. We need to ensure that people are getting appropriate advice—that people actually know what to do with their life savings and are not blowing it on the scams we are seeing coming across the internet every day. The federal government has put aside $21 million to the Consumer and Financial Literacy Taskforce. This is meant to be doing things to give us financial advice now so that people know what to do with their money. So far it has put out eight press releases. One of them told us that if you save money you will be better off. I could have told anybody that; I think most people know that. What we need is actual advice now, assistance to people and more things done in schools so children have a knowledge of life savings and people are not losing money. The Liberian loans scam alone has netted that country $21 billion. It is a disgrace and we need to be doing more. (Time expired) 116 116 09:57:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —In early January, the media carried a report about a proposal by the Young Labor movement promoting a form of national service for community work. I would like to respond to that report to show that the proposal is effectively way behind the times. The irony of the proposal was not lost on the media, which said at the time: The youth wing of the party that repeatedly opposed conscription during the Vietnam War wants to bring back national service. According to the report, the group’s spokesperson said: The community service could take many forms, from being an army cadet to helping with chores at the local retirement village. It could be helping community groups or churches or charities. Guess what, Mr Deputy Speaker: that is old news. We already have something going and it has been operating since a pilot project was introduced in the Shoalhaven four years ago. In June 2002 we approached the Prime Minister after much community consultation and he recognised the value of such an initiative and agreed to a pilot program in the Shoalhaven. That support was signalled with a commitment of $63,000 to match the $96,000 contribution of Shoalhaven businesses and community organisations. The program, called the Shoalhaven Youth Development Demonstration Project, has been based on a model that was developed in Western Australia in 1996. In fact, the Hansard will show that I spoke on this when I reported the progress of the program in 2003. On 11 February 2001, the steering committee met in Nowra under the auspices of the Shoalhaven Area Consultative Committee to discuss the next step and registered 89 students and two teachers. I am delighted to remind members on the other side that they should not assume they have a monopoly on new ideas and innovative thinking. In the pilot program we had 168 students complete training with organisations such as the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the Surf Lifesaving Association, the SES and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. Students gained accreditation certificates from the training and often took on further training in their own time. At the end of the program, 90 per cent of students went on to take up full membership of one of these organisations. Students were called out during the Shoalhaven bushfire emergency in 2002 and also took part in the thankyou parades in Sydney and Nowra. The main ingredient for success has been the encouragement and enthusiasm of the teachers and agencies involved. Civilian cadets was set up to develop life skills in Shoalhaven’s young people by complementing existing education and training. This involved forming partnerships with Commonwealth and state governments and community organisations to provide opportunities for our young people to develop skills that would benefit both themselves and their local communities. The Prime Minister was so impressed with the results that he announced the program would be extended. Yet, despite this information being readily available to Labor, they are completely oblivious of what is going on with youth in Australia. In fact, it seems they might be oblivious to the Hansards on some occasions. They prefer to move in their own rarefied atmosphere in the deluded belief that they have discovered something new. I am sorry to disappoint you. But I am encouraged by the fact that, in principle, Labor support the concept and I expect with their grandiose announcement they will now fall into line and support the expansion of this most vital and enthusiastic program. So, if anyone on the other side wants to come and have a look at how it is working, give my office a call and I will be happy to arrange a briefing. I might add that since then we have also the leadership courses and pilot programs of the member for Mitchell— (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 117 Bills R2498 Cognate bill: 117 Bills R2499 117 Debate resumed from 15 February, on motion by Mr Nairn: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that: despite record high commodity prices the Government has failed to secure Australia’s long term economic fundamentals and that it should be condemned for its failure to: stem the widening current account deficit and trade deficits; reverse the reduction in public education and training investment; address critical structural weaknesses in health such as workforce shortages and rising costs; expand and encourage research and development to move Australian industry and exports up the value-chain; and address falling levels of workplace productivity; the Government’s extreme industrial relations laws will lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity or economic growth; and the Government’s Budget documents fail the test of transparency and accountability”. 117 10:01:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —I wish to address the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 and also the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne. I wish to speak about the government’s spending and lack of spending in vital areas. One is of major importance to my electorate and one is of vital importance to the country. I draw attention to items under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) in respect of the appropriation to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of $124 million including $104 million in structural adjustment payments for the fishing industry. There is $20 million for the Tasmanian hardwood timber industry. The Department of Defence gets $155.8 million, including $56.9 million for special task force groups to Afghanistan plus helicopters. The third item I would like to draw attention to is the Australian Federal Police: $54.6 million for airport-policing measures including community policing, $27.2 million; first response counter-terrorism in airports, $18.2 million; and airport investigation, $9.2 million. Why do I draw attention to these three items? I think these three items under this appropriation bill draw me to an area of glaring neglect. This government is failing us at home. It is neglecting our security at home by always thinking that it can provide our security by looking overseas. We are fighting a senseless war abroad in Iraq, a war where the Australian government is funding both sides. We are funding our own troops, we had been funding the troops of the Iraqi government that we overthrew and we are also funding the insurgencies that are causing so much pain and grief over there through our continual kickbacks from the oil for food scandal. So, while we are off fighting senseless wars abroad, we have forgotten about our security at home, and this is no more glaringly obvious than what I have seen in Perth and will be seeing again in Broome tomorrow in respect of illegal fishing. Illegal fishing has become a blight on this country and on our community and the government seems to do nothing about it. While this is going on, Labor has established a task force into marine and transport security to highlight the dangerous consequences of the Howard government’s failure to safeguard Australia’s infrastructure and borders. For the past 10 years, the Howard government has shown a complete disregard for transport and marine security. As a result, gaping holes have emerged along our borders, opening Australia up to the threat of trafficking, drug running, illegal fishing, communicable diseases and, of most concern, terrorist attacks. By failing to secure this nation’s borders and infrastructure, John Howard is putting Australian lives at risk. The coalition likes to walk the talk when it comes to national security, but it does not seem to be able to walk the walk. The task force that I am chairing will be travelling around Australia talking to communities about their concerns and we are also asking people to make submissions. The Howard government has proved incapable of managing Australia’s transport and marine security. The damaging Wheeler review highlighted a culture of crime and lax security in Australian airports. Some 384 aviation security identity cards have been lost or stolen over the past two years alone. There is a dangerous shortage of surveillance measures at our regional airports. The position of Inspector of Transport Security has been in constant shambles and still has not been given the authority to undertake any form of investigation. Customs is underresourced and underfinanced, leaving Australia’s borders dangerously underpatrolled. More than 2.4 million parcels which entered the country last year were unscreened. Illegal fishing in Australian waters has more than doubled over the last year. It is estimated that around nine out of 10 boats go undetected. Aside from poisoning our economy and being an environmental threat, this is also a major quarantine risk. To make matters worse, there is no national coordinated authority in charge of Australia’s various security agencies. Yet the Howard government refuses to adopt Labor’s policy of establishing a coastguard and a department of homeland security. The most concerning aspect of the Howard government’s neglect of our transport and marine security is the possibility of a terrorist attack. There is an urgent need to harden Australia’s infrastructure against such a threat. The line items in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) go very little way towards addressing these items. They do not in any way protect our borders at home. The measly $9.2 million being spent on airport security is of grave concern. This is a government which has spent $66 million to get itself re-elected. It is a big spending government which has a habit of blowing taxpayers’ dollars on propaganda and advertising campaigns. There are no measures in these bills which will do anything to protect Australian borders. It is a big spending government which is more interested in blowing taxpayers’ dollars on propaganda and advertising than on border protection. So far, as I have said, we have been to Perth and we will go to Broome and to One Arm Point, because we need to see first-hand what is happening—something this government is not doing. Illegal fishing has doubled over the past year. More than 25 illegal fishing boats have been captured in Australia’s waters already this year. But entire regions of Australia are left completely unpatrolled and, as a result, it is estimated that around 8,000 illegal fishing boats are going undetected each year. Only around one in 10 is being picked up. Many of these boats have actually had their equipment taken off them and then been sent on their merry way to go back to Indonesia, get more fishing equipment and come back to Australia. There needs to be a greater sense of coordination between all levels of government on this. The Western Australian state government has been taking a great lead but is being frustrated by the lack in interest of, and coordination with, the federal government. Whilst the incompetent fisheries minister has gone and a new one has replaced him, we are yet to see the new minister, Senator Abetz, say anything about this issue. We have had the ludicrous situation whereby the member for Kalgoorlie had to fly to Tasmania to see the responsible minister to ask him to take an interest in his own portfolio. If illegal fishing boats can get into Australia, what else can? The fact that there is no coastguard to patrol Australian waters is opening us up to the threat of trafficking, drug running and illegal fishing, as I have said. But, more importantly than this, we have now had sightings of individuals actually coming ashore up at One Arm Point where the trochus shell is harvested. I did not know what a trochus was before this exercise; I now do. It is a very large but very pretty snail, and the shell is used to make buttons for clothing. You learn wonderful things in this job every day. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —Can you eat it? 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms BURKE —You can eat the snail, in fact. To harvest these you have to come onshore and pick them up from the reefs. Boats are coming onshore with individuals who are carrying communicable diseases that we have eradicated from our shores. They are also bringing a quarantine risk because they come onshore with food to survive on for a couple of weeks while they harvest the trochus shell. They are bringing birds onshore. Is avian flu now going to be rife? They are bringing onshore other domestic animals that may have foot-and-mouth disease. This is a huge concern and we are letting it go unchecked. The Howard government has appointed only five fishery officers to cover the entire Kimberley coast, which covers areas such as Broome and One Arm Point. During the pearling season four of these officers will be in Broome to ensure proper pearling practices are undertaken, leaving other areas of the coast unattended. These individuals also have to protect the domestic fishing industry to ensure that catches are right. The pearling industry is very concerned about these illegal boats coming in. Often they are infested with stripey mussel, and this can cause great damage to the pearling industry by polluting the waters where our pearls grow. Unless the government takes action now entire ecosystems will die, Australian fishermen will lose their livelihoods, Broome’s pearling industry could collapse because of marine pests, Australian agriculture will be at risk from quarantine threats and Australians will be at risk of contracting rabies, tuberculosis and avian flu. Also, terrorists will be able to patrol our unprotected coastline. The Aboriginal people of One Arm Point are outraged by Indonesian poachers who are raping the reefs of the valuable trochus shell. The Aboriginal communities, including the Bardi people, have the right to harvest the shell, of which Japan is a major importer. The shells are used for jewellery, ornaments and clothing, and they sell for about $6.50 a kilo. To ensure sustainability the Aboriginal communities have established a quota of harvesting 10 tonnes of trochus shell each year. The Indonesians obviously have no regard for quota systems. So, while the Aboriginal communities and the fishing industry have placed quotas on themselves to sustain our aquaculture industry, this is being undermined by illegal fishing vessels entering our waters. Again, as I say, these bills are not introducing any measures to bring in money to ensure that these things are combated. The Aboriginal communities at One Arm Point will lose their livelihoods, indeed they are already losing their livelihoods. The loss of revenue is already hampering plans to establish a second hatchery to breed the trochus. The Bardi people are considering suing the Howard government over its failure to combat illegal fishing and poaching. Curtin University professor of politics and constitutional law Greg Craven says that they have ‘a strong moral case’. So we have seen complete incompetence from the Howard government on this issue. We need more action and we need it now. There need to be discussions on the MOU that is in place for the waters off WA, which has ensured for many a reasonable agreement between Indonesian fishermen and the Australian fishing industry. That MOU has been respected for many years and has worked well. But now it needs to be renegotiated and reconsidered because the illegal fishing trade, with lots of money behind it, is totally ignoring it. It is not only destroying the livelihood of the Australian fishing industry but also taking away the ability of the traditional fishermen to ply their trade. This is also becoming a huge security issue for these Australians when they are at sea trying to earn their livelihood. What happens is that these boats come towards them—it is becoming fairly scary. They are becoming the frontline of protection for our Australian waters. They are genuinely concerned for their safety. These Indonesian boats are becoming far more sophisticated. They are backed by rather large syndicates out of Indonesia, and it has become a situation in which people are fearing for their lives. The other area of grave concern is regional airports. While I welcome the expenditure in these appropriation bills, it does not go far enough. Around 140 regional airports in Australia still have no screening facilities. In its 2004-05 annual report, the Department of Transport and Regional Services gave itself only one tick—a fail mark—for implementing passenger screening at these 140 airports. Despite allocating $3.8 billion for wand metal detector kits and staff training in the 2004-05 budget, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services spent only $400,000, or just 10 per cent. Poor planning by the government has seen very little training done to date, with only one firm able to carry out the instruction. This bungle means that the training of regional airport staff to use handheld wands and detectors will not be completed until the end of 2006. This failure comes on top of the criticism levelled at regional airport security in the Wheeler report. To date, we have not seen a response from the government to that far-reaching report. Four years after the September 11 attack, the Wheeler report produced 150 pages on the failure of this Howard government in airport security. Instead of writing more laws, which mean nothing to terrorists, the Howard government should be making sure that practical security measures are implemented now. With respect to these appropriation bills I see yet again absolutely nothing—complete silence—from the government and, again, it demonstrates their complete ineptitude when it comes to running this economy, although they keep claiming they are great economic managers. I remember the Treasurer—he slayed the inflation dragon. We do not hear that statement anymore. This is a government that is presiding over the largest current account deficit we have ever seen. The December 2005 deficit of $1.7 billion is disastrous. It is one of the highest in the OECD at a time when we are having booming commodity prices. It is at a 30-year high. How is that so? And there is $450 billion of foreign debt. We do not see that debt truck around anymore. Again, this demonstrates that Australia is becoming an egalitarian economy—dependent on a narrow range of commodity exports. Service exports are very weak and our manufacturing base has collapsed, along with productivity outcomes. The Howard government has done nothing to capitalise on the reforms of the Howard-Keating years. This decline in manufacturing is having a severe and immediate impact upon my electorate of Chisholm. We have seen a series of closures of car component plants, the largest and most recent being Silcraft, where 460 people will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. At the Icon factory, 120 people are just hanging on to their jobs. We are not 100 per cent sure which way that will go. A few years ago we saw the closure of the Arnott’s biscuit factory, where over 600 people lost their jobs. I am quite fond of saying in many quarters that, if I represented a regional centre, I would probably have a rescue package by now, but because I am in downtown metropolitan Melbourne nobody seems to care. These job losses are severe. The individuals who have lost their jobs from these industries have not been able to find new ones. They have specific skills to the manufacturing industry, the manufacturing industry is going and we are doing nothing about it. There is no plan, there is no position and there is no thought for the future. The amendments to this bill talk about how we should be doing things now and doing things more intelligently. This government is failing on that score. The manufacturing industry is experiencing a massive decline in employment. Since the election of the Howard government in 1999, a total of 144,900 manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is a rate of 320 jobs per week or nearly two jobs per hour. It is a disgrace and this decline is accelerating. Since the government’s re-election in 2004, we have seen 68,000 manufacturing jobs go. As I say, nothing is being done about it. The automotive industry is the hardest hit, but it is not just at automotive plants. It is the downstream plants that are most affected and those in my electorate of Chisholm. The Silcraft factory has been there for 50 years. It has worked hard, it has worked well and it is going. There is no rescue plan, there is no restructuring, there is no hope—there is nothing. It is closing its doors and that is the end of it. Greg Combet gave a speech to the National Manufacturing Summit entitled ‘Repositioning Australian manufacturing in the global economy’. I would like to quote some interesting things he said. He opened his speech: In a recent article in the New York Times the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Thomas Friedman began with the following words: What if we were really having a national discussion about what is most important to the country today and on the minds of most parents? I have no doubt that it would be a loud, noisy dinner-table conversation about why so many U.S. manufacturers are moving abroad—not just to find lower wages, but to find smarter workers, better infrastructure and cheaper health care. It would be about why in Germany, 36 percent of undergrads receive degrees in science and engineering; in China, 59 percent; in Japan, 66 percent; and in America only 32 percent. It would be about why Japanese on bullet trains can get access to the Internet with cell phones, and Americans get their cell phone service interrupted five minutes from home. It would be about why U.S. 12th graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries in math and science, and it would be about why, in recent years, U.S. industry appears to have spent more on lawsuits than on research and development. Yes, we’d be talking about why the world is racing us to the top, not the bottom, and why we are quietly falling behind. You could probably transpose that to Australia and say exactly the same thing: why are we attempting to race to the bottom in this country? Why are we no longer pursuing the great dream of being the clever country? Why are we no longer putting money into skills and education? We are the lowest ranked country in the OECD in putting money towards education. We are falling behind. We cannot ride on the sheep’s back or the mines forever. Even if we attempt to do so, we still need the infrastructure and services to support it. We have seen that recently in having to import skilled workers. It is ridiculous. We have a country with so much to offer and we are letting it go. We are not putting money into areas where it is vitally needed, such as research and development. Again, my constituency of Chisholm is very dependent on research and development. I have the largest university in Monash Clayton, one of the largest CSIRO institutes at Clayton, the Monash Medical Centre and various other research development areas around that. But that money is going to seed. As we have recently seen, CSIRO scientists are being gagged and forced out of the country because we no longer want to employee intelligent people and we no longer want research and development. We are racing to the bottom instead of to the top. In his speech, Greg Combet said: However, the important thing about Friedman’s article is that it focuses attention on the positive proactive agenda for repositioning a nation’s manufacturing industry so that it can win its share in the race to the top. It’s about how nations and firms investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation to win international business opportunities and move up the value chain with more defensible competitive advantages. It is this debate about the race to the top rather than the usual debate often associated with the race to the bottom that Australian manufacturing must engage in if it is to succeed and meet the global challenge. That is why I say that our challenge is to race to the top by investing in skills, infrastructure and innovation. There should not be no mention of them at all in appropriation bills. We should be doing more about them. We should not be making it so expensive to go to university that children are no longer going. They are turning away from science and engineering degrees because they cannot afford them. If we do not do these things now, we will have no future for a children. 123 10:22:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —Today as we debate Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006, I will be speaking on a range of topics. In particular, I want to talk about some comments made in the House yesterday by the member for Ryan. Last December I threw my longstanding support behind Ipswich City Council’s plan to replace the antiquated Moggill ferry service with a bridge linking Ipswich and Brisbane. Replacing the 127-year-old ferry service is long overdue and must happen because it is in the best interests of the entire region. It is in the best interests of the residents of Ipswich and Brisbane. It makes economic and social sense. Building a bridge to replace the Moggill ferry service is plain, old-fashioned commonsense. It is not about politics or rhetoric or long-held views about the demographics of who lives on which side of the river. These are old views; they are dead views. To be relying on a ferry service which was built back in 1878 is just plain stupid. It is high time that support and encouragement were given to both the Brisbane and Ipswich city councils to get together and make sure this long-awaited piece of essential infrastructure becomes a reality. Transport issues are vitally important to the rapidly growing south-western suburbs of Brisbane and Ipswich, so all options must be carefully considered, but replacing the antiquated Moggill ferry service with a bridge is a no-brainer. For far too long, urban planning decisions, in particular the provision of vital transport infrastructure, have been made on the basis of political interests and not what is in the best interests of the entire community—none is more obvious than the political interests in Ryan. The member for Ryan, with his Cheshire cat smirk, waxes lyrical about his overflowing pride and his belief in his own high intellect, which he thinks will mask his real motives from his constituents. Improving the entire region’s liveability and quality of life depends on some tough decisions being taken now on the transport needs of the area. It is not about keeping the people from one side of the river out of the other side of the river. Ideas such as the bridge cannot be ignored any longer simply because they are politically unpopular. Of more concern to the member for Ryan should be the question of how to assist in providing infrastructure for the rapidly developing Moggill region—and I know he has spoken about this. Perhaps he should have a broader view on how he would link Moggill with the rest of the community rather than shutting down. He would know the rapid development through there, and not investigating all the options is plain silly. Good planning and infrastructure provision is vitally important for the residents of Ipswich and Brisbane. What is really needed is for the local elected representatives to take a stand for what is in the entire community’s long-term interests and not their own short-term, short-sighted political playthings. Last December I also called for a considered debate on the Westgate project. It is a Queensland government project to redevelop more than 500 hectares of surplus government land along the Brisbane River between Woogaroo and Wolston creeks. What I suggested then, and continue to support today, is that people need to take a cold shower on this issue and debate the merits of the proposed Westgate development project in a mature, considered way and not deliberately mislead the public on the options and on community consultation. When a large parcel of land such as Westgate is opened up for development there are a lot of matters which need to be considered like, for example, the long-term impact on the local environment, especially the local eastern grey kangaroo population. Of particular importance in this debate is the fact that there are no bridges to be built or even proposed as part of the Westgate project, and that any bridges which may have to be built in the future would be a decision of the Brisbane City Council—not the state government, or the federal government for that matter. Just because lines on a map have been drawn that indicate possible potential future bridges, it does not mean that they are part of this project or will ever be built. Elected representatives should not reject proposals out of hand until they are at least fully considered in a rational manner and through proper community consultation. On infrastructure issues, the member for Ryan has demonstrated no leadership, just an oppositionist approach to the proper servicing of residents of Brisbane and Ipswich, and I think we all deserve better. The member for Ryan should stop engaging in counter-productive, cheap political point scoring and concentrate on lobbying his own government to find the direct road funding needed and take up his responsibilities in the region in a positive manner. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Oxley, I am not going to interrupt you for any extent of time, but I want to put the view that I was not here when the member for Ryan spoke. If I was, I would have pulled him up. This debate is more like an appropriation of the Queensland parliament. I will allow you to continue, but I will put my view that I do not condone the debate in here of state affairs; it should be the appropriation of the Australian parliament. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but these are very much federal matters. The member for Ryan consistently speaks about them and so do I, because they are of national importance. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There are forums of the House that can be used, as you would be aware. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —His constituents, I am sure—and I spoke with one of his constituents just this morning—want a better deal from their local elected representative. What they want is a representative who will start delivering on road infrastructure projects, not just behaving as though he is in opposition and has no influence over the federal government. For instance, where is the member for Ryan when his colleagues want to cut a swathe through the leafy suburbs of Ryan with an outrageously expensive monstrosity called the half Goodna bypass—another federally funded project, for which the research money also came from the federal government. When compared to the billion-dollar plus road that would loop between Dinmore and Gailes through Priors Pocket, the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway between the exact same two points—both federal projects—would cost only $300 million. Just do the simple sums on this: $1.1 billion for a pie in the sky federal project which may never get off the ground or a ready to go $300 million project which delivers a much better outcome. Let me answer that for members here—where is the member for Ryan? He has gone missing. When confronted with any tough issue in his electorate, he tries to blame anyone but himself or his government. I recall very well the community meeting on this very issue. More than 1,000 of his constituents turned up, but he did not because he was too busy having dinner with the US ambassador at the time. I would now like to encourage the member for Ryan to show some courage and join me in trying to get a solution to the infrastructure needs in South East Queensland, which his government has so openly neglected for the last 10 years—that is, the federal government. For example, he should follow my lead on the Ipswich Motorway—another federal government issue. In my view, it is an eminently sensible and affordable solution that the federal government will eventually have to adopt because of its desperate need. I am sure many in this place are aware of this as I have spoken about it many times and I have been campaigning on this issue for many years, even before I was elected to parliament. But we need to take the politics out of road infrastructure and we need to get the federal government to, at the very least, take up its own responsibilities on this issue. As a result of my campaigning, I have been able to secure close to $550 million for the residents of Ipswich and south-west Brisbane—so much so that some members have commented and asked me whether or not I was a National Party member! A few members will understand exactly what I mean by that. The notorious Ipswich Motorway is a crucial link in the national highway network. But there is more to be done, and I will not give up just because I have managed to secure $550 million. I will do that work whether I am in opposition or whether I am in government—it makes no difference to me—because I believe that completion of this infrastructure needs to be carried through. Since 1998, with the support of the community, I have led the campaign to get the Commonwealth government to face up to its responsibilities and fund a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. In 2001 I helped secure $66 million for a range of interim safety works and planning along the Ipswich Motorway corridor—another underfunded federal government matter. In 2004 the Commonwealth government finally agreed to provide $160 million for the upgrade of the Logan-Ipswich Motorway interchange, which is locally known as spaghetti junction. Recently, after starting the media-adopted ‘dial a motorway’ campaign, which encouraged local residents to call the Prime Minister directly and demand he release funding for the full upgrade, $320 million was allocated for roadworks between Wacol and Darra. That just goes to show that, if you apply the blow torch to the belly, sometimes it just does work. This brings the total amount of money extracted from the Howard government to $546 million. Sure, it was like pulling teeth but it also means that the community campaign has successfully secured funding for the part of the Ipswich Motorway, between Goodna and Darra at least, but it is not over. There is much more to be done, and I will not rest until every single Queensland Liberal member takes up their responsibilities to fix the federal government’s roads in the area. If it were not for more than eight years of campaigning on this issue in the region, we would have received a big fat zero. This money has been gained despite the efforts of the member for Ryan and, more importantly, his fellow traveller in the clueless club, the member for Blair. The Prime Minister’s announcement in November last year to fund the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway between Wacol and Darra is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. It has been done, though in the most cynical way, despite every effort from the member for Blair to absolutely block it. While the money is welcomed, it is nowhere near enough, as I have said. What I have asked the Prime Minister to do on many occasions is go the full monty. Let’s go the whole way: let’s fix the road, let’s stop wasting tens of millions of dollars on a half-baked half bypass that does not even deliver half a solution. South East Queenslanders deserve much better from the Prime Minister. They deserve to have the Ipswich Motorway fully upgraded, regardless of who their representative is in parliament. A further $345 million is needed for the full upgrade between Dinmore and Goodna and $205 million is needed for the Darra to Rocklea section, which touches into Moreton. This means the people of Ipswich and south-west Brisbane have been short-changed by a total of $550 million, which should have been delivered a long time ago. Just imagine for a minute that that money had been delivered on time: today that road would be fully completed and we would not have the roadblocks, the rage, the accidents, along with other problems, and the economic failings of the area because of the condition of the road. On behalf of local residents, I would like to continue to lead the campaign to ensure they get a modern, safe motorway and to make sure that we address the growing traffic problems in the region. The principal reason that local residents have not received the money needed for the full upgrade is the member for Blair’s continued blocking of it. While a government member may not always get money he wants to fund a project, I can guarantee people that if he objects to money for a project in a local area it ain’t ever going to be coming. So if the member for Blair were not insisting on investigating some pie in the sky Goodna half-bypass, the Prime Minister would have no option but to fund the full upgrade. If the member for Blair backed himself out of his own corner and swallowed his pride, we would now have a fully upgraded motorway. Instead of going into bat for local residents and trying to get some money to improve local road infrastructure, the member for Blair has argued against fixing the motorway and is delivering nothing for the people of Ipswich whom he represents. The member for Blair is the man who has single-handedly thwarted the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway at every turn—day in, day out. I cannot stress that enough, because it frustrates me so much and it must frustrate so many local people. He has blocked the upgrade year after year. He is the one-man roadblocker. He has let the people of Ipswich and South East Queensland down time and time again. Even this morning, the member for Ryan, like nearly every other Queensland based government member in this House, was trying to blame the Queensland state government, local councils, the bogeyman—anyone they could think of—for the infrastructure problems in South East Queensland, but they will not come to the party when it comes to funding their own responsibilities. They will blame anybody. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor interjecting— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I say to the member for Corio that they will blame anybody. Let me tell you one thing for certain: the Liberal mayor of Brisbane knows whose fault it is, and he is coming to get you. He is coming after you. It should be remembered that fully upgrading the Ipswich Motorway is the best use of taxpayers’ money. Analysis undertaken by the RACQ shows that upgrading the motorway would be four times a better use of taxpayers’ money than proceeding with any further studies into the so-called Goodna half-bypass. It is imminently sensible that we move in that direction. In addition, cost-benefit analysis of the full upgrade of the Goodna to Dinmore leg of the Ipswich Motorway, compared to the half-bypass, reveals that the full upgrade is six times a better use of taxpayers’ money. Cost-benefit analysis factors in a project’s cost and the improvements it would make to both travel time and road safety. How can anyone argue that spending $345 million on the Dinmore to Goodna section of the motorway is not a better option than gambling $1.22 billion on the half-baked, pie-in-the-sky half-bypass which will not deliver the same solutions as upgrading the motorway. The full upgrade is ready to go now, but the half-bypass needs a further three years study which includes an extensive community consultation process just to see if it is even feasible. Further, the Howard government’s decision to spend—or I should say waste—$10 million investigating another study into this ridiculous project will simply throw good money after bad. The money has been set aside as a personal get out of jail card for the member for Blair to save his bacon from embarrassment over his ill-judged gamble and obstructionist posturing. The member for Blair is on record as saying, ‘Only a fool would spend money on the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway.’ He just may get his wish yet. The announcement of a further study in the half-bypass is a political manoeuvre. It has been done to try and salvage some political pride for the Howard government, which wants to walk away from its funding responsibilities, which is well known to members of this House. It wants to palm the Ipswich Motorway off to state and local governments. This is equivalent to a tenant renting a house for 10 years and then moving out never having paid rent. The federal government for the last 10 years has been the tenant on the Ipswich Motorway and has not paid one cent of rent. It is now going to walk away and leave it in a dilapidated condition. That is not the sort of behaviour that local people want or expect from the Commonwealth government or their elected representatives. I want to play a little game. It is called ‘Spot the odd man out’. In recent times, many people have had a lot to say about road funding and the Ipswich Motorway. Here are some of the comments: The people who have not stepped up to the plate are the Federal Government in regard to road funding in the region. Who said that? It was the Brisbane Liberal Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman, on the Ipswich Motorway. There you go! Another quote: We are firmly saying to the Federal Government it is time to upgrade the entire motorway and provide the financial backing to the people in the fastest growing region in Australia. Who said that? You have guessed it—the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane. Another quote: The Government’s failure to prioritise this major road in Australia’s fastest-growing city simply doesn’t make sense. Who said that? The Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, Robert Walker. Another quote: I’m not going to take on projects which are rightly the responsibility of the Commonwealth. They have to carry their share of the load, here they have the responsibility of upgrading the Ipswich Motorway. Who said that? It was state Liberal leader, Bob Quinn. Another quote: The people of the western corridor have been betrayed by Mr Howard. This is a Commonwealth responsibility, it always has been. Who said that? The Premier of Queensland. Another quote: As well as clogging roads, traffic congestion chokes economic growth, by reducing productivity of the workforce and capital, and by raising costs of transporting people and goods. Who said that? No less than Ken Willett, the Economics and Public Policy Manager of RACQ. Another quote: The federal government’s belated announcement of funding for the upgrade of only the central section of the Ipswich Motorway and to undertake still more studies on the worst section—the Dinmore to Goodna link—will inevitability lead to further deaths and serious injuries, worsening congestion, and substantial economic costs. Who said that? Ken Willett, RACQ. Another quote: The Federal Government has been pondering over the Ipswich Motorway for eight years, and its latest announcement ensures that procrastination over the severely congested, high-accident-rate western end of the link will continue for a few more years yet. Who said that? Chief Executive of the RACQ, Alan Terry, on the Prime Minister’s decision to waste a further $10 million. Another quote: Clearly, the ‘potentially feasible’ Ipswich Motorway Northern Bypass options are not feasible in the widely accepted, conventional, economically appropriate sense because they compare very unfavourably with at least one other alternative, the one proposed by the Queensland Government. Who said that? Ken Willett, RACQ. Another quote: That’s always been our intention. Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson, the member for Blair, admitting the Howard government wants to walk away from the Ipswich Motorway and dump responsibility for funding a full upgrade onto the state and local governments. Another quote: The local traffic component is not our responsibility Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson again, admitting that he is not interested in helping local people in his own electorate. Unbelievable but true. My question to the member would be: how can you rightfully and justifiably attempt to separate the responsibility for local and other traffic on a road that is a major thoroughfare through a major city? Another quote: The full responsibility for the existing motorway will pass to the state government. There is a clear message there. Who said that? Liberal MP Cameron Thompson. He continually admits that he is not interested in federal government responsibility. One of my favourite quotes, from the same person, is: Only a fool would spend money on the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. I say to him: it is looking closer every day, because one way or the other we are going to pull those teeth for funding. We are going to get that money. We are halfway there—we have $550 million—and there is $550 million to go. But Cameron Thompson is going to get his wish: only a fool would spend money on the Ipswich Motorway. There are no prizes for guessing who the odd man out is in the little game we have just played. The one-man roadblock to delivering a safe and efficient upgrade to the Ipswich Motorway is the member for Blair. He and the member for Ryan—partners in crime, as it were—are both letting down the people in their electorates in south-east Queensland. Instead of trying to blame everyone else or coming into this place and attacking me, other members and the state government, they should do something constructive. They can fill their boots for all I care in attacking a whole range of people, but get on with the job—take your responsibilities seriously. Get on with the job of planning. Let us see infrastructure delivered to the local people that they represent, I represent and all members from that region represent. Let us get south-east Queensland buzzing. I know the state government is doing everything it can. It is not perfect, but it is working hard. I apply the same principle to the federal government: you are not perfect either, but work harder and deliver the funding, because right now you have no leadership, no plan and no courage—we have certainly seen none of that from the Liberal representatives in the region. It is disgraceful. They run misleading and misguided campaigns on these roads, telling furphies about options and plans and continually delaying and obstructing. Eight years is way too long to be waiting on a road that is of national importance. Labor has made a commitment. We are prepared to take up where this government has failed. We will deliver if the government does not deliver. I make this pledge: I will be campaigning for this whether in opposition or in government. 129 10:42:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Oxley. He has been a strong campaigner in his part of Queensland and has exposed the shortcomings of the federal government and of the representation given in that part of Australia by Liberal members of this parliament. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 represent significant spends. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides for an additional $2.63 billion in 2005-06, and $124 million of that is for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, particularly the fisheries adjustment scheme. That is an area of my portfolio responsibility as shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries, so I will be addressing my remarks to that area of additional expenditure. In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) the additional expenditure sought is $1.37 billion, with the main increase being $744.4 million for payment to the states. Wrapped up in this payment to the states is GST compensation, drought exceptional circumstances and Australian health care arrangements. So there is proposed expenditure in that bill that I would like to address in this debate. In Appropriation Bill (No 3) a significant amount, $124 million, is allocated to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and part of that is earmarked for fisheries adjustment. I note a statement by the minister in November 2005 that the government was providing some $220 million to ‘secure Australia’s fishing future’. The main thrust of this expenditure on fishing structural adjustment was to better manage our fisheries and make them more sustainable. That is not only in the interests of the industry but also in the national interest, as this industry contributes billions of dollars to Australia’s gross domestic product and, indeed, is a major export earner. So it is in the national interest as well as the sectional industry interest of fishermen that we get things right in this industry. But it is an industry where things have gone horribly wrong for many fishermen. Significant investments have been made in the industry in the face of declining fish stocks and, of course, as the management squeeze has come upon these fisheries so has the pressure for structural adjustment. When you get behind the terminology and get behind what structural adjustment actually means, it means Australians who have invested in a particular livelihood, be it on farms or through investing in a fishing boat and becoming part of that industry, have invested their life savings in the hope of value adding to those life savings and contributing to the national economy. Things go wrong in industries. In the case of agriculture it might be drought, and that is going to be an issue in debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. In the fishing industry it is the perennial problem of declining stocks, pressure on the fisheries from various sources and, of course, the inevitable process of structural adjustment where people have to make a decision to exit the industry. Of course, many of those people do so with considerable losses of livelihood and curtailment of their futures. Australian fisheries are under enormous pressure. One pressure is simply the demand that is being exerted in the Australian community for product. There is a finite product but an ever-increasing demand. That comes from people who have changed their dietary habits. Most Australians would appreciate that historically we have been great meat eaters, but over the last couple of decades, with increasing links between the health debate, agriculture and fisheries, we have seen a significant shift in the consumption patterns of ordinary Australian households. Fish is a very important part of the local diet. I was raised a Mick, if I can use the vernacular, and of course we had fish every Friday. It was a part of our diet for religious reasons. But for most Australian consumers I think we have seen a gradual shift for health reasons to fish as a source of protein and a source of certain essential vitamins and minerals, and of course the demand has increased. We have also seen environmental pressure with our oceans. We have seen the rise of marine parks and the ever-increasing areas that are now designated as marine parks, the conservation of  fishing resources and the ecology of regions. That is a fit and proper development in Australian society, but the inevitable result of having those areas quarantined for environmental purposes is that it has put pressure on existing fisheries and other areas. Given the degree of fishing effort, there is a displaced effort that must be accommodated or else people have to leave the industry. That is another reason. The other reason that some fisheries have come under pressure is illegal fishing. That is an issue that I will address in the context of this debate. Having made those remarks, let me comment on the $220 million that the government allocated in November 2005 to secure Australia’s fishing future. The opposition does not have a problem with the fact that the government is introducing a structural adjustment package for the industry. As a broad principle we think this is a good thing, and $124 million of this additional expenditure in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 is related to this adjustment package. I note the elements of this package, and I will outline them for the benefit of the committee. The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release: The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release: A further $70m in complementary assistance will be available for other activities including: $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses most directly linked to the fishing industry (e.g. fish processors, ships chandlers) as well as other targeted assistance including; grants of $5,000 and $3,000 respectively to skippers and crew who lose employment as a result of the catch cuts to offset the costs of job seeking, relocation and retraining; $1,500 per fishing or directly related business to offset the costs of obtaining professional business advice on their best options under the package; $20 million to establish a Fishing Communities Programme aimed at generating new economic and employment opportunities in vulnerable regional ports affected by reduced fishing activity; $21 million to offset the cost of AFMA management levies and for improved science, compliance and data collection. I am grateful for that advice on the elements of the package. Let us take those elements of the package, because they are the substance of the matter under discussion in this appropriation bill. The problem that the opposition and the industry have with the centrepiece of the package—that is the $150 million buyout—is of course the tender process. Let me just explain some of the problems associated with that and the declaration of marine park areas and the displaced fishing effort that is attempted to be accommodated in this provision with the buyout. As far as the marine protected areas are concerned, the public consultation process was to be undertaken in January and February of this year with declarations at the end of 2006. So we will not know until the end of 2006 who is likely to be affected by these declarations and, therefore, who might well be eligible under the tender process to apply for assistance under this package. The problem with the business exit assistance packages, as I understand them, is that tenders were opened in late January, tenders will close 10 weeks after that in mid-April and port meetings to explain the tender process only began in February this year. So here we have a process in train where the elements of the consultation process are out of kilter with what the government is attempting to do in this provision. Going to the $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses and the $20 million to establish a fishing communities program, as an opposition we will be watching the expenditures under this provision with a very keen eye because we know the capacity of this government to rort these programs. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I should not mention this but there is always fishy business going on down in the seat of Eden-Monaro. We have to look very closely at some of the expenditures under other programs that have already been made to the industry down there. Significant questions have been asked about those. But I will not go into those here except to say that, if past experience is any indication, this will be a licence to rort in some marginal electorates and coastal areas around this country. We will be watching these programs very closely indeed. And we put the minister on notice that the opposition will be watching him very closely. I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Abetz on his elevation to this portfolio. I sincerely wish him every success. Really, he does not have a big bar to jump. To be successful in this portfolio he is really stepping over the bodies of two abject failures—the member for O’Connor, a former fisheries minister, and Senator Ian Macdonald, who did not exactly serve with distinction in the portfolio. Having said that, I give Senator Abetz a gentle warning to perform in this portfolio. I should put on the public record that the two scalps in the coalition are mine. Government members—Ha, ha! WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —The honourable members are full of laughter at that. We on this side are full of laughter at the absolute incompetence of the member for O’Connor in the portfolio and Senator Macdonald. But it is no laughing matter for the industry, because they want this portfolio settled. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —The member for Eden-Monaro was the person to put in. I have worked on committees with him and he has a bit of integrity on some of these matters. He is a person who knows the industry. Having said that, I wish Senator Abetz well. As I said, it is not a big bar to jump when you look at the performance of previous ministers in the portfolio. I am hopeful—as is the industry—that this minister will get away from the glib one-liners and headliners like ‘We’re on top of illegal fishing’, ‘We’ve got it all under control’ when, in fact, it is actually in crisis. The $21 million to offset the cost of AFMA management levies and for improved science compliance and data collection is a sensible measure. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro, as a scientist, would appreciate the fact that, more than anything else, this industry needs good statistics on what is happening in fisheries so that we can tailor and target these structural adjustment packages more effectively to the people who need the assistance. I mentioned before that there are several pressures on our fisheries. One is consumer demand and the ramping up of demand for the product in the marketplace. That has put pressure on the sustainability of the fisheries. The declaration of marine protected areas has meant that fisheries have been closed off and some sources of supply have been cut off. There has been displaced effort and that has put structural adjustment pressures on fisheries. But there is another issue that has put pressure on many fisheries—and some of those fisheries are the particular object of the moneys we are discussing today—and that is, of course, the issue of illegal fishing. I cannot believe that you can have such incompetence from a national government on an issue of such substance and importance to Australia. Illegal fishing is not just a fishing issue. It is a border security issue; it is a quarantine issue. Where we have seen absolute and spectacular failure of government it is in this area. The Howard government can spend $1 billion and more on a war in Iraq, ostensibly to secure Australia, yet it cannot find the resources to effectively police our borders and to get on top of this issue. I will not go into the detail of some of the outrageous claims that have been made by government ministers as this crisis has deepened but, as we have seen with the AWB scandal, this is an area of staggering incompetence. It has been allowed to drift, and now we have enormous pressure on our northern fisheries as a result of the Howard government’s incompetence. The objective of this structural adjustment package is the sustainability of our fisheries. We have a problem in our northern fisheries and it is a direct result of this government’s incompetence. In addition to that, structural adjustment pressures have come onto fishing operators through massive hikes in the cost of fuel and now, of course, the skill shortages in the industry are spilling over into higher costs that are also putting structural adjustment pressure on the industry. There is another matter I would like to mention in the context of this debate: the food labelling issue—an issue that is very close to fishermen. We have a lot of products coming in from overseas, and I think This Day Tonight has run a couple of programs on this. If the government were to look at doing something very constructive for the Australian fishing industry, it would tackle this issue head-on, get some clear labelling requirements and make sure that it got the state and federal governments together to ensure that on the ground there is a policing of these food labelling regimes so we can educate consumers about the products that they are consuming. Quite frankly, I am a great fish eater, but there are some fish I would not eat in a fit—they are laced with arsenic, mercury, lead and all sorts of things. In saying that, that is not denigrating the Australian product; it is basically the overseas products that have this problem. I understand that the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council are meeting with the minister today. These are some of the issues that, no doubt, they will be raising with the minister, particularly that issue of illegal fishing. I hope that this minister takes it seriously and does not deal with the problem with a press release that says, ‘We’re on top of the problem.’ We have had a 75-metre boat, Chinese crewed, a mother ship of 640-odd tonnes—that is a lot of fish—fishing in our waters. This has to stop. We have to get a surveillance up; we have to get better coordination between the assets that exist at local, state and federal level; and we simply have to put more money in. This is advice to the government: cut the tens of millions of waste on advertising, put it into this task and do the nation a favour. 