2006-06-15 41 1 6 REPS 0 0 2006-06-15 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 Bills R2582 1 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Ley. Bill read a first time. 1 1 09:01:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Ms LEY —I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908 to: extend the definition of ‘preparation’ to the catching of fish, the definition of ‘premises’ to places in and on water and insert a definition for ‘fish’ in the Export Control Act; create four new offences in the Export Control Act to enable the Commonwealth to prosecute those people who fail to properly prepare goods that are exported; extend the services for which fees may be charged under the Export Control Act to services provided by the secretary or the secretary’s delegate; clarify the use of certain terms in the Export Control Act; and provide a legal basis for the recovery of fees for quarantine services provided under the Quarantine Act to other Commonwealth bodies. The amendments to the Export Control Act concerning the extension of the definition of ‘preparation’ and ‘premises’ and the inclusion of a definition for ‘fish’ will remove any doubt that the Commonwealth has appropriate legal authority to regulate the sourcing of fish intended for export. The authority to regulate the sourcing of fish is necessary to ensure ongoing access for exported product into overseas markets and to protect consumers by ensuring that fish, including shellfish, are harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins and chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health. The creation of four new offence provisions is in response to a serious gap in the Export Control Act. Currently, the offence provisions in the act focus on persons involved with goods in the post-preparation phase with the result that persons who are the occupiers of establishments where the preparation of the goods occurs are immune from the serious penalties that apply to other offenders under the act. The new offences focus on the person responsible for the preparation of the goods for export. To preserve the integrity of the export chain it is very important that key players in the chain, such as occupiers of establishments where food is prepared for export, are made responsible for activities at their establishment. The export of prescribed goods that have not been properly prepared can have serious implications for Australia’s trade in food. Two of the four offences apply strict liability to some of the physical elements of the offences. The application of strict liability in these circumstances is important as otherwise persons in control of food preparation establishments can avoid the consequences of non-compliance with the law by simply saying that they were not aware of what was occurring at their establishment. The application of strict liability to these offences is likely to significantly enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by requiring such people to have systems in place to ensure that the law is complied with. The maximum penalty for these offences is 60 penalty units. This level of penalty is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and Enforcement Powers issued by the authority of the Minister for Justice and Customs. The other two offence provisions each impose a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. This level of penalty is consistent with the penalties in sections 7A and 8 of the act. The bill also amends the regulation making power of the Export Control Act to enable fees to be charged for services provided by the secretary or a delegate of the secretary. Currently, fees can be charged for (amongst other things) the services of authorised officers appointed under the Export Control Act but not for services provided by the secretary or a delegate of the secretary. This amendment will overcome this anomaly and ensure that AQIS can charge for the full range of services it provides. The bill also makes a number of amendments to remove inconsistent usage of the expressions ‘registered premises’ and ‘registered establishment’ in the Export Control Act. As a result of these amendments, the expression ‘registered establishment’ will replace all references to ‘registered premises’. These changes are minor and technical and are not intended to change the effect of any of the provisions that are amended. The bill amends the Quarantine Act to facilitate cost recovery between the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the rest of the Commonwealth. In particular, the new section, section 86EA, imposes a notional liability on the Commonwealth to pay the fees for quarantine services specified in a determination made under subsection 86E(1B) of the Quarantine Act. The effect of this amendment is to give AQIS the authority to require payment from agencies and other Commonwealth bodies for quarantine services and to give these agencies and other Commonwealth bodies the legal authority to make payments to AQIS for quarantine services. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned. 2 Miscellaneous 2 09:07:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Mr HUNT —I move: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2006 The Customs Tariff Proposal I have just tabled contains alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, effective from 1 July 2006. First, the proposal alters item 31 of schedule 4 to the customs tariff. This item currently allows the duty-free entry of certain aircraft parts, materials and test equipment for use in the manufacture, repair and maintenance of aircraft. Item 31 is proposed to be altered by extending duty-free entry to certain goods used in the modification of aircraft. The extension of item 31 to include goods for use in the modification of aircraft will reduce costs to business and will provide a clear incentive to continue heavy maintenance work in Australia. This will strengthen the international competitiveness of Australia’s aviation and maintenance industries and is consistent with the government’s policy to improve the international competitiveness of Australia’s aerospace and aviation industries. The main beneficiaries of this measure will be domestic airline and defence contractors, as well as Australia’s vibrant general aviation aircraft manufacturing and modification industry. Many of the firms in this sector are located in regional Australia and this alteration to the customs tariff will provide a new certainty to underpin their competitiveness in the world market. This alteration to item 31 applies to goods entered for home consumption on or after 1 July 2006. Secondly, the proposal will alter item 71 of schedule 4 to the customs tariff by expanding the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme to include the duty-free entry of qualifying goods for the power supply and water supply industries. Currently, item 71 underpins the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme offering tariff concessions to major projects in the mining, resource-processing, agriculture, food-processing, food-packaging, manufacturing and gas supply industries for imported capital equipment that is not able to be sourced in Australia. The inclusion of the power supply and water supply industries in the terms of item 71 will encourage investment, increase opportunities for Australian industry to participate in major projects, and lower business input costs. The above alteration applies to goods imported and entered for home consumption on or after 1 July 2006. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned. 3 Delegation Reports 3 3 09:10:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Turkey and Ireland from 16 to 28 October 2005. 3 Business 3 Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland —Deputy Leader of the House) 09:10:00 —I move: That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. And I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 09:15:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 80 Anderson, J.D. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 55 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. * Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. 4 Business 4 09:22:00 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Deputy Leader of the House 1 0 Mr McGAURAN —On behalf of the Leader of the House, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the following to occur during the periods set aside in standing order 34 for government business on Thursday 15 June 2006: in relation to proceedings on the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006 at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 10.30a.m., whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate; and in relation to proceedings on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 at the conclusion of second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 1.20p.m., whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate; and immediately after proceedings on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 have been concluded, the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 to be called on and the immediate question then before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate; and any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. 4 09:22:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I move: That all words after ‘That’ be omitted, with a view to substituting the following words: The House reaffirms the right of all members to assert their views on each and every bill that comes before the House. Mr Speaker, we have just seen the government ungag a gag. That is how bad the procedures are in this— Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland —Deputy Leader of the House) 09:22:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 09:27:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 81 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, Jackie Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 56 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. * Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders be agreed to. 09:32:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 81 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, Jackie Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 56 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. * Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind honourable members that when they come into the chamber they are expected to uphold proper dress standards. 6 Bills R2567 6 Debate resumed from 14 June, on motion by Mr Abbott: That the bill be now read a second time. upon which Ms Gillard 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 the minister stands condemned for failing to: address the concerns of members of Medibank Private and proceeding with the sale of Medibank Private even though the majority of Australians are opposed to the sale; and address critical structural weaknesses in the health sector such as workforce shortages and the rising costs of health”. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —I second the amendment. 7 09:36:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —There is nothing controversial about the content of the majority of the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006, but what stands a chasm apart is the position of both sides of this chamber on private health insurance. It has been extraordinary to listen to the complaints around the edges from those on the other side of the chamber on private health insurance—complaints about the cost of private health insurance without acknowledging the extraordinary increases in costs for all health care right across the board. It has been extraordinary listening to complaints about gaps when those opposite will not support a safety net. It has been extraordinary to sit here and listen to complaints about exclusions when these are elements of every insurance policy, even beyond the health sector. And it has been extraordinary to listen to the compassion from those opposite about consumers and the complaints that consumers were not consulted on the role of a Private Health Insurance Ombudsman when they would like to have the entire private health insurance sector eliminated completely. Yet those opposite came here yesterday and complained about rights for the consumers, the very consumers they would like to have eliminated altogether in order to have everyone accessing public hospital care and nothing else. Finally thrown into the criticism of this bill by those opposite this morning was that Medibank Private potentially would be sold and result in an increase in rebates—for which they have no evidence. It is quite clear that the sale of Medibank Private could well increase competition, particularly if it is purchased by a new provider of private health care services in this country. But this feigned compassion for Medibank Private could well be due to many on the other side of the chamber actually enjoying having their own private health insurance, not wanting to see any of that sector lost and yet, at the same time, having the effrontery to come into this chamber and rail against it. Mr Deputy Speaker, you do not have to go back very far for memories of Medicare Gold. I have no doubt that the member for Lalor has an extraordinarily strong conviction that her policies are good for a country; my problem is that they are not good for this country. Her policies may well be great for a country where one can walk along the Malacon and then sit listening to music in the Casa de la Trova. Medicare Gold may work in Havana; it will not work here. Medicare Gold proposed—I do not want to go into great detail—shifting people over the age of 70 into a combined promise of private health care, which would be fully paid for by the public health system, with the hope of wiping out private health insurance on the side. Costings were vague and amorphous. Even today the idea of Medicare Gold percolates up from the deep, because there is no agreement on the other side of the chamber whether to put it to death or not. We do not have a clear answer on that at all. Medicare Gold promised, for somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion—we never got more precision than that—to allow anyone over the age of 70, without discussion of clinical need and with a triage system based purely on age, their own room and choice of doctor. This potentially would all be at the expense of our private health insurance system. One does not have to go back very far to remember the days of 30 per cent—and falling fast—private health insurance coverage in this country; it was falling by two per cent a year. I would call that a death spiral, as it had been doing so for some time. One relies on a base to maintain a critical mass and efficiencies within private health insurance. How does one support a private health sector when levels of coverage fall, as we have seen in other OECD economies, to 10 or 15 per cent? That is when private health insurance becomes a service for the rich. But that is not what happens in Australia. Australia, through a policy trident of Lifetime Health Cover, community rating and a rebate that makes services affordable to Australians, has pulled across 44 per cent of the population. The average earning Australian can now be indifferent. Half choose to purchase private health insurance; others choose some other service, such as affordable independent schooling. These options are now available to Australians, when they could only dream of them 10 years ago. We do not need a long memory to remember what it was like to have long queues in public hospitals in states across Australia. No matter how many people have taken up the option of private health cover, states’ commitments to their own hospitals have been ratcheting back and the queues remain. We have gained no commitment from states to shorten their waiting lists. I highlight Queensland as an example. They will not fire visiting medical officers; they just ratchet back their hours, providing fewer and fewer services. At the same time we see longer waiting lists and secret waiting lists—and not thousands, not tens of thousands but over 100,000 Queenslanders ‘waiting for Godot’ for the chance to actually get onto a list for an operation. Those on the other side of the chamber have the effrontery to talk about exclusions in policies, when we have in our state health systems the ultimate exclusion—you cannot even get in the door of a public hospital to get your operation. Waiting lists have ceased to be waiting lists; they are simply rotating lists, with people who are absolutely at death’s door being popped on the top of the list and everyone else just floating in a waiting list that never moves. In the last 10 years, the notion that was once commonplace amongst socialist thinkers—that there was an inexhaustible appetite for health care services and one could never provide enough health services without completely breaking the bank—has been utterly exposed as a hoax. Average, ordinary earning Australians in the middle quintiles right down to 20 per cent of Australians in the poorest quintile walk out the door, pick up the phone and elect to have private health cover. It means so much to them that they are prepared to pay for it out of their own pocket. We have seen that these very Australians contribute back into Australia’s health system—not $5 billion and not $6 billion but $9 billion every year. To those simplistic socialist thinkers, who even to this day talk about eliminating private health cover and redirecting the 30 per cent rebate back into our needy public hospitals, I put this simple piece of maths that has never been tested on the other side. If I were to redirect $2.6 billion or $2.8 billion currently spent on the 30 per cent rebate into those needy public hospitals and spread it thinly across the country, do you think those waiting lists would change materially? I tell you what: things would not move faster but, by moving 40 per cent of Australia back onto the public hospital queues, those queues will become longer—and I will tell you how much longer. They will become $8 billion to $10 billion per year longer. We are spending $20 billion a year on hospitals at the moment and I put to you that we would have to spend $30 billion. Congratulations to the other side, who would find $2.6 billion by eliminating a private health insurance rebate. Where would the other $6 billion come from? It could only come from tax. It could only come from wiping out tax cuts that were offered in the last budget. It could only come by restricting services, at which the other side of the chamber appears to be expert at state level. So where would the money come from? I think we need to see two things from those on the other side of the chamber: first, that they relinquish their hostile ideological conviction to wiping out private health care; and, second, that they work out whether there could be a better system. At the moment all they have offered is Medicare Gold, the solution that is no solution—the solution they were so ashamed of that they had to release it just a few weeks before the election and hope it slipped through without proper scrutiny. We have had plenty of time to think about Medicare Gold now, and we know that there is far from agreement on the other side of the chamber on that policy. It is also worth noting just how quiet the other side has been on private health insurance completely—in fact, on health more broadly. What do we hear from the other side of the chamber about health? Where are the questions about health care? Where are the questions about quality of care? They have all just dissipated with the shame in the hangover of Medicare Gold. Medicare Gold may work well in some countries; it certainly will not work well in Australia. This bill does not have many controversial elements. This was a widely consulted change regarding the power of the ombudsman. It increases the ombudsman’s effectiveness to be able to conduct investigations at their own initiative or at a minister’s request, but they can now place scrutiny not just upon funds but upon all service providers, although obviously not upon clinical complaints. That is and will remain an issue for medical boards. It is about making the decision to take up private health care more satisfying, more fulfilling, and it eliminates some of the great questions and concerns that people who take out these insurance policies have. I had a personal experience in this area two weeks ago. I was renegotiating my private health cover, for the first time on the telephone, and I was taken through the list of exclusions exhaustively. I tried to get through the phone call quickly, but the fund was methodical in explaining to me the exclusions. That is the same as when I take out car, boat or house insurance. This patronising notion that there are so many tricky exclusions out there that we cannot rely on ordinary Australians to take out an insurance policy is part of the problem on the other side. I am not for one minute saying that there are not issues of communication. I am not for one moment saying that we should not be developing resources that allow a more complete explanation of products and services. And I am not for a moment saying that we should not be improving the powers of the ombudsman. That is what the bill is doing. I know those elements are not controversial on the other side. No, my attack today is on the notion that persists on the side—though it is rarely articulated because it is so poorly received in the community—that taking up private health insurance is a poor customer decision, the result of knowledge asymmetry, of being fundamentally foolish with your own money. Let us look at this claim in a little more detail. Let us take the figures of equivalised household income by quintile and of how much Australians actually spend on their health care. Of course, the notion that will be put by the other side of the chamber is that money spent on private health insurance is simply a redirection of resources to the rich. This myth has not died. There are four big myths around private health cover that continue to be peddled by the other side of the chamber and by sycophantic, left-wing health economists and academics who continue to print this nonsense, which is completely ignored by Australians, who continue to take out policies because it is the right thing for them and their families. The first myth is that there is an insatiable appetite for health care services and that the only way to prevent an overwhelming drive and demand for health care services is to ration them, to do what state hospitals do—pretend you have an open door but not have it open at all. The second myth is that of the worried well—that private health insurance simply treats people with tiny and insignificant conditions, that the wealthy can simply access a private hospital immediately and have world-class care for non-emergent, non-significant pathology. The third myth is the myth of two tiers—that private health insurance creates one level here and one level over there, with the rich operating in their own stratospheric level of health outcomes. The fourth myth is the misspent dollar, the myth to which I have already alluded—the myth that one dollar spent on a rebate for private health cover is a dollar that would be far better spent in a state public hospital. I would like to devote a little attention to those four myths today, because they are being broken down, not by some concerted campaign of letter writing or by sympathetic academics who write articles about how wonderful private health insurance is. To the contrary: these myths are being undermined by Australians who are making their own decisions, who, when clearly offered choices, are demonstrating their ability to do so. The first issue here about what private health has shown us—and 44 per cent of Australians now have cover—is that, far from there being a tsunami of health demand at private hospitals, Australians do not wake up in the morning and say: ‘I’ve got nothing better to do. I’d like to go and sit in a queue to get my eyes looked at or to have my elbow looked at.’ No, Australians go there for genuine cases. Seventy per cent of operations for cataracts and 60 per cent of operations for hips and knees—all of these serious operations that affect the quality of life of Australians—are being done in private hospitals with few in their queues. If anything, the private hospital sector is showing us how it should be done. It is showing that there is not some overwhelming, insatiable appetite that, allowed to be unleashed, would completely consume Australia’s GDP. What a preposterous public health socialist notion that still hangs around today. No, people who have private health cover are making responsible choices and getting the services they need, and I think those on the other side could actually learn a lesson from the efficiency that private health has delivered to the market. The second myth, that of the worried well, is that there are not significant cardiovascular cases being done in private health, that they cherry-pick the high-return cases and do not do anything else. Nothing could be further from the truth. These private hospitals are doing a range of procedures—the expensive and the technical right down to the rather simple. I challenge anyone on the other side to come into a private hospital on any non-sitting day and point out the private hospital case that should not be done. Come and look at the waiting lists, come and look at the operating lists and come and tell me there is a  patient there who really should not be getting that operation, who really should be back on the public hospital waiting list, waiting forever—waiting until they fall off the perch, give up in disgust, go and take out private health insurance or perhaps fly overseas to have the operation. For goodness sake, what a ridiculous notion. I put that challenge to the other side: phone me, let us visit a private hospital and look at an operating list. I ask those on the other side to make the call on who should not be getting that procedure. Privately or publicly covered, they should be getting that procedure; they should not be denied it. Private health has simply shown us a way of doing it efficiently, and I support it completely. The third myth is this myth of two tiers—that, by having private health insurance, suddenly the wealthy Australians float away with wonderful health outcomes and everyone else does not. Of course there is a challenge here that we need to be funding public hospitals, and the federal government has increased hospital spending by 25 per cent to 27 per cent—and, in the previous hospital agreement, by 36 per cent—over and above inflation, over and above the CPI. That is a reflection of increasing costs, which are seven to eight per cent a year. So when private health insurance rebates go up by eight per cent a year, don’t say, ‘What a profit grab.’ Have a look at the efficiency of the private hospital sector that operates on margins as thin as ice. What is happening is that this is merely reflecting the cost of health delivery. The finest health care is available in this country and, yes, the cost goes up by eight per cent every year. But 44 per cent of Australians bear it out of their own pocket because a rebate makes it affordable. Public hospital care is also going up at exactly the same rate—by six, seven or eight per cent a year. So all health care costs go up at this rate. Let us stop having this private health exceptionalism line being run from the other side—that it is all profit-grab, that all of this 30 per cent rebate is simply captured by shareholders of private health insurance funds. We need to break through that notion and start looking at health outcomes. The private sector is showing us that it can be done far better than we are doing it in many of our public hospitals today. Let us not forget that 50 per cent of those aged between 40 and 70 now have private health care cover. This is not some choice of the rich. This is not whether to get a Ferrari or a Porsche. Twenty per cent of the poorest Australians pay for these premiums and elect to have private health cover. So make no mistake that this is some choice for the wealthy, that this is some transfer to those who least deserve it, because in the end what has been developed with this policy trident in the late nineties is that ordinary Australian families can now contemplate having private health cover and taking responsibility for their own cover. Sure, they will use public services at times, but for the great majority of their clinical care, particularly at the hospital level, they are electing to cover themselves. They are electing to add $9 billion a year to the Australian health care pot which, were there not private health insurance rebates, would not be there at all. We would have a completely different private hospital system. We would have an elitist private hospital system with just a small percentage of Australians accessing private health cover. This side of the chamber would never want to see that occur. The last myth is probably the most frustrating all. I have alluded to it already: the myth of the misspent dollar—the myth on the other side that, if it were not for the public opinion and public sentiment that is so pro-private health insurance, we could eliminate it quietly and capture back that $2.6 billion and funnel it across into our needy public hospitals, which simply have not had the state commitment to fund them as they should. Where would we be with private health cover falling from 43 per cent to perhaps 10 or 15 per cent? That would be 30 per cent—yes, 6 million Australians—joining the queues in public hospitals. Do you seriously think that $2.6 billion would cut it? Do you seriously think that $2.6 billion could actually cover that many Australians seeking operations and procedures, VMO visits and outpatient visits through our public hospitals? You have to be dreaming if you think that it could be done for $2.6 billion. It could be done for $9 billion and, as I have put to you before, that $6 billion would be found out of taxpayers’ pockets. We would be back to where we started 10 years ago: with falling PHI and increasing taxes. We would be back in that mess that we were in 10 years ago. I do not think Australians want to go back there at all. What is clear now is that, in any economic sense, making something affordable increases the appetite for it. Government is not paying for the premium completely. We know that, by putting $1 billion into private health insurance rebates, private health cover goes up by approximately 10 per cent and into the health system goes $3.3 billion of client contribution. It is an extraordinarily sensitive lever. Once private health insurance becomes unaffordable then middle Australia starts to lose out. It is the policy interventions of this government that have made private health care affordable. It is a fine model worldwide. There are very few countries in the world that can now boast 40 to 45 per cent private hospital cover and 40 to 45 per cent independent and non-state school educated children. What we have is two sectors with the balance—two sectors offering choices, two sectors competing against each other for quality. As I finish, I would like to point out we can be completely comfortable with students moving into the independent school sector and taking with them funding to their schools, but there is still an ideological resistance to a cent going into the private hospital sector. That is the great inconsistency of the other side, and for that reason I support this bill. (Time expired) 12 09:56:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —I rise today in general support of the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006, but in particular I support the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister for health. I welcome a number of the provisions contained in this bill but stop short of praising it entirely, just as this bill stops short of really providing the safeguards needed for consumers of private health insurance. The provisions of this bill change the power of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and make some adjustments to the administration of the private health insurance rebate by Medicare and the Australian Taxation Office. The bill expands the powers of the ombudsman so that in addition to its role of dealing with disputes between customers and funds it can now deal with issues related to arrangements between insurers, the brokers and providers of services. On a voluntary basis the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman can also mediate in disputes. Amendments are also made so that the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will be able to direct the participation of those subject to a complaint in compulsory conciliation. At the request of the minister or of the ombudsman’s own volition, the ombudsman will be able to mediate between a health fund and a health care provider. No doubt all members would agree that this is an important power for the ombudsman. Importantly, the ombudsman will have powers to require records to be produced not only from the funds but also from the health care providers. This bill also takes action to address the protection of those involved with the ombudsman from civil and personal liabilities that may arise from its increased powers. The bill also contains a provision that puts consumer protection front and centre when it comes to the focus of the powers and actions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. This is an important provision that dovetails with the extension of the ombudsman’s powers. In her speech yesterday the member for Lalor indicated that the last thing Labor wanted to see was the ombudsman concentrating its efforts on contractual disputes between funds and health care providers, and also that Labor would not want the ombudsman to act as a referee simply on pricing and servicing disputes between funds and providers. I would go a step further and say that I do not believe that private health insurance customers would want to see that the focus of attention of the ombudsman would be on anything but the private health insurance customer. Health insurance disputes often involve complex issues. It is about time customers were represented in the private health insurance market. People dealing with health insurance and health care providers often feel intimidated by having to deal with these giants in the industry. They know that the insurers, should they want to, can effectively starve the customer by delaying their entitlements and dragging things out as long as possible. Additionally, most customers simply do not have the financial resources to pursue matters through the courts, should it come to that. I support increased consumer protection, particularly in complex markets such as the private health insurance market. I support the provisions in this bill that extend and enhance the power of the ombudsman when it comes to providing consumer protection. I cannot participate in this debate on private health insurance without talking about what is on the minds of most people in my electorate when we raise this issue. Private health insurance is an important issue for the constituents of my electorate—which is why I draw it to the attention of the House—and I daresay it is the same for members opposite. Private health insurance offers a greater degree of health care protection to the many families who take it out and it is an important factor in the budgets of those families. When I mention private health insurance to constituents in my electorate I hear some strongly worded phrases, and usually one or two references to the fact that they feel they are being ripped off. People in my electorate take out private health care insurance for the additional level of service it provides for them and their families should they fall ill or need hospitalisation. They understand and accept that insurance means that you can often pay premiums for a long period of time and not call on the insurance company to make any payments, as nothing has happened, and in such circumstances they consider themselves fortunate. What they do not understand, and what they are not willing to accept, is that they are paying, on average, premiums up to 40 per cent higher than they were in 2001. The member for Bowman recently took us through a lengthy dissertation justifying the price increases that have occurred. I invite him to front up to the people in his electorate and explain why premiums have increased since 2001 by an average of 40 per cent. What people do not accept is that, despite the multi-billion dollar subsidy of the private health insurance industry that this government has locked the Australian taxpayer into, these premiums go up every time the industry applies to the minister for a price increase. There have been eight successive increases in health insurance premiums, every one of them having been ticked off by the minister. People accept that prices are generally going to rise over time. They see the cost of food and other consumer items rising. They know that other insurance premiums are also going to rise due to the costs being experienced by industry. What they cannot accept is that private health insurance premiums have increased by 40 per cent since 2001. Constituents in my electorate were under the impression that there would be downward pressure on health insurance premiums. Why would they think that? It is simple—they believed the minister when he made the completely empty promise in 2001 that there would be downward pressure on premiums. It is unacceptable that, whenever the health insurance industry companies make an application to the minister for a price rise, he gets out his rubber stamp, turns to the last page in the relevant document and stamps the page—giving the price rise a big tick of approval. Worse still is that, when the minister makes the announcement that premiums have risen, he always refers to ‘average premium rises’. This is interesting. Constituents who contact my electorate office often report to me that the yearly premium rises they are experiencing are more in the order of 20 per cent, as opposed to the minister’s announcement, for example, of a seven per cent ‘average’ premium rise. How can this be the case? I undertook some investigation to find out. People are insistent when they talk about anything that affects the family budget. They come in and try to explain to their local member just what is impacting on the budget. They have taken me through these numbers. We find that there is some trickery involved in the calculation of ‘average’ premium rises. Health insurers manage to increase some premiums well above this figure of seven per cent by simply lowering the price of other products that they have on offer. When you look into this, you see that most of these products that fall in price generally correlate with those which are either defunct or, alternatively, closed to new members. That certainly does have a direct impact. That does not seem to matter to the minister though. He is happy to get out the rubber stamp and the big black pen, tick it off and stamp the page—and off we go again with another one of those successive premium rises, all of which have occurred on his watch. With premiums rising on the one hand, the government then wonders why, on the other hand, people who do not make claims on their insurance product start to consider leaving the system. I will let the minister in on a little secret, one that he ought to have regard for because I am sure that the people who visit my electorate office are no different from the people who visit the electorate offices of all members in this House: they believe they are being ripped off by this system. They deserve better. They deserve affordable and accessible private health insurance. Not only do people deserve affordable and accessible private health insurance; they also deserve affordable and accessible access to medical services in general. The electorate of Werriwa suffers from a shortage of GPs, something that I have been campaigning on for some time. I have taken up many petitions and spoken at many venues within the community on this. Why this has come about and why it is a central point of concern for many young families in my area is that the current ratio of GPs to the population in Werriwa stands at one GP to 1,700 head of population. This is a huge difference from the federal Department of Health and Ageing’s recommendation of one GP to 1,000 people. Our ratio is significantly above that. Our area in the outer western metropolitan area of Sydney has a high density of families. The people in our area have a high need to call upon a GP’s services, yet we find ours is one of the worst affected areas in having one GP to 1,700 head of population. In Sydney’s new growing suburbs, health care is extremely important. Not only is it extremely important to the people in those new suburbs; it is also at the front of the minds of all residents when they are looking at the provision of services within their region or suburb. It often gets back to the issue of the number of GPs that we have available to administer health care—and we in my region are particularly suffering as we try to attract GPs. Our residents, particularly young families and the older residents in many of the more established areas, are suffering because of this lack of GP support. One of the central reasons why people in my electorate are suffering from the lack of GPs is the government’s cut in the number of GP training positions back in 1996. They are paying the price of the government’s obsession with cost over service because they do not have reasonable access to a GP. The residents of Kemps Creek, Hoxton Park, Horningsea Park, Carnes Hill, Edmondson Park, Prestons and Austral are in areas where we have a critical health care workforce shortage. It is front and centre in the minds of local families. While I am on the record in this place as welcoming the investment that the government has made in the development of the new medical school on the Campbelltown campus of the University of Western Sydney, I say this will not solve the problems that the residents are experiencing now. I am sure that the school will produce doctors of a very high quality. I am confident that we will induce a number of these graduating medical practitioners, once they have seen and experienced the advantages that we have to offer them in Western Sydney, to stay and service the south-west of Sydney. But we will not see an improvement in our GP-population ratio for at least another seven to eight years if we are simply going to rely upon doctors coming out of the University of Western Sydney’s medical school to simply go out and, as is expected, resolve the issues as to our doctor shortage. I would like to raise another health issue of concern that faces many residents in my electorate and, no doubt, other electorates. It is also the result of the government’s decision to prioritise cost over health care. As with its cuts to GP training places in 1996, on coming to office this government made a decision which abolished the Commonwealth dental health scheme. This government decided to cut $100 million out of public dentistry—there was $100 million cut from a program that the government is on record as saying worked. Despite the provisions of the Constitution, this government decided that the Commonwealth no longer had a responsibility for dental health care. It left the state governments to pick up the tab and it continues to deny that it has  any role or responsibility in providing dental services to our communities. The Constitution says differently, of course, and it is about time that the government accepted its responsibility and restored a public dental health program. It is about time that it acted to cut the lists of people waiting for dental treatment in the public health system. It is about time that the government stopped the situation that only those who have private health insurance can afford dental services. People should not be forced to think about pulling their own teeth out simply because they cannot afford to see a dentist to have their teeth fixed. There are many elderly people who come and visit my office. People should not have to consider using superglue to fix their own dentures because the government wants to deny the responsibility that was given to it under the Australian Constitution. This government and the current minister need to stop the obsession with cost and dedicate the same time, the same energy and the same commitment to worrying about the health care of the people of this country. Care should be first and foremost in the minds of those deciding the future of health policy, because health policy should always be about people, not just about cost. This government needs to act and act now.(Time expired) 16 10:16:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006 deals with a subject that strikes a chord with all Australians: health. As the nation’s population ages the importance of health services only grows. All Australians have a stake in the country’s health services. This government recognises the right of all Australians, young and old, to access quality health services, no matter where they live or whatever their financial situation. Furthermore, the government has taken steps to see that Australians have every opportunity to choose private health cover. In fact, this government has encouraged it with several measures, which I will outline in a moment. Today I wish to highlight two reasons why the government is making private health insurance available to all Australians. Firstly, it is about choice. Australians should be able to decide for themselves whether they have private health insurance cover or whether they do not. Secondly, it is about working cooperatively with the public health system. The Howard government has eased the pressure on the public system without hurting the private system, encouraging more people to take out private health insurance, thus making for a stronger total health system—a strong public system as well as a strong private system. It is the government’s view that the private health sector makes a vital contribution to the national level of health services. I wish the same could be said for Labor, but the figures show otherwise. When the Howard government took office a decade ago, the number of Australians with private health insurance cover was less than 34 per cent of the population. Today, that figure has jumped to over 43 per cent. That is in the order of nine million Australians making their own decision to access private health insurance. When Labor came to power in 1983, 65 per cent of Australians had private health cover. Over their 13 years of government that figure almost halved to less than 34 per cent. In a moment, I will return to Labor’s poor record on health and why it opposes improvements to the system. In my electorate of Cowper, however, there is one private hospital and one private day care surgery—the Baringa Private Hospital and the Coffs Harbour Day Surgery Centre. Despite Cowper being a low-income electorate, those two facilities are very strongly patronised. It is indicative of the decisions being made by Australians around the country to use the services of the private health sector. We have a strong public health sector but, balancing that, and to take the pressure off that, we also have a strong private health sector. One key indicator of the effectiveness of the private health insurance system is the usage of private hospitals in Australia: 56 per cent of surgery in Australia is performed by private hospitals. They admit a quarter of a million patients a year. The private system has 24,642 beds in 291 hospitals. Private hospitals account for 40 per cent of all hospital admitted patients with just 32 per cent of all hospital beds. Today, private health insurance membership, as I said, is over 43 per cent. That is a substantial proportion of the Australian population, taking a substantial load off the public sector. The government has taken several recent measures to make private health insurance more attractive. Firstly, the private health insurance rebate was introduced in 1999. The 30 per cent rebate reduces the cost of private health insurance cover to the consumer. Since 1 April 2005 those with private health insurance who are aged between 65 and 69 have been able to claim a rebate of 35 per cent, and those who are aged 70 and over have been able to claim a rebate of 40 per cent. And what was Labor’s response to these increased rebates? Predictably, Labor’s response was to oppose this move. They labelled the move ‘a bad thing’ for our economy. They labelled it ‘unfair’. They labelled the increase in the private health insurance rebate to older Australians ‘shameful’. Had Labor remained in power, we would not be using the word ‘shameful’ to describe the private health insurance system and the private health system; I think we would probably be using the word ‘terminal’. Labor ignores the figures when it claims that private health cover is out of the reach of average Australians. Over a million of these average Australians, on incomes of $20,000 a year or less, have private health insurance cover. And the private health insurance rebate is a major element in making that insurance cover affordable. The private health insurance rebate saves a typical family in the order of $800 a year—a benefit they would say they greatly appreciate, I am sure, were you to ask any family. Secondly, in July 2000 the government revolutionised private health insurance by introducing Lifetime Health Cover. It provides incentives for all Australians to take out private health insurance cover and stick with it over the long term. It helps to slow premium increases and it helps to stop the ‘hit and run’ syndrome where people join a private health insurance scheme only to leave after a particular ailment has been dealt with. I think Lifetime Health Cover is great news for the private health insurance system and great news for the wider health sector. What would Labor have offered in its place? One proposal Labor put forward was the well-known Medicare Gold. I do not know whether the members opposite still remember Medicare Gold. I am sure they would prefer to forget Medicare Gold. It was going to bridge the divide between the private and the public hospital systems. It was going to put an end to hospital waiting lists, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, espoused at the time. An opposition that was opposed to expanding the health insurance rebate for older Australians actually proposed this scheme of Medicare Gold, which would have provided free hospital care for all Australians over the age of 75. There seemed to be an incredible conflict there. On the one hand, they opposed the increase in the private health insurance rebate for older Australians but, on the other hand, they said they were going to have free health care for all Australians over 75 and no waiting lists. They said they were going to miraculously eliminate waiting lists. If you were over 75, you would just rock up at the door of the hospital and in you would go, straight through the door, and be treated immediately. It was clearly unsustainable; it was clearly underfunded; it was clearly a Labor pipedream. It was an absolute pipedream. The system of Medicare Gold was quickly discredited. It was discredited by those on this side of the House, it was discredited by the overwhelming weight of health professionals and it was even discredited by those on the other side of politics. It was described by Michael Costello, the former Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition, as a ‘strategic disaster’. It was described by former President of the Australian Labor Party and former minister in the Hawke government Barry Jones as a ‘turkey’. But it was apparently the biggest idea Labor had had on health in a decade, and it was quite clearly one of the worst. Incredibly, Labor will not put the final nail in the coffin of Medicare Gold. That uncosted, underfunded, unsustainable and undeliverable policy is still floating out there in Labor rhetoric land. The 2004 election carrot was rejected by the people of Australia. They realised that the story that Labor was putting in relation to Medicare Gold was not going to be delivered. They could see that there was no proof of how access could be guaranteed to health services or how immediate service could be guaranteed for the over 75s, particularly where procedures required were complicated or difficult. It created the rather incredible situation where a person with a particular condition and of a particular age would be placed in a queue behind someone of an older age, just because that person had achieved the age of 75. We had a situation where Labor was espousing a policy that access to services was defined not by clinical need but by age. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, has called on Labor to renounce Medicare Gold for the farce that it is—to kill it stone dead—so that the people of Australia can get some clear direction on where Labor is coming from on health. We want to kill off that turkey. We want to chop off its head and make sure it does not appear again. Labor does not seem to speak much of Medicare Gold. I would like the opposition once and for all, in no uncertain terms, to state its position in this House that Medicare Gold is dead—that it is off the agenda. While we wait for Labor to construct a cohesive health strategy, the government will continue delivering affordable, workable health outcomes for every Australian—that is, not a pipedream but affordable and workable outcomes. The government introduced the no-gap and known-gap scheme, which provides health insurance members with a number of benefits. It provides cover for the difference between doctors’ fees and the combined health insurance and Medicare benefits payable for in-hospital medical services or up-front disclosure of any amount that would not be recovered from the policy. The Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006 proposes changes to two current health acts. It puts forward an amendment to the National Health Act 1953 to increase the powers of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. Its proposes a change to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998 to give Medicare Australia more time to provide the Australian Taxation Office with information regarding private health insurance rebates. The government considers this bill an important step because it will enable the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to more effectively represent consumers in disputes. Schedule 1 of the bill before the House gives the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman greater powers to deal with complaints and to conduct investigations, whether they be of the ombudsman’s own initiative or by ministerial request. Schedule 2 responds to an Australian National Audit Office review on the administration of the rebate process and will lead to a simplified system of data exchange between the Australian Taxation Office and Medicare. Australians with private health insurance use the services of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman in times of dispute with their fund because of the ombudsman’s independence. The same is true of the private health insurance industry, private hospitals or medical practitioners when they have a complaint. Under the current system, the office of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is somewhat limited in the way they can deal with some disputes. It is important to ensure consumers are not exposed to risk during negotiations or disputes with health funds or health service providers, and the government feels that the involvement of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman in these negotiations is in the best interests of all parties and creates a more transparent system. The position of Private Health Insurance Ombudsman was first created in 1995. Over the ensuing decade the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman has been the referee in disputes between parties in the private health insurance industry. It is the government’s view that the powers of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman do not allow for effective mediation of complaints and contract disputes between private health care providers and private health funds. The bill is designed to empower the ombudsman to settle these disputes quickly and effectively. It also broadens the scope the ombudsman has for securing the necessary documentation needed to settle disputes, specifically on fund and health care provider contracts. The bill before the House today is important because it will enhance the operation of our health care system. Philosophically, Labor have an absolute opposition to private health insurance cover. I would like to see them reverse that stance. I would like to see them come up with policies that enhance and support the government’s position on private health insurance as an important part of our health system, as a major buttress to a quality health system comprising both the private and the public sector. It is hard enough to get any services out of our states. When you look at the way the states administer their health systems, there is some concern amongst the public. This government has a view of supporting the public system through a strong private sector. This government has the view that policies such as Medicare Gold—the undeliverable, underfunded pipedream—should be abandoned by Labor. We would be looking for a clear statement to that effect. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! It being 10.30 am, in accordance with a resolution agreed to earlier today, I call the Minister for Health and Ageing. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest it might assist the House if we indulge the member for Blaxland for 30 seconds or so. He has some important points he wishes to make. 19 10:30:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —On the 10th anniversary of my election to this House, nothing much has changed except that the government believes in externalising its responsibilities, in moving from the public to the private, in simply auditing and benchmarking and in taking no significant responsibility for the operation of the government or its agencies. Although we support the extension of the powers to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, the fundamental problem here is that this externalises Commonwealth government business and control. I thank the House for this one gagged opportunity, and the minister’s consideration to do this on the 10th anniversary of my election. 19 10:31:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —I appreciate that I do not often do good things, but I am pleased to have been able to accommodate the member for Blaxland, particularly as it is the 10th anniversary of his election to this House. I think he is doing a much better job than his predecessor did as the member for Blaxland. I wish to thank everyone who has contributed to the Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Bill 2006. This bill should have the united support of the House because, while all of us have various issues with government policies and while all of us have various issues with aspects of the health system, the fact is that it is about enhancing protection for consumers, it is about trying to ensure that private health insurance policyholders get a better deal and it is about extending the powers of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the whole sector. I think this is very good news for everyone, and I am pleased that speakers on all sides of the House have indicated that they support the bill, whatever other issues they might have. The member for Lalor made some general criticisms of the state of private health insurance. In effect, she said that it was unattractive, expensive and complex. I would simply say to the honourable member that it is a lot more attractive, it is a lot less expensive and it will be a lot less complex thanks to the policies of this government. The percentage of the population with private health insurance has increased dramatically thanks to the government’s policies, particularly Lifetime Health Cover and the rebate, which Labor have never been comfortable with. While from time to time in muted tones they suggest that they do not really want to abolish it, we have many on-the-record statements by members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they regard the private health insurance rebate as very poor public policy. The fact is the rebate makes private health insurance much less expensive than would otherwise be the case. I point out for the benefit of members opposite that, while no-one likes premium increases and while premium increases have certainly been significant under this government, averaging about 5½ per cent a year, that is just half of the average premium increase that took place between 1983 and 1995. The member for Lalor remains highly critical of the government’s decision to sell Medibank Private. For her benefit, let me point out that the best guarantee of good services is competition, not government ownership. Certainly, existing players in the sector believe that the privatisation of Medibank Private will increase competition, not decrease competition. I think that we will find that a privatised Medibank Private will be a much fiercer competitor for the other organisations in private health insurance. In response to the second reading amendment of the member for Lalor, the general public is always sceptical about privatisation, but the task of government is not to slavishly follow opinion polls. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —What about the Snowy Hydro? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —The task of government is to pursue good policy, and I would remind the member for Lalor that at all times the majority of Australians were against the privatisation of Qantas, which was done by the former government, and they were against the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, which was begun by the former government. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —And the Snowy Hydro. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Privatisation makes a great deal of sense, particularly in areas where there is fierce competition. There is a world of difference between Medibank Private, which is just one—admittedly the largest, but it is just one—private health insurer in a large and competitive market, and the Snowy Hydro, which was a virtual monopoly. It certainly is a public utility. Sure, we can always improve structural weaknesses in the health sector, but workforce shortages have already been very substantially addressed by this government. Again, no-one likes the rising costs of health, but this government, through measures such as the Medibank safety net, is doing a lot to handle that. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Lalor has moved as 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. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the amendments I would have moved had we had a consideration in detail stage and had the guillotine not been applied to this bill. Leave granted. The amendments read as follows— (1)    Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 7), add                   “and to refer matters to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or to other bodies for inquiry”. (2)    Schedule 1, after item 70, page 16 (after line 16), insert 70A  Heading of Division 4 Omit the heading, substitute: Division 4 — Health Insurance Commission may conduct investigations, refer matters to ACCC or other bodies (3)    Schedule 1, after item 82, page 21 (after line 32) insert: 82A  After section 82ZTBB Insert: 82ZTBC  Health Insurance Ombudsman may refer matters to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission                   The Health Insurance Ombudsman may, on his or her own initiative, refer, by notice in writing, a specified matter or specified matters concerning charges by health care providers to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for inquiry and report. (4)    Schedule 1, after item 82, page 21 (after line 32) insert: 82B  After section 82ZTBB Insert 82ZTBD  Minister may refer matters to Australian Competition and Consumer Commission                   The Minister may refer, by notice in writing, a specified mater or specified matters concerning charges by health care providers to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for inquiry and report. (5)    Schedule 1, after item 82, page 21 (after line 32) insert: 82C  After section 82ZTBB Insert: 82ZTBE  Health Insurance Ombudsman may refer matter to other body                   If, in the Health Insurance Ombudsman’s opinion, it is more appropriate for a specified matter or specified matters concerning charges by health care providers to be referred to a body other than the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Health Insurance Ombudsman may refer, by notice in writing, that specified matters or those specified matters to that other body for inquiry and report. (6)    Schedule 1, after item 82, page 21 (after line 32) insert: 82D  After section 82ZTBB Insert: 82ZTBF  Minister may refer matters to other body                   If, in the Minister’s opinion, it is more appropriate for a specified matter or specified matters concerning changes by health care providers to be referred to a body other than the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Minister may refer, by notice in writing, that specified matter or those specified matters to that other body for inquiry and report. (7)    Schedule 1, after item 82, page 21 (after line 32) insert 82E  After section 82ZTBB Insert: 82ZTBC  Inquiries by other bodies                   If a specified matter is or specified matters are referred to another body under section 82ZTBE or 82ZTBF,          (1)    the other body must, if it agrees to hold the inquiry, appoint, by instrument in writing, a person to preside at the inquiry;          (2)    however, if the other body is a group of two or more individuals, the Minister must, by instrument in writing, appoint one of those individuals to preside at the inquiry;          (3)    the Minister must, as soon as practicable after confirmation that the other body will hold the inquiry, cause a statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament;               (a)    specifying that the body will hold the inquiry, and               (b)    giving the reasons the body, rather than the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has been requested to hold the inquiry. (8)    After Schedule 2, page 27 (after line 10), add the following new schedule  “Schedule 3 — Amendment to the Trade Practices Act Trade Practices Act 1974 1  After subsection 95C(1) Insert:       (1A)    This Part also applies in respect to an inquiry concerning a specified matter or specified matters referred to the Commission under section 82ZTBC or 82ZTBD of the Health Insurance Act 1953. 2  Section 95E Add:                   “and to protect consumers by holding inquiries referred to it under section 82ZTBC or 82ZTBD of the Health Insurance Act 1953. 3  After subsection 95G(3) Insert:       (3A)    The Commission may hold such inquiries as one referred to it under section 82ZTBC or 82ZTBD of the Health Insurance Act 1953. 22 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 22 Bills R2564 Cognate bill: 22 Bills R2563 22 Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr McGauran: That the bill be now read a second time. 22 10:38:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise today, on behalf of the Labor Party, to speak on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. It is my great pleasure speak on such important legislation because this has been an issue in the Australian community for many years, one that members on this side of the House—Labor—have been calling, pardon the pun, for action on for a considerable period of time. The introduction of this legislation is a significant win for Labor. This legislation has been pursued by Labor and we have put pressure on the government. While it is a win for Labor in parliamentary terms, it is a huge win for the community. Labor have been calling for the establishment of a national do not call list since before the last federal election and have been campaigning on the issue for the past two years. Personally, I have very actively campaigned on this issue in the local community. It gives me great pleasure to be here today to speak on this bill, because the people of Oxley—indeed, all the people of Australia—will be very pleased when these measures have been introduced. This is a long overdue win for Australians and a change that will give them back some peace of mind and a bit of phone freedom. The government’s backflip on this issue is very welcome. The bills essentially provide for the creation of the national Do Not Call Register that allows individuals to opt not to receive unsolicited calls from telemarketers. The register would be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA. The new regime that will be established by these bills will give a greater sense of freedom to all Australians—freedom from being pestered by telemarketers during dinner, while bathing the kids or while relaxing and enjoying a bit of quiet time at home by themselves or with their friends and family. This is very real—I do not say these things lightly. I will speak from my own experience of telemarketers. After getting home from a long day at work and spending some time in the kitchen undertaking some household chores—enjoying a bit of quiet time and feeling pretty tired—it is annoying enough that the phone rings at all, even though it could be a friend, but you can be very annoyed, even angry, when you realise it is an unsolicited call from a telemarketer trying to sell you something over the phone. I think everybody could relay their own personal experience. When it happens to you once in a night it is annoying, and when it happens to you twice in a night it is frustrating, but when it happens to you three times in a night you get very angry. Sometimes the only option is to take the phone off the hook. People do not mind being interrupted by a phone call at home when there is a good likelihood of it being somebody who is close to them—a friend or someone who is calling them personally—but, for a lot of people, answering the call late at night is approached with trepidation. For many older people, it can be an intimidating experience to have somebody on the other end of the phone asking them specific questions, giving them information and, from my own experience, giving them a bit of a hard time. For many people this is quite intimidating. It can be a horrible experience. With the introduction of the measures, that will no longer be the case. People will be able to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. When this bill is introduced people will rush to this list. They will do so in their tens of thousands. People will take this opportunity to opt out, because they see it as their right to use their phone for private purposes and not for receiving unsolicited calls. As the explanatorily memorandum states, the framework contained in the bill is designed to regulate and minimise: ... unsolicited telemarketing calls made to Australian telephone numbers that originate from overseas numbers or Australian numbers. It also acknowledges that, while telemarketing is a legitimate method by which businesses can market their services or seek donations, the new system will empower Australians to express a preference not to be called by telemarketers. As much as I believe telemarketers have a right to call people, people have a right to refuse those calls and to therefore opt out completely from the system. I think that is legitimate for consumers in this country. There are some exceptions in the bill: for example, some public interest organisations are permitted to make telemarketing calls. I think the real issue is that those so permitted should make calls within reasonable hours and within the reasonable bounds of what people would expect. The principal mechanism of this new regime is the establishment of a Do Not Call Register, which would be kept by the Australian Communications and Media Authority or a delegated authority. People will be able to register not only their home number but also their mobile phone number. For many people, their mobile phone number is also their home number as many people have adopted the practice of having a mobile phone as their means of communication. It is important that mobile phones are included because for many people it is a work related tool or a communication device that is very personal to them, and they do not want to be annoyed by telemarketing calls on that private number. Telemarketers who wish to promote their services will be required to check their calling lists against the numbers registered in the do not call list to ensure that they do not contact numbers of individuals who have opted out of receiving telemarketing calls. My very strong message to telemarketers is to respect the wishes of those who opt out and list their numbers as not to be called. I think that is very important. Complaints relating to the Do Not Call Register and breaches of the bill can be made to the ACMA. A range of penalties are enforceable. I believe that those penalties should be followed through completely and that they should be fully enforced. A strong message needs to go out that these laws will be acted upon. People have tried to opt out—a company has rung them and they have asked to be removed from the company’s list—only to find that they have received a call from the same company 15 minutes later, or the following day or the following week. It seems that for many people the frustration of continually trying to ring and get their name removed has been pointless. This bill should alleviate that problem. The introduction of these new measures has long been overdue. Unwanted telemarketing is a serious problem and one that is getting worse in this country. I just want to bring to the attention of the House, and of people listening, a few salient facts as they relate to the telemarketing industry. The volume of telemarketing calls in Australia has been skyrocketing, to the point where, for many telemarketers, it is now almost a useless exercise. I see some acknowledgment of that in the gallery. As I said earlier, I think people understand this whole point about telemarketers very directly. For a lot of telemarketers as well it must be frustrating to ring people who are sick and tired of getting these calls, to the point where it is absolutely useless. People get frustrated and angry and are hesitant to answer the phone later in the night because of all these calls. Research conducted last year estimated that telemarketing companies made more than 1 billion—that is right: 1 billion—telemarketing calls. That is a staggering thought. That is 53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week—way too many; a figure which is out of control. These numbers represent an increase in telemarketing calls of six per cent on the previous year. In addition, the behaviour of some telemarketing companies is deplorable. While many telemarketing companies act in a responsible manner, there are many others who act irresponsibly. In fact, some, I would say, use disturbing tactics to pressure vulnerable people on the end of a phone—people who do not have the capacity to articulate their wishes or the power to really refuse someone on the phone. That is a real issue, a real problem. Many people in the community cannot simply be rude and just say to telemarketers, ‘Go away!’ This bill gives them the power to tell telemarketers to go away. And they can do it directly, by listing their numbers on the Do Not Call Register. Once people understand that these laws have been passed—and I can assure you that I will be doing everything I can to promote them in my electorate and that many others will be doing the same across the country—they will be rejoicing in their new-found freedom. Many of the call centres engaged in telemarketing employ aggressive and, in some cases, deceitful sales practices, exploiting the most vulnerable in our community. As I say, this does not apply to all of them, obviously. There are many respectable, honourable telemarketers who do their job properly, within the bounds of the law and of what we would determine to be an ethical standard. But there are some who do not. Unsolicited calls are the biggest source of complaints to the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading, and in 2005 there was a surge in the number of complaints recorded in Victoria and South Australia. I am sure that the numbers in Queensland are also staggering—the numbers of people who are completely annoyed, who have absolutely had enough. It is clear, therefore, that there is substantial community interest in stopping unwanted telemarketing. The community has demanded action. For years it has been ignored by government. Labor has been pushing this issue for well over two years. In fact, it was on the policy platform before the last election. Again, I welcome the backflip of the government on this issue. Every once in a while you have to applaud a backflip from governments. Governments that do backflips and admit that they were wrong should be congratulated. So I would congratulate the government on a spectacular backflip on this very important issue. Labor acknowledged that the rate of unsolicited telemarketing calls had grown significantly in recent years. In fact, in 2004, Labor proposed the introduction of the national Do Not Call Register, but the then communications minister Daryl Williams dismissed Labor’s policy as just plain populist. Well, I am afraid he was wrong. It may be a populist issue but it is still a real issue—a real issue that concerns many people in the community and one that needs to be dealt with. Now that the government has backflipped on this and adopted Labor’s policy, I say that perhaps the then communications minister was more than wrong. I want to make special mention here of my colleague the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, who introduced a private member’s bill in late 2005 to establish a national do not call list, to be managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Under that bill, telemarketers who contacted numbers on the list would be subject to fines of up to $10,000. The provisions of this private member’s bill are largely reflected in the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006. One area of difference between the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and Labor’s policy is that the government has prevented small businesses from registering on the list. Whether amendments to this bill reflecting this position should be moved will be discussed between the shadow minister for communications and the shadow minister for small business. Labor welcomes today the change of heart from the Howard government to adopt Labor’s do not call list banning unwanted telemarketing phone calls. This is a win, as I said earlier, for Labor but it is also a huge win for ordinary families. Labor has long understood that Australians have become sick and tired of being hassled by annoying telemarketing phone calls. Unfortunately for Australian families, John Howard played politics on nuisance calls. When the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, gave notice that she would be introducing a private member’s bill into the House of Representatives last year creating such a national Do Not Call Register, the government refused to even allow a vote on the bill. The government then cynically released a discussion paper on the issue, on the day before the bill was scheduled for debate. Now, after almost six months of delay, the Howard government has fully adopted Labor’s policy position. Senator Coonan should explain why she has made Australian families endure a further six months of annoying telemarketing calls just to allow her to take the political credit for this policy. She should also explain why the nuisance calls will go on until 2007. Petty politics like this demonstrates the arrogance of a government that has been in power for far too long. The Howard government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming all along on this issue. It is clearly out of touch with community interest and does not understand how frustrated and annoyed ordinary Australian families are when they get home from a hard day at work and receive these nuisance calls. Labor listened and pressured the Howard government. Now Australian families will see an end to this irritating practice. The next challenge for the Howard government is to adopt Labor’s plan to give peace of mind to parents concerned about their kids’ exposure to violent and pornographic material on the internet. We will be happy to continue to pressure this government until it understands what ordinary families need and deserve. So today I also call on John Howard to perform his second backflip and adopt Labor’s plan, which requires all internet service providers to offer a filtered, ‘clean feed’ internet service to all households, schools and other public internet points accessible by children. As I said, we welcome this bill. We welcome the Do Not Call Register, and Labor are very pleased that the government adopted our policy. 26 10:52:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —Failure is an orphan but success has many fathers. It is always interesting that, when you see members of the opposition get up on what is obviously a very good government initiative, they always try to claim the credit for it. I am not saying that they did not have any influence on these decisions, but to outrageously claim all the benefits of and all the credit for the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 is genuinely over the top. I think the member for Oxley normally gives a fairly reasonable contribution to this parliament. He even showed his warm and caring side today, telling us how he enjoyed cleaning up and cooking at home and did not like being interrupted by the phone calls while he was doing that. He is a very warm and caring member—although I think many people, when they are washing the dishes, would not mind being interrupted by something! I agree with the member for Oxley that there is nothing more annoying when you have got home after a long day at work and you want to spend some time with your family or you have some other things to do or you have settled down to watch a movie—all those occasions when you are having your own time—and you are interrupted by someone who has no interest in you except in what he or she can perhaps sell to you. It is very annoying, and those occasions seem to have been on the increase. I can remember years ago—and I do not know whether it is an urban myth or not—that the story used to be that if somebody rang up you could leave the phone off the hook, just walk away and then that person might hang up but they could not use that line. That is what I used to do. But unfortunately, after about half an hour, you realise that somebody else might be trying to get through to you, so you hang up your phone. Other people have had the experience of getting one of these calls from a telemarketer. They have decided that they will just leave it there hanging, go off, wash the dishes and come back, and they have found the person still talking without drawing a breath. Those sorts of stories abound all over Australia. It is very annoying, and I think there is general agreement on both sides of this parliament that there will not be any opposition to this legislation because it is a very fine idea. I regularly have constituents ringing up and complaining. I tell them that there is a register, but this goes much further. Often these calls are time consuming, with a hundred different questions before you even find out what they are calling about. As a rule, if I get one of these calls myself, I just say, ‘Not interested,’ and hang up. You soon come to recognise them. But I will be the first to admit that I mistook one caller with an Indian-sounding voice who tried to ring me three times. I was getting pretty annoyed by this stage, until I found out that this person actually worked for my local bank and had a pretty important reason to be ringing me up. That was the problem, as I think we all must recognise. I think India is the telemarketing centre of the world, and we recognise these voices, as I did. I plead guilty of making a mistake on this occasion. On top of the frustration, as I said, many of the telemarketers are not even calling from Australia, nor do they speak fluent English. A recent advertisement by the Royal Automobile Association in South Australia depicted the character George talking about the frustrations of overseas call centres, in a humorous approach. The ‘Which deli?’ advertisement showed George telling cafe owner Trevor about the service provided by a call centre operator from New Delhi, India. George asks where the call centre operator is calling from, to which he replies, ‘New Delhi.’ George says that he is actually at the new deli in his neighbourhood. The call centre operator replies that they should catch up for a curry and a pappadum. Whilst the advertisement has been removed from the air, as the Advertising Standards Board received the complaint that it was racist, it certainly shows the common frustrations felt by many people at having service calls answered by overseas call centre operators. This legislation is a very welcome step to saying goodbye to those nuisance calls. It is fantastic that this government—and I give credit to members of the opposition that they support it as well—has heard the cries of the public demands for such a register to be established. Last year alone, complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman on telemarketing had increased by more than 600 per cent. That is a huge increase in anyone’s terms. That is saying something about the inconvenience and interruptions to people’s lives that these calls are creating. We should also note that the proposal of such a register is supported by the telemarketing industry peak body, the Australian Direct Marketing Association, or ADMA. I think they should also be given credit for recognising this problem. The model being proposed is a legislated national register which will give the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the power to enforce industry compliance. The ACMA will also establish the administrative arrangements for the operation of the register. This legislation will also enable the establishment of minimum contact standards to which all telemarketers must adhere, including all exempted organisations such as charities. There may still be some concern that charities are exempt. In my experience, charities are often the ones making these calls—and also to small business. I note that the member for Oxley raised this as well. I think that, in time, we will need to review those two areas. Small businesses often complain to me that they are busy during the day when they get these calls and the calls take up their time. We all like to think that charities are good and that they provide a great service, but they can also be annoying. I often get phone calls asking for donations, not because I am a member of parliament but because I am an average Joe Citizen like everyone else. Certainly my constituents often tell me that it is charities that are doing the ringing up, often at 7 o’clock or 8 o’clock at night when it is very inconvenient. It seems that Australians are not the first to encounter this type of register, with successful schemes having been in operation in many countries, including the United States since 2003 and the United Kingdom since 1999. The proposed model for Australia takes the best features of schemes already operating in other countries but is primarily based on the United States model. This register gives the power to the consumer to say no to these annoying calls. Consumers will have the legal right to stop telemarketing approaches at any time by placing their numbers, both fixed line and mobile phone numbers, on the national register. Once a telephone number is on the do not call list, telemarketers other than those in the exempt categories will be prohibited from contacting a registered number unless they have prior consent. All this is free to consumers. Individuals can nominate to register either via the internet, post or telephone and, once they have done so, their numbers will remain on the register for a period of three years before they will have to be reregistered unless they are removed earlier. As per similar international systems, the government will fund the regulatory costs of the register and will contribute to the establishment costs for the register, including some ongoing costs. With the register proposed to cost just over $33 million over four years to establish, the government will make a contribution of $17.2 million over the four years. The industry will contribute $15.9 million over the same period, and telemarketers will then be required to pay for access to the register in the form of fees for access. I am pleased to note that ACMA would be empowered to enforce compliance of the register with the onus then being on the telemarketing industry to avoid calling anyone on the register without their consent. Should they not consult the register and dial consumers who are on it, they will face a fine. I am also pleased to note that the register would apply to calls made within Australia as well as to calls made from overseas. Often companies have call centres located overseas, and this legislation will capture calls made overseas to an Australian number, even if the telemarketer or the commissioning company does not have a presence in Australia. Whilst enforcement of such calls may be difficult, it is recognised that telemarketing is in large part an international problem. With this in mind, the government has recognised the importance of cooperating with other countries in developing bilateral or multilateral arrangements to help move more effectively towards global enforcement of telemarketing. Of course, in every situation, there are exemptions to the rules. Within our country there are some organisations that would be exempt from these rules, such as certain government bodies—including the armed forces and police forces—registered political parties, religious organisations, charities and educational institutions. For government bodies, telephone calls are an important mechanism through which the government is directly able to contact the public. Exempting such bodies as government departments, agencies including armed forces and police forces and authorities or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth, states and territories requiring to contact the public from time to time would seem sensible and appropriate. For the purpose of staying in touch with constituents, political parties, independent members of parliament and nominated political candidates would be exempt. I note with some interest that, I believe, a member of the other place has suggested that politicians should not be exempt. We may laugh in this House about senators not knowing much about constituents at times, because we are the people’s house. I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, would have done a very similar thing when, like me, you are driving along in a large rural electorate and you ring someone out of the blue—it is not a bad thing to pick a number—with a hands-free phone set-up so that you are not breaking the law and driving dangerously. That is a risk we take. If someone does not like us doing that, they can vote against us. That is their ultimate way of saying, ‘We didn’t like that call.’ My experience in this is that people have been quite surprised that a member of parliament has rung them out of the blue, and they are quite happy have a chat about anything. As long as you do it in a polite manner and listen to them, they take it very well. I think that is a very good thing for parliamentarians to do. The exemption also applies to persons nominated as a candidate under the Commonwealth Electoral Act—and I think it is only fair that we treat all candidates, whether or not they are the sitting member, the same. They can be a candidate under the Commonwealth Electoral Act or a relevant state or territory law that deals with electoral matters. Where this exemption does not apply is when a party member seeks to promote their own business through telemarketing calls for their own benefit. We are awake to that. As religious organisations provide valuable support and community services, as well as moral guidance to many people within the community, they have been exempt from these rules. Educational institutions also need to contact their students to inform them of the needs of the institutions and to solicit funds to ensure their viability, and for these reasons they are also being exempt from the rules. While it sounds as though consumers are trying to stop communicating with anyone unknown to them, we must remember that the telemarketing industry actually wants this register. The industry will benefit through decreased operational costs associated with the proposed national telemarketing standards, reduced costs of compliance with state and territory legislation and better targeting of calls as they will no longer call individuals who will hang up on them—as I do and as I am sure many members of this parliament and many members of the public do. This legislation signifies consumers and the government taking a stand for our privacy and our precious time and how we choose to use it. For a long time we have received these annoying calls and, with people working as hard as they do now—families and children being busy with schooling, sports and other activities—time is precious. Why would anyone want to waste five minutes that they could have with their children, after just walking in the door from work and with the children heading off to bed, to listen to a telemarketer calling from another country and selling something that is completely useless to the family? The Do Not Call Register will put an end to this. I do not think anyone in this chamber should oppose this bill and would be very surprised if anyone did. I commend the bill to the House. 30 11:08:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: welcomes the Government’s decision to implement Labor’s plan to establish a Do Not Call Register; declares that the carve out for small and micro business represents a substantial deficiency in the bill and represents Government complacency on small business policy; and calls on the Government to adopt Labor’s more comprehensive model”. I begin my contribution on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006, as I did yesterday on a couple of occasions, by expressing my disappointment at the government’s decision to gag this and a number of other important bills—and they are important for a number of reasons. From the reaction of the government’s own backbench, we can see the importance of the immigration bill that is being gagged. We all understand why it is being gagged. It has been done in an attempt to minimise political damage and fallout for this government. Yesterday Labor wished to move a technical amendment to the petroleum bill and we were denied that opportunity. There could be no better example of an affront to parliamentary democracy than the successful attempt to deny minor opposition parties the right to move amendments in this place. However, it is not only an affront to Australian democracy; it is an insult to all those whom we represent in this place. We should be able to move such amendments in this place. Indeed, today I am again being denied the opportunity to move, on behalf of many Australians—in this case small business—a consideration in detail amendment to this bill. There could not possibly be any justification for that action. On that basis, I seek leave to table the amendment that I would have moved in the consideration in detail stage, if I had been given the opportunity to do so and not gagged by the government on this issue. I have discussed the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and I am sure he would be happy to grant leave. Leave granted. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 provides for the creation of a national register that will allow individuals to opt out from receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The register will be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Exemptions will be provided for certain types of telemarketing calls to allow organisations who carry out activities in the public interest to carry out their work and to continue to provide services to the community. The exempt bodies are charities, registered political parties—so the Prime Minister will be able to call people at home again during the next election, if he is still around—independent members of parliament and candidates, religious organisations, educational institutions and government bodies. The Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 enables the development of relevant industry codes and standards relating to telemarketing calls. It requires the ACMA to make national standards regulating the making of all telemarketing calls. The mandatory standards will relate to certain conduct matters, such as the time at which telemarketing calls may be made, the information that must be provided to recipients and the termination of such calls. The standard will apply to all telemarketers including those exempt from Do Not Call Register arrangements. As indicated by the member for Oxley, Labor welcomes this legislation; it is long overdue. I am sure that he pointed out to the House that Labor has been calling for this for at least 18 months—I think longer. I believe that we took this policy to the last federal election. For whatever reason, the government for a long time was very reluctant to move on the matter, but community pressure has been overwhelmingly strong and has obviously forced the government’s hand. I just make mention of the member for Chisholm. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She is unwell and has had to go home. She will be very disappointed to have missed this debate. All members of this House will be aware that the member for Chisholm has driven this agenda. She has run a very heavy public campaign and has introduced a private member’s bill into this place to give effect to what the government is attempting to achieve today. It is interesting to note the number of submissions that were made on this bill. I was surprised to see them as I went through the bill’s explanatory memorandum. There were some 12 submissions from small business, 28 from charitable organisations, 32 from telemarketing organisations, eight from telephone carriers, five from consumer groups, eight from government, 20 from special interest groups, one from a social and market research organisation and, interestingly, 377 from individuals. So you can see where the push is coming from. It is not coming from industry organisations, as is so often the case in this place. The push is coming from ordinary mums and dads and families out there who are sick and tired of receiving unsolicited telephone calls at dinnertime or while they are watching their favourite movie or footy event. I am one of those victims. In particular, over the last Christmas period, I was inundated with unsolicited phone calls from these marketing organisations. It drove me crazy—absolutely crazy. It enraged me at times to be receiving these calls while trying to enjoy a short Christmas break and some quiet time with my family. Interestingly, my daughter came home from school one day and informed me that someone at the school had told her the best way to deal with these calls is not to hang up but to leave the phone off the hook, sitting idle, and just let the telemarketers speak for five minutes or for however long until they work out that you are no longer on the other end. So that has become the practice in my household, and I understand that many households have adopted that same practice. It is very frustrating to receive these calls, often at the worst possible times. On that basis, like the 377 people who made submissions and the many members of parliament, including Anna Burke, who have been pushing the case, I am delighted that the government has finally moved on this very important issue. We lag behind other nation states. These measures have been in effect in the United States and in the United Kingdom for some time, and I understand Canada is in the process of putting them in place. I know there has been some concern about the impact on the telemarketing industry, but the evidence from other nations where these things have been put into effect is that it has not been too adverse. In fact, it has forced the industry to have another look at itself and at how it can better present its case to the consumers it is targeting. I am very pleased that we are moving to a mandatory system. I think that is the only way we will give proper effect to what we are trying to achieve in this instance. The second reading amendment I have moved gives members an opportunity to talk about a few things, particularly the tardiness of the government in bringing this legislation forward. But it also gives us an opportunity to talk about the impact of this legislation on small business. The amendment I had intended to move at the consideration in detail stage of this bill would have allowed small business to opt back into system. Unfortunately from my perspective, the government has made a decision to not allow small business people to opt into the system. In other words, private individuals at home will be able to register and request that they not be called and people with mobile phones will be able to request that they not be called, but people in small business will not be able to do the same. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, says that the government took this decision because she was concerned that business undertaking ordinary business-to-business activity throughout the day might inadvertently get caught up in this legislation. That makes no sense to me. I cannot see the Australian Communications and Media Authority taking action against a small business for inadvertently falling under the scope of this bill. It would be clear to the authority that that is not the intention of the parliament, and I think it is highly unlikely that the authority would take any action in that event. There is a very blurry line here between what is a business phone and what is a private phone—take tradespeople, in particular, who use their mobile phones for both purposes. You can imagine the small business builder, up on top of a roof, working away, when his phone rings. He needs to have that phone on his hip because not having it on his hip means the possible loss of business. So he keeps the phone on his hip and he keeps it turned on in case a customer is trying to call. But how frustrating is it for him—or it could be her—to struggle to put the hammer down, get the phone off the hip and risk falling off the roof only to learn that the call is coming from a telemarketer putting a proposition to him that he has absolutely no interest in. You can imagine a motor mechanic working under a vehicle in the dirt and the heat when the phone rings. He is compelled to come from under the car and run to the office to take the phone call, and you can understand how frustrating it is for him to find that the person on the other end of that telephone call is indeed a telemarketer trying to sell him something he has no interest in whatsoever. People in retail or people in hairdressing and beauty therapy doing their treatments cannot afford to ignore the phone, to have the phone off the hook or to offend people with an answering machine. They are absolutely compelled to answer that phone every time it rings because they want to deliver the best possible service they can to their customers and to their potential customers. There is nothing more frustrating for them than to be interrupted and to have to leave their client or their customer alone for a few moments to go to answer a phone call that turns out to be from a telemarketer flogging something they have no interest in. Whilst I understand there could be some concern on the government’s part about people inadvertently getting caught in the net, if you balance that against the disadvantages for small firms then clearly you would have to default to the view that it is important to also include small businesses in that same net. I have moved the second reading amendment to give members the opportunity to talk more broadly about that. Again, can I say how disappointed I am that Labor will be denied the opportunity to move its amendment at the consideration in detail stage—a technical amendment that we should have been able to move. That amendment would have simply put small business back in the system. In my amendment, as the House will see, we were measuring small businesses—those with 20 employees or fewer. If the government had allowed us to debate that amendment and had decided, for good reason, that a better measure could be put in place for small business, we would have been happy to have that debate and change the amendment. It is absolutely unacceptable for the government to deny us the opportunity to even move that amendment in this place. If I remember correctly, this bill has already been dealt with in the Senate. It initiated in the Senate, through Senator Coonan. So, in effect, we have been completely denied the opportunity to move that amendment. Often in cases when we face a gag, we have the opportunity to move the amendment in the other place. But, if I am correct on that point, we will not have that opportunity. This is a ridiculous denial of parliamentary justice. I invite the minister representing Helen Coonan in this place, when delivering his summation on this bill, to better explain to the House why it was that in the end small business was carved out of this process, because it is certainly not coming from submissions from small business. I can quote for the House the head of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, Mr Tony Steven, who said: Constant calls from telemarketers are a time imposition for small business. We do want to restrict business-to-business marketing, but we should be protected from mass marketing telemarketing campaigns run by call centres in India. He reinforces the point I have made. We deal with some very technical legislation in this place on a daily basis, but the government wants to tell me they cannot produce legislation that protects small business from mass-marketing telemarketers and at the same time ensures they are able to continue to do their normal business-to-business activity on any given day. That is a ridiculous proposition. I smell a rat. I do not know what it is, but I just cannot understand why the government would carve small business out. That is why Labor wanted to move an amendment to carve them back in. The minister needs to come back in this place and articulate to us very clearly why it is that small business is going to be denied the opportunity to be protected from telemarketers in the same way that we at home are to be protected. I remind the House again that there is a very blurry line between what is a private phone and what is a business phone, particularly for tradesmen. We know the statistics on the ever-increasing reliance of small business on mobile phones to undertake their business. Of course, that extends now to wireless technology on the internet et cetera. It is becoming increasingly popular. This is a time when the government should be working harder to assist small business, not making things more difficult for it. So, in the absence of an opportunity to move the amendment, I invite the government to consider my amendment between now and the closure of the debate on this bill. If they want to have a rethink and embrace my amendment as their own, they would be more than welcome to do so. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the amendment seconded? UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —I second the amendment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 33 11:24:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —A Do Not Call Register is really a database with a list of names and numbers of people who do not want to have unsolicited calls. I think the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 are going to be welcomed by many Australians. In my electorate office I have had many calls from people. Those who are disabled, the elderly and those who are on their own are the key callers who hate the interruptions and the inconvenience—not of having a meal disturbed but of having to answer a phone which may be an emergency call or a call from a relative seeking their support or assistance. The elderly and infirm are always conscientious in answering phones. The register will be established and it will be for private owners. The previous speaker from the Australian Labor Party, Mr Fitzgibbon, raises the problems of small business. I think it is a fairly easily deduced differential the government is placing here in the legislation of public and private use—the publicly advertised telephone numbers of a small business compared to the private use of an individual. The government has made that separation and I think it is a perfectly reasonable separation. It is okay to speculate that not all business phones can be easily separated from private use. That may be the case, but if a phone is publicly advertised as a business number and the normal hours of contact are between nine and five or between seven and seven then access should be granted to those publicly available phone numbers. Direct marketers are really competing in what is called the attention economy. They want to grab attention. The process of direct marketing by telephone is like spam: they hope that, by making a certain number of hits at very low cost per contact, they are going to be able to pick up the attention of somebody they are calling and get a market response from them—something they can use, perhaps not in that call, but that can be stored and used at a future time. There is a feeling amongst marketers that consumers may be more receptive if they are at home and contacted by a personal call rather than by print or by television advertising. So it is a more personal type of advertising. No doubt it would not be continued if there were no gain from the process. It is just like spam: if they hit enough people, the marketers may get a response. It is often said that the inconvenience of these calls is small and that this proposal should not go ahead. In the United States currently there are approximately 10 calls per day per telephone subscriber marketing through this direct calling process. In Australia I understand the figure is about two calls per day on average. We have got a long way to go to reach the numbers in the United States. The concerns being expressed by the Australian community justify the steps the government is taking. Most reputable organisations in fact keep a list of those who prefer not to be called, but then that just leaves the door open for the disreputable or the overseas contractor to be able to use a direct marketing process straight to the home of the elderly or the disabled. Therefore, the government has chosen to take a step to address this. Not everybody in this field is reputable. Not everybody is going to have their own database and set aside an in-house process where calls are not made. The Do Not Call Register will be limited to basically private telephones, and that is the way it should be. Publicly listed phones available for business should be open to direct marketing. Is this a problem elsewhere? Canada is in the process of introducing similar legislation and the UK and the USA have done so already. It is understood that there are 90 million people registered with the US Federal Trade Commission on the National Do Not Call Registry. Ninety million Americans have said, ‘We don’t want direct marketing through our telephones.’ I am indebted to Caslon Analytics Ltd for providing some of the statistics for this industry. The most common cause for complaint by direct marketers is that there will be job losses. Enough people have had calls from outside Australia to know that the job losses will not necessarily be Australian. I understand that the turnover in this industry is about 300 per cent per annum—so the average person holds a job in this industry for approximately four months. So the industry could hardly be termed a permanent place of employment. Not only that, but it is hardly considered to be an entry point to the IT industry. Students—all sorts of people—will pick up a casual job in a call centre and they will stay for only a short time. This is not an industry that holds a big future for them, with big prospects for advancement and long-term employment. I draw the government’s attention to voice over internet and the problems it will create. I predict that the use of VoIP rather than the direct telephone line will be the next avenue used by direct marketers. Voice over internet will be very difficult to manage, in my opinion—it will be very difficult to control for the group of marketers who switch to it. This legislation is something that the government has done well. I compliment the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, on its introduction. The Australian community welcomes it. I am sure many constituents of mine will take advantage of the Do Not Call Register so that there will be a chance for them to say they do not wish to have calls. A registration process will be established, and the cost of the register will be borne, on a cost recovery basis, by the telemarketing industry. From the telemarketing industry’s point of view there will be considerable advantages to the register because there will be a reduction in the number of wasted calls. The 90 million callers who have subscribed to the National Do Not Call Registry in the United States alone must indicate the magnitude of the number of people who do not wish to be bothered by direct marketing schemes. This alone will be a significant saving to direct marketers. The penalties under this program range from $1,100 to $1.1 million, depending on the provisions breached and the seriousness of the breach. But Australians will welcome the register because it applies not only to direct call marketers within Australia but also to those confounded international calls, where it is obvious that the caller has been well schooled but is not living in Australia. These calls are a complete irritant to many of their recipients. I know that the telemarketing industry has tried to address this problem. There have been a number of attempts to have a voluntary code of conduct and solve the problem, but telemarketing is a very entrepreneurial marketing process, and people are very inventive in the way they approach the marketing techniques they have adopted. So it is necessary to legislate. There are just too many operators unwilling to lift their standards or to change the way they do things. Consumers will be able to complain if the process is not working. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, as it is now called, will be administering the program, so they will take charge of any complaints. There will be a level playing field for all telemarketers. The register will be valued by the Australian community. I have received a few calls within the last few weeks from an elderly lady living on her own in a retirement village. She was very unhappy to have received six telemarketing calls in a very short time as she depends on calls from a close relative to report that relative’s state of health. She was worried about that person but got confounded calls coming in from people who just annoy and harass her. She is not in the state of mind physically or mentally to be able to cope with that sort of marketing and rang my office on a number of occasions, three days in a row, distressed by the calls she had received. Another gentleman, a Mr Bond, has been calling my office, saying, ‘However do these telemarketers get my silent number?’ Telemarketing involves a casual process of dialling, often computer generated, where the marketers are going to pick up silent numbers. This gentleman will now be free of those concerns. So two people who have notified me about this problem recently will welcome this system. Telstra have been helpful. I pay tribute to Wayne Rose of Telstra for the offer of help he has given to both these people. But now they will be set free of this problem. They will register and they will not get the calls. 36 11:35:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 and broadly endorse the statements made by members on both sides of the House on behalf of their constituents. As the previous speaker said, I am sure we have all received these telemarketing calls. The frail and elderly, in particular, feel harassed in their homes by these sorts of calls. I have had exactly the same sort of experience. I am glad to be able to speak on this bill, as I have been gagged on so many others. I have a pile of never delivered speeches in my office that I think would almost outnumber those that I have delivered. So I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on this bill. The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 sets up a scheme to enable individuals who have an Australian number to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The bill aims to regulate and minimise calls made to Australian telephone numbers that originate from overseas or Australian numbers—something that will be welcomed by many in our communities. Labor has been calling for the establishment of a national do not call list since July 2004. Further to this, in October 2005 the member for Chisholm proposed a private member’s bill to this effect. The Howard government refused to allow a vote on this bill, instead releasing a discussion paper on this issue on the day before the bill was scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives. Now, almost two years after Labor’s original proposal in July 2004, the Howard government has put forward this legislation but it will mean that the national do not call list will not be up and running until 2007. So I think we will have missed an opportunity over the intervening 2½ years to provide some relief to many people. For two years Australian families have had to suffer through these annoying telemarketing calls and, unfortunately, they will be forced to endure them until the beginning of next year. I have had hundreds of complaints from my constituents in Cunningham about these irritating calls. They are a nuisance and indeed often a harassment for many people, especially the elderly, infirm and disabled. These people are unnecessarily disturbed by nuisance calls, often causing them pain and confusion and indeed financial loss if they get caught up in something with which they had no intention of engaging. They are often disturbed by telemarketers numerous times each day, often—as the previous speaker outlined—while they are awaiting calls from family or awaiting medical results and the like. The phone rings and they then have to get up—and for some who are disabled or frail that can be quite onerous—and find the phone, only to discover it is simply another telemarketer. Many of these people suffer from arthritis or have mobility difficulties. A telemarketing campaign was under way in Wollongong in July last year which resulted in a person’s telephone account being changed to another provider without the person’s permission. I think the member for Charlton also received complaints in her electorate at that time. The process is called ‘slamming’. Telemarketers phoned my constituents and said they were calling on behalf of their current telephone provider. They asked whether they were speaking to the authorised account holder. The account holder answered yes and the telemarketer then recorded this answer and used it as an ‘authorisation’ to transfer their current account to another phone provider. The only way my constituents found out that they had been ‘slammed’ was when they received their next telephone bill and it was from another provider. Telemarketers are also a source of frustration for many families in the Illawarra. I know, as a working mother, exactly what that is like. You have picked the kids up from school or child care—or in many cases both—you have done the shopping, you get through the door and you are trying to put the shopping away, start dinner, bathe the kids and help with the homework when the phone rings. You are put on hold and then you hear a voice from overseas telling you that you have been selected as a lucky winner of a mobile phone or accommodation—but only if you sign up to their ‘special’ offer. They can be very persistent, aggressive and indeed deceitful. During the past two years of government inaction, I have heard arguments about how a do not call register will affect charities and Australian jobs. It is not the charities or the companies who use Australian call centres that my electorate office receives complaints about. The complaints that I have had are about companies who set up or contract overseas call centres. I receive the most complaints about repeated and aggressive telemarketing calls. My constituents advise me these calls are generally from India and are often from Australian companies who have gone offshore to set up call centres, to the detriment in fact of employment opportunities here in Australia. This type of aggressive telemarketing impacts significantly on the hardworking Australians employed legitimately by good companies with good telemarketing practices. The companies that operate offshore use autodialing machines to automatically dial numbers in any numerical sequence. The calls are made from the call centre and then bank up until an operator is available. People are left waiting for a few seconds or up to a minute until one of their operators becomes available. The autodialing method also means that even if you have an unlisted number, as other speakers have identified, you are still susceptible to these calls. In fact, in July 2005 I advertised in my regular electorate newsletter the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s voluntary Do Not Call Register. The response from my constituents in Wollongong was explosive, and it is one of the issues that my office has had the most contact on. We received hundreds of calls, all detailing individual experiences and frustration with these particular calls. I was constantly advised that these calls caused even the most normally charming people to become angry and aggressive—such is the extent of the complaints and the emotion that these calls conjure up. All this was met with a great deal of understanding on my behalf. I was certainly brought up to always be polite. I have found in the past with many telemarketers from Australian based companies that, when I had politely listened to their introduction and politely said, ‘Thanks very much for calling but I am not in the least bit interested,’ they generally said, ‘Thank you,’ and that was the end of the conversation. So, while getting up to answer the phone while I was in the middle of trying to feed the family was a bit annoying, at least I had a polite exchange. In more recent times my experience, like many of my constituents’ experiences, is that the person on the other end of the line is particularly rude and particularly persistent. Having politely listened to their introduction and politely told them you are not in the least bit interested, you will get a very aggressive response: ‘Well, I’ve got this offer. As I’ve been able to contact you in order to give you an opportunity, I want to tell you about it.’ I say, ‘Thank you but I am not interested,’ but they persist. On all the occasions that I have had these calls, without exception I have had to simply hang up in the middle of their comments. This is not something that I normally do in my day-to-day exchanges. As politicians, we have some fairly heated exchanges on occasion but I always manage to feel that I can continue the conversation and that there is a bit of dialogue on both sides. But these calls are not like that. They are aggressive and they are rude. Indeed, on one occasion when a company rang me for the third time that night to sell me some educational products, I again politely explained that I did not have primary school age children and was not interested. When I said, ‘In fact, you have already rung me twice tonight,’ the man said, ‘No, we haven’t’. I said, ‘Yes, you have,’ and he said: ‘No, you’re wrong. We haven’t rung you before.’ When I said, ‘Yes, you have rung me before,’ he hung up on me. The outcome may have been pretty good in terms of shortening the call but it left me feeling fairly agitated. I thought that if I were a fairly elderly person and had that exchange it would have been very distressing. These are the sorts of calls that all our electorate offices are getting complaints about. The persistent and aggressive telemarketers make it even more difficult for those that most would consider to be genuine and legitimate call centre workers and charities. What happens is that we develop a hard shell and give an abrupt response when we get these calls, so genuine people who try to do their job with some professionalism often end up bearing the brunt of a fairly aggressive response from the receiver. In 2006 Telstra reported that its unwelcome calls unit received 1,500 calls each day, with between 700 and 800 related to telemarketing. Most complaints reflected the failure of telemarketers to adhere to industry codes of practice and conduct, such as privacy codes and the ADMA’s do not call arrangements. These calls are impacting on family time. Many families have advised me that they can be called up to five times in the same evening by the same company. We all lead very busy lives. Many of my constituents commute to Sydney for work; they have very long days and are constantly under pressure to manage their travel to work, child care, after school care and other commitments. The very last thing they want is to be constantly interrupted during the short time they spend with their families in the evening. I really do not think the Howard government understands how intrusive these calls can be. Indeed, during the 2004 election campaign the Liberal Party employed pre-recorded telemarketing technology to make unsolicited calls to thousands of Australians before voting day. I must acknowledge the fact that at least the company providing this service to the Liberal Party did employ Australian workers. As I recall, one of the Australians employed by this company was indeed the Prime Minister’s son. I fully support the national do not call list, but it should be set up now—in fact, it should have been set up quite a while ago. Australian families and the elderly should not have to wait until 2007 for the list to be set up. Research conducted last year estimated that more than one billion telemarketing calls were made in Australia last year. That is 53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week. The United States of America has had a do not call register scheme since 2003. I was recently speaking to a renowned paediatric pathologist, Dr Edith Schmidt, who is a resident of Las Vegas, the advertising capital of the USA. Dr Schmidt advised me that, prior to the register being set up, she was inundated with unsolicited telemarketing calls to her home every evening. Since registering with the scheme she now receives very few marketing calls and most are misdialled numbers. Schemes in the UK and Canada have been in place since 2004. The main elements of the bill before us are: firstly, a prohibition on making telemarketing calls to an Australian number that is registered on the Do Not Call Register, penalties applying for calls made from an Australian number or from overseas to an Australian number; secondly, a requirement that agreements for the making of telemarketing calls must comply with the act—this is aimed at organisations that may contract with another party to provide their telemarketing services; thirdly, a requirement for a Do Not Call Register to be established, enabling individuals to register their private or domestic number—the register would be kept by the Australian Communications and Media Authority or outsourced to a third party, which would operate the register on its behalf; fourthly, civil penalty provisions, not criminal offences, for a breach of a provision—breaches may attract significant financial penalties; and, fifthly, a tiered enforcement regime that provides for a range of enforcement measures to be initiated by the ACMA. The enforcement measures include formal warnings, acceptance of an enforceable undertaking or the issuing of an infringement notice. The ACMA may also institute proceedings in the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for breach of a civil penalty provision. The court may order action that could include the payment of compensation to a victim who has suffered loss or damage as a result of a breach of the act. While I am supporting the bill before us—it is crucial that a Do Not Call Register is established—I do feel that the government’s efforts in seeking to delay its introduction and in seeking not to have the register fully operational prior to 2007 reflects a lack of understanding of the level of frustration faced by many Australian families and the elderly. In the brief time left I want to also address my disappointment with the gag having the effect of not allowing the amendment of the member for Hunter to be given proper consideration and, I would have hoped, support. I speak to many small business operators in my electorate. Many of them are as frustrated and annoyed by these calls as those of us who have private phone numbers are. If you run a small business—a corner shop, a small florist, a chemist—and you have two or three staff working, and you constantly have someone having to answer the phone because you are getting these sorts of telemarketing calls, it is as annoying and disruptive to your business as it is to many of us in our home lives. I see no reason, to be honest, why we could not have extended the Do Not Call Register to small business. If they want to take the initiative to list on it, they should have the capacity to do that. In particular, that would recognise the modern reality of many small businesses. If plumbers, builders and those sorts of people are out and about on the job all day, generally their business phone is their mobile phone—they are carrying it around with them—and they obviously have to be able to take a call in case it is a business related call. I had the plumber at my place a couple of weeks ago, out the back digging up the pipes, and his phone rang quite a number of times. He complained to me about the fact that these were often telemarketers. He had his hand, shall we say, well and truly in the muck, and it is a fairly intensive job that he needs to concentrate on. He said there is nothing more annoying than having to climb out of the trench, wipe your hands off, get the phone and then discover it is somebody trying to sell you encyclopaedias or something like that. For him, and for many small business people like him, the ability to register on this list would have been a great asset. I think it is extraordinarily disappointing that, because of the gag on this debate, the amendment that the member for Hunter indicated in his speech he would have liked to have moved as a technical amendment will not be considered. On behalf of the small businesses in my area—and I suspect that many on the other side would feel the same and support it—I will continue to urge the government to review this issue and to look at future amendments to this bill to give some relief to those small business operators. In summary, I know that we are all in a mass-marketing world. I get home from work at the end of the day and I can barely get my letterbox open for the amount of junk mail that is in there. It is annoying. But at the end of the day it is my decision as to whether or not I engage in those sorts of interactions. If I want to take that whole bundle of stuff out of the letterbox and dump it straight in the recycling bin, which I frequently do, I am able to do that. It is the same with my internet access and pop-ups, emails or whatever. I am choosing to sit at the computer at that time so, while they are annoying, they are manageable. The difference with phone telemarketing is that you are not choosing to engage; they are interrupting you at a time of their convenience and often it is of great inconvenience to you. For the many people in my area who have indicated that this has become the absolute bane of their lives, particularly in the evenings, I think this bill will be very welcome. Their only disappointment in it will be these two aspects: firstly, that they have to wait until the beginning of next year and, secondly, those small businesses affected will not have the opportunity to take advantage of it. 40 11:53:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 0 Dr WASHER —The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 sets up a scheme to enable individuals who have an Australian number to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls. The use of the telephone as a sales tool dates back as far as the early 1900s. That is not bad, considering it was only invented around 1854 by Antonio Meucci—or, if you are a Canadian, in 1875 by Alexander Bell. In Australia, however, it was not until the 1980s that telemarketing techniques became more refined and incorporated into the marketing strategies of businesses of all sizes. In 1996 there were 9,400 people employed as telemarketers. By 2006 this increased to an estimated 250,000. Even though only a very small percentage of calls are successful, telemarketing is still an extremely lucrative part of the marketing mix for many companies. With around 1.065 billion telemarketing calls being made each year from Australia’s 30,000-odd call centres, this adds up to significant sales figures. In 2002 the industry was estimated to be generating around $10 billion per year. With technologies such as voice over internet protocol, the number of calls is only expected to increase. In fact, the Australian Direct Marketing Association states that the telemarketing industry is currently growing at a rate of 17 per cent per year. Such success for business is fantastic. However, there is a down side: those hundreds of millions of receivers who are not interested. These people often feel harassed and intimidated in their own homes. Telemarketers are calling too often, late at night or during meal times and they are far too pushy. Some people have even felt pressured into purchasing products they did not want. When submissions on a discussion paper on the Do Not Call Register were called for, more than 90 per cent of responses were in favour. The message was clear—people wanted their privacy back. People have come up with many ways of attempting to avoid the telemarketing calls. Methods such as caller ID, answering machines and voicemail can be used to screen calls. One novel device is the TeleZapper. Most call centres use a special piece of software known as an autodialler, which calls several numbers simultaneously. When you answer, the autodialler quickly connects you to an operator. The TeleZapper foils the autodialler by issuing a tone that causes the autodialler to think the number is out of service and it does not dial the number again. A much easier and cheaper way for people is the establishment of a Do Not Call Register, which the bill proposes. Individuals who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls can place their home and mobile phone numbers on this register. Telemarketers will be required to check their calling lists against those numbers registered to ensure that they are not contacting those individuals. If they do contact these people, they will face a substantial financial penalty. Individuals will not be required to pay for registering their phone numbers. The operational costs of the scheme will be covered predominately by the telemarketing industry itself. Telemarketers will be required to pay for access to the register in the form of fees for access. The proposed fee structure will be apportioned on the basis of usage of the register. This will result in lower costs for smaller businesses that use the register less frequently. The government will fund the regulatory costs and contribute to the establishment costs and some ongoing operational costs. The scheme will be administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will have the option to either run or tender out the operation of the Do Not Call Register. It will establish the operational requirements for the register and enforce the scheme. As around 17 per cent of the population move house each year, it was decided that each number would remain on the register for three years. As a result, the register should be fairly accurate, without individuals having to re-register every year. There are some organisations which will be exempted from the scheme. These are organisations that operate in the public interest such as government bodies, like the police force; registered political parties; members of parliament and nominated political candidates; religious organisations; charities; and, in some circumstances, educational institutions. Consumers can also consent to a particular telemarketing call. For example, if you have entered a competition, this would not in itself be sufficient to establish a relationship that infers consent to receiving future telemarketing calls from the organisation involved. If, however, you have specifically ticked a box as part of the entry form requesting future contact, then this is express consent. The duration of this express consent is three months unless indicated otherwise. The general level of annoyance over telemarketing is perhaps exacerbated to some extent by the lack of unified policy and regulation surrounding telemarketing activity. Currently there is no central agency to address telemarketing complaints and there is confusion for both agencies that use telemarketing practices and consumers on respective obligations and rights. The bill is accompanied by the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, which makes various amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 and the Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act 1997. These amendments provide a regulatory framework for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to investigate complaints relating to telemarketing calls and to enforce the scheme. Enforcement arrangements will include infringement notices, formal warnings, injunctions, penalties and court actions, with penalties ranging from $1,000 up to $1.1 million, depending on the seriousness of the breach. The amendments also enable the development of industry codes and standards relating to telemarketing calls. These standards must be adhered to by all telemarketers, including those exempt from the Do Not Call Register. The standards will cover matters such as permitted calling hours, minimum information to be provided to recipients of calls and minimum requirements surrounding termination of calls. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will consult with specified bodies to set out these detailed rules of conduct. The current rules governing telemarketing practices are contained in various instruments, including voluntary codes developed by industry, state and territory legislation and Commonwealth law. For example, the main telemarketing industry body, the Australian Direct Marketing Association, has developed a do not contact register and direct marketing code of practice. In fact, over 113,000 Australians have put their names on this do not contact register. However, the 20 per cent of telemarketers who are not members of the association are not restrained from calling numbers on this list, and the association has no enforcement authority on those who do not stick to the code. The Australian Direct Marketing Association is in favour of this bill, as it will enforce many aspects that it has tried to bring into the industry. The industry will become more efficient by preventing unnecessary calls to those who will simply hang up and creating a level playing field requiring all telemarketers to adhere to professional standards. What about overseas telemarketers? The Do Not Call Register will apply to these calls also. If they are being made on behalf of an Australian company, action will be taken against that company. If there is no presence in Australia, the legislation will still apply. For this reason, the government recognises the importance of cooperating with other countries and of developing bilateral and multilateral arrangements to help move more effectively towards global enforcement of telemarketing. The UK is currently investigating international agreement options in this respect. An anonymous submission into the Do Not Call Register discussion paper stated: We long for a time when phone calls were a source of pleasure. The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 will go a long way in helping to achieve this goal. 42 12:02:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —I am pleased that the government is finally listening to the cries from this side of the House to introduce a Do Not Call Register; it is not before time. Telemarketing has become something of a scourge in the First World, and I would like to consider today how it has developed. Telemarketing is the process of selling goods and services over the telephone. It has been used to market a variety of products ranging from insurance to newspapers to industrial equipment, and it has the potential for selling virtually any product. The use of the telephone as a sales tool dates back to the early 1900s. However, the full potential of outbound telemarketing was not recognised by business until WATS—wide area telephone service—lines came into existence in 1960. During the 1970s, telemarketing techniques became more refined and were incorporated into the marketing strategies of businesses of all sizes. Between 1981 and 1991, spending on telemarketing efforts grew from $US1 billion to $US60 billion. In 1997, telemarketing sales to consumers and businesses totalled $US425.5 billion. Consumers these days have a negative perception of telemarketing because of untimely and annoying calls. Certainly this has been the case in Australia for many years. Complaints to my office have increased markedly over the past two years. This may well coincide with the increase in the number of call centres of Australian companies going offshore. It has also been the vehicle for a variety of fraudulent schemes or scams, including multilevel marketing and pyramid schemes. There are two kinds of telemarketing: outbound and inbound. It is outbound telemarketing that this legislation is dealing with. Outbound calls present a marketing situation in which the telemarketer has the undivided attention of the prospect and can get immediate feedback. It has become very popular as a marketing tool across the world. Different jurisdictions have dealt with the telemarketing pest in various ways. Britain has had a do not call register since 1995, which began as a voluntary, self-regulatory scheme under which consumers could choose not to receive unwanted calls—similar to the service provided by the ADMA. In 1999, regulations were introduced whereby callers, including charities and political organisations, are prohibited from contacting those registered on the do not call list. By June 2005, over eight million people had registered. In New Zealand, there are currently no laws protecting consumers from telemarketers. There is, as in Australia, an industry association, which promotes a code of ethics. In addition, in order to operate in New Zealand, telemarketers must obtain a permit from New Zealand Telecom. To obtain this permit, the business has to indicate that they will operate within reasonable hours, never phone after 9 pm, state the reason for the call and invite callers to hang up. It is perhaps not surprising that New Zealanders seem not to be as concerned as Australians are with intrusive telemarketers. In the United States, privacy legislation was introduced in 1992 to protect consumers from telemarketers. This obviously proved insufficient. A national do not call register was introduced in June 2003. There are some exceptions, such as charities, market researchers, not-for-profit organisations and political organisations. By July last year, over 98 million Americans had signed up to the register. Although challenged by telemarketing corporations and trade groups as a violation of commercial speech rights, the national do not call registry was upheld by the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 February 2004. The reason I have provided this brief history of telemarketing is to simply point out that action against excessive levels of telemarketing has been taken all over the world except Australia—until the opposition raised it as an issue. The member for Chisholm introduced a private member’s bill into this House on 31 October 2005. It took the opposition to recognise the fact that Australians were fed up with telemarketers contacting them at inconvenient times. It has taken over seven months for the government to acknowledge that Labor and the member for Chisholm were correct and to introduce the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. Nonetheless, we do not wish to be ungracious; here it is, and it is about time. Certainly I am aware of the high level of frustration in the community over this matter. I have received many calls, drop-in visits and letters in relation to the issue of unwanted telemarketing calls. As with many of my colleagues, I made an unwanted calls kit available to people in the Banks electorate. To date 250 households have sought copies of the booklet, which provides details of the current process for getting rid of unwanted callers. These booklets have been distributed beyond that 250 to friends and relatives in all parts of the community. I should acknowledge at this point the Australian Directing Marketing Association, ADMA. In the ‘unwanted calls’ booklet, details were provided for people to contact ADMA to remove their names from the lists. ADMA made it clear that the prohibition could apply only to those telemarketing businesses which were members of ADMA. We also passed that on to constituents. I congratulate ADMA for this great initiative. I have since heard from constituents that their lives have been made considerably easier by ADMA members providing the do not call service. Several of my colleagues have referred to the annoyance caused to families by nuisance calls at family bath time and meal times. One group not so extensively mentioned, and from whom I received a large number of enquiries, are the elderly. One lady contacted my office to tell her story. She is over 80 years old and suffers considerable problems with her legs. It is difficult to get around her home, but she insists on remaining independent. It is a nightmare for her to get to the phone when it rings. Her family are aware of this, so they roster calls to minimise inconvenience while keeping in contact; therefore, whenever the phone rang she assumed that it was an emergency. You can imagine the frustration and even pain she faced prior to using the service provided by ADMA. I am also aware of a number of families who have purchased answering machines for their older parents, simply to allow them to filter out the unwanted calls. For others it has become tremendously confusing. Recently my office took a call from an elderly person who believed she was being offered a free holiday. Fortunately, the lady contacted my office and we directed her to the New South Wales Department of Fair Trading, which assured her it that it was a scam. Other examples have emerged over past months, with another couple coming to my office late one afternoon, desperate for relief after receiving five telemarketing calls so far for that day. Mr Joe Tewfik, Managing Director of ‘Contact 1-2-1’, commented that the increase in complaints is more than likely due to large corporations using offshore call centres. This meant that, with the cheaper labour costs, there was an increase in the volume of calls. It comes as no surprise to me that the telemarketing industry itself has called for action. The current situation is covered by a myriad voluntary codes, state and territory laws and Commonwealth law. This has only led to inconsistency and confusion. As with any industry, telemarketers need consistency in regulation. It also ensures that the telemarketers do not waste their resources on people who are not interested in dealing with them. I note the comments from ADMA’s chief executive, Mr Rob Edwards, published in the Age on Saturday, 15 April. He said that he did not believe the register will push telemarketing work overseas. Mr Edwards said that the penalties to Australian companies would be imposed regardless of whether the company used a local or offshore marketing provider. The explanatory memorandum for these bills takes us through the various options available to the government to deal with telemarketers. These include: Do Nothing; Co-Regulatory Approach ... Establish an ‘opt-out’ Do Not Call Register and National Standards; and Establish an ‘opt-in’ Call Register and National Standards These options were established from consultations conducted as a result of the number of complaints received by the Telecommunications Ombudsman and Telstra. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts released a discussion paper in October 2005. The following is a summary of the submissions received from the government, as provided in the explanatory memorandum. Twelve submissions were received from small business and organisations representing the interests of business that do not use telemarketing. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, though they did not support a self-regulation scheme. Many small businesses indicated that unsolicited telemarketing call approaches are time consuming and costly for their businesses as they use valuable resources that congest fax and telephone lines, potentially resulting in loss of business opportunities. Twenty-eight submissions were received from charity organisations and organisations representing the interests of charities. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register that included exemptions for charities and telemarketers operating on behalf of charities. Thirty-two submissions were received from telemarketing organisations and businesses that use telemarketing and organisations representing the interests of telemarketers. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, noting that self-regulation is a suitable solution with concerns about the cost of operation, compliance issues and possible loss of jobs. Eight submissions were received from telephone carriers and organisations representing the interests of telephone carriers. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register and exemptions for existing business relationships, noting that domestic companies should be accountable for overseas telemarketers acting on their behalf. Five submissions were received from consumer groups. They expressed total support for a Do Not Call Register and for regulating offshore telemarketing, but did not support exemptions and maintained that consumers and small business should not have to pay a fee to be included on the register. Eight submissions were received from federal and state government agencies. The trend was supportive of a Do Not Call Register, with the majority supporting an opt-out register. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner noted that prohibition of unsolicited telephone calls is an important step towards regaining individual control and that the most important objective for the register from a privacy perspective is the handling of personal information. Twenty submissions were received from special interest groups. The trend was supportive of a register, with the majority supporting an opt-out register. Submissions noted the negative effect of unsolicited telemarketing on the elderly, as they are particularly vulnerable to this form of direct marketing, as I have already noted. Three hundred and seventy-seven submissions were received from individuals supporting the establishment of a Do Not Call Register. One submission was received from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman supporting the establishment of a Do Not Call Register and noting that the number of complaints that the TIO received regarding telemarketing had increased significantly over the last year. The TIO preferred an opt-out register to include offshore calls and that certain organisations should be exempt. The government has chosen Option 3—Establish an ‘opt-out’ Do Not Call Register. This is consistent with the evidence provided in the submissions to the DCITA discussion paper. Despite the unnecessary time wasting by the government in proposing this legislation, Labor is very pleased to support it. 46 12:16:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I am pleased to rise to speak on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. This legislation is one of those pieces of legislation that makes a very practical and real difference to the lives of Australians. I am certainly pleased that, for residents in my electorate of Moncrieff and more broadly on the Gold Coast, the passage of this legislation will mean that in future they can expect to receive far fewer telemarketing calls than they have received in the past. The Gold Coast has a large number of retired people, both pensioners and self-funded retirees, and I know that, because they are frequently at home where they are often annoyed by telemarketing calls, they would particularly welcome the establishment of the national Do Not Call Register. In past years, I have done much to convey the concern of constituents who have contacted me about telemarketing calls and, in addition, to highlight to my constituents some of the facilities at their disposal to try to minimise intrusions in their lives from opportunistic telemarketers. In particular, I highlighted the Australian Direct Marketing Association Do Not Call Register, which was established as a private sector initiative—and I congratulate ADMA for their initiative in establishing a private sector Do Not Call Register. I put a large column in my newsletter, which I circulated to the 100,000 or so people in my electorate, highlighting that residents who were concerned about telemarketing intrusions could register their telephone numbers with ADMA. I am pleased to say that the number of people calling me, speaking to me at my community listening posts and coming up to me at shopping centres and highlighting their concern about nuisance telemarketing calls decreased significantly. In fact, many constituents said that they were pleased to use the ADMA service and that they had noticed a considerable drop-off in the number of phone calls following that. This initiative by the Howard government, though, takes it one step further. Whilst the ADMA Do Not Call Register certainly achieved some success, it was clear that we needed a nationally consistent approach to ensuring that the Australian people need not be bothered by telemarketing calls if they choose not to be. In this respect, I am certainly pleased that this initiative has been undertaken. The creation of the national Do Not Call Register, which will be free for the Australian people to register with, is something that I most wholeheartedly support and applaud. I know that many residents do not want to receive those intrusive phone calls from telemarketers. Now it will simply be a case of either telephoning or logging onto the internet in order to register your number on the national do not call service, and that service will be free. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will then be required to verify the registration of that phone number, to ensure that someone has not falsely registered someone else on the Do Not Call Register. Once that verification has taken place, by either a telephone call or an email, that phone number will then be listed and will stay on the national Do Not Call Register for a period of three years. This three-year period was decided by the government on reflection. I am supportive of this decision. It is an appropriate balance between the need to ensure that once a phone number was listed it did not remain on that database forever—because about 17 per cent of Australian households move every year and therefore we did not want phone numbers to be listed forever—and the need for a number to be on the register for a considerable time to ensure that people were not bothered before they needed to reregister with the national Do Not Call Register. I think that we have achieved the appropriate balance by making it a three-year period. A person will register with the national Do Not Call Register and then will not be bothered by telemarketing calls for a period of three years. There are exemptions in this legislation that will ensure that important research activities can take place and that charities, for example, will still be able to use telemarketing to solicit support. From my conversations with constituents in Moncrieff and the people of the Gold Coast, I believe the vast majority of people are supportive of these exemptions. I understand that people do not like to receive telemarketing calls from private companies that might be selling particular equipment or services, time share or things like that. However, they are often pleased to hear a compelling case from, for example, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross or other charities that run very important social outreach services. In this respect I welcome the exemptions that are incorporated into this legislation. Likewise, I believe the Australian people in broad terms are supportive of the benefits that flow from important research that is undertaken. Our universities and other private research institutions are often required to survey large numbers of people in order to gain a snapshot of particular attitudes within Australia or, more importantly, particular concerns that Australians may have—for example, concerns about their health. Patterns of behaviour, types of approaches that Australian people take—information about all of these types of attitudinal approaches is gathered by research facilities, universities and private sector research facilities in order to make important determinations about what kinds of drugs or approaches are needed, for example, to make the Australian people more healthy. So it is important to have the exemption for research purposes incorporated into the legislation, and I welcome that exemption as well. With respect to the costs of establishing the register, I have already outlined that there will be no charge levied upon those who seek to register their home telephone number or mobile telephone number on the Do Not Call Register. The costs associated with the establishment of the register—which will be presided over by the Australian Communications and Media Authority—will be met by the government through the allocation of taxpayers’ money. After that, though, I am pleased that the private sector operators who will access the Do Not Call Register will make the contribution towards the ongoing costs associated with running the Do Not Call Register. I think that is appropriate. It is appropriate that the industry that requires this regulation because it has become such a burden to people in the community is required to pay for its self-regulation. So I want to send a message to those who are listening or those who may be reading through the transcript of this debate that we will be levying those costs on those companies that have required this legislation because of their continuing use of telemarketing services in selling products or services. The costs will not be borne by those who are registering. In addition, I will just touch on the issue of small businesses. There may be some who are involved in small business who would say, ‘I’d like to be able to register my telephone number on the national Do Not Call Register.’ As the legislation is before the House at present—and my view on this is the same as that of the government—there will not be the opportunity for small businesses to register their numbers. That is because the reality is that most small businesses advertise their phone numbers, for example in the Yellow Pages, and solicit business. As a part of that, often business-to-business contact is made. It would seem to me to be a little unfair for a small business to expect that, in putting their telephone number on marketing material, into the Yellow Pages or perhaps onto the internet, they will not be contacted by other businesses that may be seeking to sell them a particular good or service—and to expect those businesses to be fined or punished as a result of making an unwanted telephone call seeking their business. So in that respect I think an exemption for small business telephone numbers is logical. However, when it comes to a small home office or a small home business, there will be the opportunity for someone who is working from home to register their home number for that purpose. So someone who is in small business—for example, working out of their study or perhaps even working off the kitchen table, which I know that many small businesses in my electorate do—will be able to register their number. However, it is worth noting that, from time to time, they may receive a phone call from a telemarketer selling them a good or service, because of the fact that they are advertising their phone number widely, for example in the Yellow Pages. When that occurs, I would foresee that ACMA is probably unlikely to take a particularly tough stance against the business that has breached their listing on the Do Not Call Register. I believe that we are now really talking about things that will happen at the margin. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the way in which this will operate. Most fundamentally, though, when it comes to the national Do Not Call Register, we will see the creation of a register that will prevent people being bothered at home, especially around mealtimes, by telemarketers. It will be free to those people in the community, and I know that they will welcome that. The costs will be borne initially by the government but then subsequently by those who are requiring the regulation—that is, the telemarketers themselves, who will use the list. It will operate so that you are registered for three years; although there will be the opportunity to remove yourself from the list prior to that three-year period if you decide that you want to do so. All up, this is a good bill. It will make a meaningful impact on people’s lives. It is certainly one that I welcome for my residents in Moncrieff, and I commend the legislation to the House. 48 12:27:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Labor has been intent on the creation of a Do Not Call Register to give relief to thousands upon thousands of Australians frustrated at receiving annoying telephone calls from marketing companies, so of course I am speaking in favour of this concept. I will vote for anything that protects people from nuisance calls. We must do what we can to help people achieve some peace. Within the electorate of Hindmarsh, an enormous number of constituents have responded to a newsletter story I put out about this problem. We had many people writing to us about the issues of cold-calling and telemarketers. I have been told of examples such as one where a fully automated system with voice recordings announces: ‘Congratulations. Your number has been selected to enter a draw for a new car.’ The person is supposed to be convinced of this and be led through a series of prompts. The constituent who relayed this to me said that, when they received this call, they simply hung up prior to the recorded message’s completion. What happened from there on? The constituent’s number apparently went back onto the list. A couple of hours later, there was the same nuisance call—the same phone call with recorded messages: ‘Congratulations. Your number has been selected to enter a draw for a new car.’ I have heard of similar recorded messages that encourage people to register their entry for one prize or another by telephoning a particular number. The catch with this is that most of these numbers are 1900 numbers. They vary in expense depending on the arrangements the company has made, ranging from 50c or 55c per minute to $5 per minute. It is disgusting that grubby parasites are bamboozling, intimidating and exploiting the good-natured people around the country who are still decent and up front enough to take people at face value, to take people at their word. It is very sad that the people—many from a previous generation—who lack cynicism, who have learned to concentrate on the positive elements of their perceptions of people, can be treated so callously. Evidence of this problem exists in the creation of the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s very own do not call list. This do not call list is observed on a voluntary basis by the association’s members. It is of particular interest that even the association representing direct marketers acknowledges through the existence of the do not call list that many people simply do not want to be bothered with such activity and that the association is prepared to take matters into its own hands and act to prevent as best it can nuisance calls being made to people who have gone out of their way to discourage this form of intrusion. It may well be in the best interests of the direct marketer to exclude from their contact list people who, for whatever reason, are clearly out of their potential market. Such people can exist in relative peace, and the direct marketers can focus on those who may be more open to receiving offers. Whether or to what extent the ADMA service is effective in reducing the numbers of annoying calls, people continue to be desperate for relief from the barrage of companies flogging their wares and are prepared to do what they can to limit their exposure. Government members may or may not have been listening to what their constituents have been saying—I do not believe that constituents only in Labor electorates are frustrated and annoyed with cold-calling to the point of despair—but the government has failed to take the lead and do something about this issue. The member for Chisholm introduced a private member’s bill last year. She did what the government had failed to do—to show adequate interest in this matter. While the issue may not have been of interest to the government, the media’s interest in the member for Chisholm’s private member’s bill must have gained their attention. Whether it is a belated response to the needs of ordinary Australians desperate for assistance or a more cynical attempt to avoid being seen as out of touch on this issue, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts eventually intervened and took charge of the legislative agenda. The explanatory memorandum of the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 identifies that this government is out of step on this issue with comparable countries. For example, the do not call list has existed in the United Kingdom since 1999 and in the United States since 2003. Canada introduced its legislation in 2004. Here in Australia the minister released a discussion paper in late 2005 and received submissions from both industry and community groups. Beyond that opportunity to contribute it was not the intention of the minister to enter the public debate prior to the bill being presented to this parliament. The Australian Direct Marketing Association is reported as being told by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts officials that the government would not ask for further industry input until the bill passed through both houses of parliament and was referred to a Senate committee. I would hope that, if this is correct, limitations will not be put on the people to whom this government is directly responsible—the Australians who cop the brunt of this method of marketing and whose interests the bill has notionally been written to protect. If, over time, the public is able to highlight potential problems with the bill, its implementation and its effectiveness, I certainly hope that the concerns of the public do not fall on deaf ears and that the government is prepared to work collaboratively with both the public and MPs or senators who can improve the bill to eventually see millions of Australians relieved of this affliction. What came to light prior to the bill’s presentation to parliament came from the minister herself. I understand that on Tuesday, 4 April the minister spoke with Adelaide radio station 5AA, and the program host, Leon Byner, asked the minister: what would happen if a call centre rings you and you are registered as ‘do not call’? The minister told people to report the call centre, which could be fined up to $200,000. The host of the 5AA program immediately identified a potential problem. He said that for this to work and to be worth more than the paper it is written on, you have to know which company has called and who they are. A member of the state parliament within South Australia, Mr John Rau, the member for Enfield, received a complaint from a woman with a number of young children who had been harassed by a stalker. She adopted a silent telephone number, but phone calls started coming through. Some of the calls would simply stop before there was an opportunity to answer them, some would go through her answering machine and her answering machine would record nothing, and others would be picked up by her only to find there was no-one on the other end. She drew the conclusion that she was being harassed by somebody, as you would in those circumstances, and contacted her state MP, the member for Enfield, John Rau, to see what he could do. His office got in touch with Telstra, who advised that the constituent should keep a log of the time of the call and ring them back the next day. She did this and, upon calling Telstra, she was informed that they knew the number. She asked for the number but was told it was confidential and they could not give it to her. All they could say was that it was a telemarketer. In trying to help this person, Telstra concluded that if the caller kept calling and she kept noting the calls and telling Telstra, and if Telstra kept logging the caller, Telstra could contact the caller and ask them to stop calling. This they may or may not do. The problem here is that the telecommunications companies protect the call centre’s privacy whilst the call centre invades our privacy. Clearly, even silent numbers do not save people. Many companies use prescriptive dialling to telephone you—a computer generated list of numbers which includes silent numbers and recorded messages. If a person is not able to identify who is responsible for a call, how can a complaint be made? This bill provides for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, in policing the bill, to investigate complaints that are lodged without the identity of the cold-caller. This is well and good, as ACMA is responsible for establishing rules applicable to direct marketing, minimum standards such as the permitted hours within which calls can be made, standards regarding the termination of calls and the minimum information that must be provided for recipients of calls. I fully expect the cold-callers will be obliged by ACMA to identify themselves, their telemarketing company and the client on whose behalf they are making the call—all with such clarity and at such a pace that anyone would be able to take down the details. Without such information, and while ACMA will have the powers to investigate anonymous or silent calls, the number of such investigations and the stress they could notionally put on the organisation’s resources could well be such that many complaints go unresolved. It is stated within the explanatory memorandum that ACMA has discretion to not inform complainants of the progress of any investigation or even, as I read it, whether an investigation has been undertaken. I acknowledge that the volume of complaints in the short term will probably be acute, but I would ask ACMA to pay maximum respect to the complainants and offer what information and follow-up it can. Naturally, people concerned with the calls they receive want to know that something is happening, that the situation can reasonably be expected to improve and that this legislation is not just a toothless tiger, as we have seen with many other regulatory bodies—that is, it really does have some sort of bite and can get to the bottom of a problem and ensure that prosecutions will take place. It has been suggested that a company should be able to telephone you in the interests of serving a client with whom they have a business relationship. According to this argument, if you purchase a product with a particular brand name or company ownership structure, presumably that company should be able to telephone you with any information or offers directly related to the original purchase and not be restricted in its cold-calling activities. This is ridiculous. If a private citizen purchases a product on their credit card that is manufactured by Nestle, for example, no-one would expect this to establish a company-client relationship and legitimise ongoing communication between that company and the client. How this might relate to small businesses—or any businesses, for that matter—may well be a different thing. Obviously, companies need their products distributed; they need them on shelves, in catalogues and the like. Cold-calling by distributors and shop owners in expanding their products’ exposure to the public may be the best method of promoting the movement of their stock. Any Do Not Call Register will limit the lists that are bought and sold from company to company for almost indiscriminate saturation calling and, as I mentioned a little earlier, often using automation. I would not expect an average business looking to expand its product market penetration to rely on such lists and such technology. It is totally impersonal, disrespectful, inflexible and tacky—just like the government’s 2004 election stunt. We all remember the Prime Minister’s recorded message. I encourage the government to ensure that the public can be protected from the excesses of direct marketing and that the system put into place will truly be effective. I look forward to hearing how many $200,000 fines are issued. 