133 11:02:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —In summing up this bill, I thank the member for Corio for vouching for my integrity during his speech. I very much appreciate that he would do that. The House has been debating the additional estimates bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. As is the practice with these sorts of bills, speakers have canvassed a whole range of topics in this debate and have generally had a focus on the economy. The opposition has moved an amendment in the second reading stage which, I am sure all members will understand, the government disagrees. The bills request new appropriations of approximately $2.6 billion. The requirement for additional funding arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in costs; reclassifications; and policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget, most of which were described in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2005-2006 published in December last year. The bills propose appropriation for important activities including: $110.7 million for the workplace relations reform package and $104 million assistance to support the sustainability of Australian government managed fisheries—and the member for Corio spoke at length on that area. He criticised the government about assistance packages in a general sense, without being specific, but that seems to be the way the opposition works. The member for Corio made reference to assistance packages in my electorate. I say to the member for Corio that he is welcome to come down to my electorate and talk to the many businesses and people who have benefited greatly from things like the Eden Region Adjustment Package, which was an absolute lifesaver for the town of Eden at the time the Heinz factory closed there putting something like 150 people out of work—150 people out of work in a town with a population of around 3,000 has a huge impact both on the town and on the region. I would be very happy for the member for Corio to come down and talk to all those people who have been able to get jobs as a result of some of those projects that have been funded. Sure, not all of them have been absolutely successful, but that is what happens in those situations. If you do not do anything, though, then nothing happens; but overwhelmingly they have been successful. It is unfortunate that there has been criticism, exclusively from the Labor opposition, about some of those projects. A lot of the criticism is based on ignorance and a total lack of understanding of the projects that have been funded. The opposition, as usual, concentrated on the odd one that was not as successful as everybody would have liked rather than looking at the overwhelming number of projects that have been successful and that have provided work to many people in my electorate. The fisheries package is a crucial package, and I was pleased to receive the other day a letter from the President of SETFIA, which is the industry association covering the south-east trawl, Fritz Drenkahn, congratulating the government and thanking me for my involvement in that package that the former Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, announced last year. Many fishermen will be out of work as a result of this. They know that. However, they also know that there has been a problem for some time of too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It will have a major impact, once again particularly in the Eden area but also in Bermagui in my electorate, when that number of fishermen are taken out. The flow-on effect will certainly be felt in those towns. That is why an assistance package has been put in place to help with that adjustment. The fishermen themselves will voluntarily hand over their licences as a crucial part of the package. I congratulate the government for that package and the new minister, Senator Abetz, I know, will carry on the good work of Senator Macdonald in completing that particular package. There will be $52.4 million additional funding to meet the increased demand for the highly disadvantaged stream of Job Network services, an additional $304.3 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance and $131 million for vaccines, antibiotics and protective equipment in preparation for a potential influenza pandemic. Much of the debate has focused on the government’s economic record. The government very much stands by its performance. Since 1996, the Australian economy has seen a long period of sustained strong growth; in 2005-06, it is forecast to grow by three per cent. During this sustained period of growth, the unemployment rate has been reduced, while inflation and interest rates have been kept low. The official interest rate has fallen from 7.5 per cent in March 1996 to 5.5 per cent at the present time. I know that in my own electorate it has gone from between seven and eight per cent back in 1996 to now well below five per cent and as low as 2.5 or three per cent in some areas. At a current rate of 5.3 per cent, unemployment remains the lowest since monthly labour market statistics were introduced in February 1978. Inflation remains moderate and appears to be well under control. The CPI rose by 0.5 per cent in the December quarter 2004 and increased by 2.8 per cent through the year. There are also major achievements in the government’s fiscal management. The government has reduced net debt by $84.3 billion. We all remember the $96 billion debt left to us by the former Labor government, $84.3 billion of that having now been paid off, bringing it down to $11.5 billion in 2004-05. Net debt is expected to continue to fall over the forward estimates and by 2005-06 we expect to eliminate the Australian government’s net debt position and turn it into a net asset position. Just think of all of the interest that was being paid on that debt each year—so many billions of dollars when we first came into government that is now being able to be directed into areas like health and education. This means that Australia is amongst the countries with the lowest government net debt levels in the OECD. For example, as a share of GDP, Australia’s net debt level is well below the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. The government does not support the second reading amendment proposed by the honourable member for Melbourne. I am not going to respond in detail to the opposition statements, except to say that the government stands by its achievements in economic policy and in placing the Australian economy where it needs to be to respond to coming challenges. The government has overseen a fiscal strategy that has helped to deliver strong economic and employment growth coupled with modest inflation as well as sound fiscal position. The additional estimates appropriation bills reinforce the government’s reputation in budget and economic management. They request funding for important initiatives to maintain government activities and to contribute to the strong performance of the Australian economy. I commend the bills to the House. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 135 Bills R2499 135 Debate resumed from 8 February, on motion by Mr Nairn: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 136 Bills R2476 Debate resumed from 13 February. 136 136 11:13:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill clarifies the extent of Defence’s exemption from the operation of particular state and territory road transport laws in certain circumstances. It will enable the effective operation of the Defence Road Transport Exemption Framework, recently negotiated between Defence and state and territory road transport authorities. The agreed exemption framework details the exemptions and processes that will be applied uniformly across the states and territories to support the conduct of Australian Defence Force road transport operations. The Australian Transport Council endorsed the exemption framework on 18 November 2005. This bill and the exemption framework it underpins, reinforces the need for the Australian Defence Force to operate its land vehicle fleet without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory road transport laws. Exemptions from these laws enable the Australian Defence Force to move its capabilities effectively and efficiently along the Australian road transport network. Agreement to a national exemption framework further provides the Australian Defence Force with a consistent process in dealing with the requirements of individual state and territory jurisdictions. Australian Defence Force members currently enjoy a wide immunity from state and territory licensing laws in relation to matters such as road transport under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act 1903. This bill will better reflect the cooperative approach which underpins the exemption framework. It will limit the Defence exemption from state and territory legislation under section 123 of the Defence Act in this area and, in effect, replace it with the agreed exemption framework. The bill provides an opportunity to address any uncertainty regarding possible gaps in the scope of section 123, as well as providing a clear statement of the Defence intent to work closely with the states and territories in relation to road transport. The new exemption framework will be responsive to the requirements of the states and territories as the owners of the road transport infrastructure and Defence as the user. The introduction of this bill is consistent with a similar approach adopted in 1998 to limit the immunity contained in the Defence Act and to replace it with a more specific exemption regime. At that time an amendment was made to the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991, providing the Australian Defence Force with a broad exemption for special defence related circumstances. However these exemptions were never implemented, because the regime prescribed was dependent on the adoption by the states and territories of model road transport legislation, which did not occur. Following the review of the National Road Transport Commission Act by the Department of Transport and Regional Services, it was recommended that the Defence provisions should be carried forward to the replacement legislation. The replacement legislation, the National Transport Commission Act, was passed by parliament in 2003. An intergovernmental agreement established to oversight the introduction of the National Transport Commission Act provided a mechanism for Defence and the state and territory governments to move forward in developing an appropriate exemption framework. Consequently, the parties, with the assistance of the National Transport Commission, have worked assiduously over the past two years to deliver a workable exemption framework. This result provides an excellent example of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in support of the defence effort. The exemption framework establishes the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for principal ADF routes used in exercises, operations and day-to-day activities. The exemptions involve specific engineering dimensions relating to the mass, size and width of Australian Defence Force land assets, as well as specific licensing and road rules exemptions for Australian Defence Force personnel. These exemptions will also apply to personnel from visiting foreign defence forces acting in accordance with an arrangement approved by the ADF. Implementation of the exemption framework will occur over the next six to 12 months. Jurisdictions are expected to implement the exemption framework through their respective administrative processes on a voluntary basis. Defence will concurrently amend as required its Defence Road Transport Instructions to ensure internal compliance with the exemption framework. Defence will be required to resolve outstanding issues with individual jurisdictions during this period before full implementation can be achieved. These matters will continue to be pursued in a consultative and cooperative manner. The exemption framework will be maintained by the National Transport Commission and will be available for public viewing on the National Transport Commission’s website. Finally, it should be said that this bill does not impose any requirements on state and territory governments. It simply limits the current Defence immunity under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act to ensure that the road transport exemptions set out in the exemption framework can operate in the manner that they are intended to. This bill reflects Defence’s willingness to cooperate and to work with the states and territories on these matters, rather than utilising Commonwealth powers to impose an exemption solution on individual jurisdictions. I present the explanatory memorandum and urge this chamber to support the bill. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Before I call the honourable member for Barton, I remind the chamber that, if any member wishes to rise and question any speaker during their speech in the second reading debate, they are perfectly entitled to do so. It is up to the speaker as to whether they accept the intervention. 137 11:19:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 Mr McCLELLAND —At the outset may I congratulate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on his appointment as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I know he will do his job in a direct and forthright way because I can confirm that the minister has absolutely no capacity to sidestep! In addressing the issues raised in the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 the minister, in his second reading speech, obviously summarised the substance of the bill, but it is appropriate for the opposition to record our reasons for supporting the measures. The Australian Defence Force operates vehicles on the roads of Australia in the exercise of its operational capability as well as in the day-to-day activities in defence of the country. Such activities are conducted in proper recognition of the fact that ownership and administration of the bulk of road transport infrastructure in Australia is vested in the states and territories, and the ADF is using that infrastructure in pursuit of its duties to the Australian people. Section 123 of the current act provides that members of the ADF have a degree of immunity from the operation of certain state and territory road transport laws, such as licensing. It is appropriate that the extent of such immunity or exemption be clarified for the benefit of the states and territories, as well as the ADF and, importantly, for its members. This bill provides such clarification and limits the immunity by underpinning an exemption framework, which has been developed, as the minister outlined, in a process of consultation between the ADF and the state and territory road transport authorities, with the assistance of the National Transport Commission. The bill details the exemptions and processes to be applied uniformly across the states and territories. Such exemptions will be implemented by the states and territories in accordance with their respective policies and by the ADF through Defence instructions pertaining to road transport. As I understand the current position, it has been necessary for the Defence Force to obtain a myriad of exemptions from specific routes and, while these routes are frequently common routes and those exemptions are, in effect, standing exemptions, it can be time consuming from the point of view of both the military and local transport authorities. Importantly, the bill is designed to maintain the operational capabilities of the ADF by detailing Defence requirements in relation to road transport, whilst recognising the unique requirements of the ADF operating environment. It is intended to allow the ADF to perform its critical function of the defence of our nation without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory divisions with respect to this important area of road transport laws. Equally important, the bill ensures the safety of other road and transport users and protects the national road infrastructure and facilities used by the ADF, as well as the environment. The exemptions apply when ADF members, and others specifically authorised, are using vehicles and infrastructure for defence related purposes. The criterion of ‘defence related purpose’ is sufficiently broad to cater for the array of activities in which our defence personnel are likely to be engaged in pursuit of their duties. Such activities include defence and security functions, emergency and disaster management or relief, humanitarian and medical assistance and the provision of support to nationally and internationally significant community activities. Such is the versatility of our defence personnel that such versatility demands an equally unrestrictive operating environment for the logistic support provided by the road transport system. The close working relationship developed between the ADF and the armed forces of foreign countries is reflected in the bill in that the exemptions also apply to such armed forces and their members, provided that their activities are carried out in accordance with arrangements approved by the ADF. Obviously, that is vitally important in the context of any joint exercises that may occur and which frequently do occur within our country. The system of accredited driver training provided to ADF members is recognised by the exemption framework by way of certain licence exemptions. Where a requirement exists under state and territory legislation for a special licence, accredited ADF training of a similar standard is recognised as being in compliance with state and territory requirements such that the training is deemed to have occurred. A safeguard exists in terms of licensing in that ADF drivers are required to carry and produce on demand their current defence licence, driver qualification log, vehicle authorisation and task form. In other words, they will not be exempt from being approached by state law enforcement authorities if they are considered to be doing the wrong thing. A further safeguard exists in that the cancellation or suspension of a member’s civilian licence results in the automatic cancellation or suspension of their defence licence. Again this recognises that defence drivers must, nonetheless, in both their civilian capacity and their military capacity, respect the laws of a particular state or territory within which they are operating. Defence licences will also be suspended if the holder is considered unfit to drive due to their accident or traffic record, medical impairment or physical injury deeming them unfit to drive. The holder is subject to retraining for any disciplinary or bad driving reason or the holder fails to maintain currency requirements. The ADF’s unique operating environment is recognised in the exemption framework. Drivers and commanders of armoured vehicles and tanks are exempt from the requirement to remain entirely inside the vehicle, obviously due to the nature of the operation of those vehicles. The ADF is also exempt from a prohibition against carrying passengers in the load space of vehicles without an approved means of restraint due to the seating configuration of ADF vehicles, and ADF emergency vehicles are recognised under state and territory provisions pertaining to their own state and territory emergency vehicles. The unique operating environment is further recognised in terms of signage. The ‘Oversize Load’ signs that typically apply to oversize vehicles are not required for each and every vehicle in a convoy, provided the convoy is not greater than five vehicles, spacing is provided for overtaking opportunities for other road users, radio communications are maintained and lights are illuminated on all convoy vehicles, and pilot vehicles accompany the convoy at the front and rear with the ‘Oversize Convoy’ sign appropriately displayed. The exemption framework also provides designated ‘defence strategic routes’ across Australia, after consultation with the states and territories. These routes are designed to match vehicle capabilities with the current capacity of roads and bridges. Obviously, some military vehicles can be extremely large and heavy, and the capacity of roads and bridges to carry them has to be worked through. The framework also imposes mass limits and rules in respect of a range of issues pertaining specifically to ADF vehicles, such as load sizes and maximum load projection. The exemptions and measures established under the exemption framework are clarified in the bill and are necessary in maintaining the operational capacity of the ADF in terms of road based logistics. The framework recognises the unique operating environment of the ADF as a strategic imperative. This recognition and the resultant exemptions are important measures to allow the ADF to perform its critical function in the defence of this nation. The opposition fully supports the bill. 139 11:28:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 is important legislation inasmuch as it will set some exemptions. Primarily, it attempts to harmonise heavy haulage transport circumstances for our defence department and highlights the issue of this government being obliged to come forward and make laws so that our defence forces can operate in a timely and proper maner. It is a matter that has concerned me for many years. I suffered some embarrassment in this place in complaining to one state transport minister about the differentiation that existed in his state and the state of Western Australia just on simple laws relating to the operation of a truck. I am interested to see that the government has decided to ensure that at least our defence forces have some consistency in the way they might operate and, more particularly, are exempt from certain requirements that, of themselves, are quite reasonable. If you have a series of tanks to transport around the place you cannot take the wheels off to make sure they meet the axle-loading requirements of various states. Configurations have always been an outstanding issue in this regard. The National Transport Commission gets a mention. It has been another attempt that has failed in these serious issues. It seems much more intent on putting up licence fees and adding to the cost of the road transport industry than it is on addressing other matters that are of importance. It is important, notwithstanding that this particular legislation looks at the national arrangements for road activities, that rail is going to be a significant aspect from time to time for the activities of the defence forces, more particularly now that there is a connection between the major network and Darwin. Darwin is now, quite properly, one of the major areas where the defence forces are located. It will add to their capacity to move their equipment around the place, but they of course cannot operate to the schedules of a rail system and road transport is of extreme importance. Road transport, as I said, is a vexing factor in my state of Western Australia. Through the efforts of previous governments you can now drive a double transport rig, a B-double, even a two-bottom road train, around the metropolitan area of Perth. Certain parties reckoned at the time that the end of the world would come tomorrow and that pedestrians would get run over and squeezed on a very regular basis. That has been operating now for some time and the simple fact is that none of those things have happened. It is interesting to note that, be it the defence forces or others, if you are able on rural roads and regional roads of a reasonable quality to move a three-trailer rig, you can do so economically at 80 kilometres an hour. Of course, trucks can be engine regulated—in other words, they cannot be driven over a given speed which is 100 kilometres. There is a good question as to whether a three-trailer unit operating at 80 kilometres is a better safety situation than a two-trailer unit or a single-trailer unit doing 100 kilometres. All roads end up with motorists on them and I find it amazing, I might add, in this circumstance that we often hear that the road transport industry gets preferential treatment over rail because it seems to have roads everywhere. The roads are built for motorists; it is a coincidence that the trucks operate on them and, of course, they are highly competitive with rail. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, I am interested, and I am sure you would be yourself, to discover announcements yesterday that Queensland Rail, a government institution, has purchased the private sector interests in the Australian Railroad Group, and the Australian Railroad Group will consequently have a responsibility associated with these defence arrangements. The Australian Railroad Group was a private sector business that purchased the railway assets particularly in Western Australia, I think under the efforts of the Court government, and the outcome is that they have now been purchased by Queensland Rail. This seems in many respects to be quite a proactive problem. I read with some interest in the Australian yesterday that the Western Australian Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan, said she could see some positives in the sale but would examine the transaction in detail. She said it was ironic that the Queensland government might now be running the Western Australian railroad after the state government privatised it in 2000. I would think that is a fairly diffident response to this new investment, which also includes Babcock and Brown, a major investment bank, retaining the infrastructure. In other words, Queensland Rail has bought the rolling stock and intends to manage the business and Babcock and Brown are looking at the rail lines. From a defence perspective, an upgrade of the Western Australian rail system—the tracks, the sleepers, the signalling and all those things that go with them—would be very positive. However, I am a bit concerned about this situation. Queensland Rail were active in Western Australia on a previous occasion. They were a potential bidder for the southern passenger railway system, which eventually was won principally by Leightons. They moved out of the bidding process about halfway through, at some considerable cost. I believe over $1 million was the cost of their investment in that tendering process up until the time they left. The reason they left was that they chose the wrong partner. They were in partnership with the BGC Group, the Buckeridge group, and were told by the Western Australian government that, whilst they retained that arrangement, they would never get the contract. They got kicked out of WA, so I hope they have sorted things out with the CFMEU this time. The CFMEU runs Queensland Rail in Queensland, so I guess they have a few friends in that regard—it is dominating the Western Australian parliament. The other day, Leightons—because they became a bit cheeky in asking for some more money on the southern railway project—were immediately demoted in terms of a major road tender that is presently around the place. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Spite and vindictiveness. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —It is very vindictive, but I am wondering whether Queensland Rail has gone through the processes of making sure that Alannah MacTiernan, the minister mentioned in this article, is not going to kick them out of Western Australia again. They got kicked out once and it cost them $1 million. They had to pay their partner $1 million just to cover his costs in preparing the tender documents. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the bill in question and that he try to make at least some of his remarks relevant to the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005, which is before the Main Committee today. 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—While I believe the member is roaming considerably, he is discussing the issue of road transport. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The interesting point here is, as I said, that the Department of Defence are significantly interested in legislation that gives them some certainty and uniformity in moving their people and equipment around Australia. The time might come when they have to rely on the rail system as an alternative. We have recently had a lot of floods in WA. Roads have been washed out and some are under water. It just might be that someone has landed on some part of the Australian mainland and the only way to get Defence there might include some activities on the Western Australian rail system. My concern in all this is that the new owner got kicked out of WA once and at the request of the CFMEU. If it were to happen a second time and all of a sudden—let us look back to the Second World War, when certain unions refused to load equipment to assist our own soldiers—if there were some sort of dispute and the roads were not available, nor would the railway system be. Fundamentally, whilst I have no objection to Queensland Rail operating the Western Australian rail system, I just hope they have cleared themselves with the CFMEU this time and do not get kicked out of town again, as they did as a potential tenderer to construct the southern passenger railway system—which has problems of its own and which I certainly would not attempt to raise here, taking into account the sensitivities of the member for Chisholm on this matter. I thank the House for giving me an opportunity to make these further remarks. I support the legislation; it is very sensible. I stress that it highlights the deficiencies that still exist in a uniform regulatory regime of road transport throughout Australia in the commercial sector. There are too many differences in legislation and it makes it very difficult to operate. Furthermore, we should always have uniform legislation that allows, as the defence forces require, for sensible carriage of goods on the roads. As I have often said, all too frequently with road and rail—because we do make road services available for the motorists—we end up with a lousy road paralleling a lousy railway. We need to make some judgments about that and about the expenditure of taxpayers’ money to get the best outcome—that is, a much improved road with appropriate passing lanes and all those things that might make it easier for a motorist to pass a convoy of semitrailers carrying tanks. I think we should look at it from the point of view of both defence and the transport sector. 142 11:42:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is at the table and I congratulate him on his appointment as Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. That has caused me to have a second look at the legislation, because I now know what it is like to be run over by a tank. Actually, I am referring to the minister himself! Earlier this week we had an opportunity to debate the merits of a change to defence legislation that would properly accommodate and establish clear guidelines for the interaction between state and territory police forces and for the involvement of Defence Force personnel in response to events of domestic violence or sudden and extraordinary emergency. That bill sought to clean up a messy and largely unworkable set of rules surrounding the involvement of the ADF in the event of a terrorist attack or other breach of national security on home land. This was an important piece of legislation as it set down guidelines and accountabilities in the event that Defence Force personnel are required to assist and support the activities of either state or territory police in the event of a terrorist attack. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 is just as important. Once again, we have a bill before us that seeks to set up a known and consistent framework in which the ADF is able to operate. Members familiar with the ADF know that many of the vehicles that are part of the modern Defence Force are not the types of vehicles that appear daily on suburban streets and roads. They are large, heavy vehicles built for military purposes and have the weight and off-road capacity to match that required by modern defence forces. Despite the best efforts of the Defence Force in the past to comply with as many of the road regulations as they could, the simple fact of the matter is that these vehicles cannot comply with state road rules and regulations. Of itself, the fact that the vehicles do not comply does not seem all that significant. The Defence Act provides for this by granting immunity from road regulations. Historically, the ADF has made efforts to comply as far as possible with the road regulations, but this is starting to prove cumbersome when dealing across six agencies. I understand that dealing with the six states and enforcing the road rules has posed certain problems. The intention of this bill is to remedy those problems and provide clear compliance behaviour that can be observed by the ADF. The bill provides for and underpins an exemption framework that has been developed in consultation with the states and territories pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport. Naturally, this sort of framework covers various matters, including vehicle mass limits, load sizes, warning signals, licensing and fatigue management. These are all important issues when it comes to the effective and safe management and oversight of our road network. The bill establishes a standard national framework of exemption from road transport laws for members of the ADF, Defence reservists and approved members of any foreign armed contingent in respect of any act or omission in connection with a defence related purpose. Such a regime allows for and accommodates the operation of the defence forces without impinging on their operational capacity. In the same way that it was important to have clear guidelines for the ADF’s involvement in response to breaches of national security, it is equally important that the work of the defence forces is not impeded through a regime of strict adherence to state or territory road regulations. In essence, this is about making sure that the ADF is adequately equipped to carry out its role, whether that be through the provision of equipment or through the development of a set of guidelines to give effect to efficient operations. Adequately equipping the ADF has been topical of late since it was revealed recently that our defence forces may have been kitted out with substandard clothing and equipment. Improperly equipping the ADF has had a direct impact on its operation, and it is important that the mistakes made by the DMO in failing to provide the right equipment to the ADF are not matched by a failure to develop an effective operational framework that accommodates the needs of the defence forces to move their vehicles throughout this country. The framework that will be established following the passage of this bill is unlikely to repeat such mistakes as the definition of ‘defence related purpose’ contained in the bill is appropriately broad. Under the provisions of the bill, defence related purposes are considered to be activities in which Defence personnel are likely to be engaged, including: defence and security functions; emergency and disaster management or relief; humanitarian and medical assistance; and the provision of support to nationally and internationally significant community activities. The framework is clear, as it is important that it is well understood by all those who will operate within it. For instance, the framework makes ADF driver licensing compatible with the state system. Where the states or territories require a special licence, the ADF will be required to provide accredited training to a compatible standard. ADF personnel will be required to carry their licence, logbooks and other necessary documentation and produce them on demand. Should a civilian licence be suspended or cancelled, their ADF licence will also be suspended or cancelled automatically. The framework contains sensible and practical safeguards which not only reflect the importance of having a known and understood operating environment but also recognise the primacy of the states and territories in regulating road use. The bill allows for the maintenance of the ADF’s operational capability and recognises the need to protect the safety of civilian road users. While the bill itself may be relatively short and the detail primarily contained in the framework, this by no means lessens the importance of the development of a national approach to the ADF’s use of our roads. I will be supporting the bill and I encourage all members to do likewise. 144 11:50:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —As always, it is good to see you competently occupying the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie. From time to time, during military training or manoeuvres and asset delivery, members of the Australian defence forces have a need to drive on the roads of various states. Convoys of ADF jeeps, Land Rovers and prime movers can be sometimes seen driving up the Bruce Highway through my electorate on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. It is an impressive and encouraging spectacle to see a procession of Australia’s finest en route to their destination. I think everyone would accept that this road usage is vital in the everyday operations of the defence forces. With it come certain legal privileges for the ADF in that the ADF is by law immune to the requirements of state laws on road use in certain situations. A wide array of immunities is set out in the Defence Act 1903. Quite reasonably, these freedoms are recognised by all states and territories, in that they are aware that the ADF must be able to operate its fleet of land vehicles without obstruction, with the ability to move around quickly and efficiently, suffering no cumbersome restrictions, so that they can basically ensure the defence of our nation. Having said that, however, the ADF is not about to abuse these privileges and the ADF is dedicated to complying with all of the road rules and continuing its tradition as a respected good corporate citizen. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 sets out the exemptions that are available to ADF personnel. The exemptions in the bill relate to the size and mass of vehicles and loading instructions. They also include other, more specific guidelines that relate to the drivers of ADF vehicles, their licensing requirements, road rule observation and the like. I understand that the exemptions have related mostly to the weight of heavy vehicles and off-road capacities and that in these instances it is at all times impossible for the ADF to comply with state legislation. I think we would all accept and understand that this is the nature of the forces, which have to transport heavy tanks and other vehicles as well as other equipment. Believe it or not, attempts were made about a decade ago to specify more accurately the road transport exemptions available to the ADF and its personnel. This was attempted through the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991, but that process never reached completion because it was dependent on the states and territories adopting model road transport legislation and, sadly, that did not eventuate. It was suggested at the time by the Department of Transport and Regional Services that the legislation applicable to the ADF should not, by reason of compatibility, be bundled into the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991 and that all the objectives would be better served with a separate act. This, of course, is the act which will arise from the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 being discussed here today. The arrival of this bill before the parliament follows a process that began in 2004 when it was agreed that a national schedule of ADF exemption should be drafted. There was a resulting document, entitled The Defence road transport exemption framework. This was finalised last year with the assistance of the National Transport Commission and has been approved by the transport agency chief executive and the Australian Transport Council. This document outlines the more specific exemptions not outlined in the Defence Act. Each state and territory will advise which of the exemptions can be promptly implemented, and it is expected that the guidelines will be fully implemented across Australia by late this year. Those who have listened to the honourable member for Werriwa would be aware that this is a non-controversial bill. It improves and clarifies the legislative guidelines that govern road usage by the ADF. The bill does not put any undue pressure on the states and territories with respect to road usage legislation, and it simply places the exemptions in the act within this new framework. The ADF is perfectly within its rights to ignore many of the laws that civilian drivers must comply with, but it chooses to meet them as best it can while respecting the sovereignty and self-rule of the various states and territories. I suppose you could say that, in doing this, the Australian Defence Force is endeavouring to be a good corporate citizen. 00ANF Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP Mr Ticehurst —Hear, hear! 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I thank the member for his supportive interjection. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill will help to further improve the situation, and I commend this bill to the House. 145 11:55:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —Timing is everything in this business. It is with great pleasure that I come to speak on the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 and to talk about some of the important issues that help to facilitate the defence of our nation and the movement of military vehicles across the broad expanse of the Australian landscape. Where possible we need to facilitate the rapid movement of that equipment. I think one of the most advantageous things that has happened recently in the defence of Australia is the completion of the railway line to Darwin, because for the first time we are able to move very quickly large amounts of very heavy military equipment. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —It is happening this week. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —That is happening this week, according to the minister. We are able to move large quantities of defence equipment very quickly from the Far North down to the south when it needs to be repaired and put together and up to the north when it needs to be deployed. For many years when I was in the Northern Territory the problems caused by the difficulties associated with moving equipment backwards and forwards to Darwin and those remote areas was of concern to the military units based in Darwin, and what should happen in the event of the need to rapidly deploy in an emergency situation. The laws of our country need to be prepared to enable that deployment and to support it. This legislation puts some limits on our immunity from state law when it comes to moving this equipment. I might say that it is not just Australian military equipment that gets moved about our country. We have on occasions the Singapore armed forces undergoing training at the Shoalwater Bay training area, and approximately 300 armoured vehicles of various types can be located on the range at Shoalwater Bay. The United States armed forces also come and exercise at the Shoalwater Bay training area. They bring their own equipment but, once again, it is very different from ours in some cases, and certainly different from the equipment of the Singaporean armed forces. On the face of it, if you look at any United States armed force unit you find that inevitably they have those Hummers that they buzz around in, and if you compare them in size and shape to your average Land Rover you find that the Hummer is a heck of a lot bigger and heavier. If you put them on a suburban street they do not really fit, and certainly not in an Australian environment. So all kinds of problems can emerge not only when we set about to move large quantities of our own equipment but when it is mixed in with large numbers of Hummers and other types of foreign equipment. Elsewhere in the Northern Territory is the Delamere weapons range, and we can have on occasion substantial numbers of foreign troops located at RAAF Tindal. Those troops come with their own knowledge of road rules, and it can mean that special efforts have to be made to make sure that they are not offending the traffic rules or the swift and smooth flow of civilian traffic while they are undergoing their training activities. There are some interesting versions of equipment that we see from time to time in Australia. It is worth just canvassing some of the differences that apply. I have done a bit of digging and, with the help of the Parliamentary Library and other places, I have found some interesting examples. There are tanks such as the M1 Abrams. It is a huge and heavy piece of equipment used by US forces and also soon to be used by our own forces. There is also, in the case of the Singaporean armed forces, the AMX13 light tank. Armed recovery vehicles, often fitted with cranes and even bulldozer blades, can sometimes be deployed wherever armoured vehicles are used for military training exercises. These are often sent out onto our roads on low-loaders, but it is important that from time to time, when they are required to use the roads, we have a suitable set of arrangements for them to do so. There are ASLAVs—those wonderful vehicles that you and I travelled in, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, and which we were very much impressed by in their operations in Iraq. They too make excursions onto Australian roads regularly, particularly around their garrison site in Darwin and between there and training areas such as the one out at Mount Bundy on the Kakadu National Park boundary, where I have been many times prior to it being declared a training area. It is very rough and inhospitable country in there, but to get there and back the ASLAVs go up and down the Stuart Highway and out on the Kakadu Highway as well. As we have seen, ASLAVs come in a range of shapes and sizes. We have even seen them with huge fences on them, used to stop projectiles, to force the projectiles to explode early should they be fired at the ASLAVs. They are very effective. But when they go on those vehicles, that kind of additional equipment massively changes their dimensions. It has a huge impact on the ability of the ASLAVs to operate in traffic. As we ourselves found out in Iraq, the soldiers who are operating those kinds of equipment choose to remove it from time to time to facilitate their flow through the traffic. Obviously, in having them out on Australian roads, we need to consider their physical dimensions. One of the most important physical dimensions in this debate is the weight of vehicles. I have looked up some bits of equipment. A Leopard 1 main battle tank weighs 42 tonnes and can travel at only 62 kilometres an hour. Its width is 3.37 metres. That is quite a size and shape. An M113 armoured personnel carrier weighs 10.9 tonnes and is 4.86 metres long. It travels at 65 kilometres an hour. The ASLAVs, as we have seen, can go at 100 kilometres an hour, but, as I say, that depends on their size and shape, and just how big their dimensions are depends on whether they have the fences on. We have also seen the Bushmaster. The Bushmaster can travel even faster, but it also has quite a weight. In its combat configuration it weighs 14 tonnes. These are large vehicles and they need to be carefully administered. I want to mention one of the more exotic types of vehicle I managed to find, with the assistance of the library, going through the types of vehicles produced by Australian Defence Industries in our country. I do not know if many members know this, but there is a vehicle produced which is truly exotic, called the ADI high-speed engineering vehicle. It is basically a backhoe that travels at 100 kilometres an hour. I do not know what I would do if I was confronted by a backhoe doing 100 kilometres an hour down the Ipswich Motorway. I think I would panic. I think there would be a problem. It just shows that military vehicles have other purposes than just their efficacious use in traffic. They can sometimes be extremely exotic. A backhoe like that is something that does need to be carefully operated by the military when they set out to use it on Australian roads. I said before that one of the most important issues of dimension is weight. One of the reasons we are seeking to limit the exposure or the immunity of the defence forces from state law is that it can be truly damaging if we send out heavy vehicles and they exceed the mass limits on the bridges, for example, that they traverse over. This is an issue that is quite well known to me because at the moment the Ipswich Motorway—a road of great interest to me in my area and that my residents use all the time—contains something like 52 bridges in its 19-kilometre length. It is being traversed by up to 100,000 vehicles a day, and often those vehicles exceed the construction design capabilities of the bridges on the Ipswich Motorway. It is one of the issues that has caused the state government to look at various ways to try and replace the Ipswich Motorway, but at the moment we have vehicles using that road that are theoretically too heavy for the bridges they are using. They are operating under dispensation. I am talking about B-doubles on the Ipswich Motorway. That is happening in many cases across Australia because the size of our transports are getting bigger and bigger and their weight, their mass, is increasing. Governments have to look at whether they can give dispensation to use bridges that in the past would not have been expected to carry vehicles of that size. I am particularly interested in the Ipswich Motorway question because you get vehicles using that road—and I am not talking military vehicles here; I am talking about thousands of B-doubles using that road every day. While it is important that we limit the immunity of the Defence Force to such things—basically, when you look at some of the field guns that are operated by the Australian Defence Force, when they are connected to a Mack prime mover, as they regularly are, and they are sent out onto the road to be redeployed they can be bigger and longer than a semitrailer. To an average motorist that can be quite distracting; they can be an extremely large unit. But at the moment the same states that would seek us to exempt our army vehicles, to limit our exemption from their rules in relation to weight, are making regular transgressions in relation to a whole lot of other bridges—allowing them to use pieces of road, even though the vehicles are too heavy for the bridges that they are likely to encounter. Another issue that comes into play here is the various rules that apply to operators seeking to drive their trucks interstate. I have encountered this with one of my local trucking operators—Nolans—which has run into a lot of difficulty with the operation of B-doubles and semitrailers interstate. They are not the only ones; there are a lot of people encountering this difficulty. If you look at a B-double or a semitrailer these days, quite often they will have a refrigeration unit stuck on the front of the trailer, and in some states when they look at the dimensions allowable for semitrailers they will incorporate the refrigeration units and in other states they will not. I know personally, having spoken to Terry Nolan about this, that Nolans Interstate Transport has encountered cases where its trucks have crossed over a border somewhere along a trip between, say, Brisbane and Melbourne, and the next minute some guy jumps out of the bushes and says: ‘Aha! You have transgressed the law. We’ve got you. You have broken the rule in relation to our state because it’s slightly different from that other state you just came from.’ These kinds of differences between states are silly and they continue to develop, in their bureaucratic administration of these kinds of things, more and more hurdles for the operators of transport trying to move our freight backwards and forwards. Down the track surely we need to look at standardisation. It has been said many times. It is the rail gauge debate again and again and again, and we are getting it more and more and more. Even if you go state to state, within the states themselves there are many different rules about roads you can drive on and roads you cannot drive on and roads where, if you are driving a B-double, you have to have a flashing light, but other roads where you do not have to have a flashing light. There are different requirements that apply backwards and forwards. Our defence forces have to worry not just about going across state boundaries and the differences in laws that apply between states but about such things as what configurations you can drive on the road between Winton and Longreach and whether that rule is different from what might apply further down the track. When you travel from Winton to Longreach and further on down the road into New South Wales, I am sure you will find that a totally different set of rules apply. We obviously need that dispensation, but I would like people to consider the wider ramifications. Surely we can do something to more readily propagate agreement and an outbreak of peace between the states about what the rules should be. We need an end to the flood of paperwork backwards and forwards that drives truck drivers up the wall and really only adds costs for the people who are seeking to ship stuff backwards and forwards. As we consider this, we need to look at that wider question and, where possible, make a bid for standardisation. I have with me the guidelines for multicombination vehicles in Queensland and the New South Wales RTA vehicle standards information. They are completely different documents and, if you merged them together, there are bound to be tears. They do not quite fit. But the more that can be done to bring those together in the service of commerce in Australia, better traffic flow and reducing the blood pressure of the many hard-working truck drivers who have to deal with this kind of stuff the better. We should be seeking standardisation for those commercial operators, just as we seek greater standardisation and the more sensible flow of data backwards and forwards in support of the flow of our military vehicles. I strongly support this legislation. It is important that we have traffic flows that readily support our defence forces and get rid of those old problems that used to be a nightmare for commanders in forward bases such as Darwin in respect of the logistics when they needed to press the button to quickly move equipment back and forward. We are overcoming those problems, but more needs to be done. We need to remember that the defence forces provide an essential service to our nation and they need to be facilitated. 149 12:13:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —It is a pleasure to speak on the Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005, which has been proposed by the Howard government in this parliament. At the outset, I want to compliment my colleague and friend the member for Blair, who is well known in this parliament, in his electorate and in Queensland more widely for his faith in our defence forces. RAAF Base Amberley is in his electorate and I know that he comes to this parliament with a very real passion for promoting good policy on issues that affect not only the Amberley Air Force base in Blair but the wider defence community. I have in my electorate Witton Barracks, a small barracks in the suburb of Indooroopilly, where my electorate office is. I am looking forward to more interaction with the new Minister for Defence, the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, all of whom are new to their roles. I commend them very strongly on the work they have done in the parliament and are about to do in their new roles. Witton Barracks houses defence transport load vehicles. From time to time I see defence transport vehicles driving in the electorate of Ryan and defence personnel going about their work at Witton Barracks. Therefore, I have an interest in speaking on this bill—although I have no expertise, certainly not compared to my colleague the member for Blair. This bill provides a legislative basis for the defence road transport exemption framework, which details exemptions from the operation of state and territory road transport laws that will be applied uniformly across Australia. The Defence Act 1903 provides immunity from certain state and territory laws for members of the Australian Defence Force. The relevant section is section 123(1). This bill will play a role in limiting that immunity by establishing a defence road transport exemption framework that outlines exemptions and processes that will be applied nationally across the states and territories to support the work and the conduct of ADF road transport operations. The exemption framework was negotiated between the ADF and state and territory road transport authorities—a good example of these two tiers of government working well to achieve a sensible outcome. The exemption framework establishes the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for principal ADF routes used in exercises or operations and day-to-day activities. In addition, the exemption framework is intended to ensure the integrity of civilian infrastructure and facilities used by the ADF. As I said, with the Witton Barracks in my electorate, I am keen to know whether this infrastructure, as it stands, is encompassed in this bill. Currently it is under the flag of the Department of Defence. From time to time there is conversation and speculation that these premises, this physical real estate, in the Ryan electorate might turn into civilian infrastructure, given its prime location right on the river banks of Indooroopilly. The exemption framework matches load limits on vehicles with the current capacity of roads and bridges throughout Australia. It imposes mass limits for ADF vehicles in combinations, including their loads, as well as mass limits for individual tyres, wheels, axles and axle groups. Defence vehicles are very different from civilian vehicles. That is no surprise—they are deliberately different. They serve a different purpose. Therefore, it is important that these types of vehicles fit in with the wider usage of civilian infrastructure. The exemption framework also imposes rules about the size of a load, how far it might project from the vehicle, warning signals for certain projections and securing loads. The exemption framework also details the specific licensing and road rule exemptions for members of our Defence Force when they engage in defence related activities. The ADF has a certain type of accredited training for its professional drivers. The basic driver course includes training in the carriage of dangerous goods and explosives, and drivers are required to requalify every three years. It is important that those in the Defence Force who have great responsibility in carrying dangerous loads and driving these heavy vehicles are tested every three years on their skills and qualifications. Where state and territory legislation imposes a requirement for a special licence and the ADF trains to a similar standard, then consistent with the state and territory in question those requirements are deemed to occur. The exemption framework provides that defence members are not required to produce a state or territory licence when driving an authorised defence vehicle on defence related business or activity. However, it should be pointed out that ADF personnel are required to carry and produce on demand their current defence licence, their driver qualification log and the vehicle authorisation and task form. This is part of the important checks and balances that exist in the contract between the defence department and the larger civilian community. It is important for our communities that those who purport to engage in a legitimate activity through the responsibility of driving and carrying loads related to their defence work are able, without any difficulty, to prove that to a legitimate officer. One suspects, of course, that officer would be a member of the state or territory police force in question. Defence licences are cancelled if the holder’s civilian licence is cancelled in any state or territory, or if the holder’s employment with the defence department is terminated. Equally, a defence licence will be suspended if the holder’s civilian licence is suspended in any state or territory or if the holder fails to maintain currency of their defence licence where particular currency requirements exist. Defence licences are also reviewed when the holder is transferred or moves to another position within the Defence Force where those licences and that qualification will no longer be relevant. It is important to say that these exemptions will also apply to personnel from visiting foreign defence forces acting in accordance with an arrangement approved by the Australian defence forces. As the federal member for Ryan, I just wanted to speak briefly on this bill. In a small way it does have an impact on my community, given that Witton Barracks exist in my electorate and that from time to time we see defence vehicles coming into the electorate and using the bridges, roads and transport infrastructure. The Australian Defence Force has a budget of some $17.5 billion. I understand that the government will continue to increase it by some three per cent. This is an important reflection on how the government values the Defence Force and how important a place it has in our society. All members on this side of the parliament—and I would like to think all federal opposition members hold the same view—have enormous respect and admiration for our defence personnel. We know that the new minister will have certain challenges ahead. However, he has been appointed to this important position because unquestionably he is one of the most significant figures in the current parliament in terms of his intellectual capacity and dedication to the task that he has. In comparison to the $17.5 billion that the Australian government will be allocating for defence, it is mind-boggling to find that this year the United States defence budget, which includes the expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan, will reach in excess of $US500 billion. This does not include, I understand, the war deployments—the Defense Secretary, Mr Rumsfeld, is only asking for a few hundred million more. This puts the position of the two countries in stark contrast. The US is a global player in terms of international economics and strategic affairs. We have an economy of some $800 billion and a national budget of some $220 billion. Of course we are unable realistically to compare ourselves with the US, but this does give a flavour of the expenditure of the two countries in this very important area of national affairs. In conclusion, I again congratulate the new Minister for Defence, the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the new Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I know they will carry the flag very strongly and competently. As a colleague in the parliament, I extend to them my best wishes. 151 12:24:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —in reply—I would like to thank the members for O’Connor, Fisher, Blair, Ryan, Barton and Werriwa for their contributions. The Defence (Road Transport Legislation Exemption) Bill 2005 will underpin the exemption framework which, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, has been developed after extensive consultation with the states and territories. The existing wide immunity from state and territory laws provided to members of the Australian Defence Force under subsection 123(1) of the Defence Act will be limited to ensure that the road transport exemptions set out in the exemption framework can operate in the manner intended. Without this legislation it would be unclear how the existing immunity under the Defence Act operates in relation to the exemption framework developed in consultation with the states and territories and with the assistance of the National Transport Commission. The Australian Defence Force is required to operate its land vehicle fleet without restrictions imposed by Commonwealth, state and territory road transport laws. Exemptions from particular road transport laws enable the ADF to move its capabilities quickly and efficiently across the Australian road transport network. The scope of exemptions required by the ADF relates to mass, size and loading requirements of its land transport vehicle fleet, and also to specific issues relating to ADF personnel, such as licensing, fatigue management and observation of certain road rules. Drawing on an issue raised by the member for Blair, the exemption framework intends to match load limits on vehicles with the current capacity of roads and bridges. It sets out the specific categories of exemptions that will apply for the principal ADF routes in day-to-day operations, exercises and more specific operations. The exemption framework has recently been endorsed by the Australian Transport Council. It is a dynamic, collaborative document that will be maintained by the National Transport Commission in accordance with the continuing review process undertaken by the ADF in consultation with state and territory jurisdictions and will be implemented by those jurisdictions on a voluntary basis. The legislation does not impose any requirements on state and territory governments. It simply limits the current defence immunity and, in effect, replaces that immunity with the exemption framework. That exemption framework is an excellent example of state, territory and Commonwealth cooperation, with the governments coming together to achieve a worthwhile, mutually beneficial outcome in the national interest. The need to establish a road transport exemption framework has been a priority for Defence for several years and its successful negotiation is testament to the dedication of all parties. The identification of key exemption requirements for the ADF capability has been matched by the need to address state and territory concerns about transporting heavy vehicles across their road networks. Furthermore, the cooperative and consultative process used to develop the framework, particularly the coordination role played by the National Transport Commission, can perhaps be used as a benchmark to obtain further road transport reform, as encouraged by the member for Blair during his contribution. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 152 Adjournment Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) 12:28:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 152 12:28:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I would like to take this opportunity to say what a great shame it is to see Australian scientists caught in the middle of what is clearly a major political debate. Our scientists have long been internationally regarded and are held in high esteem by all Australians and many international institutions. In recent days and weeks the CSIRO has been at the centre of criticism over its energy research program. Several senior scientists claim to have been gagged and management of the CSIRO is being questioned. I do not seek to comment on the situation of former senior scientist Graeme Pearman and others, except to say that in the aftermath I hope that all understand that the institution itself, the CSIRO, and the calibre of its scientists should not be undermined by short-sighted politicians. Scientists are scientists. They are not politicians. If the claim is that CSIRO is being politicised, the attack should not be on the respected scientists that make up the organisation. The criticism should be directed at the government which sets the policy which CSIRO must follow according to its charter and which should provide it with the quality of independent management that it needs and deserves. Unfortunately, the reality is that, under the Howard government, funding for this organisation has been so depleted that it is struggling for its very existence let alone to maintain its national and international reputation. As the peak science body the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies will attest, CSIRO is a diminishing part of Australia’s research efforts, with government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product at its lowest levels for 25 years. Neil Hamilton, Executive Director of the Forum for European-Australian Science and Technology Cooperation, the science body which the government has charged with the task of fostering collaboration with European scientists, said last month: We are slowly but surely being pushed from the privileged position that we have held for much of the 20th century, when we were seen as a highly advanced country with excellent science, social science, and humanities researchers that European teams wanted to work with. Added to the funding crisis is the lack of vision by the Howard government to provide any clear guidance as to the future of science in this country and how it is to be the source of new industry for Australia. Without such guidance and with the tightest of budgets, CSIRO is being severely constrained. It is within this context that the recent announcement by CSIRO on energy research must be understood. Last month, CSIRO announced that it was increasing its commitment to energy research by five to 10 per cent, to be shared equally between clean coal technology and distributed energy generation, including renewables and natural gas technologies—all priorities for Australia which require government support and research assistance. CSIRO has shifted its focus to include clean coal technologies, which I support absolutely. But I stress that, contrary to what some people would have the community believe, CSIRO is not abandoning its renewable energy research. It can do both. In fact, it is looking at major new research and development in solar thermal technology, where it believes it can have more impact globally and where it has a competitive advantage. The time has come for people to accept the reality that world energy demand will double by 2030. Our challenge as a community, across all political parties, is to stop the false war over the different energy technologies. This is not about coal versus renewables. To develop the best possible energy solutions to meet this demand, while advancing progress on greenhouse gas emissions, we need them both. The challenge to all political parties is to bring an end to the false debate about the use of one form of energy to the exclusion of another and to support all endeavours on all energy opportunities to improve our greenhouse performance. It is not about coal versus renewables, or nuclear versus renewables or coal; it is about how we as a nation and internationally solve the crisis in our energy demands. CSIRO must be involved in both the investigation of clean coal technology and research on renewables, not one or the other. Stop the cheap political point scoring. 153 153 12:33:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 0 Miss JACKIE KELLY —Since my election to this place in 1996, school students in Western Sydney have sweltered in temperatures of up to 41.9 degrees in their classrooms. It is 38 degrees quite regularly. This has been a source of angst for parents. They constantly approach me about the heat in their childrens’ classrooms. In some of the demountables and temporary classrooms the situation is grossly inadequate. For four years I have made representations to the Carr and now Iemma Labor governments about the condition of our schools. I was thrilled to see that my suggestion to the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training was taken up in the last election campaign with the announcement of our Investing in Our Schools program and a commitment to schools in Western Sydney that sees responsibility for capital works expenditure go directly to the schools. A number of my local schools immediately installed airconditioning. One of the schools was Henry Fulton Public School at Cranebrook. They were granted $41,000 to install airconditioning. Unfortunately, for the airconditioning to operate, a massive upgrade of the electrical infrastructure that passes by the school was required. It was the same for Cambridge Park Public School in Oxford Street. So many schools in Western Sydney do not have the electrical infrastructure to support every one of their classrooms being airconditioned. Why? It is because the state electrical grid is so run down, so mismanaged and in such dire need of repair that for 10 years the state government has been perfectly happy to have a policy that schools do not get airconditioning unless they have temperatures of more than 42 degrees in classrooms. My goodness! Kids have switched off at about 36 degrees. The Investing in Our Schools program has had some excellent outcomes. Again it is the federal government stepping in where the state government has failed students in Western Sydney. Other schools in other states get pianos, musical instruments and wonderful additions to their schools, while schools in Western Sydney are getting airconditioning—a basic thing. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— 154 12:36:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.36 pm 155 Questions in Writing 155 155 2556 155 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 1 November 2005: What sum was awarded under Round Six of the Australian Government Envirofund. How many grants were made under this round of funding. What was the name, postal address and in which electoral division was each organisation that received a grant. How many unsuccessful applications for grants were received from each Commonwealth electoral division. In respect of each successful application, (a) what sum was granted and (b) for what purpose was the grant awarded. Did the Minister’s department or ministerial office contact Members of Parliament representing the electoral divisions within which there were successful applicants; if so, what form of communication was used. 155 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The approved funding for projects under Round 6 of the Australian Government Envirofund was $11,370,175.25. There were 711 grants under Round Six. The details of successful applications by electoral division, including the applicant name, postal address, approved funding and project purpose, are at Attachment 1. A list of the number of approved projects and funding by electoral division is at Attachment 2. Information regarding the electoral division of unsuccessful applications is not available, as the relevant database cannot generate this information for projects that are not approved. A table showing the number of unsuccessful applications by State is at Attachment 3. See (3). Members of Parliament or Senators were contacted by letter, email or fax and Minister’s media releases. Attachment A Electoral Division Project ID Application Title Proponent Organisation Postal Address Approved funding (GST excl) Description Adelaide 51281 Capacity Building for Friends of Parks Groups and Allied Bushcarers Friends of Parks Incorporated c/-Friends of Parks inc GPO Box 1047, ADELAIDE, 5001 $27,063.64 This project will build capacity in Friends of Parks member groups and other wildlife and landcarers by providing courses which will give members the necessary skills and knowledge to enable them to safely undertake on ground biodiversity protection and enhancement projects using “best practice” methods. Basic bushcare and safety training will be provided for new volunteers with more advanced training for long term volunteers to enhance their knowledge and skills. Banks 51821 Morgan’s Creek Bushland and Creek Bank Restoration Morgan’s Creek Bushcare Group 55 Prince Street, PICNIC POINT, 2213 $18,750.00 This project will restore and conserve biodiversity in the Morgan’s Creek area through a professional bush regenerator working with local volunteers by cutting and painting of large woody weeds, broad spraying and the removal of a significant amount of debris and planting 900 plants which will lead increased water quality, decreased weed invasion, and increased biodiversity. Barker 51530 Rehabilitation of the River Murray and Community Workshops at Waikerie, SA Murray Darling Association Incorporated PO Box 3165 Rundle Mall PO, ADELAIDE, 5000 $16,078.07 This project will restore existing degraded sites and the prevention of further damage from new recreational activities. It will erect 1km of protective fencing around vegetation areas and enclose an area of 2ha as well as erecting another 1km of fencing to control vehicle access the existing camping and picnic area. It will also plant 150 native understorey plants helping to improve water quality at Hogwash Bend. Community awareness will be raised by the installation of interpretive signage about wetland values and significance. These activities will be reinforced by educational workshops which will focus upon management options. Barker 51537 South East Coast (Limestone Coast) Access Management South East Coastal Management Group PO Box 27, MILLICENT, 5280 $39,727.27 This project will manage pedestrian and vehicle access at various sites along the fragile coast of the South East Coast Region by limiting and preventing damage to vegetation, reducing dune erosion and reducing disturbance to wildlife. It will prevent further damage to significant cultural heritage sites including middens and stone hearths. Barker 51544 Rehabilitation of the River Murray at Renmark, SA River Murray Urban Users Local Action Planning Committee Inc. PO Box 3165 Rundle Mall PO, ADELAIDE, 5000 $11,265.24 This project will restore existing degraded sites with plantings of 1,500 native plants and prevent further damage by construction of 1km of fencing to control vehicle access and to protect 2ha of revegetation. It will improve water quality and will raise community awareness by the design and installation of interpretive signage about wetland values, significance and wildlife. Barker 51932 Salt Tolerance of Native Species Trial Renmark to the Border Local Action Planning Association Inc. 117 Ral Ral Avenue, RENMARK, 5341 $6,210.37 This project will assess salt tolerance of five local native species and two bush tucker crops to determine if salt effected land can be rehabilitated and provide a productive crop. The trial will involve four unproductive sites due to salinity. It will aim to develop alternative crops and cover crops to reduce water use and minimise salinity. An information kit will be developed for local irrigators to consider alternative crop options. Bass 51371 Removal of Lycium Ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) and Revegetation: Roydon Island Westside Landcare Inc Private Bag 2, WHITEMARK, 7255 $21,080.00 This project will manage the eradication of african boxthorn and revegetate the area by planting 750 locally propagated native indigenous seedlings and re-seeding with locally collected seed. It will allow for the expansion of breeding areas for Little Penguin and Short-tailed Shearwater seabird species. Bass 51562 Riparian Restoration and Water Quality Monitoring, Pipers River Catchment, North East Tasmania Lilydale Landcare Association Inc. PO Box 205, LILYDALE, 7268 $37,611.00 This project will fence 8.5km of priority riparian and remnant bush area to provide more habitat for the Commonwealth listed vulnerable Mt Arthur Burrowing Crayfish and the Green and Golden Frog; plant 1,650 native riparian plants and provide 16 off-stream stock watering facilities. The project will prevent riverbank erosion, improve water quality and encourage native regeneration of plants in areas that have been degraded by stock, and raise community awareness of local issues and broader catchment and regional issues by introducing new landholders to natural resource management objectives through involvement in landcare group activities. Bass 51573 Native Plant Propagation and Planting for Riparian/Remnant Revegetation Northeast Coast Landcare Group Inc. “Carisbrook”, WATERHOUSE, 7262 $4,171.13 This project will grow native plants from seed collected locally by the Northeast Coast Landcare Group members for use as tube stock in riparian and inland remnant vegetation areas to revegetate key water quality and corridor areas. Bendigo 51685 Protection and Enhancement of the Sheepwash Creek Riparian Zone Cornella Local Area Plan Implementation Committee Darrigans Rd, COROP, 3559 $39,977.27 This project will protect and revegetate part of the creek and undertake erosion control works. Stock exclusion fencing will be erected along 1.5km of one side of the creek and approximately 1,160 plants will cover the 2.3ha site. Four rock chutes and one sediment trap will be constructed in the creek itself to reduce erosion. It will raise community awareness through two field days, distribution of two newsletters and erecting two information signs. Bendigo 51746 Willow Control and Revegetation of the Little Coliban River Tylden Landcare Group Incorporated Association PO Box 123, KYNETON, 3444 $28,405.00 This project will remove willow trees from the Little Coliban River and plant 4,800 native plants.There will be the opportunity for primary, secondary, tertiary and community education and a field day will be held. It will also build on previous Envirofund projects to remove willows and contributes to the health of the River, which is part of the Murray Darling system. Bendigo 51753 Upper Sheepwash Creek Riparian Revegetation Project. Bendigo, Victoria Sheepwash Creek Landcare Group 268 Nankervis Road RSD, STRATHFIELDSAYE, 3551 $29,985.00 This project will rehabilitate and protect the biodiversity along 2.8km of Sheepwash Creek and link two previous restoration projects. After grooming and stem injecting approximately 25ha of large scale invasive woody weeds and 2.9km of stock exclusion fencing will be constructed. Revegetating the area with 15,000 indigenous riparian plants will create a wildlife corridor and buffer strip. and the involvement of landholders in 10 field days and volunteer working bees will raise community spirit and awareness. Bendigo 51777 Elmore River Reserve Action Plan - Enhancing the Campaspe Riparian Zone Elmore Progress Association Inc C\- 32 Cardwell Street, ELMORE, 3558 $12,250.00 This project will enhance the environmental value of the Campaspe River riparian zone at Elmore by revegetation of approximately 5.7ha of land with 2,200 indigenous, local provenance plants and approximately 4.4ha of targeted woody weed management. It will also provide multiple benefits by improving riparian vegetation communities, providing an improved habitat corridor for fauna species, enhancing river health (water quality, litter input, bank stabilisation) and raise general community awareness of river health and biodiversity management. Bennelong 51162 Development of a Community Awareness Program on Natural Resource Management in North Ryde Rotary Club of North Ryde Inc PO Box 6171, NORTH RYDE, 2113 $12,272.73 This project will focus on the rehabilitation of rare remnant riparian bushland by planting 1,000 indigenous plants. It will allow the local community to learn more about their local environment and further build on rehabilitation works in the area. Berowra 51998 Community Creek Care and Monitoring Program Glenorie Environmental & Creative Arts Centre PO Box 95, GLENORIE, 2157 $14,727.27 This project will remove of crofton weed from the forest catchment and wetland systems and will develop and conduct educational campaigns regarding nutrient problems in stormwater. Blair 51296 Woodlands Scrub Preservation The Trustee for The J N & R A Cooper Family Trust 174 Seminary Road, MARBURG, 4346 $20,870.91 This project will enhance existing rosewood scrub through revegetation of an area of 20ha. It will also install a suitable watering system to ensure establishment of revegetated rosewood scrub species and complete stock exclusion fencing of the existing rosewood scrub remnant. Awareness raising will be undertaken through school visits and continual public access. Blair 51363 Stuart River Stage 2 Riparian and Water Quality Protection Project Barbour Gary and Sharon “Timbarra”, MS 514, KUMBIA, 4610 $8,231.82 This project will undertake the second stage of restoration of the Stuart River corridor, excluding stock to allow native vegetation to regenerate on river banks, protecting riverbanks from erosion and bank slumping, improving water quality, environmental flows and reducing disturbance and the spread of pests. The project will incorporate property management initiatives including sustainable grazing and cropping practices to manage native grasslands, native vegetation and maintain good water quality for livestock and the environment. Blair 51592 Removing Environmental Weed Trees From the Bellthorpe Environmental Reserve Bellthorpe Progress Association Inc 59 Bellthorpe Range Road, BELLTHORPE, 4514 $10,700.00 This project will remove environmental weed trees (including Privet, Chinese Elm and Camphor Laurel) from the Bellthorpe Environmental Reserve, rehabilitating the Reserve and removing them as a seed source for surrounding and downstream areas. Blair 51656 Moreton to Mountains - South Pine River Riparian Vegetation Rehabilitation Continuation South Pine Project Sub-Committee PO Box 2066, STRATHPINE, 4500 $26,791.44 This project will protect and enhance degraded riparian areas, re-establishing endangered Notophyll Vine Forest, improving water quality, reducing erosion and creating wildlife habitat. This project will continue to link previous revegetation sites and existing remnant along a 7km corridor of the South Pine River which has been degraded through the invasion of weed species by planting 10,000 seedlings. Blair 51791 Protecting Riparian Habitat in Headwaters of Kilcoy Creek, South-East Queensland Brisbane Valley Kilcoy Landcare Group Inc PO Box 116, KILCOY, 4515 $7,136.36 This project will protect the biodiversity of 6km of riparian zone along the upper reaches of Kilcoy Creek. In a cooperative approach between local landholders, the Landcare group and National Parks, the project will control weeds to prevent the downstream spread of emerging weed species and revegetate with 500 local native plants. In addition to restoring riparian habitat, a field day will be held and fact sheet disseminated to increase the local awareness of threats posed to riparian ecosystems. Blair 51896 Restoring Habitat for Flying Fox Colony on the Bremer River Noahs Ark Wildlife Coalition Inc 23 William Street East, WOODEND, 4305 $9,574.33 This project will reduce weed infestation and restore native vegetation, enhancing an existing regional wildlife corridor and the roost habitat of Black Flying Fox, Little Red Flying Fox and Grey Headed Flying Fox. It will also conduct community education. Blair 51911 Building Biodiversity at Blue Gum Reserve Blue Gum Reserve Bushcare Group 16 Perth Street, KARALEE, 4306 $19,548.18 This project will increase biodiversity at Blue Gum Reserve and improve the condition of an endangered riparian ecosystem. It will encourage regeneration and increase the diversity of plant species in the Reserve through weed control and planting of shrub and understorey species. Blair 51912 Protecting and Restoring Endangered Remnant Ecosystems in the Perseverance Catchment, Ravensbourne (Stage 2) Perseverance Creek Landcare Action Group 29 Cedar Lane, RAVENSBOURNE, 4352 $15,989.30 This project will protect and enhance three stands of endangered remnant vegetation adjacent to Buccamurra Creek Corridor. This project will plant 1,500 native trees and understorey plants adjacent to works undertaken in stage 1 of the project. Environmental weed control on a further 20ha of remnants along the adjacent roadside will provide a high biodiversity conservation benefit by removing competition that is causing a decline in habitat for threatened species in the area. Surrounding landholders will revegetate on adjacent creeks and remnants to protect the riparian zone, enhancing water quality. Blair 51962 Protecting Endangered Riparian Habitat for Rare and Threatened Species, Rocky Creek, Withcott Rocky Creek Environment Action Group PO Box 1773, TOOWOOMBA, 4350 $20,681.82 This project will protect and enhance endangered remnant riparian rainforest supporting rare and threatened fauna and flora adjacent to Rocky Creek and assist with improving water quality. Vegetation will be re-established in cleared areas surrounding the rainforest remnant to form a buffer by planting 1,500 local native plants. Environmental weeds, including lantana and madiera vine will be controlled over an area of 15ha to protect and enhance the high biodiversity values of the area. A long term monitoring program for fauna and flora will be developed and undertaken. Blair 52012 Warrego Wines Revegetation of Rosewood Dry Vine Ecosystem Koompahtoo Landcare Group 9 Seminary Rd, MARBURG, 4346 $5,309.05 This project will create a Rosewood Dry Vine Scrub of 1,000 native plants which will link with remaining remanent in the surrounding area. This will benefit wildlife and the community will be encouraged to help with planting. Blair 52126 Riparian Planting of Minden Park and Restoration of Minden Lagoon The West Moreton Landcare Group Inc PO Box 55, ROSEWOOD, 4340 $6,757.82 This project will protect and enhance riparian corridors along Woogaroo, Opossum and Six Mile Creeks, linking them with over 20ha of regionally significant remnants by planting 1,100 native trees, shrubs and ground covers. The project will erect 1km of fence around a section of the Six Mile Creek corridor, preventing stock from entering the area and allowing natural regeneration. The project will improve water quality by planting local native riparian plants and removing invasive woody weeds, primarily Chinese Elm. The project will also raise community awareness by involving students in planting activities and disseminating 200 information booklets about the natural and human history of the catchment. Blaxland 51916 Tylophera Woollsii Habitat Conservation: Norfolk Reserve, Chullora Bankstown Bushland Society Incorporated PO Box 210, PANANIA, 2213 $14,545.45 This project will stabilize and regenerate the habitat of Tylophera woollsii at the site of its only known occurrence in the Sydney Region. A team of qualified bush regenerators will be employed to remove invasive weed species and encourage natural regeneration. Volunteers will manage the project, undertake flora and fauna surveys, support the newly formed Bushcare group and undertake complementary on-ground works. Boothby 51050 Restoration of Eucalyptus Microcarpa-Grassy Woodland in Shepards Hill Recreation Park Friends of Shepherds Hill Recreation Park 8 Ellis Avenue, EDEN HILLS, 5050 $7,029.09 This project will clear up to 2ha of woody weeds and grasses on a very steep slope and along a water course. This will allow regeneration of native species and lead to increased biodiversity. Boothby 51125 Brownhill Creek Shared Use Experimental Trail Greening Australia SA Inc 5 Fitzgerald Road, PASADENA, 5042 $18,121.82 This project will trial design and construction principles for an experimental shared use trail incorporating the use of technology and modern geosynthetics. Test sites will be monitored to ensure they remain sustainable under the user group requiring the most robust construction (horses). The project will develop an environmental risk assessment tool for land mangers and a native vegetation hierarchy planting design brief, both of which can be used nationally as a model for biodiversity enhancement within recreational corridors. The project will also build community capacity through the development of sustainable trail design resources. Braddon 51256 Sisters Creek Rivercare Plan Friends of Sisters Creek 13 Bridge St, SISTERS BEACH, 7321 $11,863.64 This project will organise a community forum to discuss and prioritise issues within the Sisters Creek catchment. A survey of the creek will be undertaken to plan the rehabilitation and protection of priority areas. Information from the survey will be incorporated into a Rivercare Plan for the catchment that will form the basis for future on-ground works and catchment activities. Braddon 51364 Rehabilitation of Waterways and Coastal Dune at Sisters Beach Sisters Beach Community Association Inc 27 Irby Boulevarde, SISTERS BEACH, 7321 $18,357.27 This project will enhance the vegetation of Sisters Beach as well as provide protection for the adjacent Rocky Cape National Park from encroaching weeds. It will rehabilitate approximately 3.5km of coastal dunes and 1.5km of creek banks by weed eradication and planting 1000 indigenous trees, bushes and ground covers. Education and training will be provided for the local community actively involved in the rehabilitation work. The use of signage and promotional literature will raise community awareness and reinforce educational messages. Braddon 51378 Sanderson Creek Fencing and Riparian Rehabilitation Project Ryan, Malcolm Stuart 179 West Morreville Rd, BURNIE, 7320 $7,938.18 This project will protect and rehabilitate an area of remnant vegetation on a steep slope and the adjoining riparian zone on a tributary of the Cam River by erecting 600m of stock-proof fence, removing weeds and planting 2,500 native seedlings. It will also maintain water quality in the upper Cam River catchment, stabilise a potential erosion area and provide and protect habitat for threatened species. Braddon 51571 Protecting High Conservation Value Coastal Vegetation - Stanley to Rocky Cape Goldamere Pty. Ltd. PO Box 659, BURNIE, 7320 $9,090.91 This project will see implement high priority weed control on public coastal land between Rocky Cape and Stanley. Braddon 51572 Rehabilitation of Green Point Beach Marrawah NW Boardriders Association 247 Arthur River Road, MARRAWAH, 7330 $15,462.50 This project will plant 1,000 native plants and erect a 1.2km fence to protect the plants and remnant vegetation. The fence will formalise beach access to reduce erosion and protect vegetation. An interpretive sign will be erected to raise visitor awareness. Brand 51303 Revegetation Incorporating Nyoongar Cultural Heritage at Baldivis Children’s Forest, WA Baldivis Children’s Forest Steering Committee Baldivis Primary School, Fifty Road, BALDIVIS, 6171 $11,957.22 This project will increase the biodiversity of remnant woodland, and the vegetation corridor linking Lake Walyungup and Outridge Swamp, by planting 3,000 local native bush tucker seedlings. Grazing kangaroos will be excluded by erecting 350m of 2m high fencing. The project will install 10 nest boxes to restore habitat for possums and black cockatoos. Workshops will be held to raise awareness of local school students and the community on bush tucker and indigenous culture. Calare 50775 Follow up Native Vegetation Planting in Remnant Bush Block R M Tame 81 Autumn Street, ORANGE, 2800 $1,330.00 This project will follow up planting of native vegetation of a remnant bush block near Mt Canobolas by planting a further 500 native trees. Calare 51115 Headwaters of Rileys Creek G.R. KERRISON & M.J. KERRISON “PeakView”, Moppity Road, YOUNG, 2594 $5,636.36 This project will construct 2km of fencing to enclose the headwaters of Riley’s Creek and plant 2,000 native trees. This project will link to previous works to reduce salinity in the headwater area and the subsequent onflow into the Jugiong Creek Catchment. Calare 51218 Riverine and Environs Rehabilitation and Revegetation - Molong and Heifer Station Creeks Heifer Station Land Care Group Inc PO Box 127, ORANGE, 2800 $25,959.09 This project will complete a willow management program that was begun in 2001 by constructing 5.45km of fencing to protect 10,100 native trees and shrubs which will be planted to assist natural regeneration of the Molong and Heifer Station Creeks. Calare 51783 Salinity and Erosion Control on “South Meriwong” Cumnock I.C Toynton & M.M Toynton “Marshwood West”, MOLONG, 2866 $9,027.27 This project will stabilise two separate gullies and construct 3.3km of fencing to exclude stock and plant 1,600 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Calare 51796 Willow Removal and Control Program on Flyers Creek and its Tributaries Flyers Creek Landcare Group Inc “Old Errowanbang”, CARCOAR, 2791 $16,000.00 This project will poison and remove willows on eight separate properties along the length of Flygers Creek. Calare 51981 Belgravia Erosion Control, Remnant Protection and Recharge Control Project Belgravia Landcare Group Inc. “Gundawanna”, Belgravia Rd, MOLONG, 2866 $26,854.55 This project will construct 7km of fencing to protect four separate constructed vegetation corridors and install alternative stock watering points for affected landholders. Planting activities include 9,820 native trees to assist the regeneration of the area. Calare 51992 Gully Padock Rehabilitation C.J. Williams & M. Williams & P.F. Williams PO Box 70, CANOWINDRA, 2804 $1,710.91 This project will stabilise a gully and construct 600m of fencing to protect a 0.5ha constructed vegetation corridor. Planting activities include 200 native trees to assist the regeneration of the area. Calare 52094 Linking Conimbla State Forest Road to the Lachlan Valley Way Russell, Kerry Ann Springfield, 1031 Forbes Rd, COWRA, 2794 $7,818.18 This project will construct 3km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from a created vegetation corridor and along an unnamed creek. Planting activities include 3,600 native trees to assist revegetation of the area. Calwell 51759 Upper Moonee Ponds Creek Riparian Restoration - Stage 2 Friends of Upper Moonee Ponds Creek 29 Bamford Avenue, WESTMEADOWS, 3029 $1,043.27 This project will replace environmental weeds such as African Boxthorn and Serrated Tussock with indigenous riparian vegetation. Weeds will be controlled by herbicide application and indigenous plants will be chosen from appropriate vegetation communities to link and expand habitat. The planting of 302 tubestock will enhance the wildlife corridor, improve water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat and assist in creek bank stabilisation. The project will also provide opportunities for local residents to continue their restoration of Upper Moonee Ponds Creek as well as contributing to people’s awareness of environmental protection. Calwell 51760 Jacksons Creek Revegetation Project Phase 3 - Stage 2 Friends of Emu Bottom Wetlands Reserve Inc C/O 30 Callander Close, SUNBURY, 3429 $4,850.00 This project will replace environmental weeds such as Blackberry, Gorse, Boxthorn, Willow and Fennel with indigenous riparian vegetation. Weeds will be controlled by herbicide application and indigenous plants will be chosen from appropriate vegetation communities to link and expand habitat. The planting of 750 tubestock will enhance the wildlife corridor, create buffers to protect remnant vegetation from further weed invasion, improve water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat and help in creek bank stabilisation. The project will also provide opportunities for local residents to continue their restoration of Jackson’s Creek at Emu Bottom Wetlands Reserve as well as contributing to people’s awareness of environmental protection. Calwell 51761 Jacksons Creek (The Nook) Restoration Project - Stage 3 Sunbury Conservation Society Inc PO Box 3, SUNBURY, 3429 $4,098.50 This project will replace environmental weeds such as African Boxthorn and Willow with indigenous riparian vegetation. Weeds will be controlled by herbicide application and indigenous plants will be chosen from appropriate vegetation communities to link and expand habitat. The planting of 402 tubestock will enhance the wildlife corridor, create buffers to protect remnant vegetation from further weed invasion, improve water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat and assist in creek bank stabilisation. The project will also provide opportunities for local residents to continue their restoration of Jackson’s Creek as well as contributing to people’s awareness of environmental protection. Calwell 51769 Restoration of Red Gum Grassy Woodland on Former Northwest Hospital Land Friends of Woodlands Historic Park Inc PO Box 43, GLENROY, 3046 $6,287.00 This project will protect and enhance 45ha of native vegetation around the site of the former Northwest Hospital by controlling weeds and planting 1,700 shrubs and trees. All planting will be of tubestock grown by the group from seed collected within the park. A 1.46km fence will be erected to exclude horse riders while allowing the movement of wildlife. Canberra 51943 Cotter Road Paddock Tree Project Cotter Road Landcare Group Inc RMB 119a, Cotter Road, VIA WESTON, 2611 $23,636.36 This project will develop simple guidelines, trials and incentives as a demonstration for protecting paddock trees. It will produce guidelines and a fact sheet for selecting, fencing and managing paddock trees by selecting and protecting 50 paddock trees on six to eight properties. It will also trial 15 artificial shelters as alternatives to shade protection. Canning 51697 Protection of the West Kingia Conservation Zone, Keysbrook, WA Keysbrook Environment Group 999 Elliott Rd, SERPENTINE, 6125 $3,150.00 This project will establish 3,000 local native plants as a western buffer to protect 128ha of regionally important Banksia woodland at the West Kingia Conservation Zone, near Keysbrook on the Swan Coastal Plain. The creation of a buffer zone along the western perimeter of the vegetation will mitigate wind erosion and maintain the biodiversity and conservation values of the woodland. Canning 51698 Return of Drained Agricultural Land to Revegetated Swamp on the Bassendean Dune System NJ & J Kentish PO Box 51, SERPENTINE, 6125 $6,204.36 This project will return an area of drained agricultural land to revegetated swamp. 1,000 seedlings will be planted and protected with 760m of fencing. Capricornia 51104 Protection of Riparian Vegetation for the St Lawrence Township Water Supply on Mystery Park Station Robert J & Ainsley G McArthur PO Box 8, ST LAWRENCE, 4707 $39,414.55 This project will protect a riparian corridor along St Lawrence Creek and its tributaries leading directly into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by constructing 27.6km of riparian fencing to reduce livestock impact on riparian areas. It will also pump water from an existing bore to 13 off-stream water points. The catchment services the St Lawrence weir and is St Lawrence township’s primary water supply. From the town supply weir, the water is then immediately dropped into the Broadsound (an integral part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park). Capricornia 51306 Rehabilitating and Protecting Melaleuca Creek Riparian Areas on Rookwood Station The Trustee for The King Family Trust “Rookwood Station”, PO Box 74, GOGANGO, 4702 $45,160.00 This project will complete a riparian corridor along Thirsty Creek and its tributaries, creating wildlife corridors into the Goodedulla National Park and Boomer Station in the Fitzroy Shire. It will remove stock from Thirsty Creek riparian areas and 225ha of remnant softwood scrub stands by constructing 55km of fencing and providing off-stream water points. Casey 51692 Protection of Salt-Tolerant Rainforest, Snowy River Estuary Snowy River Coast Action Marlo PO Box 260, (171 Nicholson Street), ORBOST, 3888 $13,090.91 This project will protect warm temperate rainforest, in particular, salt-tolerant rainforest stands on First and Second Islands in the Snowy River estuary, by controlling weed infestations of Wandering Jew, Blue Periwinkle and Cape Ivy by chemical application and hand removal. It will assist current and future rainforest restoration projects elsewhere in the lower Snowy River by providing a seed source for salt adapted rainforest restoration projects on the lower Snowy River. Charlton 51627 Conservation of Significant Vegetation and Wetlands at Awaba Bay Awaba Bay Landcare Group 16 The Ridgeway, BOLTON POINT, 2283 $6,470.91 This project will help reduce loss of biodiversity due to weed invasion. Professional contractors will be employed to assist volunteers in the rehabilitation of wetlands and significant vegetation communities with 260 local indigenous tube stock planted in less resilient areas. Charlton 51851 George McGregor Reserve Riparian Enhancement and Education Program - Stage 1 George McGregor Bushcare Group C/- Newcastle City Council, PO Box 489, NEWCASTLE, 2300 $15,727.27 This project will stabilise a 0.5ha of sheet erosion scalds, mass plant 3,000 Lomandra on creek bank toes to stabilise erosion, remove approximately 1ha of environmental weeds, augment habitat by restoring understorey and canopy vegetation where required with 2,000 trees, shrubs and climbers and remove dumped rubbish along a 1km length of creek in the reserve. It will also have a an educational component that will aim to reduce rubbish dumping, stop creek and bushland damage and promote sustainable living practices. Chifley 51605 Western Sydney Aboriginal Landcare Group-Ropes Creek Riparian Regeneration Project Western Sydney Aboriginal Landcare Group Unit 3/9 Eddie Road, MINCHINBURY, 2770 $18,327.27 This project will manage and treat weed infestations threatening to degrade a remnant of Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest. It will also encourage natural regeneration of the seed bank via the application of minimum disturbance bush regeneration techniques. It will increase bank stability in areas subject to erosion and link remnant fragments of vegetation to increase the continuity and width of the Ropes Creek riparian corridor. It will also provide environmental education, training and awareness to Aboriginal people. Chifley 51958 Eradication of African Lovegrass Including Regeneration of Cumberland Plain Woodland Zones A, B, C and D Dr. Charles McKay Reserve Park Committee 14 Callagaher Street, MOUNT DRUITT, 2770 $19,727.27 This project will remove and eradicate African Lovegrass Eragrostis curvula within Cumberland Plain Woodland. It will completely remove African Lovegrass and restore the upper storey and understorey of this bushland site by planting 700 Cumberland Plain Woodland species plants and allowing natural regeneration, to protect this endangered ecological community. Cook 50916 Restoration of Sydney Freshwater Wetlands, Botany Bay National Park, Kurnell Botany Bay Busy Bees PO Box 375, KURNELL, 2231 $16,518.18 This project will remove Bitou Bush which threatens the endangered ecological community of Sydney Freshwater Wetlands along Sandstone cliffs between Potter Point and Cape Baily Lighthouse in Botany Bay National Park. Bitou Bush within a 30m radius of the wetland will be subject to hand weeding and later will be treated by remote terrestrial spraying. It will involve cooperation with other local volunteer groups and school communities. Cook 51931 Rehabilitation and Regeneration of Tarmouth Swamp at Bundeena Yarmouth Swamp Bushcare Group C/-SSC Bushcare, Locked Bag 17, SUTHERLAND, 1499 $8,500.00 This project will enhance biodiversity and protect a 3.3ha endangered ecological community at Yarmouth Swamp, Bundeena. It will target crofton weed and other woody weeds and vines which are inhibiting growth of native species. Weed control will be carried out by contractors and council staff and revegetation using 500 tubestock and maintenance will be done by Bushcare volunteers. Cook 51936 Dune Restoration and Stabilisation Between Wanda and Elouera Beach, Cronulla John Mckinn Park Bushcare Group C/- SSC Bushcare, Locked Bag 17, SUTHERLAND, 1499 $11,900.00 This project will protect and preserve 1.7ha of remnant coastal vegetation on the foreshore between Wanda Beach and Elouera Beach, Cronulla. It will remove weeds such as bitou bush, turkey rhubarb and annuals preventing their spread and encouraging the regeneration of the natural vegetation. Mulching the edges of the project site and planting of 1,000 tubestock will assist stabilisation in degraded areas. Corangamite 51730 Youth Led Ocean Grove/Barwon Heads Biodiversity Protection Project Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc 83 Ryrie St, GEELONG, 3220 $9,609.63 This project will rehabilitate and revegetate four coastal sites in the Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads region. It will remove weeds in these areas and help rehabilitate the area for native flora and fauna. It will work in conjunction with Barwon Coast Committee of Management, Marine Discovery Centre and Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, as the sites have Indigenous significance. Corangamite 51733 Pirate Cove Aboriginal Cultural Site and Indigenous Coastal Vegetation Protection The Trustee for Framlingham Aboriginal Trust c/o PO, PURNIM, 3278 $7,954.55 This project will protect an Aboriginal coastal shell midden, prevent erosion to a coastal cliff top and dune system and protect and enhance native indigenous coastal vegetation. Erosion on the midden site and a beach access track will be stabilised by covering and protecting the exposed midden materials, formalising the beach access by constructing steps and installing a board and chain walkway. Remnant coastal vegetation will be protected by removing invasive weed species and planting selected species to assist revegetation. Interpretive signage will be erected to increase awareness of the cultural and environmental significance and values of this area. Corangamite 51782 Jan Juc Coastline On-going Restoration and Habitat Improvement Project Jan Juc Coast Action Group Inc 18 Geelong Road, TORQUAY, 3228 $21,863.64 This project will restore 4km of foreshore by removing invasive weeds and planting 4,500 native plants to reestablish continuous coastal vegetation and improve habitat. This will complement previous work and concentrate efforts on weeding which is an increasing threat. We will produce an educational brochure to promote our new ‘Geology’ signs to schools and continue to provide educational material about the unique features and natural history of the area. Cowan 51510 Rehabilitation of Shoreline, Yellagonga Regional Park, Western Australia Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park Inc 3 Bonsall Place, CARINE, 6020 $10,300.95 This project will rehabilitate a 100m stretch of shoreline at Lake Joondalup and Lake Goollelal, within Yellagonga Regional Park. It will remove approximately 1,000 square metres of Typha orientalis, an invasive weed which will be replaced with 750 indigenous reeds and 820 native trees and understorey plants. It will protect and expand existing revegetation projects adjacent to the lake margins, improve the vegetation quality, maintain fauna habitat in the shoreline and open water, raise community awareness through involvement, and extend the knowledge of the current Friends members. Cowper 51042 Valla Beach Bushcare Program Valla Beach Bushcare Group Thompson Street (no house number), VALLA BEACH, 2448 $18,181.82 This project will reduce weed populations in two small nature reserves. The main weed species to be targeted are bitou bush, lantana, senna and groundsel bush. It will reduce weed populations to a level that will allow maintenance and control by a new volunteer coastal bushcare group in the area. Cowper 51056 Rehabilitating Hauler Gully Creek Wildlife Corridor Crossmaglen Valley Landcare Group Inc. 100B Moodys Road, BONVILLE, 2441 $16,594.55 This project will rehabilitate and protect half of a severely degraded wildlife corridor approximately 1.5km in length and ranging from 30m to 70m in width along Hauler Gully Creek by planting 3,000 trees and hand removing lantana. This corridor will link a large area of healthy rainforest to Bonville Creek and will encompass the three properties downstream from the forest. It will raise community interest and participation, improve habitat, increase biodiversity, reduce gully erosion and improve water quality of both Hauler Gully and Bonville Creeks. Cowper 51512 Repairing the Riparian Health of the Tallawudjah Creek Catchment. Tallawudjah Pty Ltd 392 Tallawudjah Creek Road, GLENREAGH, 2450 $16,541.49 This project will restore, protect and enhance 1.6km of native riparian vegetation. It will also improve water quality and habitat for birds, animals and fish by conserving natural water levels in the local creek pools and restoring water quality. This will be achieved by excluding stock from the creek with additional riparian fencing, providing off-stream stock water points, control of environmental weeds such as Camphor Laurel and Lantana and revegetating with 1,500 local native plants. This project will be used as a model to demonstrate the repair of riparian health to other landholders in the Tallawudjah Creek catchment. Cowper 51841 Threatened Species Regeneration Yuraygir Landcare Group Inc 18 Hiawatha Rd, MINNIE WATER, 2462 $3,260.00 This project will collect seed and vegetative material of plants that are specified under Threatened Species Conservation Act and propagate them. Mature plants will then be planted in areas designated by NPWS. It will also propagate littoral rainforest species and plant them over an extensive area to ensure they survive in the event of a major disaster. It will also remove weeds from planting sites. Cowper 51898 Diggers Camp - Wilsons Headland Coastal Restoration Diggers Camp Dune Care Group PO Box 55, WOOLI, 2462 $12,091.91 This project will restore and conserve biodiversity of coastal vegetation in the area from Diggers Camp Village to Wilson’s Headland. It will consolidate previous work to reduce the threat of weed reinvasion, address the serious threat of secondary invasion of glory lily, and stabilise and replant dunal areas near Diggers Camp Village. Cowper 51964 Bonville Creek River Health Project: Stage 2 Crossmaglen Valley Landcare Group Inc. 410 Gleniffer Road, BONVILLE, 2441 $15,181.82 This project will regenerate riparian vegetation along a section of Bonville Creek approximately 1km in length by removing weeds and planting 4,500 plants along the banks which are permanently protected from stock by fencing. It will involve weed removal and planting and will build on the work of the current and previous projects. Cowper 51966 Regenerating Littoral Rainforrest Surrounding Dunn Hill Jetty Dunecare Inc. 109 Victoria Street, COFFS HARBOUR, 2450 $9,446.36 This project will rehabilitate 3ha of littoral rainforest surrounding Dunn Hill between Jetty Beach and Boambee Beach by removing and controlling weeds to allow existing native vegetation to re-establish and 1,000 plants will be planted to assist regeneration and reduce the re-growth of weeds. Weeds will be removed by spraying using a contract bush regenerator, and cutting and painting using herbicide and hand removal methods by volunteers. Cowper 51990 Tallawalla Rainforest Rehabilitation Graham Paul McDonald 113 Old Coramba Road, DORRIGO, 2453 $5,369.00 This project will remove invasive weeds from the Dorrigo Tallawalla Rainforest remnant and 228 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration in the area. Cowper 51991 Nambucca Valley Bore Fields G.G Kelsey & R.R Kelsey Missabotti Road, BOWRAVILLE, 2449 $29,510.00 This project will protect the water source of the Nambucca Valley and the riverine environment above and below the site. It will prevent an 800m cut-off and guard against bed lowering, bank collapse and water table lowering by the construction of rock ramp to allow the flood channel to convey water without scowling to the extent of becoming the main channel. The channel and river bank will be further protected by stock control and the construction of retard fences to slow the flow and collect sediment and seed, and an environment planting of 4,000 endemic natives will be planted to ensure long term stability of the site and enhance biodiversity. Cowper 52006 Critical Habitat Restoration by Weed Removal Around South West Rocks SWR Community Dune Care Group Incorporated 4 Prince of Wales Avenue, SOUTH WEST ROCKS, 2431 $30,000.00 This project will employ contractors in areas inaccessible or dangerous for volunteers and in areas of heavy infestation for initial weed control of bitou, lantana and cassia prior to volunteer follow up work. It will cover 6km of coast, up to 300m inland and will be volunteer maintained. Cowper 52043 Protecting Rainforest Remnants in the Bielsdown Catchment A.E Francis & N.L Francis 4816 Waterfall Way, DORRIGO, 2453 $5,556.64 This project will construct 1.85km of fencing to exclude stock from remnant highland subtropical rainforest. Planting activities include 80 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Cowper 52071 Enhancing Sustainable Native Vegetation Management - Rose Creek Rose JJ & VJ PO Box 299, BELLINGEN, 2454 $4,797.27 This project will improve water quality, biodiversity values, bank stability and form part of a wildlife and natural vegetation corridor along Rose’s Creek by fencing and riparian planting of 1,260 plants along 370m of creek. Fencing will control stock access to creek that causes bank erosion and impacts on water quality. Two troughs will provide alternative stock watering. Plantings will form part of long term project providing a wildlife corridor linking extensive native bushlands with the Bellinger River. Cunningham 51607 Bitou Bush Removal of Culturally Significant Midden Area Bellambi Dune Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation Community Developed Employment Program PO Box 3114, WINDANG, 2528 $27,229.09 This project will rehabilitate a dune community of Bellambi Lagoon which is threatened by invasive environmental weeds such as asparagus fern, turkey rhubarb, bitou bush. Recent fires have exposed natural areas to further threats from environmental weed infestation. Members of the local Aboriginal community will be undertaking the removal of weeds in the culturally sensitive midden area. Cunningham 51613 Bellambi Lagoon Hind Dune Restoration Bellambi Dune Bushcare Group 2/23 Birch Cresent, CORRIMAL, 2518 $25,454.55 This project will rehabilitate a hind dune wetland community of Bellambi Lagoon which is threatened by invasive environmental weeds such as asparagus fern, turkey rhubarb and bitou bush. Recent fires during December 2002 exposed natural areas to further threats from environmental weed infestation and bush regeneration contractors with support from local community will target these weed infestations in the hind dune and lagoon edge communities. Dawson 51054 Plantation Creek - South Bank Regeneration Paul F & Lawrence J Newman PO Box 1175, AYR, 4807 $2,581.82 This project will clear heavy weed growth from a riparian area and revegetate. Dawson 51585 Building on Success - Developing and Linking Revegetation Sites in the Mt Kelly Area, Ayr John C & Loretta M Mauro PO Box 949, AYR, 4807 $13,645.45 This project will continue to enhance the environmental and community value of Sheep Station Creek by revegetating 700m of the riparian zone with 1,360 native trees. Salt affected land will be rehabilitated with 840 salt tolerant native species and a corridor along the roadside will be planted with 650 native trees. This planting will link new revegetation sites with other remnant vegetation on Sheep Station and adjacent properties. The establishment of a controlled grazing regime plot along the creek bank will contain stock and encourage regeneration of trees, eliminate the need for chemical weed control and reduce fire risk. This project will contribute towards an aim of establishing our property as a local example of Best Management Practice and hopefully act as encouragement to others to practice responsible resource management. Dawson 51668 Linking Grazing Property Management Plans, Education On-Ground Action Burdekin / Bowen Floodplains Burdekin Bowen Integrated Floodplain Management Advisory Committee Inc (BBIFMAC) PO Box 205, AYR, 4807 $41,280.00 This project will address sustainable land use management, biodiversity and water quality issues in the Burdekin Dry Tropics through establishing demonstration sites, monitoring and evaluation and communication of results. Dawson 52052 Coastal Access Management and Rehabilitation at Slade Point Reserve Friends of the Reserve Slade Point Association Inc 5 Lyrebird Street Slade Point, MACKAY, 4740 $14,712.50 This project will protect fragile sand dunes within Slade Point Reserve by erecting a fence on the southern boundary. It will also protect a stand of Casuarinas and Morton Bay Ash to stabilise foredunes adjacent to important flat back turtle nesting sites. Weed control will be undertaken to encourage regeneration of native species and revegetation with locally endemic native species will be carried out. Interpretation signs at the main entry will be updated with better quality photographs, maps and information. Dawson 52058 Fencing to Protect Dunes and Mangroves at Cungulla Cungulla Recreational, Fishing and Social Club Inc 81 Empress Close, CUNGULLA, 4816 $6,672.73 This project will protect fragile sand dunes and coastal vegetation from degradation by uncontrolled vehicle access. The erection of 600m of fence will control access and limit vehicle movement to a single corridor. An area of mangrove forest will be planted to raise awareness of the need for controlled access and encourage drivers to use the designated areas. Denison 51352 Restoration of Native Eucalypt Forest at Lenah Valley - Tasmania Karuna Intentional Community Association Incorporated PO Box 208, SOUTH HOBART, 7004 $19,272.73 This project will restore and enhance an area of eucalypt forest with 1,700 understorey plants which surround a proposed community development including an education centre. It will involve the local community and include the preparation of a restoration plan and a community education component. Denison 51354 Bushland Rehabilitation to Protect Threatened Species in Wellington Park Wellington Park Bushcare Group 7 Gurney Court, LENAH VALLEY, 7008 $41,409.09 This project will rehabilitate and protect a highly significant population of the threatened Epacris acuminata over an area of 25-30ha within the Wellington Park Reserve. Rehabilitation works will involve removal of highly invasive exotic species and revegetation with 100 native plants. Denison 51376 Providing a Tool for Revegetation Work with the Understorey Network Plant Propagation Database. Understorey Network GPO Box 9868, HOBART, 7001 $7,681.82 This project will update and expand the online Understorey Network Propagation database to include new information about the availability of seed from the Understorey Network seed bank. A form with be designed for data processing which can be used by all members to record information about plant propagation and seed collection. It will promote the database amongst the general community with promotional brochures and training workshops. Denison 51548 Rehabilitation of High Priority Riparian Vegetation, Lower Cartwright Catchment Tasmania Friends of Truganini Bushcare Group 23 Oakleigh Avenue, TAROONA, 7053 $25,868.18 This project will rehabilitate the high priority grassy blue gum, wet blue gum and Themeda grassland communities along lower Cartwright Creek by stabilising areas with jute matting, planting 1,290 local understorey species and undertaking weed removal. This will improve the quality and flow of water in the creek as well as increase habitat for wildlife including threatened species. Dickson 51493 Extension of Native Flora Propagation and Identification Workshops, Eatons Hill Bunya Community Association Inc 6 Drapers Road, EATONS HILL, 4037 $21,807.00 This project will train 500 members of the public by delivering workshops in native plant identification, seed collection, propagation and the planting of 2,000 local native plants in degraded riparian areas. Workshops for 1,200 school students from 20 schools will focus on the importance of native plants in our environment and hands on activities. The project will educate individuals so they plant and propagate local native plants instead of exotics or declared weeds which will improve water quality, reduce erosion and improve habitat value. Community awareness will be raised, encouraging current and future generations to be involved in vegetation management. A pool of 10,000 local native plants will be propagated through the training and these will be planted by community groups on public owned land. This is an extension of a previously highly successful Envirofund project. Dickson 51496 Extension of Rehabilitation Sandy Creek Bleakley Park and Leitches Park, Albany Creek Sandy Creek Bushcare Group 57 Bevlin Court, ALBANY CREEK, 4035 $4,465.00 This project will remove woody weeds from the riparian zone and revegetate with endemic species, reducing erosion and creating habitat for wildlife. Dickson 51799 Riparian Rehabilitation Project, Sub Catchment Upper Caboolture River South The Corporation of the Trustees of the Order of the Sisters of Mercy in Queensland 104 Robinson Road South, OCEAN VIEW, 4521 $9,975.91 This project will protect and enhance 6ha of riparian vegetation in the Caboolture River catchment also enhancing remnants on the property. The project will control weeds, encourage regrowth and revegetate 3ha of selected areas with local native plants. It will improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat and demonstrate best practice to members of the community. Dickson 51810 Community Management of Riparian Issues in the Dawson Creek Sub - Catchment Dawson Creek Catchment Care Dawson Creek Road, HIGHVALE, 4520 $11,354.55 This project will establish demonstration sites tackling key natural resource management issues in the Pine Rivers catchment. It will map existing endemic vegetation and environmental weeds, undertake weed control, revegetation activities and encourage natural regeneration and increase awareness of, and the capacity to deal with, natural resource management issues within the local community. Dobell 51220 Rehabilitation of Pioneer Dairy Wetland, Wyong NSW Trustees for Tuggerah Lake R.1003002 Reserve Trust PO Box 645, WYONG, 2259 $24,463.64 This project will commence rehabilitation of a wetlands. It will facilitate a partnership with Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council and will target rehabilitation of remnant vegetation along the Mardi Creek, establishing a vegetation corridor approximately 100m wide and 1km long with native trees and understorey plants. Work will also include removal of exotic weeds and construction and installation of 100 nesting boxes to provide habitat for arboreal mammals and birds. Dobell 51509 Spring Creek Reserve Revegetation Northlakes Landcare Inc 5 Lady Laurel Drive, BLUE HAVEN, 2262 $7,433.00 This project will revegetate the severely eroded banks of Spring Creek with appropriate local native plants, kill weeds and revegetate other areas of the reserve. The project will install eco logs along the creek bank to prevent further erosion and improve soil quality by mulching. Dobell 51827 Erosion Control by Supplementary Planting, Wombat Gully, Burralong Valley. Murrays Run Burralong Valley Pty Ltd Landcare Group Lot 26 Burralong Valley, MURRAYS RUN LAGUNA, 2325 $2,727.45 This project will plant 1,200 local native plants to prevent further erosion and destabilisation of Wombat Gully. Revegetation will include trees, shrubs, climbers and ground covers along the existing vegetation corridor to stabilise the riparian zone as well as promote wildlife movement. Dunkley 51171 Revegetation of Williams Road Beach, Mt. Eliza, Port Phillip Bay Scout Association of Australia - 1st Baden Powell Park Scout Group 4 Keraboite Court, MOUNT ELIZA, 3930 $12,943.64 This project will stop coastal erosion and enhance indigenous coastal vegetation in the 1.6ha foreshore reserve at Williams Road, Mt Eliza. It will control weeds and plant 1,505 indigenous plants, grown by the group from local seed. Weeds will be controlled via a combination of drill, fill and scrape techniques, a weed burner and hand weeding through employment of a bush regeneration contractor and volunteer work. Dunkley 51716 Seaford Foreshore Access Restoration Project Friends of Seaford Foreshore Reserve Inc PO Box 168, SEAFORD, 3198 $28,150.00 This project will improve habitat and biodiversity of the regionally significant Coast Banksia Woodland and dune system by reduction of the footprint of the existing access track by 40 per cent, reclamation of the dune system, and revegetation of the dune blowout with 1,500 indigenous plants which in turn will retain sand within the dune system and prevent drift to Nepean Highway. A low impact access across the sensitive coastal dune area will provide a focal point to discourage use of informal dune tracks, and the access point for the mechanical beach cleaner will be closed, thus reducing the impact on the dune. Dunkley 51744 Linking Remnants and Groups along Balcombe Creek Balcombe Estuary Rehabilitation Group Inc PO Box 433, MT MARTHA, 3934 $27,727.27 This project will plant 20,000 native plants within the riparian zone of Balcombe Creek. Weed control works will complement similar efforts within bushland remnants. Works will focus on revegetating the creek banks near former landfill sites in the upper reaches of the creek to link sections of remnant swamp scrub. Dunkley 51763 Frankston Foreshore Reserve Rehabilitation - Zone 5 Frankston Beach Association Inc 44 Violet Street, FRANKSTON, 3199 $8,588.18 This project will enhance a 0.14ha area of the Frankston Foreshore located between the beach and Nepean Highway, adjacent to a boardwalk, which contains sparse stands of significant communities of secondary and tertiary dune plant species. Boxthorn and other woody weeds will be removed, the project area will be fenced and 3,000 native plants will be established on the dunes. The revegetation works will support and protect existing remnant species and increase the habitat of local fauna. Eden-Monaro 51430 Bimbimbie Creek and Associated Wetland Restoration Project Andrew and Leona Beattie 88 Urila road, BURRA, 2620 $8,786.69 This project will construct 2km of fencing to exclude stock from a 5ha remnant vegetation corridor along 200m of an unnamed creek. 1,200 native trees will be planted to assist in the regeneration of the area. It will also construct 2km of fencing to protect a 4ha wetland area by permanently excluding stock. Eden-Monaro 51601 Linking of Remnants and Control of Gully Erosion at ‘Avago’ Wayne Aplin “Avago” Jerangle Road, BREDBO, 2626 $4,087.35 This project will construct 2km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from two seperate gullies and plant 600 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Eden-Monaro 51604 Capacity Building Eurobodalla Communities to Manage Threats to Coastal Biodiversity Eurobodalla Landcare Management Committee C/- 729 Congo Raod, CONGO, 2537 $21,387.27 This project will build the skills and knowledge of the Eurobodalla community in protecting coastal biodiversity. Groups will be shown how to identify coastal environmental weeds and latest techniques in controlling them including the appropriate revegetation to limit reinfestation. A follow-up public education campaign will further raise awareness of these threats. A colour pamphlet identifying key invasive coastal weeds will be produced and distributed within the Shire and an education campaign will improve the capacity of the general community to identify beach weeds and take action to control invasive species. Eden-Monaro 51617 Stabilising and Protecting Remnant Coastal Dune Vegetation (Banksia intergrifolia complex) at Broulee Broulee - Mossy Point Dunecare PO Box 5013, BROULEE, 2537 $6,442.73 This project will protect remnant coastal dune vegetation at Broulee Beach through management of access, erection of 180m of fencing, weed control, enrichment planting, and community awareness activities. On ground works will include stable pedestrian access route utilising 75m of Holey belt, weed control, planting 100 local plants, and community awareness activities. Eden-Monaro 51619 Supporting Smallholders in Natural Resource Management Far South Coast Landcare Association Inc. PO Box 118, BEGA, 2550 $11,881.82 This project will involve revegetation of degraded dairy land to improve biodiversity, bush regeneration in high value riparian vegetation, small scale erosion prevention works, 750m of fencing to exclude live stock from regeneration areas, planting of 1,000 trees and promotion and education activities. Eden-Monaro 51623 Repairing a Wildlife Corridor and a Vulnerable Vegetation Ecosystem on Corrigans Beach Hanging Rock Landcare 8 Marlin Avenue, HANGING ROCK, 2536 $9,793.64 This project will protect a coastal dunal plant community and repair a corridor of vulnerable vegetation ecosystem in the Eurobodalla. It will plant 700 plants to repair a corridor of native vegetation linking the coast to a State forest. It will also remove weeds from the dunes, repair and replace public access ways and remove non-endemic dead vegetation. Eden-Monaro 51625 Riparian Revegetation and Riverbank Stabilisation on the Moruya River Moruya District Landcare Behringers Point Lane, MORUYA, 2537 $24,504.55 This project will reverse the degradation of the Moruya Riverine environment and improve the quality and quantity of vegetation and habitat in the area and reduce sediment into the heavily silted estuary by establishing 1,500 native plants to restore a structured riparian zone and increase riverbank stability. Stock will be excluded form the riverbank by erecting 900m of fencing and 200m of actively eroding riverbank will be mitigated by installing large woody debris and toe armour to limit undercutting and bank slump and allowing vegetation to establish. Eden-Monaro 51844 Fernleigh Park Estate - Jerrabomberra Creek Restoration Project - Stage One Fernleigh Park Estate Community Group 318 Fernleigh Drive, QUEANBEYAN, 2620 $8,724.41 This project will construct 2.5km of fencing to exclude stock from constructed vegetation corridors on six properties. Additional stock watering points will be installed for affected landholders and 1,550 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. Eden-Monaro 51908 Protection and Restoration of a Mulloon Creek Drained Wetland for Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use Coote, Anthony Edmund Rundle RMB 5016 Kings Highway, BUNGENDORE, 2621 $44,407.27 This project will restore a 1ha degraded wetland lost to agricultural drainage. Original ecological niches will be recreated, restoring the wetland and its capacity to generate a complex food chain by planting 100 indigenous trees, 400 shrubs, native grasses, sedges, rushes and other water plants and erect 600m of fence to exclude stock and predators and to maximise natural regeneration. Eden-Monaro 51986 Rehabilitating Gully and Wind Erosion at Mt Piper Mt Piper Landcare Group Incorporated PO Box 121, BOMBALA, 2632 $27,145.45 This project will address soil erosion and assist revegetation on grazing properties within the Mt Piper area through construction of 8.8km of fencing to protect 9km of waterway and 140ha in the Bombala River catchment. The sites will be protected from stock to aid in the establishment of 16,500 tube stock, 35ha of native plant seeds and 30ha of ground cover. Eden-Monaro 52070 Jigamy Youth Camp Rehabilitation and Keeping Place Indigenous Revegetation Project Skills Training Employment Program Inc PO Box 333, MERIMBULA, 2548 $23,177.27 This project will involve planting of 17,000 native plants for the restoration of an Indigenous cultural area. Eden-Monaro 52114 Rehabilitation of Darcy’s Creek and Associated Wildlife JA Kieboom & CW McDonald 3230 Captains Flat Road, BUNGENDORE, 2621 $2,719.09 This project construct 1km of fencing to exclude stock from a 5ha riparian zone of Darcy’s Creek and install an alternative stock watering point. Planting activities include 200 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Fadden 52023 Rehabilitation, Conservation and Protection of Unique Native Flora of South Stradbroke Island Foreshore South Stradbroke Island Landcare Group PO Box 1511, TOOWONG, 4066 $27,272.73 This project will rehabilitate the foreshore of South Stradbroke Island. Weed control will be undertaken and site preparation and mulching will be followed by revegetation activities. Fairfax 50890 Victory Park Dune Revegetation Project Stage Seven South Peregian Beach Community Association Inc. PO Box 312, PEREGIAN BEACH, 4573 $25,150.00 This project will continue the regeneration of the Peregian Dunes from Piper Street to Peregian Park. It will allow the removal of introduced species from this area which in parts are very dense and will see it revegetated with native plants endemic to the area. Fairfax 51093 Boreen Point Foreshore Restoration Boreen Point Conservation Group 44 Laguna Street, BOREEN POINT, 4565 $21,381.82 This project will restore weed infested riparian vegetation communities within council reserves along the Boreen Point foreshore adjacent to Lake Cootharaba through removing weeds and plating native trees to stabilise soil. The site will be photo monitored to ensure rehabilitation is progressing as planned and signs will be erected to educate the local community and public on the natural value of the Boreen Point foreshore and surrounding coastal and marine habitat. Fairfax 51113 Riparian Rehabilitation and Indigenous Site Protection Lake Cooroibah Lake Cooroibah Community Bushland Care Group PO Box 172, TEWANTIN, 4565 $23,272.73 This project will define reserve boundaries and provide protection measures for the site through installation of protective fencing, track relocation, weed removal, regeneration of natural vegetation, signage and gates for visitor control and education. Fairfax 51589 Maroochy River Catchment Restoration Project Maroochy Waterwatch Inc PO Box 311, NAMBOUR, 4560 $36,100.00 This project will help to improve the health of the waterways and associated ecosystems in the Maroochy River Catchment by restoring riparian vegetation at 7 sites along various tributaries. The project will fence and revegetate using endemic species. Monitoring of the sites and surrounding areas for 3 threatened frog species as well as the birdwing butterfly will be undertaken. Awareness-raising activities with landowners and local community on streambank revegetation processes and threatened species will complement project activities. Fairfax 52041 Enhancing Biodiversity and Improving Water Quality Through Sustainable Natural Resource Management Maroochy Landcare Group Inc Glenormiston’ MS 330, EUMUNDI, 4562 $3,455.62 This project will protect and restore riparian ecosystem within the Mary River catchment, known to be habitat to a number of nationally listed endangered species. It will enhance the sustainability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems by expanding the width of riparian buffer through revegetation and weed control, therefore increasing biodiversity and improving water quality. Fairfax 52072 Rehabilitation of Petrie Creek Streambank Project Petrie Creek Catchment Care Group Inc PO Box 311, NAMBOUR, 4560 $27,272.73 This project will improve water quality and biodiversity in Petrie Creek and build community capacity in natural resource management. It will restore the streambank along 1.5ha of creek bank by revegetating with local native seedlings and undertaking weed control measures. This project will increase community awareness of the management of the creek through a media campaign, field days and information dissemination. Fairfax 52076 Cooroy Creek Riparian Protection and Restoration, Cooroy QLD Noosa & District Landcare Group Inc. PO Box 278, POMONA, 4568 $45,013.64 This project will protect and restore riparian vegetation of the Cooroy Creek catchment by revegetating with 8,750 endemic riparian plants and fencing revegetation areas and remnants to exclude stock. Off-stream watering points will be provided. This will improve bank stability and improve water quality. Off-stream watering points will also limit livestock access to the waterway therefore reducing current rates of stream bank erosion. Fairfax 52085 Christina Low Park Riparian Revegetation Project Christina Low Park Community Conservation Group 12 Wharf Street, YANDINA, 4561 $5,282.00 This project will continue the restoration of riparian corridor along the South Maroochy River by undertaking weed control and maintenance of previous works. Farrer 51164 Minjary Grassy Whitebox Woodlands Remnant Restoration S Archer & S Pauling “Kincora”, GUNDAGAI, 2722 $5,220.91 This project will construct 2.8km of fencing to exclude stock from 180ha of remnant vegetation and promote understory regrowth which links into existing revegetation works. Farrer 51191 Predator Proofing and Enhancement of Remnant Curlew Habitat at Jindera J.K Lubke & N.L Lubke “Bonnie Rise”, JINDERA, 2642 $8,943.27 This project will construct 520m of predator proof fencing and a habitat to create a monitored trial soft release site for Bush Stone-Curlews for their re-establishment within the Murray Catchment. Farrer 51554 Restoration of Turn Back Jimmy Travelling Stock Reserve through Revegetation Corridors Murray Rural Lands Protection Board PO Box 117, JERILDERIE, 2716 $8,154.55 This project will plant 3,500 native trees and shrubs to create wildlife corridors that will link up with remnant vegetation. Planting activities will also include 10ha of direct seeding. The corridors will be fenced off with 2km of fencing to exclude stock. Flinders 51206 Restoration of La Trobe Reserve Habitat - Dromana, Victoria Dromana Foreshore Committee of Management Incorporated PO Box 107, DROMANA, 3936 $9,039.09 This project will rehabilitate an area of remnant bush at La Trobe Reserve by removing environmental weeds and replanting 2,100 indigenous plants grown from seed collected from the site. It will improve habitat for native fauna and monitor populations in comparison with an existing fauna survey. It will raise community awareness by involving schools and other locals in the revegetation work. Flinders 51242 Coastal Foreshore Restoration Friends of Flinders Coastline Inc 69 Bass Street, FLINDERS, 3929 $4,800.00 This project will continue weed eradication through the work of a weed control contractor and volunteers. Sites will be revegetated with grasses and 300 indigenous plants, mainly propagated by volunteers. Flinders 51452 San Remo Foreshore Revegetation Project 2005 San Remo Foreshore Committee of Management Incorporated PO Box 232, SAN REMO, 3925 $5,972.73 This project will improve erosion control in a coastal foreshore area of public use, mainly by biological means. Planting of 3,300 local indigenous plants will enhance existing remnants of natural vegetation and stabilise dunes which will aid in the return of native birds and animals. Flinders 51491 Erosion Control and Community Education at Cape Woolamai Safety Beach Cape Woolamai Coast Action Inc 44 Park Lane, MT WAVERLEY, 3149 $5,375.00 This project will apply brush-matting to 400sqm of bare dune faces, reducing wind damage, stabilising bare sand and supporting vegetation re-establishment with 400 locally sourced indigenous seedlings. Erection of 310m of fencing will restrict access to sensitive areas and two interpretive signs will educate foreshore users about erosion prevention. One larger sign will educate users on the values of the foreshore. Flinders 51511 Marine Protection of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park Bay City Divers 80 Dorcas Street, SOUTH MELBOURNE, 3205 $26,022.73 This project will collect images and footage of marine species, habitat and volunteers surveying the health and diversity of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park. The images and footage will be interpreted and used to communicate and raise awareness of the general community about the marine environment, specifically Marine National Parks. Educational material will be used to make people more aware of the diversity of this natural resource, leading to better understanding of their daily impacts on this environment and encouraging others to volunteer in marine projects. Flinders 51687 Westernport Catchment Water Monitoring Network Cardinia Environment Coalition Inc 540 Tynong North Road, TYNONG NORTH, 3813 $18,454.55 This project will develop a comprehensive water monitoring network for the Westernport catchment. This network will expand existing monitoring work being undertaken through the inclusion of new Landcare groups. The network will be made up of twelve Landcare Groups who will review, monitor, assess and map river health of 15 waterways entering Westernport Bay. The results obtained will form an integral part of an evaluation strategy that will assist Landcare groups to plan future ground works and assess project outcomes and investments. Flinders 51691 Mud Islands Enhancement and Rehabilitation and Community Seagrass Monitoring Program The Friends of Mud Islands Inc 49 Grey Street, EAST GEELONG, 3219 $4,400.00 This project will continue a community seagrass monitoring program of Mud Island to uncover any trends, particularly since the declaration of the area as a Marine National Park, and with growing threats posed by channel deepening and aquaculture industries. It will also tackle ongoing weed problems threatening many migratory bird nesting habitats existing on the islands. It will also assist maintenance of nesting and breeding sites. Flinders 51717 Improving Habitat and Monitoring Seabirds - Tortoise Head and Westernport French Island Research on Muttonbirds - Chisholm Institute PO Box 684, DANDENONG, 3175 $16,596.36 This project will continue the improvement of the habitat of Tortoise Head on French Island for the benefit of shearwaters and an endangered frog. Shearwater and pelican numbers in Western Port and Port Phillip Bay will be monitored and an interpretation program targeting recreational fishers will be provided. Community members and students will undertake hands-on conservation activities. It will also approach completion of a major community effort to control a threatening weed, building on past major investment in weed control in a National Park recovering from prior cattle grazing. Flinders 51728 Weed Removal and Riparian Vegetation Restoration - Harrap Creek Friends of Harrap Creek 10/99 Bentons Road, MORNINGTON, 3931 $5,100.00 This project will represent a stage in ongoing removal of weeds, especially blackberry and coastal tea tree, from the riparian area of Harrap Creek, and replacing them with indigenous plants and reeds appropriate to the region. Some of the difficult weed removal will be undertaken by contractors while volunteers will remove some weeds, assist in spreading mulch and planting selected plants. Flinders 51740 Koala Habitat Recovery on the Southern Mornington Balnarring Foreshore and Parks Reserve Committee of Management PO Box 14, BALNARRING, 3926 $15,000.00 This project will provide 10,000 koala habitat trees for the coastal reserves between Somers and Shoreham and for private landholders to restore or create suitable habitat to support a viable koala population and prevent the possibility of local extinction because of habitat loss. It will also produce printed information to educate local residents and visitors about the project. Flinders 51751 Rehabilitation of Plantation Reserve and Waterfall Creek, Rosebud, Victoria Rosebud Park and Recreation Reserve Committee of Management Incorporated PO Box 5, ROSEBUD, 3939 $7,529.41 This project will protect 13.5ha of remnant bush in the Plantation Reserve adjacent to Waterfall Creek by construction of 1.4km of wire fence to control access by the public and exclude bike riders. The planting of 500 trees, shrubs and understorey plants will increase biodiversity as well as restoring and enhancing habitat for the Swamp Skink. It will also increase the commitment of the land manager to manage native flora and fauna while increasing involvement of the local community in environmental action. Flinders 51755 Building Coastal Biolinks - Connecting Rural, Urban and Coastal Communities Phillip Island Land Care Group Inc PO Box 272, COWES, 3922 $44,037.44 This project will implement the Urban Landcare and Wildlife Corridor Strategies to connect rural, urban and coastal sites by planting on 20 site across Phillip Island. Weeding and revegetation with 22,000 indigenous plants will fill gaps in coastal reserves and inland remnants. The project brings together fourteen groups involved in protecting and enhancing the environment of Phillip Island and will enable coordination of efforts, efficient use of resources and an increase in skills and volunteer participation. The project will establish a ‘Practically Sustainable Information Series’ to assist in improving skill development and providing adequate tools to ensure significant environmentally sustainable outcomes. Flinders 51764 Establishment of French Island Indigenous Seed Bank and Coastal Demonstration Site French Island Landcare Group French Island via C/-Tankerton PO, TANKERTON, 3921 $48,030.00 This project will protect, enhance and sustain indigenous vegetation communities throughout French Island by creating sufficient resources in the form of an indigenous plant seed bank to create a wildlife corridor web across French Island, linking rural farmland with the National Park. A demonstration site for best practice revegetation will be established using 20,000 indigenous plants over 10ha. Coastal remnant vegetation will be protected and 10kg of seed sought for direct seeding revegetation works. Seed will be collected, processed and stored at a newly created Community Indigenous Seed Bank on French Island. Community engagement and education will be supported by field days and fact sheets will be developed to encourage best practice management for revegetation techniques. Flinders 51767 Preservation, Protection, Re-vegetation of Remnant Indigenous Vegetation. Sunshine Reserve. Mt. Martha Sunshine Reserve Conservation and Fireguard Group Inc 9 McLeod Rd, MT MARTHA, 3934 $7,318.30 This project will help restore areas of Sunshine Reserve by woody weed removal, planting and path construction. The areas contain a thriving orchid population and fern communities which will be protected by removing competing woody weeds and stabilising the creek banks through plantings of long-rooted plants. Planting of 10,000 plants will help to improve the water quality. Flinders 51779 Forest Caves - Surf Beach Foreshore Rehabilitation (Phillip Island) Phillip Island Nature Park Board of Management Inc PO Box 97, COWES, 3922 $19,172.73 This project will protect a severely eroded coastal site under threat from public foot traffic and recreational sand boarding. This will be done by placing 2,500sqm of brush matting on a sand dune blowout area which includes an aboriginal midden, laying jute webbing mat and brushing a clay cliff area of 100sqm, and revegetating with 800 indigenous plants and 3.5kg of indigenous plant seeds. Fencing and a low level duckboard of 80m will be constructed through a section of the shearwater rookery and interpretive signage will also be erected to increase community awareness of the sites values and need for protection. Flinders 51876 Rehabilitation of Warringine Park and Bittern Coastal Wetlands Stage 2 Friends of Warringine Park Inc 2456 Frankston/Flinders Road, BITTERN, 3918 $7,500.00 This project will further rehabilitate significant areas in the Bittern Coastal Wetlands and tidal Warringine Creek by removing noxious and other environmental weeds such as smilax, gorse, blackberry. Forde 51311 Normanby Homestead - Riparian Restoration and Off Stream Stock Water A.J.W. Macarthur & M.R. Macarthur & R.H. Macarthur Normanby Homestead, HARRISVILLE, 4307 $17,181.82 This project will allow natural regeneration by fencing to exclude stock. Also stop erosion of creek banks and polluting of water by stock. The off stream watering points will limit use of water by stock. Forde 51988 Restoration of Endangered Semi-evergreen Vine Scrub in Purga Creek Catchment Steve & Heidi Ross 32 Strong Ave, GRACEVILLE, 4075 $15,250.00 This project will restore endangered semi-evergreen vine scrub and dry rainforest to a small gully system in Purga Creek catchment. The site is surrounded by dense forest in an area of high conservation value. Mulching after lantana removal and revegetation with 4,000 local provenance native plants will minimise erosion and contamination of Purga Creek, while quickly forming a canopy to reduce weed invasion and fire vulnerability. Stock exclusion, pest control and a dedicated dam will assist in creating a valuable ecological community, fostering seed bank regeneration and providing rare habitat for vulnerable native rainforest animals, reptiles and birds including powerful owls. Forrest 50932 Restoration and Rehabilitation of Eroded Gully at Willyabrup and Provision of Steps at Gallows Friends of the Cape to Cape Track Inc 2 Wattle Street, BUSSELTON, 6280 $4,372.73 This project will rehabilitate, brush and fence a section of the coastline near the Cape to Cape Trace. Native plants will be planted, watered and nurtured until established. Brushing will stabilise the area until the plants have grown. The group will erect 300m of stockproof fencing. This project will also provide a flight of steps from the Gallows Car Park down to the beach to prevent further erosion. Forrest 51263 Restoration of the Upper Chapman Brook The Trustee for the T J S Crimp Trust PO Box 83, MARGARET RIVER, 6285 $22,318.18 This project will improve sustainable farming practices by protecting 9km of riparian vegetation along the headwaters of the Chapman Brook. The riparian zone will be fenced with 9km of fencing to exclude cattle and improve water quality in the catchment. Stock troughs will be installed in adjoining paddocks as alternative water sources. Forrest 51265 River Restoration on the Chapman Creek JA & NA Brooks & Son Brooks Road, WITCHCLIFFE, 6286 $4,556.15 This project will fence 1.75km of the Chapman Brook, stabilise riverbanks with rock battering and revegetate the degraded riparian zone with local provenance plant species. Fencing off the creek will encourage natural regeneration and/or revegetation, reduce erosion of banks and protect water quality. Forrest 51316 Remnant Vegetation Protection on the Scott Coastal Plain FR & LF Prosser RMB 800 Milyeannup Coast Road, NANNUP, 6275 $8,181.82 This project will protect several stands of remnant vegetation on the property by erecting 4.5km of stockproof fencing. Forrest 51518 Boyanup Primary School’s Preston River Restoration Project Boyanup Primary School Parents and Citizens Committee 14 Bridge Street, BOYANUP, 6237 $3,865.91 This project will raise community awareness and involve the Boyanup Primary School in weed management and revegetation along 280m of the Preston River. An area of 1.2ha will be treated for Watsonia, an invasive environmental weed, and revegetated with 1,000 native plants. The Boyanup Weed Action Group, Capel Land Conservation District Committee and residents will take part in busy bees and planting days to restore the area. Forrest 51636 The Provision and Protection of Waterbird Habitat at Rosamel Swamp Leschenault Progress Association PO Box A90, AUSTRALIND, 6233 $15,750.00 This project will protect and restore the foreshore vegetation of a wetland. The wetland will be fenced with 0.7km of fencing to restrict cattle access and 5,000 seedlings will be planted on the foreshore to provide a valuable breeding habitat for waterbird species and improve water quality through the uptake of nutrients entering the wetland from the adjacent agricultural activities and nearby developments. Forrest 51707 One Mile Creek Weed Remediation Program Manjimup Land Conservation District Committee 2 Bath Street, MANJIMUP, 6258 $6,631.02 This project will restore One Mile Brook to its previous condition where indigenous sedges, reeds, understorey, medium and large sized tree species were the dominant ecosystem. This will be achieved through the removal of exotic weed species, stabilisation of stream banks, revegetation of the previously infested area and ongoing maintenance to prevent a recurrence of the current degradation, particularly exotic plant species. Forrest 51933 Riparian Repair for the Toby Inlet Catchment Toby Inlet Catchment Group Inc. RSM 180 Commonage Road, DUNSBOROUGH, 6281 $10,785.00 This project will enhance riparian vegetation by planting 4,000 native wetland plants along the Toby Inlet Wetland. Working in conjunction with the Toby Inlet and Associated Wetlands Management Plan and the Catchment Management Plan for the Toby Inlet, the project is part of an ongoing management plan to repair riparian vegetation along wetlands and streamlines, ensuring nutrients and sediments do not reach Geographe Bay. Forrest 52116 Walpole and Yallingup Creek and Bush Restoration North Ian McLaren PO Box 130, WALPOLE, 6398 $3,432.73 This project will improve the ecological health of two creek lines on farming properties in the South West of WA by undertaking weed control and 0.2ha of erosion control, planting 1ha of vegetation and installing four creek crossings to control livestock and vehicle access to the waterway. Franklin 51273 Reading the Wetland - Protecting the Values of Port Cygnet Through Monitoring and Story Telling Friends of Port Cygnet 26 Gloden Valley Road, CYGNET, 7112 $19,181.82 This project will monitor and record the values of the Port Cygnet wetland with the aim of increasing community knowledge and improving engagement in the protection of the wetland. It will establish four estuarine water quality monitoring sites at identified “hotspots”. The monitoring results will be collated into a booklet and disseminated to the local schools and via the Cygnet Living History Museum. Data collected will contribute to the Waterwatch datasets and will be used to engage water users in sustainable water use. The project will also undertake weed removal and revegetate with 450 plants. Franklin 51348 Community Action for Derwent Penguins Derwent Estuary Program GPO Box 44, HOBART, 7001 $43,477.27 This project will enhance work in the Derwent estuary by erecting 1km of fencing, revegetating with 438 plants and installing 50 burrows to protect the penguin colony. It will also include a field day to provide regional groups with habitat management skills and practical management tools. Franklin 51361 Protection of Pilchers Hill’s Grassy Woodlands Flagstaff Gully Landcare Group c/- 102 Bathurst Street, HOBART, 7000 $13,272.73 This project will control a dense boneseed infestation and extensive rill erosion via intensive onground works involving natural regeneration and planting of 2,000 native groundcovers and grasses. Water diversion and earth mounding techniques will be used to assist the revegetation. It will achieve increased capacity to maintain long-term sustainable management and monitoring of species, communities and water quality at Pilchers Hill’s. Franklin 51379 Community Protection and Rehabilitation of the Adventure Bay Foreshore Area Friends of Adventure Bay Inc. 11 Seaview Road, ADVENTURE BAY, BRUNY ISLAND, 7150 $10,306.18 This project will rehabilitate eroding sections on 1200m of coastal dune. It will assist dune stability by erecting sand-bag banks restructured with sand fill and revegetating areas with grass and 250 native plants. It will also erect four 20m sand ladders and 180m of pole and wire fence and will protect unaffected dune and habitat through improved management of access to the beach. It will also eradicate 600m of Blackberry and Lupin and will include informative signs aims to encourage and increase community interest and participation. Franklin 51563 Protection of Threatened Shorebird Habitat at Mortimer Bay Mortimer Bay Coastcare Group Inc. C/- Post Office, LAUDERDALE, 7021 $9,150.00 This project will protect the habitat of nesting shorebird site. The on-ground works will protect the area by erecting 60m of fencing and a rock barrier to control access of people and vehicles from the carpark. Franklin 51570 Integrating Onground Action and Water Quality Monitoring: Port Cygnet Catchment Port Cygnet Landcare Junior Landcare and Port Cygnet Watercare Groups 53 Thorpe Street, CYGNET, 7112 $19,588.64 This project will rehabilite waterways within the Port Cygnet Catchment by constructing 950m of fencing to protect a riparian area of 0.8ha and 1.5ha of remnant vegetation; revegetating 2.1ha with 1,550 native plants to establish a 4.5km wildlife corridor; and conducting quarterly water quality monitoring. This project will address key natural resource management issues in the Port Cygnet Catchment including degradation of stream banks, loss of native vegetation, weeds, and declining freshwater and estuarine water quality. Franklin 51579 Implementing Threatened Species Habitat and Priority Plant Community Projects in Kingborough Kingborough Landcare Advisory Group (KLAG) 105 Wingara Road, HOWDEN, 7054 $35,136.36 This project will plant 15,000 native plants as well as collect information crucial to the protection of Kingborough’s rare, venerable and endangered plant communities. This project aims to involve awareness raising activities at both local and municipal levels targeting individual landholders in priority areas and border community. Gellibrand 51741 Kororoit Creek Toyota Embankment Revegetation Project Friends of Lower Kororoit Creek Inc PO Box 73, ALTONA NORTH, 3025 $17,727.27 This project will plant 8,000 trees and understorey plants in a corridor along the creek adjacent to the Toyota manufacturing plant to provide habitat for the endangered Swift Parrot. It forms part of a plan to develop the Kororoit Creek biodiversity corridor within Hobson’s Bay. Gilmore 51233 Stage 3a / 4a of Byrnes Run Weed and Revegetation Management Strategy Neighbourhood Plan 285560 University of Wollongong, PO Box U260, WOLLONGONG, 2500 $3,731.82 This project will extend primary weeding and revegetation work already performed within Byrnes Run, Jamberoo NSW. It will preserve and improve the site through a program of hand weed removal, encouragement of natural regeneration and replacement with indigenous species. Gilmore 51251 Linking Coolangatta Mountain Vegetation to Remnant Farm Shelterbelts, Berry Josephine Reinhard PO Box 191, BERRY, 2535 $5,698.18 This project will create a wildlife corridor that will link Coolangatta Mountains remnant vegetation to existing corridors and shelterbelts on the property. It will fence off a 1ha wide belt from Coolangatta Mountain, linking an existing stand of Eucalyptus Saligna and Corymbia Maculata to existing shelterbelts on the Northern and Eastern Boundary and will provide shelter from westerly winds for livestock and existing stunted vegetation. Gilmore 51567 Protecting High Conservation Value Riparian Vegetation Along Trimble Creek, Kangaroo Valley Centre For Leadership Pty Ltd PO Box 44, AVALON, 2107 $12,804.55 This project will fence 1.3 km along Trimble Creek and a major tributary to complete fencing to exclude stock from the riparian zone. It will exclude stock from the water course and a significant remnant on the opposite side of the creek to allow for protection and continued regeneration of the areas. It will also provide alternative stock water in adjacent paddocks to protect the water course and revegetation and woody weed management will also be undertaken. Gilmore 51616 Restoring Riparian-Zone Illawarra Subtropical Rainforest at Bundewallah, Near Berry Stephen and Sara Bramley-Jackson PO Box 119, BERRY, 2535 $15,454.55 This project will restore endangered Illawarra subtropical rainforest along a riparian zone through manual weed control and spot spraying of invasive weeds. Gilmore 51871 Stage 2 - Narrawallee Community Dune Restoration and Education Project Narrawallee Foreshore & Reserve Bushcare Group 9 Bombora Crescent, MOLLYMOOK, 2539 $18,181.82 This project will continue primary control of exotic species and revegetation of dunal areas of Narrawallee Beach by primary weed control of asparagus fern, senna, english ivy and cape ivy with the Bushcare group providing the labour for the on-going maintenance of these areas to prevent re-infestation as well re-vegetation where necessary. A Bush Regenerator will also be employed on a part-time basis to provide on-site training for the volunteers in bush regeneration skills. Gilmore 51905 Fencing for Threatened Species Protection, Regeneration and the Establishment of a Native Vegetation Corridor. Boughton, Robert H 3 Jesmond Avenue, WATSONS BAY, 2030 $6,842.73 This project will create a habitat corridor between two remnant stands of rainforest by constructing 3.5km of fence to create a corridor to exclude stock and promote regeneration of native vegetation. The corridor will also be revegetated and enhanced by the planting of 40 native trees and shrubs. It will also erect a fence around stands of the endangered species Zeria granulata to exclude stock ensuring regeneration of the plants. It will also exclude stock from vulnerable riparian areas to reduce erosion and maintain water quality, and will plant 150 native trees reinforce the creek banks and guard against erosion. Gilmore 51980 Bombo Headland Native Plant Revegetation Project - Stage 6 Bombo Headland Landcare Group Inc 13 North Kiama Drive, KIAMA, 2533 $11,600.00 This project will continue revegetation of Bombo Headland, a 40ha coastal environment infested with weed species such as lantana, blackberries, kikuyu and a variety of other introduced perennials. It will remove more areas of weed, establish 1,000 native plants, reduce erosion and improve public access. Gilmore 52032 Abraham’s Bosom Beach Littoral Rainforest Rehabilitation Abrahams Bosom Beach Reserve Bushcare Group PO Box 90, CURRARONG, 2540 $9,645.45 This project use contractors to engage in primary weed control to eradicate a large infestation of asparagus fern which threatens the biodiversity of the Abraham’s Beach Littoral Rainforest remnant. The Bushcare Group will participate in secondary weed control and also fore dune and hind dune revegetation with 500 local coastal plants to ensure reverse of long term decline and degradation of the littoral rainforest understorey species and its biodiversity. Gippsland 51092 Sediment Stabilisation and Biodiversity Enhancement of Redundant Gravel Extraction Site Flaggy Creek and District Landcare Group 580 Boggy Creek Road, MELWOOD, BAIRNSDALE, 3875 $5,660.00 This project will stabilise a gravel extraction site by providing 0.5ha of revegetation in conjunction with minor earthworks. It will plant 1,500 plants and stabilising grasses to form a diverse vegetation community. It will link with neighbouring sediment reduction works, provide an enhanced environment for wildlife, and increase community awareness of the site through a community field day. Gippsland 51463 Blackall Dreaming - Blackall Creek Rehabilitation Project Avon Landcare Group Inc 4 Merrick St, STRATFORD, 3862 $16,690.40 This project will rehabilitate a 1.5km section of the Blackall Creek in Stratford. It will remove 10ha of environmental weeds and then revegetate with 1,550 indigenous plants. Garden waste and other rubbish that has been dumped over the creek embankment will also be removed from the site. Gippsland 51466 Rejuvenation of the Macalister Wetlands Reserve Maffra and District Landcare Network - Maffra Urban Sub-Group PO Box 294, MAFFRA, 3860 $20,198.18 This project will rejuvenate a 24ha wetland on the edge of Maffra. It will remove weeds, revegetate with 2,000 native plants, erect 250m of exclusion fencing and promote visitor awareness of the importance of the wetlands by a series of interpretive signs. Gippsland 51499 Bowmans Basin Revegetation Project Maffra and Districts Landcare Network PO Box 335, MAFFRA, 3860 $8,030.18 This project will revegetate and restore a 3.5ha wetland in Maffra. It will remove weeds, control rabbits and replant with 4,000 local indigenous plants. This site will provide an excellent example of how a degraded site can be turned into a thriving ecosystem. Gippsland 51713 Glengarry Revegetation Program Glengarry East Landcare Group 71 Hotham Street, Traralgon, 3844 $21,118.50 This project will further extend and create links between previous projects undertaken across the Glengarry area through the establishment of wildlife corridors and exclusion of stock from dams and waterways. The project will plant 5,405 tubestock, erect of 5.29km of fencing and install 3 off-stream watering points. Gippsland 51752 Flynn Revegetation Program Flynn Farm Discussion and Landcare Group 71 Hotham Street, TRARALGON, 3844 $10,996.00 This project will involve the planting of 3,980 indigenous trees and shrubs and construction of 2.26km of fencing across 3 sites producing wildlife corridors that link up existing vegetation. The sites will be initially assessed, followed by ground preparation, weed control, tree planting, guarding, fencing off and regular monitoring. It will also restore some of the vegetation to its original state thus attracting and providing suitable habitat for wildlife. Gippsland 51757 Community Conservation of Coastal Birds in the Gippsland Region The Little Tern Taskforce Inc PO Box 1174, BAIRNSDALE, 3875 $15,450.00 This project will assist volunteers to protect and enhance breeding sites for coastal birds in the Gippsland region. It will encourage and co-ordinate community participation in conservation of coastal birds with focus on the breeding success of the threatened Little and Fairy Tern through monitoring, fencing, site enhancement and educational programs. Printed educational material will raise awareness of the importance of conserving bird species and their habitats. Grey 51116 Sheoak Grassy Woodland Habitat Restoration in Coffin Bay National Park Friends of Coffin Bay Parks C/- Post Office, WANGARY, 5607 $13,636.36 This project will control the rabbit population to prevent excessive grazing on establishing seedlings and revegetate by direct seeding native plant species. Grey 51123 Publication of a Booklet “Quieter Wildflowers of Lower Eyre Penninsula” Janet Mary Smyth PO Box 238, COFFIN BAY, 5607 $9,650.00 This project will raise community awareness of native plant species of the Lower Eyre Peninsula by producing a booklet describing and illustrating less well known native plants. It will complement an earlier publication “Wildflowers of Lower Eyre Peninsula”. Grey 51133 Tia Tuckia Dust Mitigation Project Tia Tuckia Association Incorporated PO Box 221, CEDUNA, 5690 $10,870.18 This project will control dust pollution through undertaking 10km of direct seeding and planting 2,500 tubestock. A strategic management plan will provide the basis for addressing this major problem. Grey 51134 Point Brown Wildlife Refuges Point Brown Station Pty Ltd PO Box 220, SMOKY BAY, 5680 $20,000.00 This project will protect and enhance 2,800ha of remnant vegetation for wildlife habitat by erecting 15.4km of fencing to exclude stock and undertaking extensive integrated pest management. It will create a corridor for movement of indigenous species and improve agricultural sustainability by improving wind-break effects, stabilising sand dunes and improving stock management. Grey 51135 Demonstrating Biodiversity Protection in Farm Management for Ceduna Area The Trustee for the Leon Bubner Family Trust PO Box 565, CEDUNA, 5690 $4,065.45 This project will protect and enhance 6.45ha of remnant vegetation through the construction of 2.75km of stock proof fencing, allowing natural regeneration and revegetate the area by planting 200 plants and direct seeding. This project will also raise awareness and encourage neighbouring landholders to participate in sustainable natural resource management practices through farm tours covering total farm planning. Grey 51183 Addressing Water Quality and Native Vegetation Issues on GumCreek Station The Trustee for The McIntosh Family Trust Gum Creek Station, BLINMAN, 5730 $11,204.55 This project will relocate a livestock watering point by constructing 6km of fencing to divide an existing paddock which adjoins Werta Creek. This will allow native vegetation regeneration, which will be supplemented with planting of Eucalyptus camaldulensis to address soil erosion and native vegetation decline and water quality issues. Grey 51261 Installation of a Protected Water Point in a Remote Area on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands Robin Kankanpakantja and Antjala Robin, Traditional Owners of Walalkara “Irintata Homeland”, FREEGAM VIA ALICE SPRINGS, 0872 $11,785.45 This project will create water resources for the use of Anangu working on Land Management projects in remote areas and for the use of native wildlife. Grey 51279 Remnant Vegetation Protection and Wildlife Corridor Establishment, Western Eyre Peninsula PW & NM Roe RSD 17 Courela road, STREAKY BAY, 5680 $20,000.00 This project will protect and connect approximately 355ha of remnant vegetation by construction of 6.5km of fencing and direct seeding of a 22ha corridor between the remnants. The remnants occur in two areas of 270 and 85ha, with approximately 220ha of scattered remnants. The revegetation will compliment the natural regeneration within the remnants, stabilise soil and create a broad shelter belt. Grey 51385 Remnant Protection and Revegetation of Cleared Land Anthony Braz PO Box 102, STREAKY BAY, 5680 $2,280.00 This project will improve the status of small areas of remnant vegetation and revegetate cleared land. The property consists of two small but significant mallee remnants in an old outcropping and grazing area. The quality of existing mallee has deteriorated to the point where there is no understorey apart from African Boxthorn and some trees are suffering dieback. The project will use direct seeding techniques to establish significant buffers around the existing mallee and re-establish a viable understorey. All grazing by domestic stock and cropping has ceased and the area in being managed for improved environmental outcomes. Grey 51386 The Dutchmans Stern Conservation Park Understorey Regeneration Project The Friends of Dutchmans Stern Conservation Park PO Box 343, QUORN, 5433 $10,149.09 This project will halt the decline in understorey species within The Dutchmans Stern Conservation Park and improve habitat quality within an area of 600ha. Regeneration will be facilitated through the removal of African Boxthorne and Prickly Pear. It will revegetate the site using approximately 2kg of local understorey seed and planting 500 native plants considered rare within the park to enhance the diversity of the area. Grey 51387 Rapid Response for Roadside Recovery After Fire, Eyre Peninsula SA Lower Eyre Pest Management Group Inc 25 West Tce, TUMBY BAY, 5605 $44,672.73 This project will use remove environmental weeds over 40km of verge including blackberry, gorse, broom, aleppo pines, boneseed, flax, boxthorns, and olives from roadside areas that will then be direct seeded with native species. Follow up weed control will occur at these sites to control weed regermination. After removal of weeds 3,000 indigenous tubestock will be planted and direct seeding carried out. Grey 51394 Bushfire Recovery - Protecting and Revegetating the Poonindie Hills, SA Louth Bay and Dist Landscape and Coastcare Group 25 West Tce, TUMBY BAY, 5605 $49,800.00 This project will construct 29kms of fencing, undertake 40km of direct seeding, plant 4,000 tubestock protection of native vegetation as revegetation on bushfire affected properties. Grey 51395 Newchurch Biocultural Project - (Living Culture) Bookyana Corporation PO Box 68, PORT VICTORIA, 5573 $16,381.82 This project will establish windbreaks around a property using native species as an environmental buffer. It will also establish a working nursery to propagate native plants for revegetation and for use as bush food for community uses. It will demonstrate whole farm planning concepts and sustainable farming practices in an ecologically sustainable manner and will establish a living seed bank for future revegetation programs. Grey 51397 Habitat Enhancement of Nantawarrina IPA Water Points Nepabunna Community Incorporated Nepabunna, COPLEY, 5732 $45,454.55 This project will provide the basis for the expansion of the revegetation of Nantawarrina by developing three revegetated sites. Once established seeds from these areas can be harvested for further plantings and will aid in the restoration of the Nantawarrina ecosystem. Grey 51503 Tees Trees - Bringing Back the Bush Darryl Trevena PO Box 33, STREAKY BAY, 5680 $2,980.00 This project will improve condition of small areas of remnant vegetation and revegetate cleared land. It will use direct seeding techniques to establish buffers around existing mallee and re-establish understorey. It will erect 500m of fencing to exclude stock from remnant areas and proposed revegetation. Grey 51507 Protecting Point Bell Sanctuary for Biodiversity Conservation, Western Eyre Peninsula Craig Welbourn and Pia Richter PO Box 423, CEDUNA, 5690 $49,893.13 This project will erect 22km of fencing to protect an area of 6,000ha and will add to a system of protected areas of coastal heaths, salt lakes and sand dunes. It will reduce the threat of weeds and vehicular damage to vegetation. Grey 51540 Eradication of Cacti and Buffel Grass from Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary Arkaroola Pty. Ltd. Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, VIA PORT AUGUSTA, 5434 $10,000.00 This project will protect the biodiversity values of the Arkaroo Wilderness Sanctuary and neighbouring Vulkathuna-Gammon Ranges National Park, by containing and removing buffel grass, cacti species, and two opuntia species over an area of 15sqm. Grey 51542 Restoration and Rehabilitation of Wagerton Scrub near Goreta Aboriginal Community on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia Goreta Aboriginal Corp PO Box 21, INGLE FARM, 5098 $17,377.27 This project will construct 4km of fencing to protect remnant vegetation, conduct weed eradication and control measures targeting boxthorn, onion weed, rice millet, and wild oats. It will revegetate with 2,000 tubestock to complement remnant vegetation to create a sustainable ecological habitat that will enhance biodiversity throughout the Yorke Peninsula region. Grey 51550 Capacity Building of Communities Involved in Grassland Managment in SA Mid North Grasslands Working Group PO Box 12, BRINKWORTH, 5464 $4,818.18 This project will provide training field days for approximately 150 farmers, land managers, technical officers and extension officers from throughout South Australia, educating them in the different issues of grassland management, and promoting further awareness and understanding of these threatened ecosystems. Grey 51556 Gordon Oliffe Bore Habitat Restoration Project Zanet, Guiseppe 18 Sixth street, QUORN, 5433 $11,036.36 TThis project will create a 2,760sqm stock exclusion zone to address the impact of pastoral activity in a degraded paddock. It will erect 7km of fencing, repair an existing water point, and relocate a trough outside the site. The regeneration of current endemic plants within the site will be encouraged and endemic seeds and tubestock will also be planted. Grey 51900 Rapid Response to Post-Fire Recovery in the Cummins Wanilla Basin, Lower Eyre Peninsula Cummins Wanilla Basin Streamcare Group 25 West Tce, TUMBY BAY, 5605 $45,443.64 This project will assist landholders to effectively manage salinity, waterlogging and a riparian zone by fencing 22km around areas of remnant vegetation and creeklines with high biodiversity to provide a stock exclusion zone and to enhance natural regeneration of indigenous plant species in a burnt area. Sites will be direct seeded with indigenous plant species leading to streambank stabilisation and improved water quality. Grey 51904 Charlton Gully Streamcare Group Post Wildfire Project Charlton Gully Streamcare Group Inc PO Box 62, PORT LINCOLN, 5606 $45,454.55 This project will involve 21.5kms of fencing to provide additional protection to remnant vegetation and revegetation works. It will include revegetation by direct seeding and the planting of 1,500 tubestock, which will enhance areas of high biodiversity. Grey 51906 Revegetation of Areas Around Dunjiba Community for Dust Mitigation and Windbreaks Dunjiba Community Council Inc C/o Post Office, OODNADATTA, 5734 $15,659.09 This project will reduce high levels of dust that contributes towards health and respiratory problems within the Dunjiba (Oodnadatta) Community. It will erect fencing to protect vegetation from vehicle and pedestrian traffic and use netting to catch airborne particles. The vegetation planted will provide a seedbank for the future revegetation, as well as attracting fauna to the area. Grey 51930 Landforming and Revegetation for Environmental Health at Umoona Sobering Up Centre Umoona Community PO Box 300, COOBER PEDY, 5723 $15,413.64 This project will reverse the effects of previous mining activity by stabilising soil within the Umoona community. It will revegetate with endemic plants and reform the old mining areas with earthmoving techniques. This will prevent wind and water erosion, reduce dust and provide a healthier environment for the community. The re-establishment of indigenous flora will increase biodiversity and will include traditional medicinal plants to further enhance well being of community members. Groom 51090 Improving Water Quality in Darling Downs Bluegrass Grassland Olsen AR & Skidmore LM Ms 544, CLIFTON, 4361 $14,022.73 This project will combat sediment and weed seed discharge into gullies flowing into Spring Creek and the Condamine River by installing water-spreading sediment/weed traps filtered by native grasses to intercept and slow fast flows from neighbouring cultivation. Disturbed areas will be replanted with indigenous grassland seed. 70ha of endangered, bluegrass grassland, already permanently fenced for controlled grazing, will be protected, habitat will be increased and better quality water will disperse slowly towards the Condamine River. Groom 51172 Bushland Rehabilitation, National Extension Program and Volunteer Capacity Building Friends of the Escarpment Parks Toowoomba Inc 30 Young Street, TOOWOOMBA, 4350 $12,360.00 This project will continue the rehabilitation of Toowoomba’s degraded public bushlands, specifically Echo Valley South Park in the headwaters of the Southeast Queensland Rivers Catchment, provide national extension on improved methods and equipment through our website, demonstrations at four workshops or conferences and articles in journals and newsletters. It will also build capacity in volunteers, improving linkages with similar regional organisations. Groom 51313 Lowering the Water Table to Reduce the Impact of Salinity South Myall Catchment Landcare Group Inc 300 Vohlands Road, MS 444, QUINALOW, 4403 $17,075.45 This project will reduce erosion by restricting cattle from waterway and lower the water table by installing a pump to fill 2 storage tanks and 2 large watering troughs where 110 cattle will use approximately 29,000 litres of water per week. 20ha of irrigated and 8ha of dry land pastures will also be planted. Groom 51899 Raising Awareness to Increase Local On Ground Biodiversity Conservation Benefits, Blue Mountain Heights Blue Mountain Heights Action Group 3 Clifford Street, TOOWOOMBA, 4350 $9,657.75 This project will raise awareness of biodiversity conservation issues in the Blue Mountain Heights community. It will implement three workshops covering native vegetation identification and species selection for attracting wildlife, environmental weed identification and control techniques and the development of a community fire and biodiversity management plan for the area. Participants will gain skills through revegetating a local reserve with 500 local natives and removing 5ha of Lantana. Groom 52016 Here There be Dragons - Community Involvement in Endangered Grassland Earless Dragon Conservation Mt Tyson Landcare Group “Nyleta”, MOUNT TYSON, 4362 $7,818.18 This project will raise awareness and promote conservation of the endangered Grassland Earless Dragon and more generally of biodiversity in a production landscape. It will conduct property surveys to clarify distribution and range of the Earless Dragon to identify threats, habitat requirements and appropriate management for their conservation. This information will then be used to develop and implement on ground actions and future awareness raising campaigns. Gwydir 51044 Fencing of Waterway to Protect and Enhance Native Grasses on Melrose Urabrible Landcare Group Inc “Lynwood”, ULAMAMBRI, 2357 $1,262.03 This project will construct 550m of fencing to enclose a waterway in order to protect and rehabilitate native grasses in Upper Castlereagh River catchment, a district that has been noted for its high susceptibility to severe salinity. Well managed stock control will encourage the spreading of the natives over the property and will allow natural regeneration of the native grasses. Gwydir 51045 Fencing to Protect Paroo River Frontage on “Terramia” Station, Wanaaring Batmore Pty Ltd “Terramia” Station, BOURKE, 2840 $27,272.73 This project will construct 16km of fencing to restrict stock access to the Paroo River frontage on “Terramia” Station and provide two alternate stock watering points. This project will link to previous works to protect approximately 30km of riparian area along the Paroo River Gwydir 51175 Fencing to Protect Maranoa Waterhole on Cuttaburra Creek, Comeroo Station C.A Sharpe & M.B Sharpe “Comeroo Station”, BOURKE, 2840 $18,513.64 This project will construct 10km of fencing to exclude stock from the Maranoa Waterhole on the Cuttaburra Creek. Six alternative watering points will be installed and well managed stock control will encourage natural regeneration. Gwydir 51245 Restoration of Landscape Connectivity and Grassy Woodland at “Bondi” Warialda E Flute-Cannon & K.M Cannon “Bondi”, WARIALDA, 2402 $16,190.91 This project will link remnant vegetation blocks in two sites covering 11ha on ‘Bondi’ by planting 6,000 native trees and shrubs. Gwydir 51252 Native Perennial Saltbush Establishment for Land Rehabilitation Near Goodooga NSW Bohda Pastoral Aboriginal Corporation Willoring Station, GOODOOGA, 2831 $24,772.73 This project will plant 120,000 native trees within a 1,070ha fenced off area on a property managed by local indigenous people to assist natural revegetation of the area. Gwydir 51444 Revegetation, Improved Biodiversity and Interception of Deep Drainage at Llano, Narrabri A.L O’Neill & G.K O’Neill “Llano”, NARRABRI, 2390 $27,039.82 This project will construct 15.6km of fencing to exclude stock from the created vegetation corridors which link into remnant vegetation. 25,800 trees will be planted within the corridors which will assist in the regeneration of the area. Gwydir 51461 Flaggy Creek Riparian and Remnant Protection Project JM Woodward & JV Woodward “Reemo”, WARIALDA, 2402 $2,327.27 This project will construct 1.6km of fencing to exclude stock from remnant vegetation and the riparian zone of Flaggy Creek and a dam on ‘Reemo’. Gwydir 51467 Native Grasses for the Central Tablelands and Central Slopes Australian Rural Education Centre Co-operative Ltd PO Box 12, MUDGEE, 2850 $10,449.19 This project will construct a demonstration stall at the Australian Rural Education Centre (AREC) Site demonstrating native grasses. Gwydir 51615 Riparian Revegetation and Off-Stream Watering Project at “Coggan Creek”, Bylong A.R Dargan & S.R Dargan Coggan Creek, Wollar Road, BYLONG, 2849 $22,727.27 This project will assist the restoration of 16.5ha of riparian land adjacent to Bylong River at “Coggan Creek” Bylong. It will erect 6km of fencing to prevent stock access and any associated degradation and a further 4km of fencing will be established to protect a 40ha stand of pristine remnant vegetation. Off-stream watering will be installed to provide stock with alternate watering points away from the creek and 2,000 native trees and understorey plants will also be planted along the more degraded stretches to enhance the riparian corridor. Gwydir 51622 Rehabilitation, Fencing Off Halls Creek, Gungal Bruce & Shauna Webb 7 Mainsail Avenue, ST HUBERTS ISLAND, 2257 $2,343.27 This project will protect 2.1ha of riparian vegetation adjacent to Halls Creek by erecting 700m of fencing to prevent stock from grazing this area. A remnant vegetation corridor averaging 30m wide and 700m long will be enhanced with 370 native trees and shrubs. This project will help to reverse the long term decline in native vegetation, improve water quality conditions, reduce erosion caused by stock access, improve biodiversity and create habitat. Gwydir 51788 Regeneration of Native Vegetation for Bio-diversity at Big Jacks Creek, Willow Tree NSW Belsoa Pty Ltd “Sarmatia” Warrah Ridge Road, WILLOW TREE, 2339 $25,909.64 This project will construct 4km of fencing to create 16.4ha of vegetation corridors linking remnant vegetation. Planting activities include 10,000 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Gwydir 51801 Erosion Control on Meadowbrook, Glen Elgin G.K. Smith & P.J. Smith “Cedar Glen”, SHANNONVALE VIA GLEN INNES, 2370 $3,141.81 This project will stabilise a gully by constructing a 50m diversion contour and by constructing 800m of fencing to exclude stock. Planting activities include 400 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Gwydir 51805 Protection of Remnant and Riparian Vegetation on Strathdarr, NSW AJ & AM Doering “Strathdarr”, M.S.F 2284, MOREE, 2400 $24,451.82 This project will construct 10km of fencing to exclude stock from 160ha of remnant vegetation. Additionally alternative stock watering points will be installed along a 1km stretch adjoining the Rocky Hole Creek. Gwydir 51825 Linking Remnant Vegetation to Provide a Wildlife Corridor on “Thorndale” NSW C.M Hickson and the Trustee for MK Hickson Family Trust Thorndale, MUNGINDI, 2406 $3,854.55 This project will construct 980m of fencing to exclude stock access from two separate vegetation corridors along an unnamed stock route. It will link to remnant vegetation and 480 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. Gwydir 51835 Fencing off the Dindierna Remnant Vegetation Block E.S Warren & L.E Warren Dindierna, MUNGINDI, 2406 $6,909.09 This project will construct 4.5km of fencing to exclude stock access to protect 84ha of remnant vegetation which will assist in natural regeneration of the area. Gwydir 51922 Regenerating Mars - A Tree Corridor to Arrest Erosion at “Mountain View”, Gunnedah G.M Strong & S.J Strong “Mountain View” 617 Beeson Road, GUNNEDAH, 2381 $3,354.55 This project will construct 800m of fencing to permanently exclude stock access from a created 16ha vegetation corridor. Planting activities include 800 native trees to assist regeneration in the area. Gwydir 52002 Protecting Remnant White Box and Creek Habitats on “Kurrajong” P.J Parnwell & P.L Parnwell Kurrajong, WILLOW TREE, 2339 $11,154.55 This project will construct 5.4km of fencing to exclude stock from the entire riparian zone of Warrah Creek on ‘Kurrajong’ that links to remnant vegetation. Planting activities include 250 native trees and shrubs to assist the regeneration of the area. Gwydir 52022 The Drip - Goulburn River Conservation and Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Project Murong Gialinga Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Association PO Box 1097, MUDGEE, 2850 $10,195.45 This project will regenerate 30ha of riparian land adjacent to the Goulburn River at ‘The Drip’. Fifteen cultural workshops will be held to enhance community knowledge and 2,000 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. Gwydir 52047 Rehabilitation of Riparian Corridor at “Blue Wren” Merriwa Dawn & Bruce Beaven 1135 Cullingral Road, MERRIWA, 2329 $11,245.00 This project will assist the rehabilitation of riparian corridors of Doolans Creek by erecting 4.5kms of fencing and enhancing a 50m wide, 0.7km long riparian corridor with 400 native tree and understorey plants. The gully area will be fenced out to prevent grazing associated degradation and will help to prevent gully erosion by stabilising banks, aiding natural regeneration, increasing local biodiversity via the creation of a native riparian corridor and will help to improve the water quality. Hasluck 51043 Revegetation of Lord St Bushland Project Stage 2 North Metro Catchment Group Inc. PO Box 228, BEECHBORO, 6063 $12,593.35 This project will revegetate a degraded area, linking two existing revegetation sites and increasing biodiversity and habitat for native fauna. It will also undertake weed control and 10,000 seedlings planted on “Community Planting Days” to raise community awareness. Hasluck 51472 Restoration of the Disturbed Edges of the Brixton Street Wetlands Friends of Brixton Street Wetlands 87 Kenwick Rd, KENWICK, 6107 $7,073.64 This project will restore the cover of native vegetation to the degraded edges of the Brixton St Wetlands and reverse the degrading process. It will control Veldgrass using grass selective herbicide and will plant 1,100 native seedlings grown from seed collected in the Brixton St Wetlands. Herbert 51588 Cape River Riparian Rehabilitation Project JD & RM Lyons Wambiana Station, CHARTERS TOWERS, 4820 $27,909.09 This project will rehabilitate riparian areas on a 34,000ha cattle property at the head of the Cape River through installing five new water points. Herbert 51809 Townsville Region Community Inshore Coral Reef Monitoring and Education Reef Check Foundation Limited PO Box 404, TOWNSVILLE, 4810 $46,905.88 This project will coordinate volunteer community coral reef monitoring in the Townsville and Herbert regions. This will complement the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, providing high quality reef health data for the community, global coral reef health reporting initiatives, reef research partners, dive industry sponsors and reef resource management authorities. The project will also build local community capacity and participation in natural resource management. Herbert 52077 Endeavour Creek Habitat Restoration and Water Quality Improvement Endeavour Gardens CTS 25442 PO Box 1334, TOWNSVILLE, 4810 $8,796.36 This project will restore habitat values, improve water quality, reduce the amount of noxious weeds and decrease sediment build-up in a heavily urbanised waterway system. This will be achieved by planting native vegetation in the riparian areas of Endeavour Creek. To ensure the area is properly managed in the future, a management plan will be prepared as part of the project. Strategic planting will be carried out along the banks of Ross River, to effectively shade out Para Grass infestations. Hindmarsh 51391 Community Education and Capacity Building Star of the Sea Catholic Parish Primary School Henley Beach PO Box 45, HENLEY BEACH, 5022 $21,327.27 This project will build on current education and awareness raising activities. It will provide four in-service workshops to 42 volunteers who help deliver our marine discovery program and will continue to develop community capacity in this area. It will also assist in the development of an interactive model to inform the community about endangered marine species and temperate marine life. It will also reprint a “Beachcombing” poster, paint a coastal birds mural and develop a second set of marine storybooks. The awareness-raising activities will directly lead to local benefits for biodiversity, conservation, and sustainable natural resource use by supporting and promoting better environmental practices. Hinkler 51114 Rehabilitating and Protecting Holsworthy Creek Riparian Areas on Wollowra BJ & GT Semple “Ardmore” PO Box 250, MONTO, 4630 $21,481.82 This project will protect the riparian corridor along Holsworthy Creek by constructing 5.5km of stock exclusion fencing and providing off-stream water points. Hinkler 51584 Restoration and Protection of Woongarra Scrub Remnants in Baldwin Swamp, Bundaberg Friends of Baldwin Swamp C/- 119 Targo St, BUNDABERG, 4670 $8,770.05 This project will protect and restore dry vine scrub remnant in Baldwin Swamp by constructing stock exclusion fencing. Natural regeneration will be encouraged through controlling weeds on the site and planting 250 Woongarra Scrub seedlings to increase connectivity and consolidate the remnant. An educational flyer will be produced to inform the community of the significance of the site and how they can be involved in the Friends of Baldwin Swamp. Hinkler 51735 Coastal Biodiversity and Stormwater Management on the Woongarra Coast, Queensland Woongarra Marine Park Monitoring and Education Project PO Box 8263, BARGARA, 4670 $13,627.27 This project will increase involvement in coastal management through on-ground stormwater drain activities and field sessions about rocky shore biodiversity along the Woongarra coast of Queensland. Activities will include production of printed information and community tidal pool monitoring at four intertidal sites to gather data about marine biodiversity in the area. Hinkler 51960 Isis Landcare Weiss Salinity Site - Stage II Isis Landcare Group Inc. PO Box 95, CHILDERS, 4660 $10,472.73 This project will carry out the second stage of a salinity management demonstration by reviewing existing works and modifying them to ensure the continued success of the site. It will undertake maintenance work, including drainage works to ensure access to the site, clearing noxious weeds and inter-row spaces to comply with Workplace Health & Safety requirements to enable the site to be used for High School Education purposes. A review of vegetation planted on the 1.6ha site will be undertaken, and poorer performing species will be replaced. Hughes 51837 Protecting Place: Burnum Burnum Sanctuary Sutherland Shire Environment Centre Inc. PO Box 589, SUTHERLAND, 1499 $5,227.27 This project will address degradation along a 3ha stretch of bushland protecting the integrity of the bushland from weed infestation, and allowing natural regeneration. Initially noxious weeds will be targeted by Council Officers with primary weed control in the drainage lines and surrounding areas carried out by bush regeneration contractors. It will also close inappropriate walking tracks using brush method. Maintenance weeding will be carried out by volunteers as part of a regular monthly program while Council will upgrade and signpost the main walking route to rationalise access. Hughes 51951 Bushland Rehabilitation and Streambank Restoration in Prince Edward Park, Woronora Forbes Creek Woronora Bushcare Group C/-SSC Bushcare, Locked bag 17, SUTHERLAND, 1499 $12,000.00 This project will protect and preserve a degraded site in Prince Edward Park, Woronora through planting 1,000 trees and using bush regeneration professionals for weed control. It will also include bank stabilisation of Forbes Creek to stop erosion using sandstone in a 20m section. Hughes 52037 Bushland and Streambank Rehabilitation in Myra Creek, Loftus Myra Creek Bushcare Group C/-SSC Bushcare, Locked Bag 17, SUTHERLAND, 1499 $7,000.00 This project will regenerate 0.6ha of degraded bushland at ‘Myra Creek’. 600 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. Hume 51079 Webbs of Burrinjuck on the Murrumbidgee Catchment Joining Old Growth Trees TE Koote Pastoral Co Pty Ltd “Te Kooti” Childowla Road, BOOKHAM, 2582 $3,008.64 This project will construct 1.5km of fencing to exclude stock from a 2.8ha vegetation corridor along Old Cartroad Creek which will link to previous successful vegetation corridors. The enclosed area will be sown with native trees by direct seeding. Hume 51110 The Elms Gully Restoration Project JMK Partnership “Naranghi”, HARDEN, 2587 $15,000.00 This project will construct 5km of fencing to exclude stock access to two eroding gullies and undertake structural soil conservation works to stabilise the outlets on existing dams. Within the fenced area 30km of direct seeding will be undertaken to regenerate the area. Hume 51118 Rejuvenating Woodstock LT & DM Shea PO Box 139, HARDEN, 2587 $3,818.18 This project will construct 1.7km of fencing to exclude stock from a salt scalded area. A total of 800 native trees and shrubs will be planted alongside some salt tolerant pasture. Waterlogging in a paddock to the south of the site will be addressed to reduce the effects of water logging. Hume 51120 Bobbara Gully Wildlife Corridor and Remnant Enclosure Edward Constantine Trust “Bobbara Creek”, BINALONG, 2584 $3,963.64 This project will construct 1.3km of fencing to enclose an eroded gully and a stand of remnant vegetation, and plant 870 native trees and shrubs to assist regeneration of the area. Hume 51248 Connection of Remnant Vegetation to Gunyah Creek “Gunyah” Rye Park A.G Magee & J.M Magee “Gunyan” 499 Manyvale Rd, RYE PARK, 2586 $9,796.36 This project will construct 5km of fencing to exclude stock from created vegetation corridors in a 16ha area which will be direct seeded with native trees near ‘Old Man Gunyan’ Creek which will link into remnant vegetation in the area. Hume 51262 Protection of Endangered Box Gum Woodland in Scrubby Lane, Murrumbateman Murrumbateman Landcare Group Incorporated PO Box 271, MURRUMBATEMAN, 2582 $1,073.64 This project will protect an area of 4ha of remnant endangered White Box-Yellow Box-Red Gum woodland and supplementary plantings that have been undertaken by Murrumbateman Landcare Group since 2000. There are few areas of such woodland which are protected in reserves within the Yass Valley Shire and this project is an opportunity to improve the protection. Hume 51323 Linking a Bushland Remnant to a Riparian Zone on the Wollondilly River F Downes & C Pryma Canyonleigh PO Box 4, MOSS VALE, 2577 $21,079.09 This project will establish a wildlife corridor linking remnant vegetation on the Wollondilly River to approximately 120ha of off stream remnant bushland in and around the Ditly Hill area. The vegetation corridor will be approximately 5km in length and 80m wide. All feral pest habitat and noxious weeds will be removed from the corridor and approximately 2,500 native trees and 10,000 understorey plants will be planted. The project will erect a netting fence along the corridor, enclosing approximately 20ha. Stock will be permanently excluded from grazing the enclosed area. Hume 51446 Rehabilitation of Back Creek on “The Grange” J.A Granger & J.J Granger PO Box 184, YOUNG, 2594 $4,201.09 This project will construct 210m of fencing to exclude stock from the riparian zone of ‘Back Creek’ which will be planted with 1,200 native trees to link remnant vegetation in the area. Hume 51785 Biodiversity Sanctuary and Corridor, Gunningbah Farm and Children’s Camp, Mummell Wollondilly Pomeroy Landcare Group 10 Pomeroy Mill Ford Road, Mummell, GOULBURN, 2580 $16,672.73 This project will plant 15,960 native trees within an established wildlife corridor linking to remnant vegetation along Whiteheads Creek. Hume 51814 Moorlands Ecological-Refurbishment The Trustee for Duel Canines Trust “Moorlands”, DALTON, 2581 $3,477.27 This project will construct 1.2km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from created vegetation corridors which links into remnant vegetation corridors. Planting activities include 1,500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Hume 51865 Gully Erosion and Riparian Restoration Project, “Bogolara” Bookham, NSW Bogolara Pty Ltd Bogolara, Bogolara Road, BOOKHAM, 2582 $9,181.82 This project will stabilise a gully and construct 4km of fencing to exclude stock access to a created vegetation corridor and direct seed 1ha which will assist regeneration of the area. Hume 51957 Futter Park Gully Stabilisation JDFC & VS Futter Trust Futter Park, HARDEN, 2587 $9,409.09 This project will stabilise two separate gullies construct 900m of fencing to protect the constructed vegetation corridors. Planting activities include 500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Hume 51963 Victoria Gully Restoration Project, Young NSW Young Community Landcare Group PO Box 223, YOUNG, 2594 $28,275.00 This project will stabilise and regenerate Victoria Gully, which is the headwater point of the Burrangong Creek. Planting activities include 500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Hume 52004 Continuation of Tree Planting Program on “Thylungra” Cavenagh, Joyce Elvina “Thylungra”, 290 Little Plains Road, RYE PARK, 2586 $1,707.27 This project will construct 600m of fencing to protect a constructed vegetation corridor that links to remnant vegetation. It will involve 3km of direct seeding which will assist the regeneration of the area. Hume 52048 Bogungra Creek Stabilisation Henry Herman Detjen 29B Abenue Road, GLEBE, 2037 $20,360.00 This project will treat erosion, streambed lowering and stream bank erosion along Bogungra Creek. This will be done by treating a serious erosion head cut, upgrading an eroding creek crossing, realigning fallen timber that is causing bank erosion and stabilising vulnerable stream banks through planting 2,000 native plants. Hunter 51168 Fencing and Revegetating Badly Eroded Gully in Singleton Residential Area Graham, Jocelyn Anne 14 Burbank Cres, SINGLETON, 2330 $3,964.00 This project will construct 429m of fencing to exclude stock from the riparian zone of an unnamed creek and plant 740 native trees. Hunter 51910 Rehabilitation of Junction of Gibbs and Putty Creeks, Putty Valley, NSW Three Valleys Landcare Group Inc Putty Valley Road, PUTTY, 2330 $13,309.09 This project will protect and enhance riparian environments along the Putty and Gibbs creek areas by erection of 2km of stock proof fencing and revegetation of creek banks with 1,500 tube stock propagated from local seed. Stock will also be excluded from the steep, rocky surrounding hillsides by 4km of fencing and grazing will be restricted to the creek flats with the provision of off-stream watering points. Hunter 51919 Wells Gully Salinity Reversal Project Steve Clifford PO Box 20, ABERDEEN, 2336 $30,000.00 This project will fence off sections of Well Gully and tributaries and link existing fences to exclude and manage cattle access, creating a series of wildlife corridors over 5km of the gully length. As well, 4,000 locally sourced native trees and shrubs will be planted in the corridors which averages 50m in width and cover 25ha in total area. The fences will be permanent and approximately 10km in length. Hunter 52057 Black Creek Rehabilitation Cessnock LGA Landcare Group Inc “Glencoe”, Wollombi Road, WOLLOMBI, 2325 $3,252.00 This project will rehabilitate a 100m section of Black Creek through removal of camphor laurel, pampas grass, privet, willow and honeysuckle and then by bank rehabilitation with planting of 650 native plants to reduce nutrient run off. Indi 51130 Lake Moodemere South Bank Revegetation Rutherglen Landcare Group RDS 2550, ‘Brimin Lodge’, RUTHERGLEN, 3685 $11,000.00 This project will enhance biodiversity, protect the soil and increase the aesthetics and tourism and recreational potential of Lake Moodemere Reserve by undertaking weed control and revegetation of the bank of Lake Moodemere. A site on the southern edge of the lake will be planted with 5,000 locally indigenous trees, shrubs and grasses after removal of boxthorn, prickly pear and control of rabbits on the site. Indi 51205 Moss Bed Rehabilitation and Community Education for Improved Water Quality and Enhancement of Alpine Native Habitats Falls Creek Landcare Group PO Box 236, FALLS CREEK, 3699 $24,727.27 This project will increase visitor and resident understanding and appreciation of the unique flora and fauna of alpine moss beds within Falls Creek. It will control weeds, protect alpine moss beds, and revegetate with 6,000 plants. It will also contribute to water quality by improving filtration and sediment capture along waterways in the upper catchment. Community awareness will be raised through the development of educational and interpretative material and by involving the local school and local and visiting volunteers in project activities. Indi 51709 Revegetate Huon Section of High Country Rail Trail Wodonga to Cudgewa Rail Trail Advisory Committee PO Box 1040, WODONGA, 3690 $7,120.00 This project will revegetate an 8km by 30m wide corridor on the High Country Rail Trail Reserve with 5,000 native, local provenance shrubs and trees. It will also construct 1km of exclusion fencing and repair another 1km of fence and will conduct rabbit control measures. It will involve the community in planning, implementing and reviewing the revegetation program. Indi 51719 Protecting the Water Quality and Biodiversity of Reedy Creek, Victoria Wooragee Landcare Group PO Box 368, BEECHWORTH, 3747 $28,117.65 This project will control creek erosion by strategic placement of 300 cubic metres of rock, planting of 1,200 native shrubs and erection of 350m of fencing to exclude livestock on six riparian sites. It will also undertake an education and training activity by constructing 100 nest boxes and strategically place them in successful revegetation/remnant sites lacking mature trees with hollows. A Creative Community Education consultant will be contracted to co-ordinate 3 field events, carry out individual property ‘walkabouts’ and offer 40 small property owners NRM assessments to motivate planning and/or implementation of on-ground works. Indi 51727 Community Action to Protect Water, Land and Biodiversity in the Upper Murray The Upper Murray Catchment Farm Tree Group PO Box 12, ALBURY, 2640 $34,122.72 This project will address the catchment threats such as erosion resulting from excessive land clearing, over grazing and inappropriate choice of pasture species. It will cover 10 privately owned sites across the Corryong district. The sites cover an area of 17.3ha and will be enclosed with 6.5km of permanent fencing. Planting of 16,000 trees, understorey, ground cover and aquatic plants will assist site rehabilitation. Neil’s Reserve on the Murray River near Walwa will be the subject of a bird survey and habitat provision. Indi 51729 Seed Production Areas for Re-establishing Threatened Ecological Vegetation Classes Boorhaman and District Landcare Group Inc 98 Wises Road, BOORHAMAN, 3678 $11,016.36 This project will establish 3ha of Seed Production Areas (SPAs) to ensure future local seed supply of sixteen species from the Victorian Riverina Bioregion for future revegetation of endangered and vulnerable local Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs). It will raise community awareness of native vegetation decline, sustainable seed production and harvesting by holding fields days and promoting the SPAs. Indi 51758 Continuing Vegetation Linkages from the Ovens to the King Rivers Milawa/Markwood/Oxley Landcare Group 191 Goodwins Lane, MILAWA, 3678 $29,771.00 This project will build on a previous Envirofund project to continue to link vegetation corridors from the King to the Ovens River floodplains. An area of 40ha over 10 sites will be revegetated with 14,700 trees and 10km of fencing will be constructed. This will protect remnant vegetation and support biodiversity and habitat quality. An ongoing education program will be linked to onground works. This project will also lower the water table and decrease the risk of saline discharges in this Riverine Plain area, as well as improve water quality entering into the Ovens and King Rivers. Indi 51973 Kiewa Catchment’s Remnant Enhancement Program Kiewa Catchment Landcare Group 5 Bisque Court, WODONGA, 3690 $45,298.36 This project will protect and revegetate 55.9 hectares within the Kiewa Catchment, with 4.85km of fencing, planting of 20,610 tubestock, and provide alternative watering points. Corridor revegetation approximately 100m wide will involve selective reintroduction of indigenous flora, especially depleted understorey and ground cover species. One of the sites to be protected will be a 10ha wetland. At sites in Baranduda, 45.9ha will be part of a corridor system to protect rare and threatened ecological vegetation classes and species such as the Brush-tailed Phascogale and Squirrel Glider. Community awareness and participation will include working bees, and field and “Discovery” days. Kalgoorlie 50788 Fencing to Protect Remnant Vegetation in West Binnu, Western Australia G.C. Eastough & M.F. Eastough & N.G. Eastough & The Trustee for the G C Eastough Family Trust Carlton Lee Farm, AJANA, 6532 $7,704.55 This project will protect 750ha of remnant vegetation through to the southern extent of the Kalbarri National Park by erecting 9km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from grazing this area. The project will help maintain populations of significant flora species and provide habitat for native fauna, such as the Woylie and Chuditch, which have recently been translocated back into the Kalbarri National Park. Kalgoorlie 50908 Preserving the Irwin River and its Tributaries, Mingenew WA Mingenew Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 96, MINGENEW, 6522 $41,088.64 This project will fence six tributaries and headways to reduce siltation and peak surface water runoff into the Irwin River. 19.7km of fence will be erected around 655ha and 20,000 native trees and understorey seedlings planted to enhance the restoration of the tributaries. Kalgoorlie 50924 Protecting Remnant Vegetation on “Murphyl” Farm M.E Heinrich & P.R Heinrich & B Heinrich & S Heinrich PO Box 915, GERALDTON, 6531 $5,636.36 This project will expand upon previous remnant protection works by protecting remnant vegetation on the eastern slopes of the Moresby Ranges. The project will erect 3.1km of fencing enclosing 35ha of native vegetation. Stock will be permanently excluded from grazing the enclosure. This remnant vegetation will protect the steep slopes from water erosion. The project will help to maintain populations of significant flora species including threatened ecological communities. This project will provide important corridor linkages between the Moresby Range Conservation Park and the newly established Nature Reserve. Kalgoorlie 51136 Fencing the Robe River Region to Contain Mesquite, Mardie Station, WA Pilbara Mesquite Management Committee Inc. PO Box 867, KARRATHA, 6714 $21,038.18 This project will complete the enclosure of 20,800ha of the Robe River region on Mardie Station by erecting 15km of fencing from the north boundary of Mardie-Yarraloola Station to 1km offshore on tidal flats. This will enclose an area of stock grazing infested with mesquite weed, controlling mesquite seed disbursement by stock to other areas of the station. Kalgoorlie 51143 Shenton Gully Waterway Protective Fencing F.A. Ralph & J.L Ralph PO Binnu, BINNU, 6532 $1,647.23 This project will erect 4km of fence to complete fencing of the creek which has already occurred on the neighbouring property. This will protect remnant vegetation and reduce bank erosion by controlling stock access, improving the diversity of flora and providing a wildlife corridor away from traffic. Kalgoorlie 51145 Marysprings Creek Revegetation Project BM & LB Reynolds Mary Springs P.M.B 4, GERALDTON, 6530 $8,366.82 This project will erect 3.2km of fencing along a creek to exclude stock and revegetate with 1,600 seedlings. Kalgoorlie 51155 Thomas River Remnant Revegetation and River Protection G.R Grewar & P.E Grewar PO Box 154, ESPERANCE, 6450 $16,386.36 This project will complete the enclosure of Thomas River and tributaries by erecting a 4km of stockproof fencing. This will allow regeneration of indigenous flora and the return of native fauna, including threatened and vulnerable species. A corridor will be created to link the Cape Arid National Park to Conservation Reserves to the west and north of the property. Kalgoorlie 51266 Revegetation and Restoration of a Tributary of the East Chapman River Tom S & Barbara W Jackson & 4 Others PO Box 7054, NABAWA, 6532 $27,219.55 This project will protect and restore a tributary of the East Chapman River. This area has become severely eroded and degraded through the clearing of native vegetation and overstocking. The project will erect 15km of fencing around the tributary and nearby remnant vegetation to exclude livestock and allow the regeneration of native vegetation. 4,000 native plants will be established in riparian areas to facilitate bank stabilisation. The project will increase biodiversity and improve habitats for local fauna species. Kalgoorlie 51284 Remnant Vegetation Protection and Corridor Network Extension at “Tippaburra” KENT, HARRY PO Box 1162, WEST PERTH, 6872 $7,805.45 This project will protect and enhance a network of corridors linking 444ha of remnant vegetation with 726ha of remnant vegetation adjoining the property. The project will erect 5.23km of fencing to protect remnant vegetation from grazing stock. In addition, 6,000 seedlings of suitable species will be planted to form a corridor (40-95m in width) that will connect a large granite outcrop with fringing vegetation to the much larger granite outcrops in the adjoining reserve. Kalgoorlie 51298 Preservation of Breakaway Habitat Along the Hutt River S L and D S Combes PO Box 558, NORTHAMPTON, 6535 $17,454.55 This project will protect 80ha of quality remnant vegetation that is situated high in the landscape by erecting 5km of fencing to prevent stock accessing this area. The project will also erect 2.5km of fencing along the outer edges of the riparian zone. Alternate stock watering points will be established away from the riparian zone of the river. Kalgoorlie 51301 Bowes River Restoration Project Trevor Walton PO Box 1, NABAWA, 6532 $8,350.00 This project will protect and restore riparian vegetation along a 1.5km degraded section of the Bowes River. Stockproof fencing will be erected along 1.5km of the riparian zone on one side of the river. The fenced-off area (30-70m wide) will be replanted with 3,000 native seedlings. This will form a continuous corridor of vegetation that will help to sustain the natural biodiversity of the area and reduce riverbank erosion. Kalgoorlie 51317 Restoration and Management of the Chapman River at Fig Tree Crossing Chapman Valley Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 1, NABAWA, 6532 $8,727.27 This project will restore and enhance a section of the Chapman River located at the Fig Tree Crossing Reserve. The project will erect 2.5km of fencing to control access to the river, minimising adverse impacts on the fragile river environment. The riverbed will be revegetated with 2,000 seedlings to help stabilise the degraded land. Kalgoorlie 51324 Protection of Coastal Dunes at Coronation Beach, Western Australia Geraldton Longboarders Association PO Box 1, NABAWA, 6532 $5,011.82 This project will seek to enhance and restore degraded areas of the popular sporting and recreational areas of Coronation Beach. Access to the beach will be controlled and managed preventing further erosion and land degradation by erecting 700m of fencing to join up with previous fencing. Kalgoorlie 51329 Wetland and Remnant Vegetation Protection along the East Chapman River Tributary The Trustee for Re Coupe Family Trust 253 Sutcliffe Rd, GERALDTON, 6530 $6,727.27 This project will erect 3.7km of stock exclusion fencing to protect two stands of vegetation. The first section is approximately 50ha of wetland and remnant vegetation of high biodiversity value and it is anticipated that this area will naturally regenerate due to seed stores present. The second is a tributary of the East Chapman River, and will enclose 26ha that has already been substantially revegetated and will be a continuation of proposed works of the adjacent landowner. Kalgoorlie 51408 Murchison River Restoration Project Year 3 Murchison Land Conservation District Committee “Wooleen Station”, via, MULLEWA, 6630 $45,454.55 This project will fence off the Murchison River with 100km of fencing to control grazing stock and allow rehabilitation of the river. Kalgoorlie 51409 Revegetation of the Gascoyne River Foreshore DK & SM Harper PO Box 904, CARNARVON, 6701 $3,390.91 This project will restore stability of the riverbank by planting trees and understorey species. This will also increase native fauna in the area. Kalgoorlie 51410 Revegetation of the Gascoyne River Foreshore LC & RM Harper PO Box 1322, CARNARVON, 6701 $3,390.91 This project will reduce riverbank erosion and increase native fauna in the area by planting trees and understorey species. Kalgoorlie 51422 Quobba Station Total Management Grazing Systems Project Meikle Meecham Family Trust PO Box 584, CARNARVON, 6701 $34,374.55 This project will implement total grazing control to protect and manage a high conservation area along the unique Ningaloo coastline. Trap yards will be constructed with watering systems installed to provide animal control while allowing public access to the coast. Kalgoorlie 51425 Bullara Total Grazing Management Systems Project Bullara Estates Pty Ltd Bullara Station, CARNARVON, 6701 $18,311.00 This project will move a watering point from a degraded dune site to a more stable land area. The new site will involve the implementation of a total grazing management yard and the shifting of existing fence lines to suit the new location. It will also construct a second yard to manage both feral and domestic grazers and to prevent intense grazing on the Cardabia land system. Kalgoorlie 51435 Yerilla Station Waterpoint and Infrastructure Reorganisation for Enhanced Ecological Sustainability McGregor, Iain Harwood PO Kookynie, KOOKYNIE, 6431 $27,145.45 This project will pipe water away from existing water points to more ecologically resilient sites and relocate approximately 19km of fencing to protect degraded country. It is part of a larger plan to reorganise station infrastructure to enhance long-term ecological sustainability and will allow enhanced precision of grazing pressure management over 150sqkm of the property. Kalgoorlie 51448 Revegetation and Water Management with On-Farm Re-use The B McGellin Family Trust PO Box 124, BRUCE ROCK, 6418 $21,818.18 This project will continue revegetation and surface water management previously undertaken by completing 3.5km of fencing along drainage lines and contour banks. It will establish a 30m wide corridor which will be fenced for the management of stock. Planting of 25,000 seedlings will increase water uptake and a further 7km of fencing will protect these newly planted areas. It will also link areas of remnant vegetation, previous revegetation work of over 300,000 trees and revegetation. Kalgoorlie 51538 Warroora Total Grazing Management Project The Trustee for The Talanjee Family Trust Warrora Station, CARNARVON, 6701 $14,624.91 This project will primarily involve the implementation of total grazing management yards, which will be installed to allow a high degree of management over the grazing pressure place on the rangeland and allow accurate on-ground management actions to be implemented. Kalgoorlie 51645 Fencing and Relocating a Watering Point along the Fortescue River, Pilbara, WA The Trustee for The Fourseasons Pastoral Trust PO Box 1618, KARRATHA, 6714 $26,800.59 This project will erect 10km of fencing along 15km of the Fortuscue River to protect permanent pools within the river from stock. A solar panel and pump will be installed to provide alternative water sources for livestock located away from the river. The fencing and installation of the watering point will enable sufficient grazing management to the pastoralist while reducing the impact of stock on the riparian area of the river. Photographic monitoring sites will be installed along the river and at the new watering point to determine the success of the project. Kalgoorlie 51679 Protecting 12 Significant Gibson Desert Rockholes from Degradation Ngaanyatjarra Council Aboriginal Corporation PMB 71, Warburton via, ALICE SPRINGS, 0872 $17,190.91 This project will exclude camels from 12 culturally significant rockholes in the Gibson Desert near Patjarr and Wanarn communities. Training will be provided to CDEP workers from both communities to construct and install 12 ‘Patjarr Spider’ rockhole guards that prevent camels accessing and fouling the water and from becoming trapped in the rockhole. The project will develop and publish a brochure for rockhole site management and to raise awareness of camel impacts. The rockholes will be monitored regularly to assess the effectiveness of the activity. Kalgoorlie 51686 Coastal Fencing and Relocation of Watering Point at Victory Mill, Mundabullangana Station, WA Munda Pastoral Company Unit Trust Munda Station PO Box 312, PORT HEDLAND, 6731 $21,059.91 This project will prevent stock from traversing across a dune system, currently void of vegetation, by erecting 3km of fencing and relocating the watering point to reduce the grazing pressure at the base of the dune. The project will fence off 110ha and water will be pumped 1.5km away from the existing water source using a 300watt solar tracking system. Polypipe will be used to transport water across a limestone ridge to a more stable area. Kalgoorlie 51846 Revegetation of the Gascoyne River Foreshore Hentech Pty Ltd PO Box 864, CARNARVON, 6701 $3,390.91 This project will reduce erosion of the riverbank by planting trees and understorey species, also leading to an increase of native fauna in the area. Kalgoorlie 51859 Mardathuna Total Grazing Management Systems Project Mardathuna Holdings Pty Ltd PO Box 56, CARNARVON, 6701 $34,400.00 This project will implement total grazing management yards on high value conservation areas associated with the Kennedy Range National Park by shifting watering points away from the Kennedy Ranges, improving the condition of rangeland vegetation and biodiversity. Kalgoorlie 51879 Wooleen Station Total Grazing Management Rainstar Holdings Pty Ltd “Wooleen Station”, via, MULLEWA, 6630 $22,727.27 This project will construct total grazing management yards at 20 windmill sites on Woodleen Station on or near the Australian Heritage Listed Wetlands of Wooleen Lake and the Murchison River. This will protect the wetland by allowing management of stock and feral pests. Kennedy 50925 Mabi Forest Remnant Expansion, Gwynne Ck, Atherton Tablelands Lance Duffy & Bill Knowles MS 1567, ATHERTON, 4883 $11,390.91 This project will expand on existing Mabi Forest remnants along Gwynne Creek by fencing to exclude cattle and planting 3,000 trees on two properties adjacent to riparian remnants. The area provides habitat for Lumholtz Tree Kangaroos and Green Ringtail Possums and revegetation will provide an important wildlife corridor. Kennedy 50927 Riparian Protection and Tree Kangaroo Habitat Expansion, Johnstone River, Malanda Malanda and Upper Johnstone Catchment Landcare Association Inc PO Box 313, MALANDA, 4885 $21,663.64 This project will expand on a 12ha remnant in the Malanda Falls Reserve on the Johnstone River. 5,000 trees will be planted over 1.5ha to extend significant revegetation work conducted previously along the river on this property. This planting will increase the size of the revegetated area to help minimise edge effects and increase the value to wildlife, including the rare Lumholtz Tree Kangaroo. There is a significant population of tree Kangaroos in the Malanda Falls reserve and this project will increase their available habitat. Kennedy 51047 Stabilising and Rehabilitating a Red Duplex Plateau in the Southern Cross Creek and Broughton River Catchment Scott F Walsh & Erica L Finlay PO Box 1439, CHARTERS TOWERS, 4820 $21,036.36 This project will enable control and exclusion of grazing stock from a 675ha of degraded neutral red duplex soil plateau in the highly erodible goldfields country near Charters Towers, North Queensland. The project will erect 10km of fencing, rehabilitate native pastures and reduce stock impact by installing a water point. Contour banks will be constructed along fence and pipe lines to minimise erosion of the fragile soil. Photographs and assessment of land condition will demonstrate improved trends in conservation and natural resources. Kennedy 51067 Grazing Management Demonstration to Restore and Protect Key Riparian Ecosystems Mt Garnet District Land Care Group Inc. Goshen Station, MOUNT GARNET, 4872 $12,454.55 This project will control grazing on strategic areas of the Herbert River frontage. 6km fencing and two water facilities will exclude stock for wet season spelling on degraded riparian areas. Sustainable grazing and spelling will improve land condition, minimise impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and maintain viable beef production. The additional water points will even out grazing pressure and enhance drought preparedness. Kennedy 51073 Protecting the Gilbert River, Gilberton Station, North Queensland - Stage One L.A French & R.D French Gilberton Station, EINASLEIGH, 4871 $9,272.73 This project will construct 6km of stock proof fencing along the Gilbert River to begin protecting the riparian zone. This will enable cattle to be excluded at strategic times during the year to encourage native perennial grasses to set seed, decrease erosion risk and improve biodiversity and water quality. Kennedy 51074 Management of Riparian Vegetation along Christmas Creek Catchment, North Queensland Ryan, George Edward Ballynure Station, VIA EINASLEIGH, 4871 $27,272.73 This project will protect riparian vegetation along Christmas Creek by erecting 11.3km of fencing and separate different country types where continuous grazing in the past has resulted in certain areas being degraded by erecting 20km of fencing. Stock will be managed to allow rehabilitation. The project will improve the biodiversity along Christmas Creek and protect the natural ecology of fragile country types. Community awareness will be raised by producing an article for the Gulf Croaker publication and holding a field day. Kennedy 51077 Fencing to Protect Candlow Creek and Langdon River Frontage EJ Hughes & S Hughes Paddy Station, GEORGETOWN, 4871 $12,236.36 This project will erect 7kms of stock exclusion fencing along the Langdon River and Candlow Creek to allow natural regeneration of the riparian zone. This will reduce erosion and contribute to improvements in biodiversity. Kennedy 51112 Restoration and Rehabilitation of Macknade Wetland Area, Ingham N.Q. Hinchinbrook Landcare Group Inc PO Box 410, INGHAM, 4850 $20,909.09 This project will restore and rehabilitate a degraded habitat along Macknade Creek by removing weeds, repositioning soil and lengthening an island refuge structure for birds. 3,000 trees will be planted to encourage aquatic creatures, wildlife, flora and fauna to rehabilitate the entire waterway area. This will also enhance the quality of water run off in this important geographical location. Project outcomes will be communicated through press releases and tours of the site. Kennedy 51173 Rehabilitation and Protection of Cumberland Dam - Gulf Plains - Far North Queensland Allan John Smith PO Box 42, GEORGETOWN, 4871 $14,199.00 This project will rehabilitate a historic 19th century dam and a renowned water bird habitat by constructing 2.4km of fencing to prevent further degradation by livestock. A traffic / cattle grid will be installed to allow visitors but ensure cattle can’t access the water. The 20ha site will be allowed to regenerate to its normal open woodland state with some assistance through tree planting. This project will arrest loss of habitat, address loss of water volume from evaporation and stop water turbidity. Kennedy 51224 Fencing to Prevent Julia Creek Dunnart Habitat Degradation, Eastern Creek Western Cattle Company Pty Ltd Eddington Station, JULIA CREEK, 4823 $14,560.00 This project will construct a fence on both sides of Eastern Creek, linking with existing fencing to create a corridor 10km long to protect the creek on both sides. This is part of an ongoing plan to fence the entire length of the creek on Eddington Station. Julia Creek Dunnart habitat condition surveys and weed eradication will also be undertaken. A short film will be privately made following the different stages of the project to interest other land managers within the Dunnart habitat area in adopting similar conservation measures. Kennedy 51231 Preserving Knowledge of Aboriginal Bush Tucker and Medicinal Plants, Richmond, Queensland Middle Park Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation 11 Harris Street, RICHMOND, 4822 $10,347.25 This project will extend an existing Bush Tucker Garden from 19 species to 50, to enable new generations of Traditional Owners and others to learn about the full range of natural and cultural resource values of these species. Seed collecting expeditions will be made with logistical and technical support from the Richmond Shire Council. The irrigation system at the garden will be extended to supply the new plants and trees. All species in the garden will be labelled with information plaques and a new bush medicines section will be established. This section of the garden will be securely fenced and signed. Kennedy 51269 Completing Remnant Linkages - Connecting Two Endangered Ecosystems, Atherton Tablelands Bernie and Monika Zwahlen Lot 37, Seamark Road, MALANDA, 4885 $24,809.09 This project will plant 5,000 trees and provide the final link between two remnants. The endangered Southern Cassowary, Green Ringtail Possum and Lumholtz Tree Kangaroo are all present within the main remnant. Linking the outlying remnant will provide access for wildlife populations to move between the rainforest patches and increase the available habitat for dispersal. Kennedy 51272 Extending Lower Peterson Creek Mabi Forest Preservation Project, Yungaburra, Queensland The Eastern Tinaroo Catchment Landcaregroup Inc PO Box 91, YUNGABURRA, 4872 $4,780.00 This project will conserve and expand a 1ha remnant of Mabi forest along a 260m section of Peterson Creek on Yungaburra on the Atherton Tableland. This will be achieved by constructing a stock exclusion fence along the riparian zone, removing noxious weeds and trees, stabilising eroded creek banks, site preparation involving relocation of rocks and planting 1,000 trees. This will complete a 2.5km wildlife corridor linking NHT funded projects completed in the past seven years. Kennedy 51290 Mabi Remnant Protection and Expansion, Barron River, Atherton Tablelands Mabi Forest Recovery Team PO Box 866, MALANDA, 4885 $8,534.76 This project will replant 300 Mabi Forest seedlings to consolidate advanced regrowth along the Barron River on a property adjoining the Picnic crossing Reserve. The reserve is a significant remnant of critically endangered Mabi Forest and provides habitat for Lumholtz Tree Kangaroos and Green Ringtail Possums. Kennedy 51292 Nettle Creek Restoration Project - Building Community Capacity in Innot Hot Springs Herbert River Catchment Group Incorporated “Princess Hills National Park” MS 584, MOUNT GARNET, 4872 $9,828.88 This project will undertake a community capacity building campaign to educate residents on the environmental hazards of pest plants escaping from private gardens. The project will offer residents in the township of Innot Hot Springs native plant species in exchange for the removal of Yellow Oleander plants from their gardens. The project will also rehabilitate riparian zones along Nettle Creek already infested with Yellow Oleander by removing the pest plant and revegetating the site with native species to stabilise the creek banks. Kennedy 51312 Soil Conservation Project on “Old Glenroy Station”, Ravenswood United Cattle Station Pty Ltd “Mt Ravenswood Station”, RAVENSWOOD, 4816 $27,272.73 This project will rehabilitate 1,200ha of scalds and claypans by contour-ripping, pasture seeding and shallow water ponding of storm runoff, demonstrating the technique of shallow water ponding as a practical solution to the rehabilitation of scalded land in the Burdekin Catchment. It will also protect range country so lower country can be spelled, through constructing stock exclusion fencing and providing stock watering points. It will also control several small outbreaks of exotic woody weeds starting to colonise the area. Kennedy 51318 Fencing to Protect Wildlife Linkage to National Park, Chudleigh Park, Hughenden The Trustee for The Steve & Inga Gibson Family Trust “Chudleigh Park”, HUGHENDEN, 4821 $22,426.36 This project will separate two distinctly different land types. The country to the West of the proposed fence line is cattle grazing country with very few water courses. The country to the East includes the headwaters of the Flinders River and is rugged with many water courses. A 17km fence will protect range country and water courses from cattle and greatly assist in bushfire management. The area joins Blackbraes National Park on the Northern boundary and will help extend the benefits of another National Park to the South. Kennedy 51586 Providing Watering Alternatives to Tower Hill Creek A.M Cowan & J.M Cowan Peronne Station, HUGHENDEN, 4821 $26,509.09 This project will provide alternative stock watering points to Tower Hill Creek through piping water from an artesian bore. Kennedy 51643 Scheu Creek Revegetation Project Miles Darveniza MS 216, INNISFAIL, 4860 $18,227.27 This project will rehabilitate 900m of riparian vegetation along Scheu Creek, improving water quality. This project will continue upstream from a community project undertaken in 1997. Kennedy 51660 Beahr Road Vegetation Linkage John Roach PO Box 133, MENA CREEK, 4871 $18,500.00 This project will link several properties under voluntary conservation agreements by revegetating 2ha along a tributary of Utchee creek and an adjacent hillside. This will increase available wildlife habitat and allow movement between remnants. Kennedy 51786 Packing Shed Water Polishing on Mackay’s Banana Farms, Tully Valley The Trustee of the Mackay Family Trust PO Box 513, TULLY, 4854 $22,472.73 This project will design and construct water polishing systems to remove contaminants from the waste water from two banana packing sheds in the Tully Valley. A water quality monitoring program will be implemented to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed structures and involve the local high school. Kennedy 51789 Demonstration of Improvement of Environmental Outcomes for Grazing on the Southern Atherton Tablelands Stocker GC and JM PO Box 188, MALANDA, 4885 $9,331.82 This project will develop a grazing management demonstration site maximising economic, wildlife and water quality values by rearranging grazing by altering fencing and providing additional water troughs. This will complement previous tree planting activities on this property, improving water quality leaving the property by Williams Creek and enhancing habitat for Lumholtz’s Tree Kangaroos and other species. Kennedy 51870 Forrest Beach Coastal Rehabilitation and Dune Stabilisation Project Forrest Beach Progress Association Inc 42 Leichhardt Street, ALLINGHAM, 4850 $11,987.65 This project will control erosion, improve biodiversity, protect remnant vegetation and restore coastal habitat by removing weeds, revegetating with endemic local species and installing 120m of bollards to limit beach access to four points. Kennedy 51914 Victoria Creek Rehabilitation, Topaz Lucas D & Russel-Smith J PO Box 1022, PALMERSTON, 0831 $10,333.00 This project will fence and revegetate 0.6ha of degraded land within a nature refuge using locally sourced canopy and mid-storey native species. It will increase habitat area for the endangered Southern Cassowary, enhancing a Nature Refuge buffer between the Wooroonooran National Park section of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and neighbouring pasture and decrease the occurrence of weeds that can be transported downstream into the park. This project will also reduce the fragmentation of endangered ecosystems under threat by grazing weed invasion. Kennedy 51915 Ward Creek Headwaters Revegetation Ward Creek Headwaters Revegetation PO Box 800, MALANDA, 4885 $10,882.73 This project will reduce the fragmentation of an endangered ecosystem that is under threat from grazing and exotic weed invasion. It will also fence and revegetate 0.7ha of degraded land around the cleared headwaters of a creek on the property using 2,000 locally sourced canopy and midstorey native species. This project will provide off-stream water points and increase habitat area for the endangered Southern Cassowary, prevent erosion and decrease the occurrence of weeds that can be transported downstream into the Wooroonooran National Park section of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. The creek flowing from this property provides the beginning of connectivity to Wooroonooran NP. Kennedy 51947 Riparian Management Activities Along Camel Creek, Upper Burdekin Rangelands. K R and A E Atkinson Camel Creek Station, PMB 11, INGHAM, 4850 $27,245.45 This project will erect 12km of fencing and provide alternative stock watering points to restrict cattle, allowing regeneration of natural riparian vegetation and reducing erosion along Camel Creek in the upper Burdekin Catchment in North Queensland. Monitoring activities will evaluate the recovery of pasture species and biodiversity in the project area. Improved ground cover will lead to a reduction in sediment loads and reduced turbidity. Kennedy 51948 Protecting Native Pastures, Permanent Waterholes and Limestone Springs on Pandanus D.J Turley & M.A Turley “Wandovale Station”, MS 2, CHARTERS TOWERS, 4820 $27,272.73 This project will reduce pressure on native pastures, permanent water holes and limestone springs on Pandanus Station in the Dalrymple Shire by providing alternative watering points to Gray Creek. Cattle will be excluded from two unique limestone springs to protect these sensitive areas from further damage. Kennedy 51959 Lotter Creek Revegetation Peter & Lyn Lotter MS 1575, MALANDA, 4885 $9,246.36 This project will reduce the fragmentation of an endangered ecosystem under threat by grazing and exotic weed invasion. It will fence and revegetate 0.75ha of degraded land around the cleared headwaters of a creek on the property using 2,000 locally sourced canopy and midstorey native species. This project will increase habitat area for the endangered Southern Cassowary, prevent erosion and decrease the occurrence of weeds that can be transported downstream into the Wooroonooran National Park section of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Kennedy 51985 Protection of Lagoon Creek Springs, Mount Fox, Queensland Clark, Donald Reay 2 Sweetgum Place, KIRWAN, 4817 $3,856.36 This project will protect permanent springs in Lagoon Creek corridor by erecting 1.4km of fence on each side of the creek. An area of 2ha will be enclosed, permanently excluding stock from this area and an alternative watering point provided. Weed control along the creek corridor will be undertaken. This will protect the banks for platypus burrows, stop further erosion and improve water quality. Kennedy 51995 Cooperative Planting and Management of Revegetation Promotional Sites - Malanda, Queensland North Johnstone and Lake Eacham Landcare Association Inc. PO Box 313, MALANDA, 4885 $26,800.00 This project will promote local Landcare achievements and cooperatively manage 1.6ha of lantana infested creek banks. Eacham Landcare, Eacham Shire Council and the 2 Landholders will jointly manage a section of Cleminson Creek at the Malanda - Atherton Road Bridge and a section of Lake Barrine Road adjacent to the North Johnstone River. Kennedy 52056 Stage 1 Reforestation of Unnamed Tributary of Theresa Creek Millaa Millaa The CJ & SJ Daley Family Trust Wooley’s Road, MILLAA MILLAA, 4886 $5,645.45 This project will establish a 20m wide corridor along a tributary of Theresa Creek, Millaa Millaa from its headwaters in an existing treed area for 350m to an existing crossing and dairy cattle laneway. The corridor will be fenced on either side and 2,100 stems will be planted in the corridor. Kennedy 52059 Extension of Riparian Re-afforestation at Tanglewood Farm Millaa Millaa A.W Wood and H.M Tranter PO Box 426, INGHAM, 4850 $5,154.55 This project will fence 0.5ha along either side of the headwaters of Lucky Creek, Millaa Millaa. A mixture of 1,400 rainforest species will be planted, protecting the soil from erosion and stabilising the steep sides of the gully. These activities will complement an existing reafforestation area upstream of this site. Kennedy 52063 Reforestation of Un-named Tributary of Tranter’s Creek, Millaa Millaa P.J and S.B Reynolds PO Box 111, MILLAA MILLAA, 4886 $7,400.00 This project will fence and revegetate 250m along a tributary of Tranters Creek. The area will be planted with 1,900 stems of mixed local provenance rainforest species. Kennedy 52099 Riparian Management Activities Along an Unnamed Tributary of the North Johnstone River and Fencing to Protect Important Tropical Rainforest Habitat Paul and Mary Newland MS 1877, MALANDA, 4885 $30,636.36 This project will protect and enhance 7km of watercourse by fencing and installing off-stream watering points and stock crossings. An additional 7km of fence will be constructed to protect important endangered animal habitat and remnant rainforest which provides important linkages to the Wet World Heritage area. Kingsford Smith 52054 To Protect, Promote and Enhance the Biodiversity of Lake Malabar Harry Goldsmith 13 Manwaring Avenue, MAROUBRA, 2035 $13,522.73 This project will protect, promote and enhance the biodiversity of Lake Malabar. The on-ground work in the endangered wetland community will include 476 hours of target weed removal by specialist bush regeneration contractors. The Lake Malabar Landcare Group will work in less sensitive areas on the surrounding slopes to the wetland, and also continue to target weed infestations and revegetate areas with 250 local provenance plants. Kingston 51080 Remnant Vegetation Protection by Stock Exclusion, Weed Control and Re-Planting Rosenburg, Lorraine Florence 1045 Pages Flat Road, WILLUNGA, 5172 $2,785.00 This project will construct .5km of stock exclusion fencing to protect 4ha of remnant vegetation. It will control weeds along a creek which flows into the Myponga Creek system and rehabilitate the area by revegetating with indigenous plant species. Kingston 51388 Restoration of Threatened Native Vegetation at Manning Flora Reserve, McLaren Flat The Field Naturalists Society of SA Incorporated GPO Box 1594, ADELAIDE, 5001 $9,900.00 This project will allow for the continued protection and regeneration of Manning Reserve by reducing the level of threat of weed invasion. It will provide resources to reduce the weed threat to a manageable level to enable the Society to maintain this valuable asset into the future. Kingston 51393 Threat Abatement to Protect Biodiversity in Onkaparinga River National Park Friends of Onkaparinga Park 27 Kym street, PORT NOARLUNGA, 5167 $8,368.00 This project will enhance biodiversity in Onkaparinga River National Park through integrated control of Texas Needle-grass, Bridal Creeper and Olives in Grey Box grassy woodland, around revegetated areas to protect previous investments, and along the river, walking trails and vehicle tracks. The group will also survey for further infestations, monitor control actions and improve capacity through awareness-raising within the group and the community. La Trobe 51722 Protection of High Conservation Bushland Through Environmental Weeds Reduction Friends of Glen Fern Valley Bushlands 38 O’Conners Road, THE PATCH, 3792 $12,714.55 This project will reduce highly invasive weeds and woody weed infestations in 10 to 15 acres of high quality riparian zone and grassy woodlands. This will build on previous work and accelerate the pace of weed eradication in the area. Leichhardt 51126 Protecting Cycas Yorkiana on Bertiehaugh Station, Cape York J.C Witherspoon and S Witherspoon “Pallamana”, CHARTERS TOWERS, 4820 $24,927.27 This project will protect a major Cycas yorkiana forest from livestock, feral cattle, horse and pig impacts by fencing the area. It will also undertake tourist education and management, fire management and weed monitoring. Leichhardt 51268 Cape York Region Reef Seagrass Mapping Project Cape York Marine Advisory Group PO Box 300, COOKTOWN, 4871 $32,491.98 This project will produce the first maps of significant seagrass meadows growing on reefs in the Cape York region of the Great Barrier Reef. This will provide resource managers with information about the types and amounts of seagrass growing in the reef and baseline data for future monitoring of changes in seagrass distribution and potential impacts upon turtle and dugong populations in Far North Queensland. Leichhardt 51582 Daintree Community Feral Pig Trapping Program Douglas Shire Joint Venture Partnership GPO Box 576, MOSSMAN, 4873 $45,454.55 This project will reduce the number of feral pigs in the Daintree, in line with the Wet Tropics Conservation Strategy. The control program will involve professional strategic trapping directing resources at high priority areas with an integrated and coordinated approach. The project’s main focus is to minimise the impact of feral pigs on the environment, raise awareness in the community of feral pigs being an issue for the community as a whole and implement effective management of feral pigs in the local area. The project will be a cooperative effort between the Douglas Shire Joint Venture Partnership, Douglas Shire Council, Kuku Yalangi Traditional Owners, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, and relevant landholders. Leichhardt 51774 Rehabilitation and Remediation of Whyanbeel Creek Whyanbeel Action Group (WAG) 14 Sawmill Road, MOSSMAN, 4873 $24,520.91 This project will complement previous remediation works to stabilise 500m and revegetate 1ha of creek bank, reducing sediment and nutrient transfer from waterways to the Great Barrier Reef. Leichhardt 51993 Protecting and Rehabilitating Coastal Wetlands at Holloways Beach, Cairns Holloways Beach Residents Association PO Box 52, MACHANS BEACH, 4878 $16,770.05 This project will protect and rehabilitate coastal wetlands near Holloways Beach. Weed control and revegetation will be undertaken over 2ha and a series of community ‘events’ will be held to engage locals and build a greater understanding of the significant values of the area. Leichhardt 52049 Fencing a Section of the Mitchell River to Exclude Stock Australian Wildlife Conservancy Brooklyn Station, MOUNT MOLLOY, 4871 $12,837.27 This project will erect 7.5km of fencing along the Mitchell River to protect the riparian area from degradation through stock use. Leichhardt 52087 Thursday Island Community Seagrass Watch and Clean Beach - Understanding and Protecting Our Significant Island Habitats Thursday Island State School PO Box 82, THURSDAY ISLAND, 4875 $5,944.55 This project will conduct detailed litter surveys, recycle rubbish collected and communicate the link between beach rubbish and near shore environments by monitoring the health of our local seagrass meadows. Lingiari 51075 Fencing to Protect Vegetation on “Pigeon Hole Station”, Northern Territory Heytesbury Beef Pty Ltd Pigeon Hole Station, C/- Victoria River Downs, KATHERINE, 0852 $23,876.36 This project will involve the construction of a 7km fence, to create a 10km square exclusion zone, precluding stock from the river corridor. A water point will be established to discourage stock re-entry to the riparian area. Outcomes of this project include improved water quality, reduction in erosion, increased ground cover mass, wildfire suppression, and a reduction to the ingress and redistribution of weeds. Lingiari 51117 Managing Impacts of Stock on Lake Ruth, Tanami Downs Peake Pty Ltd PMB 142, ALICE SPRINGS, 0872 $27,909.09 This project will protect vegetation surrounding Lake Ruth by fencing 20km to create a stock exclusion zone. This project will involve training and provide employment for the local indigenous community. Lingiari 51121 Athel Pine Control in Upper Roe Creek Catchment, Temple Bar Station GR & ME Cramer PO Box 189, ALICE SPRINGS, 0871 $1,545.45 This project will eradicate Athel Pine (a WONS weed of national significance) on the Roe Creek, Temple Bar. Lingiari 51166 Bullo River Gorge Conservation Project Bullo River Pty Limited PMB 94, KATHERINE, 0851 $45,454.55 This project will conserve the fragile riverine habitat of the Bullo River, an entire arterial river on Bullo River Station in the NT, by fencing to exclude cattle. Fencing will be placed 200m from the river on either bank over its entire length (60km). Water quality, weed abundance and soil health will be monitored over a 5 year period. All outcomes will directly determine the management strategy for the station, with positive outcomes possibly adapted to other areas of pastoral land. Lingiari 51169 Riparian Fencing on Sections of the Katherine and King Rivers Consolidated Pastoral Company Pty Limited PO Box 1221, KATHERINE, 0851 $32,465.45 This project will protect riparian areas on sections of the Katherine and King Rivers within the Manbulloo pastoral lease. A 19km fence (12km along the Katherine River and 7km along the King River) will be constructed, creating a stock exclusion zone totalling 150 square kms. This will reduce the incidence of weed incursion and diminish erosion outbreaks. A fire-break created around the fence will ensure minimal wildfire intrusion, and native grass species will be used to rehabilitate severely eroded and scalded areas. Lingiari 51286 Giant Clam Translocation and Breeding Tycraft Pty Ltd CO/- Post Office, via Perth, COCOS ISLANDS, 6799 $30,909.09 This project will translocate broodstock from Orpheus Island to Tycraft aquaculture facility. They will breed over the 2005 to 2006 season, producing spat for release. Lingiari 51308 Protecting Water Holes on Angas Downs Proposed IPA in NT Lisanote Pty Ltd PO Box 2229, ALICE SPRINGS, 0871 $45,454.55 This project will protect springs and soaks on an Aboriginal owned pastoral lease by constructing 10.77km of fencing, which will exclude large feral herbivores from water resources. This will allow native vegetation to regenerate, reduce the risk of erosion, improve water quality and enhance biodiversity. Lingiari 51328 Gosse River Riparian Regeneration by Relocating Watering Points, Tennant Creek Station The Trustee for G & J S Ford Trust PO Box 445, TENNANT CREEK, 0861 $20,517.27 This project will relocate stock watering points to two different locations with the use of 12kms of polypipe and two troughs. This will reduce grazing activity on the Gosse River leading to natural regeneration of riparian vegetation and a reduction in degradation of the riverbanks. Lingiari 51341 Managing Native Wildlife and Enhancing Culture on Wagiman Country, NT Wagiman Land Trust PO Box 106, PINE CREEK, 0847 $13,906.36 This project will record harvesting activities and involve the monitoring of plants and animals. It will plant native vegetation around the site for erosion control and cultural purposes. It will also facilitate two “Country and Culture” camps. This will include capacity building for the Wagiman people to learn about the cultural heritage and the discussion of contemporary land management issues. Young Wagiman people will be taught about their history and language, and participate in collecting bush foods and medicines. Visits will be arranged to sacred sites, weed outbreaks and areas designated for the Wagiman cattle business. Lingiari 51343 Three Land Management Workshops for Aboriginal Women Landowners Northern Land Council PO Box 42921, CASUARINA, 0811 $9,755.45 This project will build the capacity of Aboriginal women to manage their lands by conducting three training workshops, producing an educational video to reinforce the learning outcomes and to present to other groups unable to attend the workshops. Topics include weed, fire, erosion and feral animal management (identification and control methods), management and monitoring systems for the development of sustainable bush harvest business opportunities and methods of recording and teaching young people Indigenous traditional knowledge land management skills. Lingiari 51535 Community Awareness Raising on Conservation of Rainforest Raptors Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union 415 Riversdale Road, HAWTHORN EAST, 3123 $9,981.82 This project will produce 100 A3 full colour, multilingual threatened species posters on Christmas Island birds of prey. Two articles will be written for the Island Christmas Island newspaper and at least two interviews will be conducted on community radio to discuss birds of prey. 500 black and white multilingual pamphlets will be produced for distribution amongst the community. Field based seminars will be given to 300 school students and community groups to explain raptor ecology and survey techniques. Two raptor biologists skilled in the field of community education and avian ecology will be contracted to provide the specialist training and guidance. Lingiari 51654 Feral Pig Population Reduction on the East Alligator River Floodplains Demed Association Inc PMB 89, OENPELLI, 0822 $24,272.73 This project will control the impact of feral pigs along the floodplain margins associated with the East Alligator River. It will assist in the control of Mimosa pigra by reducing the rate of seedling germination along the floodplain edges. Aboriginal Ranger participants will be trained in safe and effective aerial feral animal control techniques by staff of Parks Australia North. Capacity building and working relationships will be strengthened between indigenous community based landcare programs and Parks Australia North. Lingiari 51658 Protection of Groundwater Quality, Katherine, Northern Territory Greening Australia NT Inc. GPO Box 1604, DARWIN, 0801 $3,636.36 This project will assist landholders in the Katherine region to establish and maintain adequate buffers around sinkholes, caves and ephemeral streams that directly recharge local groundwater. Poor management of limestone sinkholes poses a number of adverse environmental impacts including groundwater pollution, and increased flooding risks. The project will fence 4 sinkholes and rehabilitate the native vegetation buffer around each. The sites will be used to demonstrate to the broader community the need for improved management and encouragement of further rehabilitation activities. Lingiari 51659 Coastal Dune Rehabilitation on Groote Eylandt Anindilyakwa Land Council PO Box 172, ALYANGULA, 0885 $31,661.82 This project will rehabilitate approximately 36ha of coastal dunes and vegetation. It will create two designated access paths across the dunes by construction of 250m ‘board and chain’ track. This will reduce the potential for vehicles to seek alternative paths and build capacity amongst community staff in the restoration of degraded habitats. It will also allow the closure and rehabilitation (through replanting) of hundreds of metres of tracks impacting upon the dunes. Lingiari 51823 Minimisation and Control of Invasive Pest, Cane Toad (Bufo marinus) in Western Top End of the Northern Territory Riyala Assn Inc GPO Box 4508, DARWIN, 0801 $40,772.73 This project will assist with the protection of species threatened by the cane toad in the Darwin, Palmerston and Bachelor areas. The National Cane Toad Taskforce has identified the trialling and use of traps as a priority action. It will compliment work to be undertaken by Landcare and other community-based groups. Lingiari 51934 Wilsons Creek Flood Out Management Project Central Land Council PO Box 3321, ALICE SPRINGS, 0871 $12,874.34 This project will control invasive weeds, reduce the incidence of wildfire, remove feral stock and establish biodiversity monitoring at Wilson Creek floodout. This has been identified in the draft NT Parks Masterplan as a biodiversity hotspot and meets criteria for inclusion in a “Directory of Important Wetlands In Australia”. Conservation works undertaken through this project will fulfil recommendations of the Draft Lajamanu Indigenous Protected Area Management Plan. Lingiari 51937 Fencing the Escarpment at Murwangi Station Murwangi Community Aboriginal Inc Murwangi Station, PMB 238, RAMINGINING, 0822 $42,181.82 This project will construct 29km of fencing to enclose 15,000ha of escarpment country to sustain Murwangi stations breeding stock during the wet season. It has a sheer escarpment along some of its boundary and provides a natural barrier to cattle movement. It will create a stock exclusion zone along the highly sensitive Northern Plains of the Arafura Swamp. Lingiari 51970 Gumurr Marthakal Rangers-Remote Areas Surveys for Endangered Species Marthakal Homelands & Resource Centre Association PMB 62, Elcho Island, WINNELLIE, 0822 $38,727.27 This project will undertake mammal surveys and other wildlife management activities in remote mainland and offshore islands in North East Arnhem Land. It will investigate poorly surveyed areas for remnant populations of northern quolls and golden bandicoots, assess islands to establish new populations of golden bandicoots, and translocate golden bandicoots to suitable habitats. Eradication of wild dogs will be undertaken for protection of golden bandicoots and marine turtles from Marchinbar Islands. Longman 51340 Restoration and Enhancement of Riparian Forest Along an Unnamed Tributary of the Caboolture River Haase-Nolte R & Nolte U 1166 Caboolture River Road, ROCKSBERG, 4510 $3,000.00 This project will lay the foundations for the restoration of a notophyll rainforest ecosystem along a permanent creek and wet gully. The project will control weeds (mainly lantana and legume vines) and revegetate using native species to provide improved wildlife habitat. This corridor of riparian forest links to riparian vegetation along the Caboolture River. Longman 51975 Restoration of Connowrin Creek Stage 2 Glasshouse Mountains Advancement Network Inc 198 Barrs Road, GLASS HOUSE MOUNTAINS, 4518 $7,527.27 This project will continue the restoration and protection of the Coonowin Creek natural riparian vegetation corridor, which forms the only naturally vegetated link between 3 National Parks (Mt Beerwah, Tibrogargan and Coonowrin). This project will control weeds and revegetate using plant species indigenous to the area. Awareness raising among land users and the formation of community partnerships will be undertaken. Longman 52008 Native Vegetation Protection and Riparian Regeneration on “Latoona”‘ Bellthorpe David Quinton Clark 200 Willets Rd, BELLTHORPE, 4514 $9,325.00 This project will reinstate a riparian corridor linking existing vegetation along the stream and protect rainforest remnants on the property adjoining Bellthorpe National Park by constructing fencing and off stream watering points. Longman 52067 Restoring Fish Passage and Biodiversity in Elimbah Creek, Pumicestone Region Pumicestone Region Catchment Co-ordination Association Inc. 216 Forest Hills Drive, MORAYFIELD, 4506 $24,772.73 This project will design and construct an ‘effective fish passage structure’ on Elimbah Ck to restore fish passage and aquatic biodiversity in the Pumicestone Region. Monitoring and evaluation of the success of the works and promotion of the benefits of this activity to stakeholders and the general public will be undertaken. Lyne 51163 Diamond Head to Dunbogan Habitat Corridor Rehabilitation National Parks Association - Mid North Coast Branch PO Box 1188, PORT MACQUARIE, 2444 $8,045.45 This project will continue systematic restoration of biodiversity in a 12km habitat corridor by follow up aerial spraying of bitou bush on 15ha of inaccessible cliffs and 8.5km of foredunes. Follow up and extension of spraying on 15ha of dunes and 8.5km of dune swale littoral rain forest will be conducted and 300 seedlings planted in a degraded section. Lyne 51217 Getting Started at Big Hill, Crescent Head Big Hill Dune Care PO Box 23, CRESCENT HEAD, 2440 $4,448.18 This project will provide basic native coastal plant identification and bush regeneration skills and equipment to the newly formed Big Hill Dune Care. The group will eradicate bitou bush, senna, lantana and other weeds, and establish 300 native coastal plants along a 1km stretch of significant coastal hind dune. This work will link the area of Lime Burners Creek Nature Reserve to a rainforest regeneration site on the hind dunes further north. Lyne 51812 Riparian and Wetland Protection by Combined Landholders on Dingo Creek Wherrol Flat & Caparra Landcare Incorporated PO Box 440, TOUKLEY, 2263 $12,531.82 This project will construct 6km of fencing on three adjoining properties to exclude stock from remnant riparian vegetation and an adjoining existing wetland. Planting activities include 400 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Lyne 51894 Manning River Rainforest Stepping Stone - Andrews Reserve Taree Landcare Group 113 River Road, GLENTHORNE, 2430 $8,636.36 This project will regenerate 2.2ha of the bank of Manning River linking to remnant vegetation. Planting activities include 4,000 native trees to assist regeneration in the area. Lyne 51907 Regeneration Along Coastal Hills at Shelley Beach, Port Mcquarie NSW Port Macquarie Landcare Group Incorporated 16 Treetop Crescent, PORT MACQUARIE, 2444 $19,480.00 This project will continue regeneration of Shelley Beach at Port Macquarie by rehabilitation of bitou infested beachside hills that link Sea Acres Nature Reserve to a network of urban wildlife corridors. Lyne 52036 Vegetation Restoration on Aboriginal and Council Land at Saltwater Purfleet Taree Local Aboriginal Land Council PO Box 346, TAREE, 2430 $27,272.73 This project will remove environmental weeds from 3.5ha of the Saltwater Reserve Headland and from 7.5ha of hind dune vegetation. It will compliment works already undertaken by volunteers and will involve planting 900 native plants, restoration of Indigenous cultural landscapes, track stabilization, and recovery of severely degraded littoral rainforest, coastal headland and hind dune zones. Lyons 51048 Protection of the Endangered Miena Cider Gum Bothwell Landcare Group “Dungrove”, BOTHWELL, 7030 $26,318.18 This project will rehabilitate stands of Cider Gum by excluding possums and stock with 7km of fencing, replanting, monitoring and maintaining seedlings during summer and trialling methods of insect control. It will also raise awareness of the threat to Mienda Cider Gums to reduce tree die back and the effects of drought throughout the highlands Tasmania. Lyons 51176 Protection of High Priority Vegetation and Restoration of Fitzallen Creek RM & AG Gee Royslea, 1498 Royal George Road, AVOCA, 7213 $8,250.00 This project will continue to address the declining significant natural values in the midlands of Tasmania by erecting 3.5km of fencing to protect a section of Fitzallen Creek and a large area of adjacent bushland. The fence will exclude stock and allow revegetation with 570 local native plants. The project aims to ensure water quality is maintained and erosion reduced on the St. Pauls Catchment site in the Midlands of Tasmania, which is a nationally listed Biodiversity Hotspot. Lyons 51271 King River Delta Revegetation Trial Project King River Action Group 4 Blackwood St, ZEEHAN, 7469 $24,172.73 This project will establish 15 trial revegetation plots through direct seeding, which will be protected by erecting 400m of fencing at the mouth of the King River in Macquarie Harbour. Data from the trials will be analysed and used to propose effective remediation methods for the greater delta. It will also aim to improve the air and water quality of the Macquarie Harbour environment through stabilisation and revegetation. Lyons 51346 Claytons Creek - Creek Bank Stabilisation and the Establishment of a Wildlife Corridor Mukul Joshie Unit 5D/No 8 Gas Works Road, WOLLSTONECRAFT, 2065 $13,827.00 This project will link a 1.25km section of Claytons Creek devoid of vegetation along its banks with areas of remnant vegetation above and below this section. It will involve planting a 30m wide vegetation corridor with 3,740 native trees, understorey and riparian plants and erect a 2.53km fence to stabilise the eroding creek banks, provide a wildlife corridor and improve water quality. Lyons 51350 Restoration of Coastal Habitat at Shelly Beach Shelly Beach Coastcare Group 90 Grooms Hill Road, KOONYA, 7187 $9,345.00 This project will stabilise a fragile coastal landform and restore remnant vegetation by erecting a 500m fence, removing weeds, direct seeding and planting 200 native seedlings. It will also encourage capacity building by holding community forums and provide a strategic plan for ongoing works to be developed to protect and enhance the natural and recreational values of Shelly Beach. Lyons 51381 River Bank and Wetland Conservation, Dynan’s Flat, Weegena Rebecca Robinson and Christopher Gard PO Box 102, WESTBURY, 7303 $5,356.00 This project will prevent stock access to the Mersey River and a wetlands area by erecting 1.32km of fence linking a conservation covenanted area upstream and conservation managed area of native vegetation on the other boundaries. It will provide off stream stock watering, control weeds and plant 100 native plants to complement regeneration and aid bank stability. Lyons 51546 Habitat Protection and Restoration on Two Properties - Tasmanian Midlands and Northeast W and C von Bibra “Beaufront”, ROSS, 7209 $40,954.55 This project will build on previous activities on two properties “The Branches” in North East Tasmania and “Beaufront” in the Midlands. The project will also rehabilitate degraded sections of Macquarie River by weed removal, planting 1,700 native seedlings and erecting 14.5km of fencing. Lyons 51560 Protection of High Priority Bush and Revegetation in the Midlands, Tasmania Young, Lindsay R “Lewisham”, ROSS, 7209 $18,818.18 This project will continue the rehabilitation of the upper Macquarie River and its tributaries by planting 9,800 native tube stock. Lyons 51576 Strategic Revegetation in the Southern Midlands Midlands Tree Committee Inc C/- “Nathan Park”, 324 Tea Tree Road, TEA TREE, 7017 $40,782.00 This project will revegetate 9 sites with 6,780 native plants and protect 4ha of remnant bush in the Southern Midlands municipal area by erecting a 6.27km fence. Lyons 51577 Leading Practice Property Management for Rural - Residential Developments, East Coast Tasmania Clint Hibberd and Erika Korosi 75 Little Page Street, ALBERT PARK, 3206 $16,260.00 This project will rehabilitate an ecologically degraded coastal property by planting 400 plants and erecting 500m of fencing. The project aims to establish a practical and accessible property-level natural resource management planning manual for use as an education and planning tool to assist rural-residential landholders in best-practice natural resource management on private land in the Break O’Day and surrounding municipalities. Lyons 51596 Demonstrating Sustainable Agriculture and Protection of Natural Values on the Agfest Site, Tasmania Rural Youth Organisation of Tas Inc PO Box 322, LAUNCESTON, 7250 $27,204.55 This project will showcase sustainable agricultural practices and the protection and regeneration of threatened species and priority vegetation at ‘Quercus Park’ at the site of Agfest, Tasmania’s premier agricultural event which is visited by over 75,000 people per annum. Through a combination of on ground techniques including fencing remnant vegetation, management of threatened species and the creation of an interpretation trail, significant environmental benefits will be gained and communicated to the public. Mackellar 51053 Bungan Beach Central Littoral Rainforest Regeneration Project Stage 1 The Friends of Bungan Incorporated PO Box 428, NEWPORT, 2106 $7,727.27 This project will employ a bush regeneration contractor to control and reduce the invasive weed species to regenerate the coastal scrub and littoral rainforest in the central part of Bungana Reserve. Primary regeneration work will commence around the stands of Banksia integrifolia and will be followed by weed control of Asparagus, Lantana, Ipomoea and other weed species. A weed map and flora and fauna species lists will also be produced. Macquarie 51458 Restoring and Protecting Blue Mountains Swamp - Wentworth Falls Lake Stage Two Wentworth Falls Lake Bushcare Grup 23 Boronia Road, WENTWORTH FALLS, 2782 $5,190.91 This project will plant 300 native trees and shrubs, and conduct bush regeneration in two seperate sites on the bank of an unnamed lake in Wentworth Falls. Macquarie 51820 Regeneration and Maintenance of Tizzana Road Riverbank Tizzana Landcare PO Box 7082, WILBERFORCE, 2756 $13,431.82 This project will continue a previous regeneration project on five properties by planting 3,000 trees and along a 1km stretch of the Hawkesbury River. A combination of bush regenerators and 50 coir logs will assist the natural regeneration of the area. Macquarie 52089 Rehabilitation of Riverbank Vegetation, Hawkesbury Park, North Richmond Hawkesbury Park Bushcare Group 343 Tennyson Road, TENNYSON, 2754 $13,631.82 This project will eradicate remaining woody weeds from the riverbank and protect native canopy trees from balloon vine. Some plants will be planted to stabilise the new areas, which will be opened up in the bush regeneration process. It will involve community members and contract bush regenerators. Mallee 50915 Increasing Wimmera’s Nesting Hollows with Habitat Boxes V.F.F. Wimmera Farm Tree Group PO Box 98, RUPANYUP, 3388 $20,930.00 This project will increase the level of habitat in the Wimmera for diverse bird, bat and mammal species through the construction of at least 455 habitat boxes. It will promote understanding of the habitat needed for native fauna by distributing the boxes to landholders who have suitable sites to place the boxes. It will also increase the potential for threatened species to live and breed in the area. Mallee 51128 Rehabilitation of Wetlands in Kaniva District Kaniva District Landcare 78 Progress St, KANIVA, 3419 $18,200.00 This project will plant 3,500 indigenous trees and shrubs to rehabilitate a wetland in the Kaniva District, as well as fencing a former railway dam. Mallee 51241 Continuing Revegetation and Protection of the Calivil Creek and Tributaries Macorna Landcare PO Box 23, KERANG, 3579 $26,281.36 This project will protect remnant vegetation and revegetate selected areas along the Calivil Creek and its tributaries. This will be done through 3.6km of exclusion fencing and planting of 4,700 indigenous plants and will provide a vegetation barrier to prevent run-off into the creeks in times of high rain events. Mallee 51706 Herman’s Hill Nature Walk West Wimmera Tree Group Inc RMB 1048, NHILL, 3418 $6,839.00 This project will erect 15 information stations along a walking track with two large double sided interpretative signs at the beginning and end of the track. This signage will educate and inform visitors about native vegetation, wildlife and natural resource management in the area. Mallee 51721 Revegetation and Capacity Building Along the Natimuk Creek Grasslands Natimuk Urban Landcare Group PO Box 110, NATIMUK, 3409 $8,381.82 This project will increase the level of understanding of the local environment through a series of field days and seminars. Onground work will include weeding, followed by planting of 20,000 speedlings of mixed native wildflowers and grasses collected locally to enhance the diverse native grassy woodland ecosystem in areas along the Natimuk Creek. A further 600 locally indigenous trees and shrubs will be planted among the grasses to decrease salinity effects. The Natimuk Creek Grassland areas will be surveyed for the occurrence of the endangered Pale Sun Moth (Synemon selene) and a field day will be held to coincide with the appearance of the moth in season. Maranoa 51078 Managing Remnant Vegetation on “Foyleview” SW Queensland B.A Roberts & H.J Roberts & J.W Roberts & K.E Roberts “Foyleview”, MITCHELL, 4465 $18,407.36 This project will protect 1,056ha of remnant vegetation, predominantly box & ironbark by constructing 12km of fencing. This will also reduce the threat of Weir Vine (a poisonous weed to stock), provide habitat for local native fauna and flora and shelter for stock in winter and allow stock to reduce fuel load build up in this vegetation. It will also provide the landholder with the ability to monitor vegetation changes. Maranoa 51081 Protecting Two Mature Stands of Remnant Vegetation at “Tocal” L Reiser & S Reiser “Tocal”, MITCHELL, 4465 $21,400.00 This project will fence two remnants of box and brigalow, covering 550ha, to increase grass cover, grazing pressure and biodiversity. This will increase soil stability, reduce weed infestation, provide a wildlife corridor across the landscape and offer alternative watering points for stock to reduce grazing pressure on certain areas. Maranoa 51274 Control Grazing and Declining Conditions of Riparian and Floodplain Areas - Bostock Creek M.M Rayment & S.G Rayment PO Box 5, JUNDAH, 4736 $24,545.45 This project will control grazing pressure and reverse the declining condition of riparian and floodplain vegetation along 25km of Bostock Creek. Maranoa 51277 Protection and Revegetation of an Endangered Coastal (Littoral) Vineforest Joseph T & Vincent E Mungomery PO Box 487, HERVEY BAY, 4655 $14,420.45 This project will fence off the existing walking track at a beach entrance to exclude trail bikes and other off road vehicles from the frontal dune and vine forest. It will modify the walking track to make it accessible to people with disabilities. It will also identify significant natural vegetation such as timber trees, bush foods and medicine plants along existing walking tracks and install identification markers along with an interpretation sign explaining indigenous and European uses these plants. Revegetation of 1.45ha of public land immediately behind the frontal dune and adjacent to the vine forest will extend a wildlife corridor, involve the local indigenous community in plant identification and encourage schools and scout groups to participate in activities organised in and for the forest. Maranoa 51280 Hamburg Creek Protection Plan L.K Cadzow & N.D Cadzow & S.M Cadzow Alice Downs, MORVEN, 4468 $22,702.73 This project will protect Hamburg Creek from stock degradation by fencing and providing alternative water points. This project is the second stage of a whole paddock plan to control grazing and increase biodiversity by managing woody weeds, allowing native pastures to recover and provide a wildlife corridor. Maranoa 51300 Stephens Creek Restoration Project J.M Davies & M Davies & H Peart “Sunnyholt”, INJUNE, 4454 $34,568.18 This project will construct 7.3km of stock exclusion fencing along Stephens Creek and provide cattle with alternative water points allowing only periodic grazing of the creek. This will allow regeneration of the riparian wildlife corridor, improve water quality, bank stability and allow ground nesting birds such as the Curlew, a safe breeding habitat. Maranoa 51302 Additional Watering Points, Fencing and Weed Control within the Lambton Meadows Nature Refuge A.C Rea & E.M Rea & J.B Rea & S.V Rea “Lambton Meadows”, ALPHA, 4724 $24,710.14 This project will provide two additional watering points to allow greater utilisation of existing grasses and reduce grazing pressure on areas around existing watering points within the Lambton Meadows Nature Refuge. It will also control the current level of Java Bean and Thornapple weeds and prevent any further infestation within the refuge. This project will erect 7km of fence, ensuring sustainable management and development of the nature refuge. The existing fence is currently outside the parameters of the nature refuge. The new fence will help maintain the native grasses and vegetation within the defined refuge area. Maranoa 51305 Bulloo River Flood Plain Protection: South Comongin and Nyngarie, SW Queensland C.J. & L.G. Evans 55 Sunset Road, KENMORE, 4069 $18,970.00 This project will provide alternative stock watering points to the Nyngarie waterhole and eventually the Bulloo River. This will reduce cattle stocking pressure on natural waters and riparian areas, improve species abundance and diversity of floodplain and riparian vegetation, reduce siltation and erosion therefore improving water quality and habitat value of waterholes. Maranoa 51331 Biodiversity Awareness and Monitoring - Resources and Training for Cotton Growers Australian Cotton Growers Research Associations Incorporated “Kia Ora”, NARRABRI, 2390 $16,113.64 This project will deliver a series of workshops to educate land managers in cotton growing areas of the Queensland Murray Darling Basin region and Northern NSW in habitat management and techniques for monitoring declining woodland fauna. This will assist land managers to better understand ecological functions of remnant vegetation and habitat requirements of declining fauna species such as woodland birds and give them practical skills in biodiversity monitoring at farm and sub catchment scales to improve remnant vegetation management. Maranoa 51416 Hoomooloo Pipeline Project S.J Eiser & S.K Shepherd & M.J Shepherd & S.K Shepherd & W.K Shepherd & C.M Volker Hoomooloo, ADAVALE, 4474 $18,109.09 This project will ease grazing pressure along 20km of the Gumbardo Creek corridor by installing five stock watering points, improving bank stability through regeneration of native vegetation and improving water quality. This will make four existing sub-artesian bores obsolete, easing water usage from the sub-artesian basin. Maranoa 51473 Reducing Land Degradation in the Gin Creek Catchment FL Crawford & GR Crawford PO Box 1163, DALBY, 4405 $3,607.00 This project will fence off a Gin Creek Catchment watercourse and relocate stock watering points to reduce erosion and allow re-vegetation. Maranoa 51583 Managing and Monitoring Water Quality of the Moola Creek Catchment Moola Creek Landcare PO Box 875, DALBY, 4405 $12,709.09 This project will consolidate previous work and further improve water quality by reducing siltation in Moola Creek by installing and relocating three individual stock watering points. Fragile riparian and native vegetation areas will be protected from uncontrolled stock grazing with the construction of 6.2km of fencing. Maranoa 51594 Stabilising a Major Gully at Carlton Park, Limevale Shaw, John Richard MS 638, TEXAS, 4385 $9,803.64 This project will stabilise a gully formed through the relocation of the Inglewood/Texas Road, subsequent abandonment of the old road and the diversion of drainage water from the new road into it. Drainage works will divert surface water from the head and sides of the gully. 2.3km of new fencing combined with 1.9km of existing fencing will allow regeneration of the gully area minimising further soil erosion. 3 small dams in adjacent water courses will be filled in as they pose a danger of diverting flood water into the gully. 390m of fence across the protected area will allow grazing to be controlled and a water trough will be installed to irrigate limited areas of grassed waterway and as a fire-fighting resource, if this becomes necessary. Community awareness will also be raised through field days and reporting. Maranoa 51652 Mulga Woodlands / Riparian Areas of Creek Systems on “Hillview Park” AJ Jackson & DC Jackson Hillview Park, LONGREACH, 4730 $27,327.27 This project will rehabilitate vegetation and soil condition of mulga woodland and riparian communities on our property. Maranoa 51672 Yalebone Creek Riparian Management and Rehabilitation, Bungil Shire JA Otto & R Otto PO Box 185, ROMA, 4455 $11,328.18 This project will preserve the riparian zone of Yalebone Creek by excluding stock and controlling water runoff and soil erosion. The project will provide off stream stock watering and complements an adjacent project. Maranoa 51688 Environmental Management of Thornton D.R Cowan & J.K Steele Towerhill Station, MUTTABURRA, 4732 $18,052.27 This project will protect Tower Hill Creek by constructing stock exclusion fencing and providing alternate watering points. Maranoa 51776 Wildlife Habitat and Riparian Revegetation Along Wallam Creek - Cashel Vale, Bollon The Trustee for the Cashel Vale Trust “Cashel Vale”, BOLLON, 4488 $44,905.45 This project will revegetate a riparian area 5km long on Wallam Creek, increasing the health of the river and providing additional habitat for the local koala colony. Various techniques will be trialed to educate and assist in the design of future projects in the region. Maranoa 51815 Upper North Myall Creek Cattle Water Relocation Point KL Stirling & MJ Stirling “Kaduna” MS 863, MACLAGAN, 4352 $2,131.82 This project will stabilise creek banks and improve water quality by constructing stock exclusion fencing and providing alternate watering points on a site within the Condamine Balonne catchment. Maranoa 51816 Balonne River Bank Rehabilitation The Trustee for David Packer Family Trust “Barrackdale” Southern Road, ROMA, 4455 $5,432.71 This project will protect and rehabilitate banks of the Balonne River from grazing and animal impact which has caused erosion. The project will erect 3.2km of stock exclusion fencing along the top edge of the western bank, enclosing an area of 146ha and provide alternate watering points, allowing grasses to regenerate, reducing erosion and improving water quality in the Murray Darling Catchment. Maranoa 51817 Maintaining Remnant Vegetation for Biodiversity and Production at “Budgeri” J.M Caskey and T.J Caskey “Budgeri”, MITCHELL, 4465 $16,727.27 This project will erect a 13km fence to protect a box, brigalow and mulga remnant. This will conserve wildlife habitat for species including mulga parrots and black cockatoos. Stock will be locked out of the vegetation during summer and allowed in to graze in cooler seasons, reducing fuel load and acting as a risk management tool for the landholder. Maranoa 51850 Preserving Artesian Springs in the Mulligan River Nature Refuge, Channel Country The North Australian Pastoral Company Pty Limited PO Box 319, BRISBANE, 4001 $44,010.00 This project will rehabilitate and protect artesian springs of the Great Artesian Basin by restricting livestock access within the Mulligan River Nature Refuge and providing alternative watering points. Apart from their environmental significance, the springs represent significant cultural heritage, being important sources of water in the past for Indigenous peoples, Afghan camel traders and early European pastoralists. Maranoa 51857 Fencing Yalebone Creek Riparian Zone and Water Reticulation on Jabberwocky, Roma The Trustee for Woodside Family Trust PO Box 1088, ROMA, 4455 $7,589.84 This project will rehabilitate the Yalebone Creek riparian zone by constructing stock exclusion fencing and providing alternative watering points, allowing revegetation and weed management, therefore improving water quality. Maranoa 51863 Fencing to Exclude Stock From Water Courses on “Balcondo” The Trustee for The KC Investments Family Trust PO Box 331, THEODORE, 4719 $44,772.45 This project will protect the Condamine River and the Dogwood Creek from erosion and water contamination on the property of “Balcondo” by controlling the grazing of cattle through the construction of 10.5km of fence enclosing 200ha. This will help improve the quality of water flowing downstream into the Balonne River Floodplain. Maranoa 51953 Protection of Ethabuka Mound Spring Australian Bush Heritage Fund Ethabuka Reserve, BEDOURIE, 4829 $16,460.91 This project will regenerate and protect an environmentally and culturally significant mound spring, located on Ethabuka Reserve in the Simpson - Strezlecki dune fields. The project will fence 6ha around Ethabuka Mound Spring with camel proof fencing. These fenced areas will encompass the natural water flow and adjacent land and also include significant indigenous and European cultural sites nearby. Maranoa 51956 Restoration of Grasslands Adjacent to Blacks Creek, “Armoobilla”, Cheepie, South West Qld J.B. Stirton & S Stirton “Armoobilla”, CHEEPIE, 4475 $18,601.82 This project will protect vegetation of the naturally open plains adjacent to Blacks Creek, a major tributary of Beechal Creek by constructing 11km of stock exclusion fencing according to vegetation and land type and the provision of alternative watering points. This will protect native grasses, reducing soil erosion and improving the quality of water entering Beechal Creek. Maranoa 51961 Enhancement of Granite Belt Native Vegetation Granite Belt Trees Group PO Box 53, BALLANDEAN, 4382 $27,272.73 This project will construct stock exclusion fencing and revegetate 12ha around Stanthorpe to control erosion, salinity, and increase biodiversity and habitat by planting 9,000 endemic trees and shrubs across 10 different properties. Maranoa 51987 Rejuvenation of the Paterson’s Watercourse SW Qld D.S. Moore & S.M Moore “Bengarcia”, BOLLON, 4488 $15,681.82 This project will exclude stock from Pattersons Watercourse by constructing 15km of fence, encouraging native grasses and herbs to regenerate. This will reduce erosion and improve water quality. Maranoa 51989 Fencing Land Types for Regeneration and Protection of Pastures on “Goonawarra” B.T Bell & J.F Bell “Goonawarra” Goonawarra Road, CONDAMINE, 4416 $8,444.55 This project will reduce soil erosion on ridge faces and compaction of heavier soils caused by stock grazing through constructing 3km of fence to separate land and soil types. Alternative stock watering points will also be provided. Maranoa 52010 Old Wool Road (Murilla Station to Yuleba railway siding) rehabilitation D.F Schwennesen & E.T Schwennesen “Pialaway”, YULEBA, 4427 $4,244.55 This project will improve Balonne River system water quality by halting erosion and silt deposition. A 1.5km stock exclusion fence will protect 10ha of valuable remnant vegetation and 52ha of eroded area, fencing according to soil type. Blade ploughing will slow water run-off and woody weeds and branches in the eroded area will trap silt. A mix of native and introduced grass species will be seeded to re-establish ground cover. Maranoa 52046 Creating an Indigenous Botanical Garden at “The Yumba”, Mitchell SW Queensland Nalingu Aboriginal Corporation 31 Cambridge Street, MITCHELL, 4465 $5,954.55 This project will preserve a valuable environmental and cultural heritage site at Mitchell, 600km west of Brisbane on the Maranoa River. The project will re-establish a stand of local native plants for the local community’s food and medicinal purposes. Maranoa 52055 To Spread Grazing Pressure Along Cattle Creek, “Boothulla” JA Treloar & MG Treloar “Boothulla”, COOLADDI, 4479 $31,500.00 This project will spread grazing pressure, reducing impact on vegetation and soil and preventing sedimentation occurring in Cattle Creek and therefore the Paroo River system, by erecting 11km of fencing and installing 3 remote stock watering points. Maranoa 52079 Off-Stream Watering of Farrars Channels to Improve Riparian Conditions Nobar Enterprises Pty Ltd PO Box 516, LONGREACH, 4730 $25,900.00 This project will improve water quality, streambank stability and enhance floodplain vegetation along a 2.5km section of Farra’s Creek. This will be achieved by constructing 7.6km of fencing and providing alternative stock watering points, protecting 365ha of sensitive channels which include 6 permanent lagoons which are refuge to many aquatic species. Mayo 51137 Protection of Head Waters of the Onkaparinga River, Mt Torrens Woodacre Pty Ltd PO Box 63, MOUNT TORRENS, 5244 $4,766.91 This project will construct 1.15km of stock exclusion fencing around a riparian zone on both sides of the creek and provide alternative watering points for stock. Mayo 51138 Habitat Conservation and Restoration in the Upper Mount Lofty Ranges New Springs Landcare Group Incorporated PO Box 24, MOUNT TORRENS, 5244 $3,411.76 This project will restore wildlife habitat on private and public land. This includes Porters Scrub, 99ha of one of the most intact pieces of native vegetation in the Central Mt Lofty Ranges and 13ha of private land that adjoins it. The project will contribute towards the conservation of threatened and rare species, such as the nationally vulnerable Glycine latrobeana, Bassian Thrush and Southern Brown Bandicoot, by planting 600 native plants to enhance previous plantings and installing fencing to protect remnant vegetation. Mayo 51139 Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Area Seed Bank Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Board Incorporated Mt Lofty Ranges Catchment Centre, Upper Level, Cnr Mann and Walker St’s, MOUNT BARKER, 5251 $27,272.73 This project will facilitate best management of natural resources in the area including targeting action to address priority issues in priority locations, promotion of sustainable agricultural production in balance with biodiversity conservation, ensuring maximum benefit is gained from use of limited resources, encouraging, enhancing and building upon current community involvement and effort, incorporating and promoting existing planning and initiative and fostering an integrated approach towards addressing natural resource management issues across the area. Mayo 51276 Basham’s Beach Aboriginal Cultural Interpretation and Revegetation Programme Basham’s Beach and Horseshoe Bay Advisory Committee 7 Bay View Road, PORT ELLIOT, 5212 $27,039.09 This project will continue to develop the park as a reserve for natural and cultural heritage by extending the revegetation of the dunes and hinterland. It will increase the diversity of native grasses within the park. It will also work with local schools and the Indigenous community via a mentorship program, to develop interpretive signage and develop a herbarium demonstrating, naming and interpreting examples of plants existing in the park, with special reference to Indigenous food and medicine plants and including Indigenous plant names. Mayo 51278 Restoration of a Buffer Zone to “Todea Gully” Adjacent to Cleland Conservation Park Friends of Cleland 27 Yanagin Road, GREEN HILL, 5140 $8,545.45 This project will create a 5ha buffer zone to protect Todea Gully which is one of only 4 known sites of Todea barbara (King Fern) which is endangered in SA. This population is present in a deep gully on private property which is protected by a conservation covenant. Although the population is protected, it is surrounded by potential threats, in particular invasion by feral plants from adjoining land which comes within 50m of the gully. Because of the steepness of the gully, it is constantly being invaded by feral plants washed down from degraded area at the top of the slope. Mayo 51389 Protection of the Upper Deep Creek Watershed, Fleurieu Peninsula S.J. Richards & S.V. Seager PO Box 239, DRY CREEK, 5094 $29,756.02 This project will protect two stands of remnant vegetation and the associated ‘Fleurieu swamps’ that link them. It will erect 6.2km of fencing enclosing an area of 20.2ha. Provision will be made for alternate stock water with the installation of a tank, piping and 4 troughs. A threat abatement program will control and minimise noxious weeds, and feral pests. Methods to reduce spread of phytophthora will be undertaken. Mayo 51390 Emu Bay Coastal Zone Protection Emu Bay Progress Association PO Box 133, KINGSCOTE, 5223 $8,000.00 This project will protect and re-establish coastal vegetation at Emu Bay. It will construct two walkways for beach access to reduce dune erosion and destruction of natural coastal vegetation. An area of coastal dune will be revegetated to protect penguin habitat and nesting areas and larger species will be planted to act as a wind break to the BBQ area. Mayo 51392 Revegetation and Fencing, Baudin Conservation Park, Kangaroo Island Friends of Dudley Peninsula Parks and Wildlife PO Box 550, PENNESHAW, 5222 $8,118.18 This project will construct 1.2km of exclusion fencing to enable direct seeding and other forms of revegetation. The revegetation will protect an area above an eroded and salt effected slope to reduce these problems and prevent further spread. The exclusion zone will act as a control for ongoing monitoring of browse pressure in Baudin Conservation Park. Mayo 51527 Implementing On-Ground Recovery Actions for Nationally-Threatened Plants on Kangaroo Island Threatened Plant Action Group 120 Wakefield street, ADELAIDE, 5000 $8,889.09 This project will plant 1,600 seedlings, monitor threatened plant communities and survey and control bridal veil and bridal creeper. The group will liaise with adjoining landholders, local community groups and regional agency programs regarding key land and biodiversity management issues. Mayo 51547 Effective Long-Term Managment of Vegetation on Roadsides and Community Land in th Mt Lofty Ranges Region Mt Lofty Ranges Vegetation Management Committee PO Box 41, FLAXLEY, 5153 $19,406.42 This project will undertake a scoping study to investigate how the community, local government and state government agencies can achieve more effective vegetation management on rural lands, roadside and reserves in order to protect biodiversity as well as protect and improve water quality. It will help to reduce the impact of bushfires as well as protect the landscape from the impact of soil erosion, protect biodiversity and primary production from biosecurity threats and sustaining primary production. Mayo 51553 Eaglehawk Gully Habitat Enhancement Project Yankalilla Area Commerce and Community Association - Bungala River Steering Committee 4 Barton Street, YANKALILLA, 5203 $27,454.55 This project will protect 200ha of remnant vegetation by involving 10 landholders planting 4,000 seedlings and undertaking 2km of direct seeding with additional threat abatement to assist in natural regeneration. It will provide links and infill plantings, reconstructing habitat, and improving water quality to protect populations of native fish identified within the catchment and raise community awareness with targeted field days. Mayo 51558 Olive Tree Recycling Protects Live Indigenous Vegetation for Environmental Sustainability Adelaide Hills Natural Resouce Centre PO Box 62, BASKET RANGE, 5138 $27,080.22 This project will remove a serious environmental threat and develop and implement extensive rehabilitation programs. We will provide an innovative environmentally acceptable alternative to firewood collection and develop practical job creation programs. It will protect remnants by the removal of olives. It will also rehabilitate and initial 10ha of threatened native vegetation by removing olive infestations and revegetating with native trees. Mcewen 51450 Old Cathkin Railway Rehabilitation and Seed Orchard Home Creek-Spring Creek Landcare Group Via Yarck Post Office, YARCK, 3719 $4,920.00 This project will rehabilitate a former railway siding, situated at the intersection of two regional highways and en-route to major tourist destinations. New plantings of 1,200 local indigenous plants at the site will add to stands of remnant native vegetation and will incorporate a seed orchard of local trees and shrubs. The rehabilitated site will strengthen local community activity and complement the group’s seed collecting and tree planting program. Mcewen 51683 Establish a Seed Production Area and Arboretum at Kilmore East Sunday Creek Dry Creek Land Care Group PO Box 260, KILMORE, 3764 $4,163.64 This project will establish a seed production area and arboretum on 2.9ha of crown land at Kilmore East. It will clear weeds and address erosion with half of the site to be revegetated with local species to improve the appearance and value of the site and provide a reference collection for Landcare and schools. A seed production area will be established on 1ha of the site, with guidance from the Goulburn Broken Indigenous Seedbank, to provide seed of uncommon indigenous species. Mcewen 51718 Restoration of Bush in Headwaters of Woori Yallock and Cardinia Creeks Johns Hill Landcare Group Member Group of the VFF Farm Tree and Landcare Association Inc PO Box 162, EMERALD, 3782 $13,432.00 This project will build on past Envirofund projects with protection and restoration work in the south-eastern catchments of the Yarra River (Woori Yallock Creek headwaters) and environs. Planting and fencing on 6 sites will contribute to a long term vision to have viable indigenous biodiversity links from Dandenong Ranges National Park to the Menzies Creek catchment, Cardinia Dam surrounds, and east to Beenak State Park. Purchase of signage and information displays will help to raise community awareness of the Landcare Group’s work. Mcewen 51765 Protecting Small Rural Properties with Native Vegetation - A Demonstration Site WACMAC Landcare Inc PO Box 54, WOLLERT, 3777 $4,527.27 This project will establish a demonstration site that will have on-going benefits for community education and will demonstrate protection of a badly eroded gully by catchment revegetation, establishment of indigenous vegetation by various modes including traditional planting of tubestock, mass planting will cell propagated plants and direct seeding, and establishment of an arboretum to demonstrate the variety of local indigenous plants. There will be community education field days associated with the seed collection, direct seeding and revegetation of the site. Mcewen 51784 Protect and Restore Native Vegetation at Tyaak Reserve Dabyminga Catchment Cooperative RMB 1240, REEDY CREEK, 3658 $1,990.91 This project will protect a 0.8ha high quality remnant of Dry Grassy Forest at Tyaak, Victoria. It will provide protection for the vulnerable crimson spider-orchid and a demonstration site for a network of remnants being established by the Landcare Groups in the Dabyminga Valley. It will also protect native vegetation with a 350m rabbit proof fence, maintain the site free of weeds and rabbits, use the site for education about local bushland using signs and field days, and monitor the site. Mcmillan 51049 Control of Grey Sallow Willow on the Baw Baw Plateau The Friends of Baw Baw National Park PO Box 3084, TRARALGON SOUTH, 3844 $8,181.82 This project will target infestations of grey-sallow willows growing in remote areas of the Baw Baw Ranges. A helicopter will be used to map and identify willow locations in remote areas and to drop volunteers and Parks Victoria staff close to the infestations. The plants will be destroyed by chemical treatment. Mcmillan 51710 Rescuing our Remnants, Mt Lyall, Victoria Mt Lyall Landcare Group PO Box 351, NYORA, 3987 $28,154.55 This project will protect 20.75ha of remnant Lowland forest, including 6ha under negotiation for a conservation covenant. These works will be enhanced by 1.55ha of revegetation which will provide vegetation linkages in the landscape. It will construct 6.71km of fencing, plant 7,000 tubestock and use 3.5kg of seed. In addition, 15.1ha of weed control works will ensure blackberry is controlled within high quality remnants. Mcmillan 51754 Preserving the Upper Powlett Catchment - Bushland Rescue Korumburra Landcare Group PO Box 453, WONTHAGGI, 3995 $14,018.18 This project will address the major physical and social causes of land and water degradation in the steep denuded upper, highly dissected, reaches of the Powlett catchment through the combination of a targeted restoration and landholder education and broader community involvement in helping deliver on-ground works. It will focus on a 25ha public land reserve where weed control works will be followed by planting of 4,000 native tube stock. This will link with other remnant protection in the upper Powlett catchment. . Mcmillan 51770 Protection and Rehabilitation of Native Flora and Fauna Friends of the Lyrebird Forest Walk Inc 151 Baromi Road, MIRBOO NORTH, 3871 $8,002.00 This project will prevent erosion of river banks and rehabilitate the native flora by defining existing tracks, removing fallen trees and other obstructions in order to prevent users straying away from the track and planting 1,850 indigenous plants. Signage will be erected to educate users to the unique attributes of the facility. Menzies 51244 Hochkins Ridge State-Significant Flora Reserve Fungi/Bryophytes Educational Brochure Friends of Hochkins Ridge Flora Reserve 264 Maroondah Hwy, CROYDON, 3136 $6,852.73 This project will produce a full colour brochure which will illustrate and provide information about common mosses, liverworts and fungi found in the Hochkins Ridge Flora Reserve and general information about the critical importance of these life forms to the survival and growth of higher plants in all vegetation communities. Species selection will be based on their presence not just in Hochkins Ridge, but their common occurrence through bushland in Melbourne’s east. This will make the brochure applicable for field naturalists, school groups, reserve committees and friends’ groups and other interested individuals over an extensive area. Mitchell 51561 Restoration of Bushland in the Hunts Creek Catchment Seville Bushcare Group 7 Wonjina Place, NORTH ROCKS, 2151 $17,886.36 This project will aim to take a coordinated and integrated approach to the management of bushland in the Hunts Creek Catchment. It will involve bush regeneration activities carried out by qualified contractors and volunteers, ecological burns, and a site assessment by Indigenous people. It will also involve a community education component with bushcare groups receiving specialized training on bushland management issues from a trained bush regenerator. The bushcare groups will be educated on how to identify and work around sites of aboriginal significance. Mitchell 51599 Restoration of Blue Gum High Forest in Castle Hill Heritage Park Castle Hill Heritage Park Bushcare Group C/- Baulkham Hills Shire Council, PO Box 75, CASTLE HILL, 1765 $10,363.64 This project will restore remnant Blue Gum High Forest in Heritage Park by carrying out weed removal, capacity building of the bushcare group and education of the wider community. It will involve removal of environmental weeds by qualified contractors and volunteers, ecological burns by NSW Fire Brigade volunteers, and a site assessment by an Aboriginal heritage officer. Bushcare groups will receive specialized training on bushland management issues from a trained bush regenerator and the bushcare group will be educated on how to identify and work around sites of Aboriginal significance. Mitchell 51600 Restoring Bushland in the Toongabbie Creek Headwaters, Baulkham Hills Sophia Doyle Bushcare Group 41 Gregory Avenue, BAULKHAM HILLS, 2153 $17,500.00 This project will provide support to ongoing works of the Sophia Doyle Bush Care Group. Bush regeneration will be carried out by qualified contractors and volunteers along with ecological burns by the NSW fire brigade. An Aboriginal heritage officer will carry out a site assessment and various educational activities will be conducted such as Bush Care groups receiving specialized training on bush management issues, identifying and working around sites of aboriginal significance and will cover such topics as Aboriginal heritage flora and fauna preservation. Mitchell 51868 Protection of Threatened Species in Bill Wood and Farmridge Way Reserve Esme Wood PO Box 75, CASTLE HILL, 1765 $7,613.64 This project will hold a workshop by professional bush regenerators in order to enhance the community’s skills in bush regeneration techniques. Mitchell 52038 Restoration of Bushland in Bidjigal Reserve Excelsior Park Bushland Society Co/- Baulkham Hills Shire Concil, PO Box 75, CASTLE HILL, 1765 $18,636.36 This project will restore bushland by use of bush regeneration contractors and volunteers, ecological burns by NSW Fire Brigade volunteers, and an Aboriginal heritage officer site assessment. As well there will be community education programs and training from experienced regenerators whilst working around sites of Aboriginal significance. Mitchell 52121 Lake Parramatta Bush Foods Garden Stage 2 Parramatta Aboriginal Advisory Committee 31/132 Dunmore Street, WENTWORTHVILLE, 2145 $13,903.74 This project will rehabilitate the Lake Parramatta area by planting 100 native shrubs and trees that are of significance to the Darug Aboriginal group that once occupied Parramatta. It will implement site protection measures and encourage formation of a Aboriginal Landcare Group. It will install an Aboriginal bush food and medicine garden including designing brochures for education purposes and self guided walks around Lake Parramatta. Moore 51283 Coastal Foreshore Replanting at Iluka, Western Australia Joondalup Community Coast Care Forum Inc. 69 Bacchante Circle, OCEAN REEF, 6027 $7,750.00 This project will remove weeds and replant with 3,200 native heath and understorey plants in degraded patches of coastal foreshore vegetation at Iluka and northern Ocean Reef. The project will raise community awareness by involving volunteers and erecting a sign adjacent to the popular local beach. Murray 51725 Enhancing and Protecting Black Box Remnant and Rare Fauna B.P Haw and K.M Haw PO Box 184, BOORT, 3537 $15,085.91 This project will exclude foxes, cats, hares and rabbits from a 40ha Trust for Nature Covenant protected site with rare and vulnerable flora and fauna by improving an existing 2.7km fence. By installing a pipe through the flood bank, 23ha of Black Box remnant will be returned to the flood plain, improving water quality, flood plain storage and increasing the health of the remnant. A natural depression/wetland will be enhanced by direct seeding 5kg of seed and planting 10,000 seedlings of mainly understorey species around the wetland and in the black box remnant. Community awareness will be raised by holding field days and continuing to use the area for education of farmers, landholders, schools, TAFE centres, university groups and CMA and government cadets. Murray 51738 The Biodiversity Linkage of the Powlett Swamps Salisbury West Landcare Group RMB 114, INGLEWOOD, 3517 $42,360.00 This project will protect remnant vegetation and Aboriginal heritage sites and establish wildlife corridors in the area of Powlett Swamp. Remnant vegetation will be protected by erecting 1.6km of fencing around 11ha and planting 1,000 understorey plants. An 8ha wildlife linkage will be established from Powlett Swamp to Hope Creek by fencing and planting 3,500 native plants in a 2.6km corridor. Habitat nodes will be established by erecting 3.6km of fencing around 14ha of remnant clusters and planting of 4,700 local native plants. We will conduct workshops and planting days for community capacity building and erect permanent signage. It is the first priority stage of a biodiversity action plan for the area. Murray 51742 Morning Star Revegetation Project Inglewood Landcare Group 27 Brooke Street, INGLEWOOD, 3517 $2,680.91 This project will rehabilitate degraded ex-gold-mining land by levelling the mullock heaps and fossickers’ holes, removing rubbish and noxious vegetation and planting 200 ground cover, middle and upper level plants indigenous to the area. The site will become a reference area and seed orchard as well as a place for passive recreation and historical interest. New England 50779 Tilbuster Creek Stage 4 Rehabilition for Environmental and Production Resilience Enduring Landscapes Incorporated 12024 New England Highway, ARMIDALE, 2350 $13,532.62 This project will construct 2km of fencing to exclude stock access to 3km of Tilbuster creek and plant 2,590 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51180 Managing McCullock’s Gully, Protecting Remnant Vegetation and Improving Native Biodiversity C.G Barton & J.K Barton RMB 540, Goonoo Goonoo Rd, TAMWORTH, 2340 $13,263.09 This project will construct 3.7km of fencing to protect 27ha of remnant vegetation, link one area with a vegetation corridor, and enclose the head of McCullocks Gully. A total of 1,450 native trees and shrubs will be planted, and four alternative watering points will be established. New England 51227 Revegetation and Stabilisation of Swamp Creek, Gowrie NSW G.J Spry & K.S Spry & L.L Spry & M.J Spry “Hillcrest” Gowrie Rd, GOWRIE, 2340 $20,082.73 This project will construct 1.5km of fencing to exclude stock access to Swamp Creek and an alternative stock watering point will be established. 2,250 native trees will be planted along Swamp Creek which will encourage natural regeneration. The RTA will work in conjunction with this regeneration project by conducting erosion control earthworks beforehand in order to remedy contributing storm water drainage erosion along the New England Highway frontage. New England 51239 Clay Water Holes Gully Flood Plain Erosion Control Somerton NSW Lindsay Doyle & Tina McTavish “Renecourt” 3269 Oxley Highway West, BECTIVE, 2340 $5,667.27 This project will construct 2.3km of fencing to halt the erosion of two gullies and link remnant stands of native vegetation by planting 800 native trees. To assist in stabilising the area 250 tonnes of rock will be placed at the gully heads to halt erosion. New England 51260 Establishing a Wildlife Habitat and Corridor at “Comer” Werris Creek NSW A.J Macbeth & P.E Macbeth & W Macbeth PO Box 34, WERRIS CREEK, 2341 $17,123.64 This project will construct 3km of fencing to exclude stock from a created vegetation corridor extending from remnant vegetation. Three alternative stock watering points will be installed and 2,000 native trees and shrubs will be planted to assist in the regeneration of the area. New England 51427 Keetah Riparian Biodiversity Enhancement Project Barkworth Olive Groves Limited Lot 6 Keetah, YELARBON, 4388 $19,227.27 This project will plant 16,000 native trees and shrubs and 5,000 native aquatic plants to link remnant vegetation along Duraresq River and an adjacent billabong. Stock will be permanently excluded which will assist in the regeneration of the area. New England 51456 Completion of Kingswood Park, Tamworth 1.6 Kilometre Native Habitat Corridor Kingswood Park and Recreation Area Group 7 Robertson Place, TAMWORTH, 2340 $17,000.00 This project will plant 10,000 native shrubs in a vegetation corridor linking into remnant vegetation along Goonoo Goonoo Creek. New England 51498 Lake Inverell Wetlands and Biodiversity Project - Stage 2 Macintyre Rivercare Committee 21 Oliver Street, INVERELL, 2360 $6,417.11 This project will plant 1,300 native trees and shrubs in the area around Lake Inverell within the Lake Inverell Reserve. New England 51525 Rehabilitating Beaury Creek with Fencing, Bush Regeneration and Alternate Stock Water D.K. Hill & S.G. Hill Beaury Creek, URBENVILLE, 2475 $10,304.55 TThis project will enhance in-stream habitat values of a 2km section of Beaury Creek. It will erect 1.65km of fencing to exclude stock, assist regeneration by bush regeneration activities and plant 1,000 seedlings. Off-stream stock watering facilities will be provided by constructing one dam, enlarging another dam, and installing piping and three stock troughs. The catchment areas of the dams will be fenced and replanted with 500 native seedlings. New England 51610 Revegetation for Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridor Linking Aquatic Environments, Armidale NSW HS & DM Pearson Morven’ PO Box 213, ARMIDALE, 2350 $4,436.36 This project will revegetate to provide a wildlife habitat by planting a vegetation corridor 30m wide and 6.76km long with 760 native trees and 1,140 understorey plants. It will erect 1.13km of fencing and utilise 390m of existing fencing to permanently exclude stock from grazing the enclosure. This project will raise community awareness of conserving biodiversity and sustainable resource use by involving volunteers in the planting. New England 51780 Revegetation for the Deepwater Community Deepwater Landcare Group Inc “Kurrajong”, DEEPWATER, 2371 $27,272.73 This project will construct 8.5km of fencing to create vegetation corridors on 10 separate sites and plant 9,000 native trees within the corridors to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51797 The Fencing Out a Portion of Auburn Vale Creek and the Removal of Livestock Anthony Collins Lot 3 Penrose, INVERELL, 2360 $1,739.00 This project will construct 1.8km of fencing to exclude stock from both sides of Aurban Vale Creek and install alternative stock watering points. Planting activities include 50 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51798 Fencing to Protect Riparian Vegetation and Banks Laura Creek, “Milani” L Chapman & W.J Chapman “Milani” , Baldersleigh Road, GUYRA, 2365 $7,409.09 This project will construct 6.2km of fencing to exclude stock access to 6km of Laura (Sandy) Creek. Alternative stock watering points will be installed to assist regeneration of the riparian zone. New England 51803 Revegetation and Erosion Control on Wyoming at Somerton Doubleday, Graeme Edward “Wyoming” Soldier Settlement Road, SOMERTON, 2340 $15,160.00 This project will stabilise a gully and construct 1.5km of fencing to exclude stock from created vegetation corridors and the gully. Planting activities include 1,875 native trees to assist regeneration in the area. New England 51824 Linking the Wildlife Corridor in the Apsley River Sub-Catchment Lower Apsley River Landcare Group Yarrawarrah, WALCHA, 2354 $38,745.45 This project will construct 18.2km of fencing on seven properties to continue creating a vegetation corridor link between the township of Walcha to the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park by planting 18,686 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51831 Improving the Health of the Malpas Catchment Through Revegetation and Fencing of Waterways Malpas Catchment Group PO Box 207, GUYRA, 2365 $34,136.36 This project will construct 7.4km of fencing to exclude stock access from 1km of riparian zones and to protect created vegetation corridors on nine separate properties. Alternative stock watering points will be installed for affected landholders and 10,500 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration and well managed stock control will assist natural regeneration of the area. New England 51838 Tenterfield Native Vegetation Enhancement Tenterfield Landcare Group Gungel, TENTERFIELD, 2372 $25,954.55 This project will construct 10km of fencing to exclude stock from created vegetation corridors on 10 separate properties and plant 15,000 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51839 Protecting and Enhancing the Little Beardy River Urquhart, Graham and Patricia 1441 Gulf Road, EMMAVILLE, 2371 $16,772.73 This project will construct 10km of fencing to exclude stock from both sides of the Beardy River in a 6km corridor to assist natural regeneration of the area. New England 51840 Protecting the Dumaresq River by Fencing and Installing Alternate Water Sources M.R Cater and S.D Cater Black Creek, TENTERFIELD, 2372 $7,768.18 This project will construct 2km of fencing to exclude stock from 2km of the Dunmaresq River and install alternative stock watering points to assist natural regeneration of the area. New England 51842 Re-establishment and Protection of Native Vegetation on “Callemondah” Duri, NSW H.K Ryan and J.D Ryan Callemondah, DURI, 2344 $13,836.00 This project will construct 5.2km of fencing to exclude stock from 15.6ha of created vegetation corridors which will link into remnant vegetation and 4,000 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51852 Enhance Vegetation Corridors in the Bannockburn Creek Catchment, Inverell Bannockburn Landcare Group “Myalben” Oakwood Road, OAKWOOD, 2360 $15,396.36 This project will construct 4.1km of fencing to protect created vegetation corridors on five properties and 5,300 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51855 Sustainable Agriculture Demo S.E. Inverell - Stage Two Priest, Darrell James PO Box 488, INVERELL, 2360 $11,590.91 This project will stabilise a creek bank and construct 2km of fencing to exclude stock from a created vegetation corridor and install alternative stock watering points. Planting activities include 1,500 native trees to assist regeneration. Well managed stock control will assist natural regeneration of the area. New England 51856 Reducing Groundwater Levels Above Saline Site, Oakwood, Inverell F.M Kauter and N.P Kauter “Forest Hill”, OAKWOOD, 2360 $10,754.55 This project will stabilise a gully and construct 3km of fencing to exclude stock access to the gully, and create a vegetation corridor. Planting activities include 2,500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51858 Riparian and In-Stream Exotic Weed Removal at Bukkulla, Near Inverell Bukkulla Landcare Group “Macintyre Station”, BUKKULLA, 2360 $13,663.64 This project will remove invasive weeds along a 1.6km stretch of the Upper Macintyre River and plant 500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51864 To Protect Old Growth Vegetation on “Bryden” Inverell, NSW C.G Latter and G.A Latter “Bryden” 402 Airlie Brake Lane, INVERELL, 2360 $2,909.09 This project will construct 1.5km of fencing to exclude stock from 14ha of remnant vegetation. New England 51881 Riverine Environment Protection on ‘Dunmore Station’ Roland J and Anne M Breckwoldt Glenbarra Road, MANILLA, 2346 $24,106.36 This project will construct 4.3km of fencing to exclude stock access to various creeks in the catchment of the Upper Namoi Valley and install alternative stock watering points for affected landholders to assist the natural regeneration of the area. New England 51888 Attunga Creek Landcare Community Erosion Control and Revegetation Project Attunga Creek Catchment Landcare Group “Hillview”, ATTUNGA, 2345 $9,592.73 This project will stabilise creek banks and construct 2.4km of fencing to exclude stock from three constructed vegetation corridors and 1,280 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration in the area. New England 51954 Erosion Control and Biodiversity Project, Delungra B.J Johnson & L.W Johnson & R.W Johnson “Terrona”, DELUNGRA, 2403 $6,148.18 This project will stabilise a gully and construct 1.8km of fencing to exclude stock from a created vegetation corridor and install alternative stock watering points. Planting activities include 200 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 51977 Fairmount 5 year Wild Life Corridor Stage 1 Schoulal, Nicholas John 58 Manilla Street, MANILLA, 2346 $3,340.91 This project will construct 1.1km of fencing to protect created vegetation corridors. Planting activities include 1,470 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. New England 52081 Protection of Riparian Zone on Portion of Gwydir River, Bundarra Morna M Scott Willy Willy, BUNDARRA, 2359 $3,500.00 This project will construct 1.2km of fencing to exclude stock from the riparian zone of Gwydir River and install an alternative stock watering point to assist natural regeneration of the area. New England 52093 Project to Control Erosion and Increase Biodiversity, Nordale B M Cole & S Cole & T E Cole Nordale, DELUNGRA, 2403 $1,727.27 This project will construct 800m of fencing to protect a created vegetation corridor. Planting activities include 150 native trees to assist regeneration in the area. NORFOLK ISLAND 52268 Norfolk Island Bird Survey Norfolk Island Flora and Fauna Society PO Box 60, NORFOLK ISLAND, 2899 $17,365.00 This project will undertake a comprehensive survey of birds in the Norfolk Island group. Expert observers will collect data relating to species presence and habitat preferences and Bird Australia Atlas Group will assist in the data management. North Sydney 51602 Protection and Rehabilitation of the Degraded Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, Melaleuca Wetlands and Estuarine Communities at Boronia Park, Hunters Hill Friends of Boronia Park 52 Park Road, HUNTERS HILL, 2110 $12,785.45 This project will conduct revegetation of 1ha of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest through weed control, planting 700 native plants and natural regeneration to enhance biodiversity, wildlife corridors, and water quality. It will also rehabilitate Melaleuca wetlands through gradual weed removal, revegetation of 6,000 square metres with 500 native plant species and planting of 120 square metres of reed beds. Woody weeds will be targeted by bush regeneration contractors and revegetation will be carried out by the volunteers. NORTHERN TERRITORY 51325 National Guide for Monitoring Fish Stocks and Aquatic Ecosystems Australian Society for Fish Biology Inc PO Box 3000, DARWIN, 0801 $19,052.73 This project will produce ‘A Guide to Monitoring Fish Stocks and Aquatic Ecosystems’, for community organisations, Indigenous communities, government agencies and other stakeholder groups including the fishing and tourism industry. The guide will present nationally agreed principals that will be developed at the 2005 Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop. The workshop will focus on monitoring marine, coastal and freshwater habitats as well as monitoring indigenous recreational and commercial fisheries. O’Connor 50891 Protection of Remnant Vegetation and Amelioration of Waterlogged and Salt Affected Land, Three Springs The Marden Park Trust & Murray J & Debra L & Jason M Patterson PO Box 151, THREE SPRINGS, 6519 $9,055.45 This project will expand an area of remnant bush by planting 4,500 native plants, increasing the wildlife habitat. 5ha of salt affected land will be revegetated with 7,500 saltbush and native trees. The project will erect 4.2km of stock exclusion fencing around these sites and an additional 23ha of remnant vegetation and planted native species. O’Connor 50892 Revegetation and Fencing of Natural Creekline in Burakin Catchment Trevor Johnson Family Trust RMB 3755, KALANNIE, 6468 $9,020.91 This project will stabilise a waterway in the Burakin catchment by revegetating the riparian zone with 8,000 native seedlings and protecting with 2km of stock exclusion fencing. O’Connor 50894 Rehabilitate and Preserve Remnant Vegetation in the Lower Irwin Catchment Lower Irwin Catchment Group PO Box 41, DONGARA, 6525 $24,952.27 This project will fence two stands of highly valuable remnant vegetation and fence and revegetate 10km of wildlife corridors with 10,000 native seedlings. O’Connor 50895 Stage 3 - Development of Corridors and Windbreaks in the Mingenew Shire, WA Mingenew Irwin Group PO Box 6, MINGENEW, 6522 $44,411.36 This project will protect 24km of corridor throughout the Mingenew Shire and create windbreaks on the fragile sand plain West of Mingenew. This will contribute to the enclosure of 607ha of remnant, riparian and rehabilitated vegetation. 18,000 seedlings will planted to extend and infill corridors and windbreaks. This is necessary to encourage the movement and habitation of fauna in some of the less vegetative areas and to provide a sufficient windbreak to the prevailing on-shore winds, which are highly erosive on the sand plain. O’Connor 50896 Protection and Revegetation of Saline Land, Three Springs. B.J Colegate & The Trustee for The Colegate Trust PO Box 62, THREE SPRINGS, 6519 $11,904.55 This project will continue the rehabilitation of salt affected creek lines and previously productive land by planting a 20m band of 2,250 native seedlings on the upper slopes and 2,250 saltbush on the lower, more saline slopes, adding to the 10ha currently planted at the site. The planting of 8,000 native species will protect and rehabilitate a saline and water logged site and 3.7km of stock exclusion fencing will protect the native seedlings planted. O’Connor 50897 Protecting and Stabilising a Natural Drainage Line on Spearwood Farm, Morawa The Spearwood Trust PO BOX 195, MORAWA, 6623 $25,481.82 This project will protect and stabilise 10.5km of natural waterway by erecting 13.1km of stock exclusion fencing, mounding the soil in the riparian zone and planting 8,370 native species. These activities, along with monitoring bores and riffles in the creek line will serve as a demonstration site for the rehabilitation of an entire waterway system with the aim of reducing the amount of water that reaches the lower slopes and valley floors of the catchment to alleviate salinity. O’Connor 50898 Restoration and Beautification of Jibberding Lake Yarra Yarra Catchment Management Group Incorporated PO Box 124, PERENJORI, 6620 $13,509.09 This project will plant 30,000 seedlings to rehabilitate an area of land severely degraded by salt. The plantings will compliment previous earthworks that have reduced the amount of water being landlocked. O’Connor 50902 Preserving Remnant Vegetation in the Mingenew and Irwin Shires, WA. Greenbrook Catchment Group PO Box 92, MINGENEW, 6522 $37,095.45 This project will contribute to the enclosure and enhancement of 222ha of remnant vegetation. This includes works on 8 individual patches of remnant vegetation, erecting 10.2km of stock proof fencing and planting 27,500 native seedlings. O’Connor   50903 Protecting Vegetation in the Nangetty, Yandanooka and West Morawa District, WA. Lockier River Catchment Group Care of Post Office, MINGENEW, 6522 $45,443.18 This project will protect riparian, remnant and naturally regenerating areas in the headlands of the Irwin Catchment. This project involves 6 landowners and will erect 16.5km of fencing. 10,000 native seedlings will be planted to re-establish an area that has been degraded by clearing and overgrazing. There will be 194ha directly protected, which will link up with the other protected remnant vegetation. O’Connor   50905 Protection of Wetlands and Remnant Vegetation and Implementation of Sustainable Management Practices for Saline Land, Catua Lake, Perenjori BH, EH, JH & LJ Morris PO Box 119, PERENJORI, 6620 $15,800.00 This project will construct 5.7km of stock exclusion fencing to protect 25ha of remnant vegetation and 10ha of healthy wetland. 200 native species will be planted around the wetland to improve the biodiversity. Construction of 3.1km of stock exclusion fencing and planting 9,153 saltbush on 75ha will stabilise and revegetate an area of previously productive land that has turned saline. O’Connor   50906 Farmers of Tabletop Road Protecting their Shared Natural Resources, Irwin Irwin Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 97, DONGARA, 6525 $41,427.27 This project will protect four stands of remnant vegetation and one creek line that will be revegetated to link with existing roadside corridors. Three new rehabilitated areas that are to be planted with native flora species will also be protected. Planting along fence lines will provide wind protection for fragile limestone sands, as well as providing important links between roadside vegetation and isolated patches of remnant vegetation. In total, 27.8km of stock proof fence will be erected and 9,950 seedlings planted. This will enclose 297ha of remnant, riparian and rehabilitated vegetation. O’Connor   50907 Protecting Remnant Vegetation and Waterways of the Otowiri and Mullingarra Systems, WA Arrino Farmer’s Group PO Box 143, MINGENEW, 6522 $36,702.27 This project will erect 14.15km of stockproof fencing to protect significant stands of remnant and riparian vegetation. It will also plant 12,500 native seedlings to improve two degraded waterways. In total, 489ha of land will be protected, some of which links to the Arrowsmith River corridor. O’Connor   50910 Restoration of Saline and Eroded Land on “Woonah”, Perenjori WA Hepworth, Leslie D PO Box 87, PERENJORI, 6620 $7,660.91 This project will stabilise and rehabilitate a severely eroded drainage line by planting trees in an 80m band on each side for a distance of 600m, adding to an existing band of trees to rehabilitate an estimated 6.36ha. It will also plant trees across 4.33ha to reduce wind erosion and salinity. The project will erect 2.6km of stock exclusion fencing to protect the revegetation. O’Connor   51064 Protect Waterways and Improve Saline Areas North East of Wickepin Phillip L and Julie A Russell PO Box 41, WICKEPIN, 6370 $3,952.27 This project will continue stabilisation of waterways and utilise excess groundwater by planting 4,400 native trees and 1,650 native understorey shrubs to cover an area of approximately 9.5ha. The project will erect 3.8km of fence to exclude stock from the area. The surrounding habitat will improve in quality and will be naturally re-established with native fauna, and our pasturelands will be sustained. O’Connor 51102 Protection of Priority Section of the Greenough River Cherip Holdings Proprietary Limited PO Box 103, WALKAWAY, 6528 $13,088.50 This project will erect 7km of fencing along a section of the Greenough River that exhibits excellent river foreshore condition. This will protect the remnant vegetation from disturbance enabling the vegetation to continue to stabilise the riverbed, banks and floodway, and provide important habitat for native terrestrial and aquatic fauna. This project will extend the work done to protect the river upstream on a neighbouring property. O’Connor 51105 Arinya Riparian and Associated Sandplain Heathland Conservation, South Dowerin R C & B A Boase PO Box 76, DOWERIN, 6461 $13,700.00 This project will protect and enhance the biodiversity of 280ha of unique remnant sandplain heathland and woodland surrounding the upper reaches of the northern branch of the Cunjardine River. There are six sites of cleared arable agricultural land totaling 23.65ha adjoining the bushland to be revegetated with 29,800 local provenance native plants. These sites are already fully fenced to exclude stock. The aim is to plant higher in the landscape so providing a buffer above areas already showing signs of increasing dryland salinity and erosion from wind and water. O’Connor 51132 Eneabba Springs Heritage and Vegetation Protection Fauchille, Gerard Paul Alfred PO Box 64, THREE SPRINGS, 6519 $16,500.00 This project will construct 15km of fencing to protect 345ha of remnant vegetation. This will enhance biodiversity and protect threatened species of the area. This fencing is a continuation of on-ground works already undertaken and follows the farm conservation strategy. O’Connor 51141 Salinity Protection and Regeneration on Harold Park, Perenjori H C W Trust PO Box 7, PERENJORI, 6620 $11,853.64 This project will construct 2.5km of stock exclusion fencing and plant 10,480 saltbush and 9,360 native plants to protect and rehabilitate a saline and waterlogged creek line. O’Connor 51147 Bailey Claypan Protection and Revegetation Project RA & E Bailey PO Box 299, NAREMBEEN, 6369 $5,090.91 This project will protect and enhance remnant vegetation around two adjoining clay pans by fencing 19ha to exclude stock and planting 5,000 native seedlings on 5ha of cropping land. This will act as a further buffer and infill between and around the pans helping to ensure the area does not go saline. O’Connor 51149 Protection of Remnant Vegetation RC & EMB Hall PO Box 299, NAREMBEEN, 6369 $3,636.36 This project will protect 25ha of remnant vegetation from grazing sheep by erecting 2km of fencing. O’Connor 51151 Revegetation of Deep Drainage Precinct, Halls Stage 1 and 2 Hall Farms Unit Trust PO Box 299, NAREMBEEN, 6369 $23,636.36 This project will revegetate salt affected land with 40,000 seedlings.This will link remnant vegetation with multiple species of native plants, creating further habitat along rehabilitated land. The plantings will stabilise the soil, protect drains from wind and water erosion and increase biodiversity on what was once saline land. O’Connor 51152 Santaleuca Forestry Demonstration Project SR & M Fry PO Box 278, NAREMBEEN, 6369 $11,272.73 This project will demonstrate the successful establishment methods of a dryland forestry project on marginal cropping land in the east of the central wheat belt. The project aims to plant 10ha of sandalwood hosts, and 6ha of brushwood on a granite ridge which has high water shedding and recharge characteristics. The successful establishment and profitable growth rates will demonstrate the ability of this difficult farm soil type to carry a profitable forestry crop. It will also contribute to a major reduction in recharge to Youhalin Creek, which is showing signs of salinity. O’Connor 51156 Stabilising Hewetts’ Breakaway, Pingrup WA Range Road Sub Catchment Group Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $22,363.64 This project will stabilise soil and alleviate water erosion below Hewett’s Breakaway in Range Road Subcatchment. The project will erect 4km of fencing to exclude stock from an area of 58ha. Level/absorption banks will be constructed on the grade between the breakaway and gully to slow surface water runoff and prevent further degradation. 15ha of remnant gully and breakaway vegetation will be protected and 25,000 local native seedlings will be planted on 25ha of eroded land. O’Connor 51179 Orchid Protection and Education Project, Perenjori, WA Quinn, Glen David PO Box 61, PERENJORI, 6620 $3,888.18 This project will protect a 27ha area of high ecological value, which contains at least nine species of orchids, by constructing 2.3km of stock exclusion fencing. A flora survey will collect species for identification by the state herbarium. The erection of signage at the entry to the site will provide information to wildflower tourists and community groups on the orchid species present, their rarity/distribution throughout the state and threats to their existence. O’Connor 51193 Tackling Secondary-Salinity in East Moore River Catchment, Yerecoin, WA. TP Duggan & Co 9 Auriol Court, CARINE, 6020 $5,254.55 This project will address secondary salinity in the Eastern branch of the Moore River by erecting 1.2km of fencing to enclose 5ha of valley floor and revegetating the area with a diverse range of salt-tolerant species. Stock will be totally excluded from the area to maximise natural regeneration of species such as York Gum. O’Connor 51197 Landcare Work to Manage Dryland Salinity on the Yow Yow Lakes System Wagin Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 311, WAGIN, 6315 $41,423.64 This project will improve water management to address salinity concerns on low-lying country. Remnant bushland totaling 135ha will be protected with 3.5km of fencing and 18,480 mixed native seedlings will be established in high recharge/discharge sites for water management and to limit the effects of erosion. 154ha of salt tolerant perennial shrubs and grasses will be established on low-lying saline areas and protected with 11.4km of fencing. 8.8km seepage interceptor banks will be constructed to harvest an additional 273ML/yr of water to reduce erosion and downslope waterlogging. These works will collectively reduce 7.75 tonnes/yr salt washing into the Lakes system. O’Connor 51204 Winning the War on Bridal Creeper in the Wagin / Woodanilling Zone 2005/06 Wagin/Woodanilling Landcare Zone PO Box 311, WAGIN, 6315 $27,263.64 This project will control bridal creeper infestations over 90ha of public land including remnant bush, waterways and road reserves, with the long term objective of eradicating the weed from the area. This project will protect waterways from degradation by protecting riparian vegetation and stabilising banks to prevent water erosion. O’Connor 51282 Revegetating Creeklines for Biodiversity Corridors on the Gabbin Flats Pauley, Gerard Vincent PO Box 198, KOORDA, 6475 $4,298.09 This project will erect 2.4km of fencing and plant 3,910 mixed trees and shrubs to establish a 40m wide biodiversity corridor. The total area revegetated will be 5.9ha. The project forms part of a multi-stage farm plan that aims to revegetate the creekline the entire length of property. O’Connor 51285 Saving Hodgson Girl’s Farm from Water Logging and Salinity B Hodgson & K.F Hodgson & R.A Hodgson PO Box 19, TAMBELLUP, 6320 $24,726.36 This project will revegetate 93ha with a mixture of woody and non-woody perennials and protect them with 2.4km of fencing. It will also install 5.6km of conservation earthworks to protect 170ha from waterlogging including 100ha of remnant vegetation and fence 5.2km covering 82ha of the Gordon River, protecting native vegetation and the stream channel from stock. O’Connor 51287 Protection and Rehabilitation of Wind Eroded Soils, Wubin Jenaro Nominees Pty Ltd & B.M Southcott & D.M Southcott & P.L Southcott & T.M Southcott PO Box 13, WUBIN, 6612 $2,702.14 This project will protect an area of 8ha badly eroded by the wind by creating a corridor 200m wide and 400m long. It will revegetate the area with 4,250 native seedlings and erect 1.2km of fencing. Rehabilitation of wind eroded soils will be supported by the method of brushing which will increase the survival of seedlings and add seed to the soil. O’Connor 51288 Revegetating the Beacon River for Landcare and Biodiversity Benefits The Trustee for The Shemeld Family Trust Beacon Back Road, BEACON, 6472 $4,460.64 This project will enhance biodiversity and reduce water table rise by protecting 8.3ha of recent revegetation by constructing 650m of fencing and 22ha of 50m wide revegetation corridor with 2.35km of fencing. O’Connor 51291 Protection of Remnant Vegetation at the Top of the South Yoting Catchment, Quairading WA South Yoting Catchment Group Inc PO Box 68, QUAIRADING, 6383 $18,181.82 This project will protect remnant vegetation from livestock by erecting 10km of fencing and will provide habitats and corridors connecting to other protected remnants for safe movement of native fauna and protection of flora. The project will also protect the existing remnant vegetation as a source of seed, which can be collected and seedlings produced to assist with revegetating other areas of the farms and also assist in further revegetation of other areas of the catchment with endemic species. O’Connor 51293 Rare Flora Plantings in Dandaragan, WA Dandaragan Regional Herbarium Group PO Box 100, DANDARAGAN, 6507 $8,913.64 This project will involve planting of approximately 30 declared rare flora species and other native vegetation in a degraded site in the town of Dandaragan. A major component of the project is the inclusion of interpretative signage about the native flora and the importance of conservation of threatened species and preserving the high biodiversity of the West Midlands region. This site will create a habitat for native wildlife in the area, as well as raising awareness among the community. O’Connor 51294 Fencing to Protect Remnants and Revegetation in the North Eastern Wheatbelt of WA The Trustee for Chris Kirby Family Trust “Toolbrunup”, PO Box 31, BEACON, 6472 $9,818.18 This project will enhance biodiversity values by protecting recent revegetation, providing habitat for wildlife. The project will involve 4km of fencing to protect 41ha of remnant vegetation and revegetation and 3km of fencing to protect a 7.95ha remnant corridor and a 13ha remnant corridor. As well as biodiversity values the project will provide Landcare benefits by assisting in the reduction of groundwater recharge in high recharge areas. O’Connor 51297 Fencing to Protect and Rehabilitate Remnant Vegetation and Creekline at Coalara, WA The Trustee for The Davies Trust Coalara Park, Coalara Road, BADGINGARRA, 6521 $18,951.91 This project will protect a large stand of remnant vegetation and a catchment of the Minyulo Creek by erecting 4km of fencing to exclude stock from grazing both areas. Fencing and planting 15,500 seedlings will prevent further degradation of the Minyulo Creek, reducing nutrient and sediment runoff into the lower areas of the catchment. Stock crossings will be established to allow access to paddocks and movement of stock across the creek. Alternative stock watering points will be established away from the river. O’Connor 51330 Protection and Rehabilitation of Salt Affected Land at Borden WA E.R. Miln & R.A. Milne PO Box 41, BORDEN, 6338 $19,327.27 This project will protect 37ha of remnant bushland, including two natural freshwater soaks as well as 28.8ha of revegetation on salt effected land. This will be achieved by the installation of 9km of fencing over two sites on the property. The project will also increase the connectivity of remnant on the property through the revegetation with 14,000 seedlings, whilst simultaneously protecting and adding to a creek tributary. O’Connor 51332 Protecting Corridors and Creeklines in the North Stirling’s Pallinup North Stirling Pallinup Natural Resources Incorporated PO Box 41, BORDEN, 6338 $23,668.18 This project will use 18.7km of fencing to protect 124ha of remnant vegetation and 9.5ha of vegetation in the North Stirlings Pallinup Region of WA. The proposed works, which include the planting of 4,750 seedlings, will protect and add to corridors near the Stirling Range National Park and protect creekline tributaries in the area. O’Connor 51333 Protection of Bushland Remnants and Enhancement through Revegetation in the Mills Lake and Ongerup Catchments. Gnowangerup Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 41, BORDEN, 6338 $24,750.00 This project will use 14.7km of fencing to protect 64ha of remnant vegetation and 27.5ha of revegetation in the Mills Lake and Ongerup Catchments. 13,750 seedlings will be planted in the revegetation sites. O’Connor 51334 Protection of Bushland in the Gondwana Link Area of the Corackerup Valley WA Aidinville Farms Pty Ltd & DM Baum & LD Hassell & P Hassell and PW Ruland PO Box 41, BORDEN, 6338 $16,909.09 This project will protect 276ha of remnant vegetation in the Corackerup Valley in WA by erecting 11km of stockproof fencing. This project will also complement the work of the Gondwana Link Project which aims to make a macro corridor between two National Parks in the Corackerup area. O’Connor 51336 Keeping the Salt at Bay in a Dryland Farming Landscape Datatine Catchment Group PO Box 99, DUMBLEYUNG, 6350 $23,229.20 This project will plant 29,823 trees and 6,250 saltbush and erect 10.3km of fencing in the Datatine Catchment. The works will contribute to the covering of saltland areas that are otherwise susceptible to erosion and establish networks of vegetation, provide habitat and reduce groundwater recharge. The fencing will protect newly established plantings and 40ha of remnant vegetation by excluding stock from fragile salt and revegetation sites. O’Connor 51338 The Phoenix Project - New Life After the December Kukerin Bushfires Fire Recovery Committee PO Box 61, DUMBLEYUNG, 6350 $44,603.04 This project will protect and restore areas severely damaged in the December 2004 Kukerin fires through the establishment of approximately 10,000 trees and the construction of 37.6km of fencing to exclude stock. The establishment and fencing of shelterbelts will help to curb the massive wind-erosion problem the area is now facing. O’Connor 51339 Extension of Creekline Rehabilitation Works and Wildlife Corridors at Miling WA. The Brian White Family Trust PO Box 32, MILING, 6575 $11,990.91 This project will erect 5.5km of fencing and plant 14,000 native plants to protect 40ha of a gully and broad valley floor threatened by salinity. Some adjacent remnant vegetation will also be fenced off and the site will act as a wildlife corridor linking with past revegetation works to the south. O’Connor 51342 Mindalla Farm Remnant Vegetation Conservation and Protection, Miling, WA Neil Pearse Family Trust PO Box 31, MILING, 6575 $2,972.73 This project will protect 100ha of remnant vegetation which is in very good condition, and includes Salmon Gums, York Gums and Gimlets. These three woodland types are considered to be amongst the most threatened of the Avon wheatbelt region. The area will be fully fenced off and excluded from stock with the construction of 1.8km of fencing. The project site is also a known habitat for the endangered Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). O’Connor 51345 Remnant Vegetation and Recharge Zone Protection at Shirbea, Hyden. The Trustee for the JG & CM Forrest Family Trust Box 56, HYDEN, 6359 $8,610.00 This project will protect several stands and corridors of existing remnant vegetation and fauna habitat from the effects of domestic stock. An area of approximately 40.5ha will be protected through the construction of 7.45km of fence. This project will also aid in the prevention of wind erosion, while assisting other landholders in the catchment through the protection of recharge areas. O’Connor 51347 Heavy Timber Protection at RoseLee, Shire of Dalwallinu OJ Butcher & Son PO Box 413, DALWALLINU, 6609 $2,000.00 This project will protect a rare 13ha patch of Salmon Gum, Gimlet and Red Morrell. The project will erect 1.1km of fencing around the remnant to permanently exclude stock from grazing the woodland and therefore prevent further degradation. The exclusion of stock will allow the regeneration of the understorey and mid layers of vegetation. O’Connor 51351 Remnant Vegetation Protection at West Wubin, WA The Trustee for PG & PM Nankivell Family Trust C/o Post Office, WUBIN, 6612 $13,132.73 This project will protect over 200ha of remnant york gum vegetation, using 7.3km for fencing. Stock will be permanently excluded from grazing the remnant ensuring its viability into the future and also reducing the pressure on the mallee fowl. O’Connor 51353 Protecting Remnant Bushland and Waterways by the Porongurup National Park Oyster Harbour Catchment Group Inc. PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $21,141.82 This project will protect 96ha of remnant vegetation, including pristine Karri Forest, adjacent to the Poronurup National Park and 3.5km of creeklines by erecting a total of 9.9km of stockproof fencing. 25ha will also be revegetated around these creeklines with local endemic seedlings. This project will protect the habitat of the Bandicoot, Blue Wren and Peregrine Falcon, which are found in the areas of remnant bush that this project intends to preserve. O’Connor 51355 Frankland River Fencing Project Gillamii Landcare Centre PO Box 9, CRANBROOK, 6321 $16,581.82 This project will protect the vegetation of a 7km section of the Frankland-Gordon River and sections of its tributaries to enrich biodiversity, improve water quality and increase stream bank stability. It will erect 11.4km of fencing to regulate livestock grazing pressure on 285.2ha of riparian zones and associated remnant vegetation. O’Connor 51357 Restoring the Wagin Lakes - Part 1 Friends of the Wagin Lakes Inc PO Box 50, WAGIN, 6315 $33,172.00 This project will re-introduce six plant species of indigenous cultural importance into the landscape around the Wagin Lakes. It will enhance environmental values by planting 3,000 seedlings, direct seeding over 11ha, undertaking weed control, assisting natural regeneration with small burns and weed eradication, constructing 6.5km of fencing and earthwork remediation of 2ha previously used as a gravel dump. In addition, comprehensive fox and rabbit baiting will be conducted to reduce impact on native fauna and flora and to allow rehabilitation works to be successful. O’Connor 51359 Protection and Enhancement of Kokadine Creek Vegetation J.I. Kalajzic & M.J. Kalajzic & P.A Kalajzic & R.J. Kalajzic PO Box 18, CADOUX, 6466 $38,195.45 This project will protect six stands of remnant vegetation along Kokadine creek. The remnants will be linked by planting vegetation corridors approximately 30-40m wide and 2.2km long with 6,600 native trees and 19,800 native understorey plants. This project will establish and protect 8,000 saline tolerant trees and 22,000 saltbush understorey. The project will erect 15km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from the remnant vegetation and revegetation.. This project will raise and encourage local landholder awareness in remnant protection and provide a linked corridor for wildlife. O’Connor 51360 The Frankland Gordon River Fencing Project Frankland Gordon Catchment Management Group Inc. PO Box 9, CRANBROOK, 6321 $43,201.82 This project will protect vegetation along sections of the Frankland-Gordon River and tributaries to enhance biodiversity, improve water quality and increase stream bank stability. The group will erect 23.2km of fencing to regulate livestock grazing pressure on riparian zones and areas of remnant vegetation. The project will plant 10,000 seedlings along the waterway systems. O’Connor 51366 Boyning Gully Conservation Project BA Lang & CJ Lang PO Box 11, WICKEPIN, 6370 $16,290.91 This project will rehabilitate 20ha of Boyning Gully, the major collector for flows into Yealering Lake. The project will erect 5km of fencing to protect existing wildlife habitat and revegetate with 16,000 seedlings. The project will establish sustainable farming practices by planting perennial pastures on adjacent farm land to reduce the point source origins of saline and nutrient rich flows entering Boynong Gully. O’Connor 51367 Remnant Vegetation Corridor at North Hyden WA - Stage 1 Green Trust PO Box 63, HYDEN, 6359 $25,773.50 This project will protect several stands of remnant vegetation from degradation by domesticated animals. Approximately 20km of fence will be erected, enclosing an area of almost 80ha. The project will also protect important recharge areas at the top of the catchment, benefiting downstream neighbours. This is the first stage of the plan that will eventually create an uninterrupted vegetation corridor running north-south and then east-west through the centre of the property. O’Connor 51370 A Local Creekline Corridor, Katanning, WA Ewlyamartup Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $14,445.09 This project will improve the condition of the Ewlyamartup Catchment by planting 33,840 native trees and understorey plants. This will provide a windbreak to reduce wind erosion and stabilise the creekline reducing water erosion. The project will link privately owned remnant vegetation with the revegetation of the creekline and corridor plantings through paddocks, providing a corridor for the movement of native fauna. O’Connor 51375 Use the Water Where if Falls, Katanning, WA North Carrolup Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $18,272.73 This project will establish 6km of sub-surface interceptor banks which will harvest surface fresh water, depositing the water into the Carrolup River. 1km of bank will be fenced and revegetated with species endemic to the areas, creating a wind buffer and corridor with an existing area of vegetation. 8ha of remnant vegetation will be fenced to permanently exclude stock from the area and Carrolup Creek will be revegetated with 15,000 native trees. This project will reduce recharge, salinity and waterlogging on areas lower in the catchment. O’Connor 51398 Erosion and Siltation Control in the Jinka’s Hill Catchment, Western Australia Jinka’s Hill Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $25,572.73 This project will rehabilitate 12.5 hectares of eroded deep sands with 9,000 endemic seedlings, and provide 4km of wind breaks with a further 3,500 endemic plants in the Jinka’s Hill Catchment. Revegetation will reduce wind erosion and connect an area of remnant vegetation with the creekline. A total of 11km of fencing will exclude stock from these areas. 1,500 seedlings will be planted on the saline flat of the catchment to ameliorate the rising groundwater table. A field day will be held to raise the group’s awareness of the soil and biodiversity issues in the catchment. O’Connor 51401 Protection, Rehabilitation and Improved Management of Saline Land, Maya W.C. Diamond and Co. PO Box 9, BUNTINE, 6613 $25,305.13 This project will erect a total of 12km of fencing at five sites to enclose a total of 110ha that is showing symptoms of secondary salinity. Trees and shrubs will be planted at a rate of 1,100 stems/ha on the sites to combat the rising water table. O’Connor 51402 Danubin Farm Revegetation and Remnant Protection Project, Dowerin WA The Danubin Trust PO Box 108, WONGAN HILLS, 6603 $19,527.27 This project will erect 3.8km of fencing and revegetate with 40,000 native plants to combat the rising water table and act as wildlife corridors to two significant granite outcrop communities that contain Declared Rare Flora. The project will also fence off 28ha of remnant vegetation, using 0.9km of fencing. This will ensure the exclusion of stock and continue to encourage regeneration. O’Connor 51403 Creek Rehabilitation and Stabilisation on Yerewaning Springs, Yerecoin, WA The Trustee for the Damar Trust PO Box 160, YERECOIN, 6571 $21,781.82 This project will address waterlogging, salinity and erosion at three sites in the East Moore River Catchment. A total of 46,000 native salt-tolerant seedlings will be planted, and 8.3km of fencing will be erected to rehabilitate and stabilise natural drainage lines. O’Connor 51406 Salt Control of Remnant Wandoo Woodland EF & EM Hueppauff 855 Norrish Road, BROOMEHILL, 6318 $2,105.45 This project will protect 32ha of Wandoo Woodlands from further degradation by erecting 800m of fencing to exclude stock, and inter-planting the existing timber with 2,000 multi-level understorey plants specific to the area. A 300m interceptor bank will be constructed to control waterlogging of the lower lying forest floor. O’Connor 51411 Protecting Remnant Vegetation on Lawson’s, WA Arthur Edward Gent Estate & Roland Gent PO Box 68, TRAYNING, 6488 $4,909.09 This project will erect 2.7km of fencing to protect and enhance 57.76ha of Mallee York Gum Woodland with granite outcrop and vegetation associations. This project will improve the quality of the vegetation and provide a linkage to the adjoining Billycatting Hill Nature Reserve. O’Connor 51415 Revegetation on Andersons, WA Anderson Bros PO Box 55, TRAYNING, 6488 $4,409.09 This project will plant 7,000 local native salt tolerant seedlings and erect 4km of fencing to address rising groundwater tables and salinity in the valley floor of the South Trayning/Huandanning Catchment. O’Connor 51418 Fencing Remnant Vegetation on Joe’s at “Spion Kop”, WA JF & GP Langford No2 PO Box 94, TRAYNING, 6488 $15,545.45 This project will protect 56.6ha of remnant vegetation by erecting 9km of fencing. This will link up with 59ha of remnant vegetation and granite outcrop and 59.47ha of existing vegetation. This project joins the nominated areas of remnant vegetation to the South Trayning/Huandanning Bush Corridor and will improve the quality of the remnant vegetation protected while linking areas of habitat. O’Connor 51428 Fencing to Protect High Value Remnants Near Gabbin WA NB & GM Trainor PO Box 184, KOORDA, 6475 $4,272.73 This project will protect two areas of remnant vegetation which contain large areas of Red Morrel Woodland by erecting 27km of fencing to protect remnants from stock and to improve the biodiversity conservation values. O’Connor 51431 Fencing of Strategic Revegetation C McGregor & J.P McGregor Maya East Road, BUNTINE, 6613 $18,992.95 This project will erect 15.5km of fencing around a previously revegetated area to stabilise groundwater recharge and erosion. Plant growth will be encouraged by exclusion of stock from the area while allowing continued farming use of the surrounding areas. O’Connor 51436 Protecting the Western Mallee-Kukerin, Western Australia Dumbleyung Bush Carers PO Box 99, DUMBLEYUNG, 6350 $17,450.58 This project will protect over 77ha of quality remnant vegetation and establish new trees in cleared and exposed areas of the catchment. It will establish 15km of fencing and plant 4,081 trees in strategic positions to maximise erosion control and water use. Neighbouring properties will be involved in the project which will have excellent benefits for the wildlife of the area through protection and extension of habitat. Feral fox control activities will also complement the project. O’Connor 51438 Working Across the Fence - Addressing Bottom of the Catchment Issues Up Where They Begin Dumbleyung Landcare Zone Inc. PO Box 99, DUMBLEYUNG, 6350 $6,361.96 This project will plant 4,314 native trees and erect 4.8km of fencing to protect 35.5ha of native vegetation. This will help to reduce groundwater recharge that is causing significant salinity issues in the lower catchment. The revegetation of a hill will also address significant water erosion issues at the site. A cultural heritage site will be protected through exclusion of stock grazing pressure. O’Connor 51439 Restoring and Protecting the Quaradup Gully Mr Christopher Paridaens PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $3,975.00 This project will assist the protection and rejuvenation of the Quaradup Gully which enters directly into the Kalgan River, the major river system of the Oyster Harbour Catchment. It will erect 1km of fencing to exclude stock and prevent further degradation and revegetate 4.5ha with local endemic species to reduce the level of nutrients entering the creekline. O’Connor 51449 Sustainable Grazing Systems on Prospect WA IJ & DH Haggerty PO Box 161, WYALKATCHEM, 6485 $17,031.82 This project will implement the demonstration of a sustainable grazing system by erecting 4.75km of fencing and implementing 120ha of perennial pastures as a part of on ground works program to better manage the soils on our farm to improve soil structure, health and address salinity and waterlogging issues impacting on the productivity of degraded soils in the wheatbelt. In conjunction with monitoring and evaluation activities, the project will demonstrate locally how improved management of pastures will improve the relationship between healthy soils, healthy plants and sustainable livestock and grain production on the farm. O’Connor 51451 Creek Revegetation and Linking Project Clifton S & Shelley A Crombie PO Box 228, CORRIGIN, 6375 $17,090.91 This project will incorporate the revegetation of over 4km of creekline to link areas of remnant vegetation which will also have revegetation work. The degraded areas of remnant will be revegetated with endemic species to act as a buffer to areas of agriculture. The project will erect 9km of fencing to exclude stock from the remnant areas and the creekline. O’Connor 51455 Surface Water Management and Revegetation project The Trustee for Keith Butler Family Trust RSM Belka South Road, BRUCE ROCK, 6418 $14,363.64 This project will revegetate low lying areas in the landscape that suffer from waterlogging and salinity. It will also manage surface water by collecting water in the upper catchments for use elsewhere on the farm or in the catchment. By revegetating with 11,000 seedlings, fencing off 6km total creekline and installing a w-drain, the project will link 62ha of remnant vegetation and previous revegetation works. O’Connor 51459 Creek Restoration - Lockwood Gully C.A Heasman & D.A Heasman & M.D. Heasman Strathmore, ARDATH, 6419 $10,363.64 This project will help to stabilise banks of an eroded creekline by revegetating with 6,000 seedlings and erecting 4.5km of fencing along the creekline to exclude stock. The revegetated area will link through to other areas of the creek which have previously been revegetated. O’Connor 51464 Greening the Landscape of Washpool and Doradine, Western Australia Dumbleyung Land Conservation District Committee PO Box 99, DUMBLEYUNG, 6350 $22,598.04 This project will plant 22,336 trees, and erect 13.2km of fencing to protect revegetation and 33ha of remnant vegetation. A 300m contour bank will be installed to reduce waterlogging in an area adjacent to a bush reserve. The strategic locations of the plantings will assist in reducing erosion issues, increasing connectivity for wildlife habitat and reducing groundwater recharge. O’Connor 51465 Reducing Recharge in the Moojebing Catchment, Katanning, WA Moojebing Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $23,311.82 This project will construct 1.5km of contour banks to harvest water which will be revegetated to filter and impede surface water flow and fenced to permanently exclude stock. A further 4ha will be fenced and revegetated creating a wind buffer and reducing recharge into the groundwater table. A total of 11,000 native trees will be planted in the project. 88ha of pature groundcover will be sown to further reduce groundwater recharge, prevent erosion and improve soil condition promoting sustainable farming systems to the rest of the catchment. O’Connor 51514 Using the Water in the Coyrecup Catchment, WA Coyrecup Lake Catchments PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $30,547.27 This project will harvest 30,000 cubic metres of rainfall with 4km of contour banks. The freshwater harvested will be deposited in a clay lined dam. The banks will be revegetated with 18,000 endemic seedlings creating a wind buffer. The plantings will link with previous plantings and an area of remnant vegetation. 20ha of salt affected land will be reclaimed with 10,000 high water using perennial salt tolerant species. It will use a range of water and land management options with the objective of reducing recharge, salinity and waterlogging on areas lower in the catchment O’Connor 51517 Yallalie Downs Revegetation to Help Control Erosion Beemurra Aboriginal Corporation PO Box 216, MOORA, 6510 $7,778.18 This project will revegetate 1ha of unproductive agriculture land with native vegetation consisting of predominantly Banksia woodlands species. The revegetation will form important links to other remnant vegetation connected to the property to provide a biodiversity corridor. It will plant 2,050 seedlings of mixed native local providence and will erect 3.2km of fencing to protect the revegetation. O’Connor 51532 Implementing the Lake Chinocup Integrated Catchment Management Plan Lake Chinocup Catchment Resource Management Committee Sanderson Street, PINGRUP, 6343 $22,072.73 This project will reduce the salinity threat to the catchment area, conserve remnant vegetation and address wind and water erosion. It will erect 5.2km of fencing to exclude stock from 93ha of remnant native vegetation at three sites, plant 15,100 native seedlings on 12.2ha at five sites, with 4.5km of fencing erected to protect them and 10,000 established seedlings. O’Connor 51533 Linking and Protecting Remnants on Badgers’ Creeklines, Nyabing Robyn Badger Sanderson Street, PINGRUP, 6343 $14,672.73 This project will erect 6.6km of fencing to exclude stock from a 80m wide, 3.7km length of creek line. 22.3ha of remnant riparian vegetation will be protected and 7,000 native seedlings planted to stabilise soil, utilise excess water and link existing remnants. In addition, 400m of fencing will be erected and 4ha of deep-rooted perennial pasture will be established on a sandy, midslope eroded area that is encroaching upon 4ha of remnant Banksia and Dryandra heathland. O’Connor 51536 Protection, Linkage and Extension of Remnants, Lefroy River Catchment, WA Lefroy River Catchment Group Sanderson Street, PINGRUP, 6343 $19,963.64 This project will protect 66ha of gravel ironstone heathland, sheoak and morrell woodland and jam and Eucalypt mallee scrubland in Lefory River Catchment. Two neighbouring landholders will collectively plant 7,900 native seedlings and erect 6.9km of fencing to exclude stock from a 54ha remnant. The seedlings will extend the width of a 500m section of remnant to 30m and rehabilitate a saline creekline to form a 50m wide, 7ha corridor. With the construction of 2.5km of fencing, a 12ha remnant will be protected. O’Connor 51541 Wetland, Waterway and Remnant Vegetation Protection in Albany Eastern Hinterland Albany Eastern Hinterland Inc. C/- Post Office, WELLSTEAD, 6328 $45,373.18 This project will protect over 190ha of remnant vegetation and wetlands with 27.505km of fencing in the South Stirlings and Manypeaks area of the Albany Eastern Hinterland Catchment. Revegetation with 6,180 seedlings and 3.7kg of seed will link areas of remnant vegetation, infill existing degraded remnant vegetation and replace seedlings in an area of revegetation that suffered in a very dry winter. O’Connor 51631 Riparian and Remnant Vegetation Protection of Paulyunerup Brook Holly Flottmann RMB 9278, Ryan Road, YOUNGS SIDING, 6330 $2,772.73 This project will protect 0.7km of the Paulyunerup Brook, 5.1ha of associated riparian vegetation and 8.5ha of remnant vegetation by fencing the area to exclude stock. It will increase water quality of Paulyurerup Brook which is a tributary of the Hay River. The protected vegetation will link other nearby remnant vegetation and agroforestry to provide wildlife corridors. O’Connor 51632 Rehabilitation of Byrne’s Creek by Fencing and Revegetation, Calingiri, WA A Byrne-O’Neilll & S.V Byrne PO Box 33, CALINGIRI, 6569 $4,272.73 This project will erect 1.5km of fencing to enclose 16ha of remnant Marri woodland and understorey that provides feeding and breeding habitat for the endangered Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo. It will erect 500m of fencing to exclude stock from a creek, protect 7ha of remnant and enclose a new planting site. It will also plant 3,000 shrubs and trees to stabilise the creek banks, reduce recharge to local groundwater aquifers and create new habitat. O’Connor 51633 Improving the Natural Diversity of Cullarring Springs, Bolgart, WA Bain Family Trust C/- Post Office, BOLGART, 6568 $13,727.27 This project will install 6.5km of fencing and plant 5,000 trees and shrubs to protect remnant vegetation and creeklines from stock, and improve the biodiversity of degraded remnants. Protecting the creekline from stock will increase regeneration of salt-tolerant species along the banks, which will reduce erosion and combat rising water tables and salinity. Revegetation within the remnant woodland will include understorey and mid-storey species to improve the vegetation structure, which will increase the remnant’s habitat value. 3,000 seedlings will also be planted adjacent to a remnant on sandy soil. O’Connor 51638 Back to Our Heritage - Restoring Boyup Brook Blackwood Valley Landcare Zone Inc PO Box 672, BRIDGETOWN, 6255 $17,647.05 This project will restore the ecological functioning and biodiversity of Boyup Brook by rehabilitating 18ha of weedy areas and encouraging natural regeneration of existing native generation. It will also revegetate 3ha of cleared areas with 8,000 seedlings of local plants O’Connor 51648 Riparian and Remnant Vegetation Protection of Sunny Glen and Sleeman Waterways Sunny Glen / Sleeman Sub Catchment PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $24,420.00 This project will protect 4.2km of the Sunny Glen and Sleeman Rivers and 54ha of associated riparian vegetation by erecting 11km of fencing to exclude stock. Due to the exclusion of stock from the waterway, nine associated stock crossings and five alternate water points will be installed. It will improve water quality of Sunny Glen Creek and Sleeman River which are major contributors of nutrients to the Wilson Inlet while providing macro corridors. O’Connor 51649 Waterman’s Catchment Riparian Vegetation Restoration and Protection Watermans Sub Catchment PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $42,845.45 This project will erect 15.7km of fencing to protect 92.6ha of riparian and remnant vegetation. Revegetation of 14ha of riparian vegetation will be undertaken to enhance the existing vegetation at one site. Due to the length of waterways being protected eight stock crossings and four alternate water points will also be installed. O’Connor 51650 Water Control to Reduce Salinity in Murdong Pools, WA Murdong Pools Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $45,350.00 This project will establish 10.2km of contour banks which will harvest surface water, depositing the water into existing clay lined dams and the Ewlyamartup Creek. The banks will be fenced and revegetated with endemic plants creating a wind buffer and corridor between areas of remnant vegetation and Ewlyamartup Creek. The group will fence and revegetate 1km of Ewlyamartup Creek. A total of 19,000 native trees will be planted in the project. It will use a range of water and land management options with the objective of reducing recharge, salinity and waterlogging on areas lower in the catchment. O’Connor 51651 Remnant Vegetation Protection and Reserve Connection at North Hyden, WA GJ & BA McSweeney Box 28, NAREMBEEN, 6369 $24,896.36 This project will protect two stands and one corridor of remnant vegetation by erecting 24.25km of cyclone fence. Stock will be excluded from a total of 52ha of vegetation which will allow the understorey to regenerate. It will complete the exclusion of approximately 1,000 acres of remnant vegetation. It will restore the quality of the vegetation while having natural resource impacts such as securing vegetation on recharge areas high in the landscape. This will have larger, long-term impacts benefiting the entire catchment. O’Connor 51653 Nature Conservation in an Agricultural Landscape at Lakeview Farm N.G McFarlane & T.M McFarlane PO Box 21, DOODLAKINE, 6411 $13,577.27 This project will erect 9.7km of fencing to protect remnant vegetation, provide nature corridors to link remnant vegetation to State Forest, and protect freshwater wetland and other biodiversity values. Revegetation of creek line, which feeds into a major salt lake system, will prevent erosion and further degradation. O’Connor 51655 Fencing and Revegetation to Protect Salt Affected Areas on “The Lakes”, WA Cameron M & P PO Box 294, LAKE GRACE, 6353 $25,950.78 This project will address the affects of salinity in the Lockhart catchment of the Avon river basement. It will plant 37,058 trees in areas suffering salinty or areas of high risk to reduce recharge and slow the spread of salt. It will also erect 10.2km of fencing to prevent stock access to the newly established vegetation and fragile salt affected areas. O’Connor 51661 Daping Creek Restoration and Catchment Revegetation, WA Daping Creek Catchment Group PO Box 803, KATANNING, 6317 $45,447.73 This project will rehabilitate 6km of Daping Creek by fencing and planting of 50,000 native plants which will continue the development of a corridor along Daping Creek with adjoining properties. Stock will be permanently excluded from the creekline and piping and a solar pump will be installed to locate four stock watering points away from Daping Creek. A further 16,000 native trees will be planted on the upper slope of the catchment reducing groundwater recharge and discharge on the low lying landscape surrounding the creekline. A further 0.5km of fencing will permanently exclude stock from the areas of revegetation. O’Connor 51664 Protecting Piawaning Townsite and Nature Reserve from Rising Salinity Threat The Trustee for Corio Family Trust “Corio” PO Box 25, PIAWANING, 6572 $18,636.36 This project will erect 4.5km of fencing to enclose 40ha of saline broad valley floor adjacent to the Piawaning townsite and the surrounding Nature Reserve, both threatened by encroaching salinity. 40,000 native salt tolerant species will be planted to combat the rising water table and help reduce this threat. The project will continue on from previous plantings to form a connected series of nature corridors linking surrounding bushland to the Reserve. O’Connor 51670 Protecting Remnants and Establishing Revegetation, Yaalup Lagoon Catchment David Curtin Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $15,738.18 This project will construct 1.4km of fencing to exclude stock from 15.2ha of Melaleuca, Eucalypt mallee, Sheoak and Moort remnants on a large granite outcrop in Yaalup Lagoon catchment. 5,200 native seedlings will be planted in 25m wide corridors at 3 sites and protected with 6.2km of stock exclusion fencing. O’Connor 51673 Stabilisation of Collins’ Creek in Gnowanallup Catchment, Nyabing Maurice Collins Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $7,272.73 This project will reduce erosion along Collins Creek by erecting 2km of stock exclusion fencing along each bank. It will also protect 15ha of remnant Salmon gum, Morrell and Eucalypt Mallee vegetation. Salt tolerant native seed collected from the property will be broadcast on both sides of the creekline to increase plant cover and diversity, stabilise soils and utilise excess water. O’Connor 51674 Restoring Riparian Vegetation and Protecting Habitat, Nyabing Creek Catchment Kerryn Stephens Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $21,418.18 This project will restore riparian vegetation and protect existing habitat along creeklines in Nyabing Creek Catchment by erecting 10.1km of fencing along 5.35km of creeklines, excluding stock from a 35.1ha area. 22.8ha of remnant vegetation consisting of Sheoak woodland, Jam and York Gum/mallee and Morrell woodland will be protected and 12.3ha will be revegetated with 21,400 native seedlings, forming wildlife corridors 30-100m wide that will stabilise soils, utilise excess water and prevent salinity. O’Connor 51676 Remnant Protection on Diverse Landscapes in Wolyaming Catchment, Nyabing Wolyaming Catchment Group Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $6,909.09 This project will protect two remnants growing on diverse landscapes in Wolyaming catchment. This will be achieved by constructing 900m of fencing to exclude stock from 15ha of white gum, jam and morrell woodland on the valley floor and 2.5km of fencing to protect a 120ha remnant containing gravel hilltop and mid/lower slope vegetation. O’Connor 51677 Easing Waterlogging on the Gnowanallup Gully Flats, Nyabing, WA A.G Addis Sanderson St, PINGRUP, 6343 $9,129.09 This project will ease waterlogging that is causing salinity on the Gnowanallup Gully Flats by constructing 600m of w-drains to link existing surface water control works to Gnowanallup Gully. 8,280 native seedlings will be established over 7ha to utilise excess water, stabilise soils and enhance biodiversity and protected with 3.2km of stock exclusion fencing. Landholders will then establish saltbush and salt land pasture on salt-affected land and lucerne on adjacent unaffected land. O’Connor 51682 Protection of Regrowth Flora and Native Fauna, Varley, WA The Trustee for The Craig Newman Trust PO Box 42, NEWDEGATE, 6355 $18,498.18 This project will protect two stands of regrowth and remnant vegetation adjacent to Drust Lake by constructing 11km of stock exclusion fencing. This will create a wildlife protection area of approximately 450ha and protect native vegetation regrowth, reducing erosion of the lake bank. Field days will help raise community awareness regarding conservation. O’Connor 51684 Hillman Catchment Swamp Revegetation and Surface Water Management Project Hillman Catchment Group RMB 144, DARKAN, 6392 $41,709.09 This project will erect 6.8km of fencing along the southern bank of the Moore River to exclude stock, reducing erosion, improving water quality, protecting existing riparian vegetation and promoting regeneration. The northern bank is already fenced at this site, resulting in a corridor of protected remnant vegetation up to 300m wide along this section of the Moore River. With the existing fencing along the Moore river, the project will result in a 20km long stretch of the Moore River and associated remnant vegetation being protected from stock. O’Connor 51694 Rehabilitating Rocky Ridges at Round Hill, WA Boolardy Pastoral Company Pty Limited RSM 427, MOORA, 6510 $4,500.00 This project will erect 2.5km of fencing to enclose approximately 30ha of remnant vegetation crowning a rocky ridge in the Moore River catchment. This will prevent sheep and cattle from grazing in the remnant and allow natural regeneration to occur. Weed control will be undertaken at the site to provide better conditions for regeneration, including burning to encourage the germination of Acacia acuminata seeds. O’Connor 51695 Preservation of the Moore River at Mogumber, WA Martin, Russell John PO Box 20, MOGUMBER, 6506 $12,545.45 This project will erect 6.8km of fencing along the southern bank of the Moore River to exclude stock, reducing erosion, improving water quality, protecting existing riparian vegetation and promoting regeneration. The northern bank is already fenced at this site, resulting in a corridor of protected remnant vegetation up to 300m wide along this section of the Moore River. With the existing fencing along the Moore river, the project will result in a 20km long stretch of the Moore River and associated remnant vegetation being protected from stock. O’Connor 51700 Fencing of Remnant Woodland in the Moore River Catchment RC Cocking & Co RMB 405, MOORA, 6510 $22,363.64 This project will erect 9.7km of fencing to enclose 523ha of Eucalyptus loxophleba, E. wandoo and E. salmonophloia woodland, protecting it from grazing and enabling regeneration to occur. By fencing off the remnant, the water quality of the creek that flows into the Moore River will be maintained, and the habitat for native fauna, including the threatened Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo, will be preserved. O’Connor 51702 Connecting and Protecting Creeklines of Fletcher and Yarawindah Brooks Sarah P Mason & Caroline M Goodden 154 Forrest Street, FREMANTLE, 6160 $7,018.18 This project will connect vegetation around two brooks, providing 9ha of continuous vegetation, which will also buffer the Rica Erickson Reserve. 15,360 salt tolerant seedlings will be planted to infill previous plantings of 13,000 mixed species. 900m of fencing will protect the vegetation from stock. By increasing the vegetation cover along the creekline, salinity, erosion and sediment and nutrient run-off will be reduced. O’Connor 51708 Protection of Remnant York Gum Woodland on “Rathnally”, Piawaning, WA Rathnally Farming Trust PO Box 166, WONGAN HILLS, 6603 $3,200.00 This project will protect a 7ha York Gum woodland by erecting 1.5km of fencing to exclude stock and reduce grazing pressures. This will be complemented by revegetating a wash out and degraded areas with natural occurring plant species to prevent any further depletion of the land. O’Connor 51712 Protection of the Kordabup River Riparian and Remnant Vegetation Kordabup Sub Catchment PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $10,106.36 This project will protect 1.7km of the Kordabup River, 25.1ha of its associated riparian vegetation, including 1.53ha of revegetation, by erecting 4.94km of fencing to exclude stock. The project will increase the water quality of Kordabup River. O’Connor 51714 Riparian and Remnant Vegetation Protection of Scottsdale Brook Scottsdale Sub Catchment PO Box 118, MOUNT BARKER, 6324 $12,874.55 This project will protect 2.5km of Scottsdale Brook and 15.3ha of associated riparian vegetation by erecting 4.75km of fencing to exclude stock. Six stock crossings will be constructed and four alternate water points installed. The protected vegetation will link other nearby remnant vegetation and agroforestry to provide wildlife corridors O’Connor 51715 Connecting Vegetation Corridors Pepper, Richard George PO Box 130, RAVENSTHORPE, 6346 $2,836.36 This project will fence 1.6km to protect 5.5ha of remnant vegetation and revegetate with 1,336 seedlings to connect corridors and prevent wind erosion. The proposed protected area will form part of a corridor from a road reserve in the Ravensthorpe Shire, through a large private remnant to the Fitzgerald River National Park. O’Connor 51845 Revegetation on Yarragin Farms, WA EA & MF Woodfield PO Box 3, KUNUNOPPIN, 6489 $2,100.00 This project will use 6,600 local native species to revegetate an area of 6ha adjoining 190ha of cleared remnant vegetation. This will minimise the amount of water that sheds from the site and improve and enhance the biodiversity values to the area. O’Connor 51849 RL and RM Lane and Sons Revegetation Project R L & R M Norreys-Lane PO Box 271, WONGAN HILLS, 6603 $18,817.27 This project will protect and enhance 38ha of remnant vegetation by planting 9,680 seedlings and constucting 7.5km of fencing. It will also reduce soil erosion and subsequent runoff to a creek line and protect an area threatened by dry land salinity by constructing 2.1km of fencing and 3,000 seedlings. O’Connor 51854 Protection of Rare Flora (Templetonia Megacephala) by Fencing Remnant Vegetation on Rocky Ridge B.W Manning & C.M Manning & G.R Manning & R.R Manning & S.N Manning & V.I Manning Mokadine Springs Farm, Berkshire Valley Road, MOORA, 6510 $7,454.00 This project will protect a rare species of flora, Templetiona megacephala, by fencing an area of rocky ridge to prevent further loss from human activity. The area is adjacent to a silicon, (quartzite) mine, pasture/crop paddocks and natural bush reserve. O’Connor 51889 Kitchcoolie Farm Revegetation Project The Trustee for the KG Kingston Family Trust PO Box 246, GOOMALLING, 6460 $13,000.00 This project will use 3.8km of fencing to protect 7ha of land including 1.3km of creekline and adjoining contours. 7,000 seedlings will be planted on both sides of the creekline and on the lower slope of a contour to enhance the area and create a wildlife corridor which will join with existing revegetation areas. The project will also protect and enhance part of the Berrendenning Creek using 1.64km of fencing and 3,000 seedlings, creating increased habitat for local wildlife. O’Connor 51890 Hindmarsh Lake System Revegetation project JB & PA Woods PO Box 90, DOWERIN, 6461 $11,309.09 This project will use 2.3km of fencing and 20,000 seedlings to enhance and protect 19ha of a drainage depression that leads into the Hindmarsh Lake System. A corridor of approximately 100m wide and 1.3km in length will be created, which will directly join an area of lakes and remnant vegetation of 345ha. O’Connor 51891 Re-establishment of “Rose of the West” into Two Sites in the MCC OP & DJC Richardson PO Box 7, BADGINGARRA, 6521 $6,524.06 This project will reestablish two small plantings (1,500 plants in total) of the ‘Rose of the West’, a rare and endangered plant species from the region. Participants will include local primary school, Moora TAFE horticulture and landcare students, teachers, and trainers with the Moore Catchment Council. O’Connor 51892 Beaulah Farm Revegetation Project Alan A & Penelope J & Peter & Thomas & Melissa R & Donnelle F Henning PO Box 21, CADOUX, 6466 $18,727.27 This project will protect and enhance 45ha of creek line and 21ha of natural depressions suffering from waterlogging and salinity. This will be achieved using 5.1km of stock exclusion fencing allowing natural regeneration and planting 20,000 local native seedlings. O’Connor 51895 Kroe Hut Farm Revegetation Project Chitty, Simon Michael PO Box 100, GOOMALLING, 6460 $7,445.45 This project will protect and enhance 10ha of natural drainage line at risk of further salinisation, using 1.6km of fencing and 12,000 local plants. The project site is located on a hill slope and joins a vegetated creekline that eventually drains into the Mortlock River North Branch. The Mortlock Rivers has been identified as an asset of regional significance within the Avon River Basin. In addition to creating links to the creekline, the project will create links to remnant vegetation located higher in the landscape. O’Connor 51923 Protecting a Community Red Morrell Woodland Mortlock Bushland Group PO Box 76, DOWERIN, 6461 $3,718.18 This project will protect 15.1ha of quality Red Morrell ecosystem using 1.6km of fencing. This site links to the significant areas of remnant vegetation found surrounding the Goomalling Townsite. The project will be a community effort, including members from the Mortlock Bushland Group, Tidy Towns Committee and the Goomalling Shire. O’Connor 51925 Thalera Farm Restoration Project G.J Anderson & The Thalera Trust PO Box 779, DOWERIN, 6461 $9,163.64 This project will protect and enhance three sites. Site 1 will protect 4.9ha of excellent quality remnant vegetation and granite outcrop using 480m of fencing. The outcrop links to 242ha of excellent remnant and granite outcrop and contains the Declared Rare Flora, Microcorys eremophilodes. Site 2 will revegetate and protect 5.5ha of waterlogged land using 630m of fencing and 7,000 seedlings. Site 3 will protect 36.6ha of salt affected land and lakes using 2.36km of fencing. This area is the link from the Koomekine Lake systems into the Lake Walyormouring system. O’Connor 51927 Banjelungup Aboriginal Corporation Remnant Vegetation Protection Project Banjelungup Aboriginal Corporation 120 Elizabeth Street, LOWER KING, 6330 $21,118.18 This project will protect and enhance 10km of natural vegetation along the Bitter Water Creek drainage system that flows through the Dillon Bay property and 5km on the Swamp Road farm by constructing stock exclusion fencing and allowing natural regeneration of native flora species, providing a conservation corridor for local flora and fauna. The reduction of erosion into the drainage systems will reduce siltation of the Bremer Bay River and subsequently the Dillon Bay Coastal Reserve fresh water system. Oxley 52003 Continuing Riparian Rehabilitation Projects in the SWAG Catchment, SE Queensland Six Mile Woogaroo and Goodna Creeks Catchment Group Inc 274 Jones Road, BELLBIRD PARK, 4300 $12,050.00 This project will protect and enhance riparian corridors along Woogaroo, Opossum and Six Mile Creeks, linking them with over 20ha of regionally significant remnants by planting 1100 native trees, shrubs and ground covers. The project will erect 1km of fence around a section of the Six Mile Creek corridor, preventing stock from entering the area and allowing natural regeneration. The project will improve water quality by planting local native riparian plants and removing invasive woody weeds, primarily Chinese Elm. The project will also raise community awareness by involving students in planting activities and disseminating 200 information booklets about the natural and human history of the catchment. Page 50878 Boiboigar Big Scrub Remnant Restoration Laurence B Stubbs Chendana, Repentance Creek Road, ROSEBANK, 2480 $17,280.00 This project will regenerate and re-plant 500 rainforest trees in degraded areas of the 6ha remnant, controlling weeds to enable planting and regeneration. It will also complete a walking track of 1.5km, adding 0.5km of new track through the remnant and consolidating 0.4km of existing tracks. Page 51068 Fencing for Riparian Remnant Rehabilitation on “Wyngala Downs”, Tyringham K.E Goode & T.A Goode “Wyngala Downs” 2300 Tyringham Road, TYRINGHAM, 2453 $1,000.00 This project will construct 400m of fencing along a watercourse that flows into Pinch Creek, a tributary of the Nymboida River. It will link remnant vegetation in the Tyringham Road reserve to an already fenced off section of Pinch Creek, and permanently exclude stock. Page 51159 Rehabilitation of Gundurimba Dry Rainforest Remnant and Koala Colony Wendy Royston 12 Chilcott Street, GUNDURIMBA, 2480 $8,910.00 This project will increase existing 9ha of remnant dry rainforest habitat by carrying out ongoing environmental weed control allowing for native plant regeneration. Edge planting of indigenous trees, understorey plants and ground covers will provide resilience for the site. The project will continue to enhance the environment for an existing koala colony on the remaining 6ha of forest red gums and open grassland by planting of appropriate koala food trees. Page 51181 Fencing to Protect Riparian Vegetation Busby’s Creek, Busby’s Flat NSW Alan Hannah 2/60 Busby’s Flat Rd, BUSBY’S FLAT, 2469 $1,225.00 This project will construct 500m of fencing to extend the wildlife corridor along Busbys Creek. Page 51207 Protecting and Restoring Habitat of Threatened Species - Prickly Desmodium / Thorny Pea, Goolmangar NSW Alex and Lucy Zychal 145 Pinchin Road, GOOLMANGAR, 2480 $16,303.64 This project will use regenerators to clear and poison large leaf privet, camphor laurel, lantana, Crofton weed and mistflower that are smothering threatened species and other native vegetation and preventing also regeneration of remnant rainforest. New plantings of 300 trees will be protected by steel mesh cages. Page 51230 Coolgardie Scrub Remnant Connectivity Project   Craig, Heidi Lyn The Old Mill, 250 Coolgardie Road, COOLGARDIE, 2478 $6,570.57 This project will provide connectivity between two existing high conservation value bushland areas. It will reduce fragmentation and extend existing native forest boundaries and wildlife corridors, replace exotic plants with endemic flora species, control feral animals and provide food and shelter for native fauna species including koalas. The project will rehabilitate approximately 2ha through site preparation support growth and seeding of existing natives by improving soil quality and providing supplementary planting of 600 endemic seedlings. Page 51440 Protecting Riparian Vegetation and Water Quality, Collins Creek Touchwood Resources Pty Ltd 2186 Collins Creek Road, KYOGLE, 2474 $9,860.00 This project will protect and connect existing remnant riparian vegetation along Collins Creek by planting a vegetation corridor 600m long and 60m wide with 3,200 native trees, providing a sheltered environment for the natural regeneration of endemic trees, understorey and ground cover species. Water quality will be improved by filtering effect of additional native vegetation, and by the exclusion of stock with the provision of fencing. Page 51462 Working Together to Increase Capacity for Riparian Restoration and Management on Toolom Creek Woodenbong Progress Association Inc 26 Unumgar St, WOODENBONG, 2476 $44,700.00 This project will restore 1.75km of Tooloom Creek at three demonstration sites by best management weed control, replanting of 10,000 plants and 500m of exclusion fencing. Comprehensive technical resource folders will be developed for rural landholders and others. Page 51468 Fencing and Restoring Rainforest Remnant on Castle Creek, NSW D.P Stace & G.J Stace 691 Boomick Rd, WOODENBONG, 2476 $5,554.55 This project will protect a rainforest remnant on the headwaters of Castle Creek by constructing one alternative creek crossing and using contractors to manage 10ha remnant riparian vegetation to encourage regrowth of native rainforest seedlings. A dam will be constructed with adjacent shade trees to provide off stream stock water to replace use by cattle of the rainforest and natural waterholes. Page 51477 Restoring Biodiversity, “Passchendaele” Wetland and Riparian Habitat, Bean Creek, NSW Rhonda L & Darryl T Amos “Passchendaele” Bean Creek C/-Post Office, OLD BONALBO, 2469 $6,459.09 This project will rehabilitate a significant wetland by fencing 200m of creek, 500m around Wetland one, 400m around Wetland two, removing environmental weeds, and replanting a 1.5ha area with 200 locally occurring native seedlings to supplement natural regeneration. It will also remove accumulated sediment caused by cattle and will place hollow logs to enhance fish and bird habitat. Page 51480 Conserving Biodiversity by Restoring Habitat on ‘Avoca’, Northern NSW Upper Clarence Combined Landcare Incorporated Connell’s Rd, URBENVILLE, 2475 $15,840.91 This project will restore habitat and biodiversity along 1km of Boomi Creek by fencing 0.3km of creek; replanting 2,000 native seedlings; and regenerating 1km of riparian vegetation. The proposed fencing will add to 0.7km of stream already fenced to exclude stock. Off-stream watering will be via a water storage tank and two water troughs located away from the stream. Page 51481 Protecting Riparian Vegetation of ‘Woodsong’, Rocky Creek, Ewingar, NSW Ballard, Alan Eric 98 Ewinger Rd, EWINGAR, 2469 $1,522.73 This project will fence 800m of creek to protect the riparian zone, in-stream habitat and adjacent forest from the impacts of uncontrolled cattle grazing and to encourage natural regeneration of native species. It will join with nearby works to provide an uninterrupted wildlife corridor. Page 51482 Demonstrating Land Management Practices to Improve Agricultural Productivity, Profitability, and Environmental Sustainability G.F Jung & P.M Jung Bean Creek Rd, OLD BONALBO, 2469 $27,209.09 This project will erect 1.3km of fencing to manage stock on 2.5km of riparian area of three adjoining properties. Bush regeneration activities and replanting of 3,440 seedlings in the riparian will assist stream health and bank stability. Off-stream stock-watering facilities of a dam and five troughs will be established to allow for riparian management initiatives. Soil water logging will be addressed and 3,560 seedlings will be established in farm plantings to provide stock shade and shelter and to increase farm biodiversity values. Page 51495 Enhancing In-Stream Habitat Values of Duck Creek, Northern NSW Osline Pty Ltd Shorts Road, OLD BONALBO, 2469 $12,764.55 This project will enhance in-stream habitat values of a 3km section of Duck Creek. It will construct 1.6km of fencing to exclude stock and off-stream stock watering facilities will be provided by constructing one dam, enlarging another dam, and installing piping and three stock troughs. Bank erosion will be addressed by strategically placing two logs in the stream and replanting the toe of the bank with 500 lomandra seedlings. A small side gully which is contributing sediment to the stream will be stabilised and fenced. Natural regeneration will be assisted by bush regeneration activities and the planting of 250 seedlings. Page 51575 Rehabilitation of Eroded Creek at Lagoon Creek, Backmede G.R Hogan and R.P Hogan 495 Backmede Road, BACKMEDE, 2470 $6,867.27 This project will fence both sides of Lagoon Creek with a total of 2.4 km of fencing as well as repair the most badly eroded section at the head cut by placing rock on the bed and sides of the gully and by the planting of 400 grasses and trees to prevent further erosion. It will also provide off-stream water through the installation of four cattle troughs utilising bore water. Page 51626 Rainforest Rehabilitation in Headwaters of Yellow Creek at Coolgardie, NSW The Trustee for D & P Charley Family Trust 13 Hurley Street, LISMORE, 2480 $7,478.86 This project will assist in the protection and expansion of the forest communities by removal of Lantana and other environmental weeds from the rainforest margin and permanently removing stock from approximately 3ha of adjacent paddocks which will be planted with 1,200 native rainforest species and 300 Eucalypt species. Fragmentation of the forest margins will be reduced by infill plantings and natural regeneration and protected by 600m of 2 strand plain wire and kangaroo netting. Page 51628 Urban Agriculture Along Alumy Creek - Best Practice Demonstration Site Grafton High School P & C 22 Edgecombe Avenue, JUNCTION HILL VIA GRAFTON, 2460 $16,736.36 This project will repair the riparian degradation of a section of Alumy Creek and provide a model of best practise riparian land management in the urban environment. It will address the issues of water quality, erosion and sediment control, weed control, stock control, acid sulphate soils, pollution and stormwater runoff through planting of 430 local plants and 1km of exclusion fencing.. Page 51804 ‘Spring to Hoop Pines’ Planting Top of the Garden Pty Ltd PO Box 495, NIMBIN, 2480 $7,193.00 This project will link a regenerating remnant to an established hoop pine remnant and wet sclerophyll forest and creek system, via a 500m long and 30m wide corridor of 1,000 mixed eucalypt and rainforest species. Page 51878 Iluka Peninsula Coastal Vegetation Restoration Iluka Landcare/Dunecare Group 1 Micalo Street, ILUKA, 2466 $22,000.00 This project will restore selected areas of coastal vegetation on the Iluka Peninsula that have been degraded through sand mining, other land uses and subsequent weed invasion. It will restore a 5km strip of headland and dunal plant communities, including rainforest, grassland and coastal banksia and eucalypt forest by planting of 590 coastal plants to provide stability and habitat. Page 51920 Rehabilitation of Hollingsworth Creek and Revegetation of Creek Bank Deborah Sheridan 37 Rhodes Street, LISMORE, 2480 $2,228.25 This project will restore Hollingsworth Creek to its natural state. It will remove noxious and woody weeds such as crofton weed, chinese celtis, camphor laurel, and lantana. Revegetation with 500 native and local plant will then follow which will also decrease erosion along the creek bank. Page 51997 Rainforest Regeneration and Extension - Maguires Creek Catchment, Alstonville. NSW Stanger, Garry Wayne 1344 Eltham Road, ALSTONVILLE, 2477 $25,153.64 This project will protect and enhance rainforest regrowth and improve water quality along Maguires Creek through 800m of fencing being erected to protect the plantings of 1,000 trees adjoining regrowth areas. This new area is 360m long and 35m wide along Maguires Creek. A training day will also be held to raise community awareness. Page 52019 Riparian Protection and Restoration, Terania Creek, Keerrong Northern NSW Wellman, Joshua PO Box 856, ALSTONVILLE, 2477 $28,027.00 This project will protect, restore and enhance the biodiversity values of Terania Creek frontage in Keerrong by removing livestock from the riparian zone through by 1.3km of fencing, providing off-stream watering, undertaking erosion control by strategically stabilising and revegetating areas with 700 plants therefore improving water quality, restoring and enhancing existing areas of native vegetation within the 2ha riparian zone and adjoining areas by systematically removing weed species. Parkes 51441 Restoration and Rehabilitation of Caragabal Creek, Piney Range Griffiths, Madeleine Muriel “Ingaladdie” 101 Piney Range Hall Rd, GRENFELL, 2810 $9,400.00 This project will construct 3.4km of fencing to exclude stock from 1km of both sides of Caragabal Creek Stream and a vegetation corridor, totalling an 8ha area which will be planted with 2,000 native trees which will assist regeneration of the area. Parkes 51551 Arid Zone Farm Forestry and Native Foods Project Greening Australia Limited C\- Fowlers Gap Stn, via Broken Hill, 2880 $41,033.64 This project will establish demonstration sites that will display how native trees and shrubs can be utilised to enhance landscape function and improve the condition of natural resources. A Master Tree Grower course will be conducted to members of the community to provide the necessary skills and knowledge of Rangelands NSW conditions. Parkes 51790 Fencing to Protect Native and Remnant Vegetation on “Rosedale” Condobolin B.H Colless & F.H Colless & J.F Colless & P.H Colless & Vermont Pastoral Co Pty Ltd “Fountaindale”, Condobolin, 2877 $7,818.18 This project will construct 4.1km of fencing to exclude stock from remnant vegetation to assist natural regeneration of the area. Parkes 52035 The Gibba, Mountain Fencing Allan Dale L’Estrange The Gibba, CONDOBOLIN, 2877 $2,624.55 This project will construct 1.6km of fencing to protect 60ha of remnant vegetation. Paterson 51051 Jindabella Rainforest Restoration Project Ross and Marilyn Milford “Jindabella”, Flat Tops Road, DUNGOG, 2420 $10,713.64 This project will contribute to the restoration of 5ha of a 12ha patch of dry rainforest and the adjacent eucalypt forest through tree planting and weed control to encourage natural regeneration. It will restore a weed free, closed canopy rainforest, bordered by healthy eucalypt forest featuring a full range of local native trees, shrubs and grasses, and wildlife. Paterson 51213 Coastal Dune Rehabilitation, Anna Bay NSW Anna Bay, Birubi Point Reserves Hall and Tidy Towns Committee 1/49 Ocean Ave, BIRUBI POINT, 2316 $9,692.09 This project will protect and rehabilitate 1.5ha of coastal sand dunes in Anna Bay by removing bitou bush, planting 1,800 endemic native plant species, and repairing and installing 400m of dune protection fencing. It will enhance the regeneration of native plants on site currently being suppressed by uncontrolled bitou bush growth and stabilise the dune by restricting pedestrian access to defined access tracks and protecting new plantings. Paterson 51258 Mambo Wetlands - Removal of Threatening Weed Incursions of Ludwigia Longiflolia Mambo Wetland Reserves and Landcare Committee 16 Wynne Crescent, CORLETTE, 2315 $39,691.98 This project will protect a significant wetland of the Port Stephens Estuary. It will target the eight source sites that feed into Mambo Wetlands that have substantial colonies of weeds and possess the potential to spread into the wetlands. Paterson 51259 Rehabilitation of the Karuah Wetlands - Stage 2 Karuah Tidy Towns, Parks, Reserves & Wetland Committee 16 Franklyn Street, KARUAH, 2324 $7,363.64 This project will rehabilitate an area of Coastal Plains Smooth Barked Apple Woodland and Casuarina Saltmarsh community. It will close a large gap in the native forest canopy that has become over run with weeds. A bushland area of 3,600sqm will be regenerated removing annual and woody weed species followed by the planting of 500 endemic tree species. Paterson 51453 Hunter Region Botanic Gardens Southern Conservation Zone Regeneration Project Hunter Region Botanic Gardens Ltd 411 Pacific Highway, HEATHERBRAE, 2324 $18,023.64 This project will commence eradication weed infestation from the southern conservation zone. It will clear 1 to 2ha and replant half the site with local native shrubs and plants leaving half as a control for natural regeneration. The outcome of the control study will assist in determining the most suitable approach to regeneration of the Southern Conservation Zone and will be used to demonstrate site regeneration to students of environmental studies as well as being open for public inspection. Paterson 51913 ‘The Missing Link’ The Trustee for Pipkins Family Trust 115 Herivals Road, WOOTTON, 2423 $2,954.55 This project will improve the conditions of an area of riparian vegetation on Kearns Creek by removing privet with regular follow-up weeding by the landholder to allow native vegetation to regenerate. This vegetation provides a corridor linking the banks of the Coolongolook River with a forested area on the farm and the Bachelor State Forest. It will remove the local seed source of the weed and complete the rehabilitation of the disturbed vegetation on the property. The Landholder has fenced all riparian zones on the property and provided off stream stock watering points. Paterson 51921 Protection Indigenous Cultural Site from Soil Erosion Forster Local Aboriginal Land Council PO Box 384, FORSTER, 2428 $14,330.09 This project will protect an Indigenous cultural site at Forster from soil erosion by planting 500 tube stock of native understorey and 500 ground cover plants 20cm apart in an area 7m wide and 85m long with 16m from side of road to top of north easterly aspect of site. The project will erect bollards measuring 12cm by 9m long around site to give further protection from 4wd vehicles to improve protection. Paterson 51928 Green Point Foreshore Regeneration Project Greenpoint Coastcare 65 Green Point Drive, GREEN POINT, 2428 $7,636.36 This project will rehabilitate a foreshore strip by removing invasive weed species such as morning glory, cassia, lantana and asparagus fern, and planting 1,000 locally endemic foreshore trees and shrub species. It will extend a wildlife corridor by an additional 260m. Bush regeneration teams will be used to complete the primary weed removal and group members will facilitate follow-up weed maintenance species. It will raise community awareness about natural resource management, environmental values of bushland reserves and parks and Aboriginal cultural heritage issues by participatory field days, newsletters and interpretive signage. Paterson 52034 Slaty Red Gum Gully Revegetation Project A.M Middlebrook & J.A.Middlebrook 34 Dowling St, DUNGOG, 2420 $5,231.82 This project will contribute to the revegetation of a 4ha gully by planting 200 tubestock on a grazing property north of Dungog. The gully will provide wildlife habitat linking remnant with a creek that runs into the Williams River, reduce erosion and provide a nutrient filter to help protect water quality. Pearce 50913 The Torino Project - Remnant Protection and Revegetation in Wangeling Gully MI & HL Bardwell & Co PO Box 176, COTTESLOE, 6911 $6,267.27 This project will rehabilitate a section of the coastline near the Cape to Cape Trace by constructing 300m of stockproof fencing, revegetating with native plants and brushing to stabilise the area until the plants have grown. This project will also provide a flight of steps from the Gallows Car Park down to the beach to prevent further erosion. Pearce 51052 Revegetation of Waterlogged Areas and Watercourses on Springvale, Brookton D.S Morrison & N.J Morrison PO Box 12, PINGELLY, 6308 $31,932.73 This project will reduce the amount of saline water flowing into the Avon river, provide shelter for livestock and reduce the impact of rabbits and foxes on the environment. This will be achieved by revegetating creek lines with 6,574 eucalypt seedlings and 22,100 saltbush seedlings and erecting 13.65km of rabbit proof fencing. Extensive rabbit and fox baiting will be undertaken. Pearce 51076 Protection and Regeneration of Granite Outcrops on Kennilworth, Brookton The RA & CM Evans Family Trust PO Box 35, BROOKTON, 6306 $2,318.18 This project will protect 18.5ha of native vegetation around granite outcrops and allow natural regeneration by constructing 1.5km of fencing, joining with existing fences to keep grazing stock out of the area. Weeds will be managed with strategic grazing so that there is no need to use herbicides. Seasonal baiting will control rabbits and foxes. Pearce 51108 Protection of Upper Mackie River and its Tributaries Upper Mackie Land Management Group PO Box 19, BEVERLEY, 6304 $27,272.73 This project will connect remnant vegetation and protect degraded river and creek lines by planting 22,500 native trees and understorey plants in the catchment. It will improve the water quality in the river down stream and raise community awareness. Pearce 51153 Boyanning Creek Catchment Project Grimwood, Dennis Reginald 7 Sapphire Court, MT RICHON, 6112 $4,189.09 This project will stabilise soils to reduce erosion and consequent silting of Boyanning Creek, reduce the water table to alleviate the risk of salinity and contaminated surface water runoff into Boyanning Creek. It will also re-establish Wandoo Forest denuded by land clearing and farming and create a wildlife habitat. Pearce 51192 Revegetating to Lower Watertables in the Lower Catchment at Mount Kokeby Brad McKay PO Box 148, WUNDOWIE, 6560 $6,746.36 This project will lower watertables that adjoin a watercourse running into the Avon River by planting 7.7ha with 5,700 saltbush and perennial grasses on more saline land, the adjoining 10.2ha with perennial grasses and a further 10.7ha with annual pastures. Revegetation of the area with 2,440 salt tolerant tree species will be protected with 2.4km of fencing and connect with remnant vegetation to create a corridor for bird life. Pearce 51196 Protecting Natural Resources Dryland Salinity in the Piesseville - Jaloran Area Piesseville -Jaloran Landcare Group PO Box 311, WAGIN, 6315 $40,318.18 This project will construct 16.4km of contour banks to intercept and control run-off and sub-surface seepage flows, reducing erosion and waterlogging. 56ha of bush will be protected with 3km of fence and 38,000 mixed native seedlings will be established on saline, waterlogged discharge areas to prevent further salinisation and improve biodiversity. A further 10ha of saline valley floor will be revegetated using high water use perennial shrubs and grasses to provide groundcover, increase water use and provide limited grazing value. Pearce 51307 Moore River Reserves Rehabilitation at the Perth-Lancelin Road Bridge Site. Lower Moore River Working Group Inc. U5/8 Collett Place, GUILDERTON, 6041 $14,050.00 This project will rehabilitate natural ecosystems in river reserves on the Moore River. The project will protect and enhance a river area popular with locals and travelers. Management activities will include weed control, fire management, revegetation focusing on understorey species, a flora and fauna inventory, with a walk track and interpretative signage throughout the three reserves. The group will erect 1km of fencing to control stock and allow for the rehabilitation of the riparian system. Pearce 51320 Fencing of York Gum, Jam Wattle Woodland on Forsyth Property DM & EJ Forsyth No 2 PO Box 638, TOODYAY, 6566 $5,800.00 This project will fence off two areas of approximately 24 acres of remnant york gum and jam woodland in two areas on this property, using 2.5km of fencing. Fencing to exclude stock and strategic weed control will allow the regeneration of understorey species and of york gum and jam wattle. To increase biodiversity, 2,000 tubestock of 12 species will be planted at the sites (approximately 2ha) after ripping and weed control. Pearce 51358 Equitus Creek and Tributaries Conservation Project Wild, Susan Lee PO Box 84, MIDLAND DC, 6936 $4,891.00 This project will provide a corridor between three existing fenced sections of Equitus Creek. This will be achieved by erecting a 993m fence along the creek to permanently exclude stock. The project will improve water quality and habitat for aquatic fauna by preventing livestock from damaging the banks of the creek and adding excess nutrients to the stream. Preventing grazing in the riparian zone will also allow remnant riparian vegetation to regenerate and 1,000 native seedlings will be planted along creekline to re-establish creekline fringing vegetation. Pearce 51362 Congelin Gully Conservation and Remnant Vegetation Protection Extension Project The Trustee for WJF Trust & I.J Fowler & W.J Fowler “Rapanui” C/- Post Office, WILLIAMS, 6391 $27,563.64 This project will create habitats and conservation areas along the Congelin Gully. The project will add a further 30ha of vegetation and 15km of fencing to complement the previous 80ha of watercourse rehabilitation and revegetation works conducted along Congelin Gully over the last five years. Pearce 51365 Yillimmining Railway Dam and Environs Restoration Project M.T Short & P.W Short & The Phillip Short Family Trust Ivermay, PO Box 219, NARROGIN, 6312 $21,863.64 This project will improve the water quality of the historic Yilliminning Railway Dam, surrounding natural environs and upper catchment regions of Yilliminning Railway Water Reserves. The project will establish 45,000 seedlings over 25ha along the Yilliminning Brook to mitigate the spread of salinity and streamline sedimentation and protect them with 3km of fence. The project will complement previous works which have revegetated and protected 90ha of waterway and remnant vegetation along Yilliminning Brook. Pearce 51373 Protection of Wetlands and Pristine Bushland at Benalong The Trustee for Roe Family Trust PO Box 4, GINGIN, 6503 $23,813.64 This project will protect 31.45ha of highly valued areas of remnant wetland chains, surrounded by remnant vegetation, by erecting 5.39km of fencing and revegetating with 2,000 native plants. The project will also protect 6ha of pristine bushland by erecting 860m of fencing to allow the area to naturally regenerate. Fencing off these areas will remove stock grazing pressures, and new watering points will be established outside the fenced areas. Pearce 51374 Fencing and Revegetation of Mungalla Brook Gingin Land Conservation District Committee Inc. Racecourse Road, GINGIN, 6503 $6,622.73 This project will protect and enhance two areas in the upper catchment of the Mungalla Brook from soil erosion by erecting 2.7km of stock exclusion fencing and revegetating the site with 500 seedlings. Pearce 51478 Biodiversity Conservation in the Eastern Hills Jarrah Forest Urban Hills Land Conservation District Committee 555 Goslin Street, SAWYERS VALLEY, 6074 $6,600.00 This project will contribute to biodiversity conservation by undertaking basic weed control, fuel control and revegetation where required in 12 high conservation reserves. Pearce 51516 Protecting the Hotham River on Nilgherry Farm - Cuballing T.H Wittwer & WM Wittwer “Koralla” C/- Post Office, CUBALLING, 6311 $14,084.55 This project will fence and protect 3.5km of the Hotham River on both sides of river. The project will erect 7.3km of fencing to permanently excluding livestock. Areas in the riparian zone will be revegetated with 5,000 local indigenous plants with seed collected from the local area. It will provide a protected corridor to a large area of remnant vegetation on a neighbouring property linking to the Yomaning Dam Reserve and Dryandra Woodland. Pearce 51522 Protection of Banksia Woodland at West Coast Honey The Trustee for the Kuyan Unit Trust PO Box 16, GINGIN, 6503 $1,010.00 This project will erect 500m of fencing to protect and enhance 5ha of Banksia woodland that is in good condition. It will also maintain populations of significant flora species including threatened ecological communities, and will control weed invasion. Pearce 51639 Kanawalla Revegetation - Wandering B & E M Monk RMB 226, PINGELLY, 6308 $9,587.27 This project will develop an alternative shallow waterway to allow better drainage of a 1ha waterlogged area, erecting 0.4km of stockproof fence and revegetating the area with 1,500 plants. A natural waterway will be fenced with 1km of stockproof fencing and re-vegetated with 5,000 saline tolerant trees. The project will also erect 1.1km of fencing to protect an area which will be revegetated with 7,000 trees to utilise a waterlogged seepage and saline area. Pearce 51640 Desert on Hold - Conservation Corridor - Popanyinning Parker, Kimberley James PO Box 74, POPANYINNING, 6309 $5,440.91 This project will erect 2km of stockproof fence to protect a revegetation corridor, planting 5,000 trees and shrubs to enhance remnant vegetation. Pearce 51641 Codji Creek Farm - Revegetation and Redevelopment of Saline Water Supply - Wandering H.M Dowdell & P.J Dowdell RMB 268, PINGELLY, 6308 $863.64 This project will revegetate a saline area with 500 saline tolerant local plants. The dam, once a key water point on the property, will be re-developed into a wetland for fauna habitat. Pearce 51642 Conservation and Protection of Tullis Wetlands and Thirty Four Mile Brook - Boddington Alcoa of Australia Limited Alcoa Farmlands, PO Box 203, WAROONA, 6215 $14,861.82 This project will erect 650m of fencing to protect a natural and permanent fresh water, spring fed, wetland. It will also fence an adjoining 2.3km of Thirty Four Mile Brook to stop stock access and allow for natural regeneration of riparian vegetation. Revegetation with 2,000 trees and shrubs will be undertaken around the wetland and along sections of Thirty Four Mile Brook. Alternative stock watering points will be provided for livestock. Alternative stock watering points will be provided for livestock. Pearce 51644 Remnant Vegetation Protection and Revegetation on Coranning - Wandering JL & MC Whitely Family Trust 1460 North Wandering Road, WANDERING, 6308 $5,818.18 This project will erect 2km of stockproof fence at site one to protect approximately 196ha of high quality remnant vegetation in the Corraring Brook catchment area. Site two will have 700m of fencing erected and will revegetate a waterlogged saline seep area with 2,000 waterlogging and saline tolerant trees. Pearce 51647 Protecting and Rehabilitating Wetlands for Wildlife Habitat - Twin Bridges Grove - Crossman C.R Andersson & D.M Andersson 105 Twin Bridges Place, CROSSMAN, 6390 $4,971.82 This project will erect 950m of stockproof fencing, protecting and allowing the restoration of remnant bushland. A seasonal wetland will be reconstructed to a more permanent waterhole. Fencing will allow regeneration and revegetation of 2,000 plants. Sedges and rushes will be planted to act as filters around the wetland. A corridor of vegetation will be planted to link this area to areas already revegetated on the property. A stock watering point will be developed to protect the wetland from livestock erosion and pollution. Pearce 51696 Riparian Revegetation in the Ellen Brook Catchment Ellen-Brockman Integrated Catchment Group Inc PO Box 62, MUCHEA, 6501 $29,966.36 This project will revegetate 35ha of important riparian environments within the Ellen Brook Catchment with 56,900 native trees, shrubs, rushes and sedges. The project will create habitat corridors throughout the catchment to retain biodiversity, and buffer waterways to reduce nutrient export processes and to prevent salinity. The group will erect 11.5km of fencing to protect the vegetation from livestock. Pearce 51701 Establishing a Sustainable Vegetation Complex in a Catchment Area of Monjerducking Gully McCallum, Malcolm James 395 Brookton Hwy, ROLEYSTONE, 6111 $11,290.00 This project will enhance the habitat value of 13ha of remnant vegetation (Site 1) by protecting and revegetating 3.6ha of degraded creek line nearby (Site 2). A corridor 550m long and between 30 and 100m wide will be fenced to restrict stock access to the creek and adjoining pasture areas while still protecting banks from erosion. The planting of another 2,000 native trees and shrubs in Site 1 will help to cover areas that are not revegetating naturally. Pearce 51704 Foreshore Assessment and On-Ground Works for the Williams River Williams Landcare Inc PO Box 185, WILLIAMS, 6391 $14,163.64 This project will conduct a Foreshore Condition Survey of the Williams River and implement on-ground works. The Foreshore Condition Survey will be used to determine key environmental issues and to identify areas requiring high-priority actions. The project will revegetate with 10,000 trees and shrubs to prevent soil erosion and combat the rising water table and 8km of fencing will be erected to prevent stock access to the river. Pearce 51848 Combining Biodiversity and Saline Pastures in the Highbury Area Highbury Catchment Group RMB 736, NARROGIN, 6312 $26,281.82 This project will enhance biodiversity by planting over 34,000 salt tolerant trees and understorey plants in saline pasture systems and protecting them with 6km of fencing. Pearce 51862 Wausaar Productive Saltland Recovery using plant based drainage LD & JP Stone & Co PO Box 140, CORRIGIN, 6375 $35,881.82 This project will protect and increase biodiversity by converting 150ha of saline valley floor to sustainable cereal production and grazing with 11km of shallow surface water drains, 61km of direct seeding, 10,500 saltbush seedlings and 12,660 local seedlings. Pearce 51938 Introducing New Landholders in the Williams Shire to Landcare Williams Catchment Group PO Box 185, WILLIAMS, 6391 $6,590.91 This project will provide three landholders with the knowledge and experience to commence landcare activities in the Williams Shire. These landholders will revegetate 6.5ha and protect them with 5.3km fencing. It is hoped that this project will encourage the landholders to expand their landcare activities in the future. Pearce 51941 Encouraging Revegetation in the Narrogin Catchment South Narrogin Catchment Group PO Box 185, WILLIAMS, 6391 $36,090.91 This project will support six individual landholders to plant over 48,000 locally native trees and understorey and protect them with 11km of fencing. The project will support landholders to extend the fencing and revegetation activities implemented previously. Biodiversity conservation will be achieved through the protection and management of native vegetation and watercourses. Conservation of all remnant vegetation will be achieved through fencing remnant vegetation, revegetation and forming linkages. Reid 51886 Restoration of Endangered Saltmarsh Community at George Kendall Riverside Park George Kendall Riverside Bushcare, Paramatta LGA 29 Boyle Street, ERMINGTON, 2115 $13,958.18 This project will assist with the recovery of salt marsh species by removal of invasive weed species which will allow natural regeneration to occur. Five professional bush regenerators will undertake extensive weed removal of Juncus acutus and other weed species from the salt marsh adjacent to the mangroves beside the Parramatta River. A buffer area of 5,050 indigenous plants will also be established. Richmond 51158 Rehabilitation and Extension of Riparian Corridor- Adcocks Valley Creek Adcocks Valley Landcare Group 14 Adcocks Road, STOKERS SIDING, 2484 $2,921.00 This project will create a riparian corridor linking two established riparian restoration sites. This riparian corridor constitutes an area 110m long and 20m wide with 600m of mixed riparian species, trees and bush understorey. This project will improve water quality, provide habitat and enhance biodiversity. Richmond 51249 Restoring Vegetation on Possum Creek for Water Quality and Habitat O’Graddy, Lynda K PO Box A145, SYDNEY SOUTH, 1235 $14,930.91 This project will plant 5,000 native trees in a 5ha area in the ‘Possum Creek’ Catchment along a 250m riparian zone. A further 4ha of remnant vegetation will be restored by bush regenerator contractors and five nest boxes will be installed to increase habitat in that area. Richmond 51255 Bindarri Biodiversity Corridor Bindarri Tenants in Common 312 Left Bank Road, MULLUMBIMBY, 2482 $6,349.00 This project will exclude cattle from 0.3ha to restore a rainforest gully and biodiversity link. Fencing will protect existing natural regeneration, aid recruitment and buffer the planting of 1,500 indigenous seedlings. Site preparation and fencing works will be carried out prior to planting and polypipe will be used to connect site to town water supply for plant watering purposes. Richmond 51445 Protection of High Value (HCV) Vegetation at Tandy’s Cottage Amanda Skelton Lot 1 Taylors Rd, EUREKA, 2480 $22,528.00 This project will protect and restore High Conservation Value vegetation. It will also facilitate and improve community understanding of biodiversity values and conservation techniques. Richmond 51620 Rehabilitation of the Headwaters of Skinner’s Creek at Newrybar Zenvestments Pty. Ltd. 193 Broken Head Rd., NEWRYBAR, 2479 $9,360.00 This project will rehabilitate the headwaters of Skinners Creek by removing environmental weeds and establishing a native rainforest corridor approximately 450m in length. It will be planted with 3000 Lomandra and another 1760 local native shrubs and trees. The opposite side of the creek has been planted and regenerated. It will stop the spread of environmental weeds downstream, create a buffer zone to improve water quality and habitat. Richmond 51813 Tweed-Byrrill Creek Riparian Restoration Project Hoddinott, Craig August 27 Byrrill Creek Road, UKI, 2484 $16,590.00 This project will rehabilitate and protect 1,500m of remnant riparian vegetation along Byrrill Creek and Tweed River. It will be done by excluding cattle and horses from the river with 1,500m of four strand wire fencing and planting 4,000 appropriate plants. Richmond 51918 Valhalla Subtropical Rainforest Rehabilitation Project, Tintenbar. Ebb Nadine Maree “Valhalla” 110 Friday Hut Road, VIA BANGALOW, 2479 $8,990.00 This project will protect the two threatened species Teraphylla and Tinaspora tinosporides through the control of weeds such as privet, lantana and maderia vine in 0.8ha of a 2ha subtropical rainforest remnant. A management plan will be written for the remnant and professional bush regenerators will be employed. Lomandra will be planted to stabilise an erosion site and awareness raising will be undertaken through local school visits, a press release and in an international internal newsletter. Richmond 52013 Riparian Rehabilitation on Bilambil Creek, NSW Bilambil Landcare 207 Hogans Road, BILAMBIL, 2486 $15,423.00 This project will protect and rehabilitate the banks of the upper tidal section of Bilambil Creek using 700m of fencing installed 20m from the bank and around two small inlets to exclude stock. Weed control will be carried out within existing vegetation areas and 2,400 trees, understorey plants and mangroves will be planted. It will remove weed threats to native vegetation, stabilise creek beds and wetland areas, exclude stock from banks, wetlands and existing vegetation, and reduce excess nutrient flow into Bilambil Creek. Riverina 51082 Revegetation and Remediation for Oakleigh Go Oakleigh Partnership PO Box 87, GUNDAGAI, 2722 $18,863.64 This project will construct 7.15km of fencing to create native vegetation corridors which will link into remnant vegetation, and protect 10ha of endangered white box remnant vegetation. Planting activities include 4,500 native trees and shrubs to revegetate eroding areas and within the corridors. Well managed stock control will also encourage natural regeneration. Riverina 51404 Bethungra Common Vegetation Restoration Bethungra Common Trustees “Hillview”, BETHUNGRA, 2590 $4,244.55 This project will plant 2,120 native trees in a vegetation corridor on ‘Bethungra’ Common which will link to remnant vegetation. Riverina 51405 Sarafan Creek Rehabilitation Project The Trustee for Curry Family Trust “Glenfield”, ILLABO, 2590 $3,570.91 This project will construct 1.7km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from a 4ha corridor along both sides of Upper Sarafan Creek. 500 native trees and shrubs will be planted to assist in the regeneration of the area, which links into remnant vegetation corridors. Riverina 51800 Turvey’s Falls Wildlife Corridor and Erosion Control Project Stage 2 C.D Pratt & J.M Pratt “Forfar”, Snapes Lane, ILLABO, 2590 $5,329.09 This project will construct 1.7km of fencing to exclude stock from created vegetation corridors and plant 2,000 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Riverina 51802 Restoring a Wildlife Corridor on Muttama Creek “Autun” G.V Rumble & K.S Rumble “Autun”, MUTTAMA, 2722 $1,436.36 This project will construct 400m of fencing to exclude stock and link to an existing wildlife corridor along Muttama Creek. Alternative stock watering points will be installed and existing willows removed, and 98 native trees will be planted to assist regeneration of the area. Riverina 51829 Wiradjuri Reserve - Restoration and Rehabilitation - Wagga Wagga “Caring For Country” Stage One Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Elders Group PO Box 2238, WAGGA WAGGA, 2650 $5,340.91 This project will construct 1km of fencing to exclude stock access to a 5ha area which will be planted with 1,000 native trees and bush regeneration will be conducted to assist regeneration along 1.8km of the bank of the Murrumbidgee River at Wagga Wagga. Riverina 51967 Fencing Remnant Vegetation at “Woodace” C.C. Emery & J.C Emery “Nethervale”, COOTAMUNDRA, 2590 $909.09 This project will construct 500m of fencing to permanently exclude stock from a created remnant vegetation enclosure to assist natural regeneration of the area. Riverina 51984 Boundary Creek Revegetation Project A.M. & R.M. Wight “Warrawee” Rosehill Rd, COOTAMUNDRA, 2590 $7,272.73 This project will construct 4km of fencing to permanently exclude stock from a created vegetation corridor and install alternative stock watering points. Planting activities include 260 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Riverina 52001 Superb Parrot Corridor at Kyle The Trustee for Crichton Kyle Trust Kyle, YOUNG, 2594 $13,000.00 This project will construct 6km of fencing to protect two separate created vegetation corridors. The corridors will be direct seeded to assist regeneration in the area. Riverina 52007 Improving Water Quality in Sandy Creek Uranquinty Landcare Association “Connorton”, URANQUINTY, 2652 $12,697.27 This project will stabilise a two gullies and construct 2.8km of fencing to exclude stock from the constructed vegetation corridors. Planting activities include 500 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Riverina 52095 Coorabin Salination, Erosion and Quarry Restoration Project Mr KA and Mrs P Jacobs Coorabin, WALLENDBEEN, 2588 $1,304.55 This project will construct 580m of fencing to exclude stock from three separate gullies. Planting activities include 250 native trees to assist regeneration of the area. Robertson 51131 Upper Popran Creek Riparian Zone Rehabilitation and Maintenance Project Upper Popran Creek Landcare Group 355 Wisemans Ferry Road, CENTRAL MANGROVE, 2250 $8,496.00 This project will continue to maintain the rehabilitation on Upper Popran Creek with the co-operation of new neighbours upstream through bush regeneration and planting of 150 trees. Robertson 51214 Restoration of Natural Coastal and Riparian Environment of Patonga - Stage Two Patonga Bushcare 1 Nalya Avenue, PATONGA, 2256 $23,909.09 This project will build upon previous work on Patonga fore-dunes and surrounding environs by construction of 1.3kms of dune-fencing and the use of bush regeneration techniques to ensure the protection of regenerating species and enhance the survival rate of 2,300 plants. Additional bush regeneration works by contractors will enhance areas currently being maintained by the Patonga Bushcare Group. Robertson 51240 Riparian Corridor Protection Including Off Stream Watering for Cattle Breheny, Michael A 375 Oyster Shell Road, LOWER MANGROVE, 2250 $2,700.00 This project will ensure the permanent regeneration of the riparian zone of Long Hollow Creek, through natural regeneration, weeding, planting and cattle exclusion. An off stream watering system will permanently exclude the cattle from the creek and Endangered Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest and the threatened species Melaleuca Bicovexa will be protected. Robertson 52066 Conservation and Rehabilitation of Littoral and Sand Dune Community Bouddi National Park Killcare Wagstaffe Trust Inc PO Box 4009, WAGSTAFFE, 2257 $11,550.00 This project will maintain and restore littoral rainforest and sand dune communities at Maitland Bay. It will improve habitat for endangered species bush regeneration of the catchments of two riparian zones. A photographic display of the work carried out will inform and educate the local community. Shortland 51484 Galgabba Point Bushland Regeneration, Preservation and Conservation Project Stage 3 Galgabba Point Landcare 357 Old Pacific Highway, SWANSEA, 2281 $20,281.82 This project will rehabilitate an unofficial rubbish dump, impinging into open forest, wetlands and mangroves. It will remove infestations of Coral Trees, Lantana, Madeira, Morning Glory, Bitou and multiple wasteland weeds. 5,000 local provenance plants and understorey varieties will be planted over the 9ha project area with access for future educational and public awareness programs. Shortland 51485 Rehabilitation and Restoration of Dunal System Birde Beach Bride Beach Dunecare 16 West Kahala Avenue, BUDGEWOI, 2262 $12,067.89 This project will assist in the natural regeneration of native vegetation communities and restoration of habitat values of the hind dune system at Birdie Beach. Bush regeneration techniques will be integrated with site values and fencing will ensure the project area is maintained and protected. The local community will be informed about the project through photo displays locally and information in newsletters. Shortland 52060 Little Ned Creek Restoration Project Karong Aboriginal Corporation 115 Lakeview Parade, BLACKSMITHS, 2281 $26,760.00 This project will rehabilitate 225m of the creek with 2,800 native plants to provide a riparian buffer between wetlands and community. It will also become a valuable teaching resource for the wider community including local Aboriginals and Aboriginal youth. It will become a focal point of mixed community building and awareness of protection of Aboriginal places. Sydney 52014 Marine National Parks - Ensuring the Future of the NSW Marine Environment Nature Conservation Council of NSW Level 5, 362 Kent Street, SYDNEY, 2000 $20,373.64 This project will enhance the NSW community’s capacity to participate in the development of a comprehensive system of Marine National Parks off NSW by creating a web portal providing an overview of marine bioregions and their special features and a comprehensive set of links on the NSW and Australian Government marine parks process. It will also develop a communications program to educate local communities. It will also develop an introductory brochure and broadcast quality footage on MNP as well as developing brochures and broadcast quality footage for four marine bioregions. Tangney 51091 Restoration of Adenia Road Lagoon The Canning River Regional Park Volunteers Inc 4 Jillian St, RIVERTON, 6148 $3,190.55 This project will eradicate morning glory, watsonia and other weeds. This will enable restoration of vegetation to protect water quality wildlife habitat and prevent spread of these weeds to existing good quality vegetation. A wildlife corridor will be created and biodiversity conserved. This is to be followed by the planting of 833 seedlings. A 57m bollard fence will be erected to create a barrier for grasses in parkland. Tangney 51433 Increasing Habitat, Biodiversity and Nutrient Stripping at Whaleback Lake Bannister Creek Catchment Group Incorporated 69 Horley Road, BECKENHAM, 6107 $22,363.64 This project will increase the natural habitat, biodiversity and nutrient stripping capacity of “Whaleback Lake” in Parkwood which suffers from a severe lack of fringing vegetation and has a high percentage of weeds and exotic species. It will increase the cover of local plants and provide structure for a more natural vegetation community by planting 10,000 riparian plants. It will also increase the lakes nutrient stripping capabilities, complementing efforts to improve the water quality entering Bannister Creek, a major tributary of the Canning River. Tangney 51524 Osprey Roosting Platform and Rehabilitation of Point Waylen Communications Facility Friends of Attadale Foreshore 15 Stoneham Rd, ATTADALE, 6156 $14,318.18 This project will rehabilitate an area approximately 40x50m, which includes a brick building and a steel tower. The Department of Conservation and Land Management will remove the building, tower and grade the land to its former natural level. Our project will rehabilitate the area with 8,000 indigenous plants, including sedges and melaleuca trees, so that it will complement the neighbouring Marine Park, which is an important RAMSAR migratory bird habitat. The existing tower will be replaced, to provide for continuous use by ospreys as a feeding and spotting vantage point. TASMANIA 51356 Survey and Protect Threatened Tasmanian Shorebirds Whilst Building Community Capacity Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Limited and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust Partnership 102 Bathurst St, HOBART, 7000 $33,010.69 This project will protect priority shorebird nesting sites with temporary enclosures at five locations and provide training and facilitation in shorebird monitoring and identification. it will also provide training in resource and interpretation materials to a wide range of stake holders. It will create an interactive website promoting community involvement, building capacity and providing important information about shorebird breeding hotspots. It will also increase community awareness of coastal biodiversity by developing a schools based education program. Throsby 51614 Berkeley Brush Dry Rainforest Restoration Project Budjong Creek Land Care Budjon Landcare Group, PO Box 103, BERKELEY, 2506 $21,445.45 This project will restore two sites of Threatened Dry Rainforest community by removing invasive weeds impacting from urban development. It will plant 500 appropriate indigenous local species to speed the recovery of these unique communities. Education and training in bush regeneration techniques will be carried out with local community and volunteer groups by trained bush regenerators. Wakefield 51264 Maximising Biodiversity and Educational Outcomes Through Site Preparation, Weed Control, Vehicle Access Tracks and Interpretive Signage at Barossa Bushgardens Barossa Bushgardens 42 Penrice Rd, NURIOOTPA, 5355 $24,373.64 This project will plant over 1,000 provenance tubestock, create and install 13 interpretive signs for educational purposes, extend existing vehicle access trails by 500m on 2ha of public land at Barossa Bush gardens. It will also involve ongoing school projects and community involvement, it is a regional native botanic garden, showcasing the flora of the Barossa region and containing display gardens promoting wildlife-friendly/low water use gardens through the use of local native species. Wannon 50904 Reroute the Visitor / Revegetate the Flume Project Warrnambool City Landcare Group Inc 1/26 Kruger Street, WARRNAMBOOL, 3280 $7,672.73 This project will protect and rehabilitate coastal dunes by constructing a 30m hardened pathway from an existing car park to the summit of the highest nearby sand dune. Steps will be built to lead to a raised viewing platform which will be erected to provide users with a sustainable site to check beach conditions. An area totalling 70sqm around the pathway and platform will be revegetated with 500 endemic coastal plants and direct seeding. This will halt current erosion of the dune system, condense an estimated 240m of informal tracks into one streamlined path, improve habitat, and raise community awareness through volunteers and signage. Wannon 51457 Very Pleasant Walking Track Stawell Urban Landcare Group 19 Crowlands Road, STAWELL, 3380 $10,149.74 This project will rehabilitate the riparian zone of Pleasant Creek through planting of 700 plants. A walking track will be repaired and interpretive signage will be installed that identifies significant remnant vegetation and other points of interest along the track. Wannon 51743 Cemetery Creek and Upper Hopkins Bio-Link Project Stage 1 Ararat Regional Bio-Links Network Inc 443 Long Gully Road, POMONAL, 3381 $28,072.00 This project will conduct comprehensive site assessments on nine parcels of public land in the Ararat area. The assessments will be used to develop a management plan and will include listings of flora and fauna species, habitat requirements, habitat hectare assessments, conservation and biodiversity values, cultural heritage values, threats and management actions. The sites total 15ha and form part of a planned environmental corridor linking the Ararat Hills Regional Park to Langi Ghiran State Park via Cemetery Creek and the Upper Hopkins River. It will also engage the wider Ararat community in natural resource management through participation and promotion. Wannon 51747 Wallaby Exclusion Project Advance Penshurst Incorporated PO Box 10, PENSHURST, 3289 $8,200.00 This project will erect 3km of fencing to protect an area on the north side of Mount Rouse and 2,000 tube stock will be planted. Wannon 51748 Glenelg and Crawford River Junction Restoration Project Dartmoor and District Progress Assn PO Box 23, DARTMOOR, 3304 $9,548.00 This project will protect and enhance 1km of riparian vegetation adjacent to the junction of the Glenelg and Crawford Rivers. A number of pest plants species will be removed and indigenous small trees, shrubs and ground covers planted. Interpretive signage will be used as part of a program to raise community awareness of the river system and the biodiversity of the area. Wannon 51766 Protection of Southern Brown Bandicoot Point Danger Committee of Management 6-12 Julia Street, PORTLAND, 3305 $12,100.00 The project will assist with actions in the draft National Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot 2005-2009 by implementation or continuation of predator control programmes. It will reduce the population of foxes in nominated areas by using professional and highly skilled fox experts to trap and eradicate fox populations. It will also monitor foxes before and after trapping in order to gather data on effectiveness of using traps to control foxes. Wannon 51869 Portland Cliffs Biodiversity Enhancement Portland Gorse Control Committee 101 Lightbody’s Road, PORTLAND, 3305 $4,545.45 This project will control gorse along the Portland Cliffs area, which is steep and difficult to access. The harbour gorse is shading native vegetation and spreading along the cliffs. Warringah 52068 Rehabilitation of Cremourne Point Remnant Bushland Through Community Involvement Cremourne Point Bushcare Group 2/65 Kareela Road, CREMORNE, 2090 $21,518.18 This project will carry out regeneration practices and plant 2,000 local species plants with particular sensitivity to the small bird population. It will use an ‘Adopt-a-Plot’ approach whereby residents bordering the reserve embark on a program of promoting shared responsibility for the bushland in front of Cremorne Point properties. Wide Bay 51693 Friends of Commissioner Gully Revegetation Project Fred Milham, Paul & Karen O’Neil, Liz Riley 6 Louisa Street, GYMPIE, 4570 $22,981.82 This project will revegetate parts of Commissioner Gully which feeds into the Mary River, by controlling herbaceous and woody weeds and planting 4,600 native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The project will compliment previous work done by Gympie Landcare and engage adjacent landholders in planting days and follow-up maintenance. Wide Bay 51737 Stabilisation of At-Risk High Profile Riverbank in Gympie Devils Rugby League Football Club, Gympie Cricket Association, Gympie Recreation Association PO Box 101, GYMPIE, 4570 $27,272.73 This project will rehabilitate 1ha of the riparian area of the Mary River near Gympie by planting 4,000 native trees, shrubs and groundcovers and direct seeding to establish 5,000 plants and controlling weeds. The proposed site will augment existing Landcare revegetation projects and involve the community in environmental activities. Wide Bay 51818 Poona Remnant Vegetation and Foreshore Planting Project Poona Ratepayers and Progress Association Incorporated M/S 944, IPSWICH, 4305 $24,310.00 This project will plant 400 grey mangrove and red mangrove plants, re-establishing plant communities on a foreshore of the Great Sandy Straight and stabilising the foreshore profile. The project will conserve remnant coastal flora within Poona township and habitat of the ground parrot Pezoporus wallicus and the false water rat Xeromys myoides. Community education will be conducted and 2.5km of self-guiding trails and interpretive materials developed. The project will control lantana across 3ha, install access controls, and establish management principles for this community and regional asset. Wide Bay 52083 Rainbow Beach Foredune Stabilisation and Rehabilitation Rainbow Beach Surf Lifesaving Club PO Box 36, RAINBOW BEACH, 4581 $7,318.72 This project will stabilise and rehabilitate a steep 5,000 square metre site on a high foredune of Rainbow Beach by eradicating weeds; mulching; matting and planting 750 groundcovers and trees. It will fence the heavily accessed dune along an existing steep narrow 30m stairway to address current trampling and erosion. It will also hold an information evening at the Rainbow Beach Surf Club about the Cooloola sand mass; erosion potential and weeds. Wide Bay 52113 Amamoor Creek National Country Music Muster Rehabilitation Project Gympie & District Landcare Group Incorporated PO Box 695, GYMPIE, 4570 $27,272.73 This project will rehabilitate a large section of Amamoor Creek by actively engaging 300 Music Muster volunteers in planting 3,700 trees of locally occurring native species along a 400m section. This will protect the riparian zone, combat erosion and improve water quality. Cats Claw Creeper weed control will also form an integral part of the project, further protecting the existing remnant riparian vegetation. The project will also engage and educate the wider community in active Integrated Catchment Management Techniques through field days, educational signage, media promotion and the high profile of the Muster event. Attachment B Electorate No. of projects Funding awarded (GST excl) Electorate No. of projects Funding awarded (GST excl) Adelaide 1 $27,063.64 Fraser 0 $0.00 Aston 0 $0.00 Fremantle 0 $0.00 Ballarat 0 $0.00 Gellibrand 1 $17,727.27 Banks 1 $18,750.00 Gilmore 8 $83,959.10 Barker 4 $73,280.95 Gippsland 7 $98,143.26 Barton 0 $0.00 Goldstein 0 $0.00 Bass 3 $62,862.13 Gorton 0 $0.00 Batman 0 $0.00 Grayndler 0 $0.00 Bendigo 4 $110,617.27 Greenway 0 $0.00 Bennelong 1 $12,272.73 Grey 24 $488,026.04 Berowra 1 $14,727.27 Griffith 0 $0.00 Blair 11 $151,591.03 Groom 5 $60,934.11 Blaxland 1 $14,545.45 Gwydir 19 $253,115.32 Bonner 0 $0.00 Hasluck 2 $19,666.99 Boothby 2 $25,150.91 Herbert 3 $83,611.33 Bowman 0 $0.00 Higgins 0 $0.00 Braddon 5 $62,712.50 Hindmarsh 1 $21,327.27 Bradfield 0 $0.00 Hinkler 4 $54,351.87 Brand 1 $11,957.22 Holt 0 $0.00 Brisbane 0 $0.00 Hotham 0 $0.00 Bruce 0 $0.00 Hughes 3 $24,227.27 Calare 8 $94,336.36 Hume 15 $151,023.82 Calwell 4 $16,278.77 Hunter 4 $50,525.09 Canberra 1 $23,636.36 Indi 8 $191,173.36 Canning 2 $9,354.36 Isaacs 0 $0.00 Capricornia 2 $84,574.55 Jagajaga 0 $0.00 Casey 1 $13,090.91 Kalgoorlie 28 $477,244.10 Charlton 2 $22,198.18 Kennedy 34 $544,495.99 Chifley 2 $38,054.54 Kingsford-Smith 1 $13,522.73 Chisholm 0 $0.00 Kingston 3 $21,053.00 Cook 3 $36,918.18 Kooyong 0 $0.00 Corangamite 3 $39,427.82 La Trobe 1 $12,714.55 Corio 0 $0.00 Lalor 0 $0.00 Cowan 1 $10,300.95 Leichhardt 7 $162,946.58 Cowper 12 $166,530.86 Lilley 0 $0.00 Cunningham 2 $52,683.64 Lindsay 0 $0.00 Curtin 0 $0.00 Lingiari 18 $455,902.51 Dawson 5 $78,892.50 Longman 4 $44,625.00 Deakin 0 $0.00 Lowe 0 $0.00 Denison 4 $94,231.82 Lyne 6 $80,414.54 Dickson 4 $47,602.46 Lyons 11 $231,288.19 Dobell 3 $34,624.09 Macarthur 0 $0.00 Dunkley 4 $77,409.09 Mackellar 1 $7,727.27 Eden-Monaro 12 $193,057.54 Macquarie 3 $32,254.55 Fadden 1 $27,272.73 Makin 0 $0.00 Fairfax 8 $186,928.54 Mallee 5 $80,632.18 Farrer 3 $22,318.73 Maranoa 32 $616,404.96 Fisher 0 $0.00 Maribyrnong 0 $0.00 Flinders 16 $244,348.34 Mayo 12 $199,740.42 Forde 2 $32,431.82 McEwen 5 $29,033.82 Forrest 9 $79,893.54 McMillan 4 $58,356.55 Fowler 0 $0.00 McPherson 0 $0.00 Franklin 7 $150,113.00 Melbourne 0 $0.00 Melbourne Ports 0 $0.00 Menzies 1 $6,852.73 Mitchell 6 $85,903.74 Moncrieff 0 $0.00 Moore 1 $7,750.00 Moreton 0 $0.00 Murray 3 $60,126.82         New England 31 $418,578.73 Newcastle 0 $0.00 North Sydney 1 $12,785.45 O’Connor 118 $2,046,126.82 Oxley 1 $12,050.00 Page 22 $290,884.51 Parkes 4 $60,876.37 Parramatta 0 $0.00 Paterson 9 $115,637.81 Pearce 30 $447,152.84 Perth 0 $0.00 Petrie 0 $0.00 Port Adelaide 0 $0.00 Prospect 0 $0.00 Rankin 0 $0.00 Reid 1 $13,958.18 Richmond 8 $97,091.91 Riverina 11 $73,969.10 Robertson 4 $46,655.09 Ryan 0 $0.00 Scullin 0 $0.00 Shortland 3 $59,109.71 Solomon 0 $0.00 Stirling 0 $0.00 Sturt 0 $0.00 Swan 0 $0.00 Sydney 1 $20,373.64 Tangney 3 $39,872.37 Throsby 1 $21,445.45 Wakefield 1 $24,373.64 Wannon 7 $80,287.92 Warringah 1 $21,518.18 Watson 0 $0.00 Wentworth 0 $0.00 Werriwa 0 $0.00 Wide Bay 5 $109,156.00 Wills 0 $0.00 Statewide/Regional 3 $69,428.42 Total 711 $11,370,175.25         Attachment C State Received Unsuccessful Successful Funding approved (GST excl) ACT 3 2 1 $23,636.36 NSW 349 135 214 $2,756,575.13 NT 22 5 17 $434,064.33 QLD 194 66 128 $2,297,869.47 SA 59 11 48 $880,015.87 TAS 45 14 31 $634,218.33 VIC 104 30 74 $1,136,220.66 WA 240 45 195 $3,149,319.19 Cross Border 3 3 0 $0.00 External Territories 4 1 3 $58,255.91 Total 1,023 312 711 $11,370,175.25