52 12:40:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. These are important bills for every day Australians; they make a very direct and meaningful impact on their lives. They are also very popular bills. They are certainly very popular in the Ryan electorate, which I have the great privilege of representing in the Australian parliament. I can certainly advise the House that these bills will go down very well with the Ryan electorate’s mums and dads, elderly citizens and businesspeople. I have had many approaches from the Ryan constituency and they are very supportive of these bills. Minister Coonan has predicted that, under the opt-out approach, the register would possibly total one million numbers within the first week alone rising to some four million numbers within 12 months. This is a staggering figure and is certainly reflective of the very popular nature of this legislation. At its heart, this legislation sets up what is called a national Do Not Call Register. The Howard government has allocated budget funding of some $33.1 million over four years to cover the register’s implementation and initial set-up costs. Numbers registered on the national Do Not Call Register will not be able to receive any telemarketing calls from Australian or overseas operators, subject to the limited exceptions that I will outline shortly. That goes to the reason behind this legislation: the receipt of unwanted telemarketing calls from call centres locally and internationally. The telephone is a wonderful device; I do not think any of us could imagine our world without it. To Alexander Graham Bell, the man from Edinburgh, Scotland, who is regarded as having invented the telephone in the 19th century, we owe thanks for his creativity and innovation. However, even in today’s very busy modern world, respect needs to be given to people’s private time and their desire not to be abused or harassed with unwanted and unsolicited telephone calls. Australians value the telephone in their lives but, as I say, there comes a time and a place when they do not want to be harassed by it. Any private Australian telephone number can be placed on the register, including those of landlines and mobile phones. Unless withdrawn earlier, a number shall remain on the register for a period of three years. If a telemarketing call is made to an Australian number listed on the register, enforcement provisions in the legislation provide for civil penalties against both the person who made the call and the person who caused the call to be made, if applicable. It is therefore a requirement that any contract to provide telemarketing services include a clause requiring compliance with this act. The prohibition also covers attempted calls—so even those that result in a silent call are covered by the penalty provisions, if they originated from a telemarketing company. Penalties range depending on who made the call and any prior record they may have. Penalties for an individual with a prior record can be as much as $11,000 per offence and some $55,000 for a company. These are very stiff penalties and they are not to be taken lightly. I would encourage all who would contemplate breaching the provisions of this legislation to certainly consider the penalty provisions very seriously. If multiple offending calls are made in a day—professional telemarketers can make hundreds of calls a day—the maximum penalty per day is in excess of $200,000 for an individual and some $1.1 million for a company. There is also scope within the penalty provisions for ancillary orders, including payment of compensation to be made to the offended parties. The legislation also provides an effective means of handling complaints against telemarketers who breach these provisions. In addition, the operation of the Do Not Call Register will be reviewed after three years of operation. I certainly welcome these provisions in the legislation. I want to touch on some examples from Ryan constituents. I think they are very instructive on how popular this bill is and on how directly meaningful it is to the lives of my constituents. No doubt like many of my colleagues, I have received overwhelming support from my constituents. The residents of Ryan are very keen for the measures in this bill to commence. Much of the correspondence I received occurred after the announcement of the discussion paper into a do not call register and related to suggestions and concerns about the operation of the register. I want to take this opportunity in the House to give the example of the Jones family from Pullenvale, who contacted me about their experience with telemarketers. This family has been on the wrong end of a telemarketing company. They asked a phone company to divert calls from their home phone to their mobile phone when they were out. This service was vital during a short holiday in order that they did not miss important calls to their home, and of course each call diversion incurs a small fee. They recalled to me how repeated calls from telemarketers, even unanswered ones, racked up a significant amount in diversion fees on their telephone bill. While they were quite happy to pay the fees for legitimate calls, they were very unhappy that they had to pay for the extensive number of calls that they received from telemarketing companies during their short vacation. This is a very practical example of a family that will be very happy when this bill is passed. This legislation allows any private Australian telephone number to be placed on the register, including for landlines and mobile phones. So those who use mobile phones and do not use landlines will also have the benefit of the provisions in this bill. Another Ryan constituent, a Mr Tait of Indooroopilly, told me of his experiences of being harassed by international telemarketers calling on behalf of Australian companies. He recalled the experience of one friend who received some seven calls from a telemarketing company every day, until it got to the point where, to ensure that their small child could sleep uninterrupted, the family had to disconnect their phone. That is a horrendous example that none of us would want to experience, particularly if we had a small child in our family. I am happy to advise Mr Tait and his friend that, once this register is in place, it will stop these types of abusive and harassing calls. While Australian law cannot be enforced on overseas companies or on individuals directly, this bill sets out penalties not only for the individual or company that makes a telemarketing call to a number on the register but also for the authors of the call. Other residents from Ryan report to me, among other things, middle of the night phone calls, repeated calling over a very short space of time and, worst of all, abusive telemarketers. One resident, having hung up on an overseas telemarketer—as many of us have done—was shocked to find out that this particular telemarketer decided to take out their vengeance upon that constituent by calling repeatedly and leaving abusive telephone messages on their answering machine, something that would not have been expected by my Ryan constituent. I want to turn to exceptions in the bill. A new resident to the Ryan electorate, Mr Reynolds of Paddington, contacted me via my website not only to introduce himself but also to inquire about the exceptions to the register. Let me advise Mr Reynolds of Paddington that, once a number is registered on the national Do Not Call Register, it will not be able to receive any telemarketing calls from Australian or overseas operators, subject to limited exceptions. There are three categories of exceptions that I want to elaborate on. They are calls made by government bodies, religious organisations and charities; calls made by registered political parties, independents or political candidates; and, calls made by legitimate educational institutions. These exceptions are aimed at exempting calls which have a public interest perspective. These include calls such as soliciting funds for charities. Calls from government departments are also exempt because of their public interest in the sense of relaying important government or departmental information. The bill also contains a measure for restricting the possible abuse of these exemptions. For example, while educational institutions are an exception, they are limited to contacting current students or their legal guardians or alumni from that particular educational institution. So we will not have a case of the University of Queensland, in my electorate, having the authority to call graduates or alumni of the Queensland University of Technology or Griffith University. That would not be deemed to be a legitimate use of the provisions in the bill. Why do we need these exceptions? Those calls which are exempted from the register are those calls which, as I have said, have a public or a social purpose to them. Mr Rob Andrews, the Chief Executive of the Australian Direct Marketing Association, in an article in the Weekend Australian in late April, commented about recent research commissioned by the University of New South Wales that showed people initially viewed all telemarketers in the same way, no matter what their purpose. Regrettably, despite a degree of self-regulation by the industry itself, the telemarketing industry seems unable to shake this negative perception. Once the register contained in this bill is in operation, registered Australians can be sure that any telemarketing calls that they do receive are subject to stringent industry standards and are from legitimate charities, from government bodies or, as I alluded to, from legitimate research or educational institutions. I understand that Senator Fielding, the Family First senator, has criticised the exemption of members of parliament under this bill. I want to express my disappointment at his view. His view diminishes the standing of members of parliament. It is a view that discourages us from seeking contact with our constituency from time to time in a spontaneous fashion. As the member for Ryan I have taken it upon myself to contact my constituents when I am in the car or when I am walking in the park. I make phone calls to my constituents on a spontaneous basis to connect with them and talk to them and get their feedback about issues of concern and issues currently on the national agenda. I find they are very welcoming. The calls are well received by Ryan residents. They are received in the right spirit. They are received in the spirit of a constituent being contacted and consulted by their local member. I will continue to do that. I express my disappointment here with the senator’s views. In conclusion, I want to again commend this bill to the House and to my Ryan constituents. This is important bill. It is a meaningful bill that puts very practical mechanisms in place, and Ryan residents will welcome it. 54 12:53:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 establishing a Do Not Call Register to stamp out unwanted telemarketers have widespread support. It is actually about giving back to the Australian community its right to privacy. It is only a pity we did not have this bill in place long ago. If anything, it ought to be described as the ‘Anna Burke Do Not Call Register bill’, because it was the member for Chisholm who led the campaign on behalf of the Australian community and forced the government’s hand on this very important piece of legislation. It is for that reason that I suggest to the House that the government cannot take any credit. It was the Labor Party, led by Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm, that delivered an outcome that, whilst not perfect, represents a major step forward in returning to the Australian community their right to privacy. It has taken the very tactics of the telemarketers themselves to get the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, to listen to the concerns of the Australian community. The minister, and the record shows it, has been bombarded by those opposed to telemarketing calls, literally pleading for her to do something—to actually get off her backside and bring forward legislation that assists the Australian community. One householder emailed her office begging her to do something. She wrote: Please, please do something NOW! There is way too much stress in this busy world of ours without adding to it with this ‘tele terrorist’ activity. That sums up why this legislation is important. This was just one of the submissions and views from individuals that bombarded the minister’s office. Another wrote: It is the most pervasive change for the worse in over a century of public telephony. This virtual home invasion plague must be suppressed—our home is not the market. Another angry householder wrote: They are a curse on society—even profanity doesn’t stop them. In my electorate of Batman I have been inundated by constituents complaining about the invasion of their privacy through telemarketing calls. For example, Reservoir resident Jannette Shannon has been receiving calls from telemarketers twice a day, up to four times a week and at all hours of the night. You can imagine the impact that has on elderly citizens. That is just one person. Taken nationally you can understand that Australians receive more than a billion unwanted phone calls from telemarketers. And it is getting worse—we all appreciate that from talking to our own constituents. I understand the desperate requirements of some workers in these centres to actually try to turn a dollar. They are employed to do this and are expected to make a certain number of calls a day. This is not for high wages; it is just to try and make ends meet and to look after their families. This is not a criticism of these poor workers; this is a criticism of the people who set up these companies—the owners and those who profit from invading ordinary Australian people’s privacy. These calls are not only a nuisance. I understand why ordinary people are getting angry. They have had enough. They have also had enough of the lack of government action. This anger is especially amongst our elderly people, because when the phone rings they always expect the worst. They are not used to frequent phone calls other than from family members and close friends. When they get these calls at all times of the day and night, their alarm bells go off and it causes them serious concern and angst. The message to these companies is: back off! This legislation is part of the solution. Unfortunately the anger and worry of these people has for too long been prolonged by the government dragging its feet. In 2004, the then communications minister, Daryl Williams, dismissed the Labor Party’s call for a national do not call list based on the US model. How did he dismiss it? He said that it was populist, arguing that it would not work in Australia. We have finally got some legislation. The opposition actually ran a community campaign. At the head of that campaign was the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, who unfortunately cannot be here to see the end result of her national campaign, which started in the seat of Chisholm in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I hope that the member for Deakin, her neighbour electorally, gives her some credit, because he is following her, supporting her legislation. He ought to give the member for Chisholm, despite the fact that she is a member of the Labor Party, the credit for a terrific outcome. That reminds me that last year she was not given any credit or support. The member for Chisholm last year sought to introduce a private member’s bill into the House to establish a Do Not Call Register. It was the Howard government that rejected such a proposition, because it represented a serious embarrassment to them for their lack of attention to this very important issue. But we finally have a bill that is about giving people some privacy back. They have been crying out for it for far too long. It will enable them to lock their doors and close their windows and cut off the invasion of privacy which comes through the telephone line. But more should have been done. The discussion paper was completely unnecessary. We knew what the problem was. Why wasn’t it fixed? It is inconceivable that Senator Coonan failed to hear the growing tide of complaints over the issue. She just had to listen to those complaints. She should have addressed them much earlier, in the same way in which the previous minister for communications, Daryl Williams, should have addressed them back in the last parliament. For example, last year Australians received 53 telemarketing calls per week on average, and that does not include the millions of calls coming from overseas. This equates to Australians spending almost half an hour each week fielding unwarranted calls. Unfortunately, the Australian Direct Marketing Association’s list only covers the 500 members in Australia. Whilst the opposition welcomes the ADMA efforts, such a limited service means that these measures are not totally effective. In particular, many companies which operate from overseas are not covered. I suggest to the Australian community that, when you get a call from overseas, say, ‘Just a minute,’ put the phone down, walk away and let the time add up. Let the cost add up and teach them a lesson. There is only one way to teach them a lesson, and that is when it hits them in the hip pocket. Whilst we have not done enough to protect the Australian community from overseas telemarketing invasions, maybe the people can stand up and frustrate these groups by allowing the costs to run up when calls come in from overseas. Hit them where it hurts. At least the frustration of the Australian community over this issue has finally been heard. The number of people requesting the ADMA service has doubled to almost 320,000 in the last 12 months. So, rather than talk, obfuscate and delay with a discussion paper, Senator Coonan should simply have acted long ago by listening to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have had a gutful and given them back their privacy. After years of campaigning, finally we will have a Do Not Call Register. Clearly this vindicates the member for Chisholm. She has done her job not only on behalf of her constituents in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne but also on behalf of all Australians. Throughout the length and breadth of Australia, this is a great achievement by the member for Chisholm, with the support of the opposition, the Australian Labor Party. We all knew that at the core of this issue was people’s privacy. Legislation exists with respect to people’s privacy and access to information provided to government. That is important legislation, but this register is also about giving people privacy and stopping interference in their lives by the invasion of their homes by telemarketing systems. The argument comes down to one person’s right over another, and I do not believe that a person’s right to do a job should be at the expense of another person’s privacy. The argument being pursued by some people at the moment is a falsehood. I understand the importance of respecting the workers who work for telemarketing organisations, but in the end it is our privacy. We are talking about an industry in its infancy, one that is still evolving. Indeed, the evidence does not support this argument. The key point here is privacy and respecting every person’s right to it. Now that we have waited for this bill for the past two years we learn that, unfortunately, we will have to wait until 2007 for the register to be established. For the benefit of families, Senator Coonan should respond to the Australian public and implement this legislation sooner rather than later. I say to the Australian community: unfortunately, this legislation really is not important to the Howard government, because it has guillotined debate on the bill today. Yet again, we are not permitted to express the views of our constituents in this House and put their concerns on the record. The government does not want to listen. It has moved a guillotine motion to stop debate in the House, so I think it is fair to ask: after more than two years of loud campaigning on this issue, why do Australians have to wait another year? I end by reminding the House that this delay and the failure to deliver relief on this issue is yet another example of arrogance by a tired and complacent government that guillotines debate on important measures day after day, not only on the Do Not Call Register but also on consideration of fuel tax measures and the importance of promoting the biofuels industry in Australia. People ought to look at the record of the parliament over the last couple of years. I understand from the smile on the face of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that he thinks it is a joke to take away the right of the Australian community’s representatives to debate in this House. He stands condemned for his very arrogant attitude to the right of people’s representatives to argue out their concerns in the House. I say to the parliamentary secretary: wipe that smile off your face; the Australian community understands completely the arrogance and disrespect of the Howard government towards their concerns. I commend the bill to the House. 57 13:04:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —I am pleased to speak to the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006. The creation of the national Do Not Call Register has been warmly welcomed by the general public, and it is very easy to understand why. Australians are sick and tired of being hassled and annoyed by telemarketing phone calls, particularly at meal times and the like. We all appreciate the precious time we have which we need to spend with our families—spending quality time with our loved ones away from the demands of public life is important. The word ‘home’ evokes notions of peace, tranquillity, privacy and a hassle-free environment. But, all too often, Australians are subjected to aggressive telemarketing tactics and manipulative, pushy salespeople while we are in our own homes. It is not even as if these people announce their presence by knocking on the door; their increasingly frequent method of communication is via the telephone, which they often use anonymously until the receiver engages in conversation with the caller. I am sure that all members of this House have had constituents contact their offices about telemarketers intruding into their home life. Perhaps the most upsetting stories come from elderly folk, who are often anxious and confused by such phone calls. They are told that they have won this or that prize and they really must act quickly on such and such. Old people find that distressing. Imagine the frustration of an old person having to rise from their chair two, three or four times in an evening to take these calls, and imagine their distress if they subsequently take up an offer just to get the telemarketer off the phone and then find they are committed to some deal which meets neither their needs nor their expectations. The distress, anger and frustration they feel is being rapidly replicated across Australia. So the establishment of the national Do Not Call Register is good news for Australians. Even better, this service will be provided to them free of charge. The Do Not Call Register is a nationally coordinated solution to the problem of unwanted telemarketing calls. It will apply to all telemarketers operating in Australia as well as to overseas telemarketers who represent Australian companies. Unfortunately, many of these calls from overseas are made on behalf of Australian companies that should know better. I am heartened by the response of the Australian Direct Marketing Association, which supports this initiative and is prepared to work with the government. It is estimated that through the Do Not Call Register up to 80 per cent of unwanted calls could be filtered out. It will work by giving members of the public the right to opt out of receiving unsolicited calls on both fixed telephone lines and mobiles. They will be able to do so by applying to have their phone numbers recorded on the register, with each individual listing being valid for three years. So, if you change your mind after three years and want the calls back, you can do that. Telemarketers must consult the register before undertaking phone calls and must not call telephone numbers listed on the register. The establishment of the register will cost around $33 million, with $17 million coming from the government and the remainder of $16 million coming from the telemarketing industry itself. The cost to individual industry players will be ascertained on a usage basis—that is, the bigger telemarketing companies that make more frequent use of the register will pay a higher cost than small businesses which access the register less frequently. I have previously mentioned that the bill will provide a nationally coordinated approach to the issue. However, we cannot extend its powers to telemarketing operators that do not have a direct Australian link—in other words, those calls that come from overseas directly to our homes, not via an Australian company or Australian products. Despite several attempts by our telemarketing industry to address this problem, there are too many operators unwilling to lift their standards and too many offshore call centres offering reduced prices for their services. To try to overcome that difficulty, the bill makes provision for the development of bilateral agreements between countries wishing to stamp out international telemarketing. This legislation will establish national minimum contact standards for telemarketers, including permitted calling hours, minimum information requirements and the termination of calls. It will give the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, a range of enforcement options for offenders, including warnings, fines, formal directions and financial penalties for offenders. ACMA will be empowered to enforce the legislation through the tiered enforcement regime, with penalties ranging from $1,100 to $1.1 million, depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach. Of the 495 submissions made in response to the discussion paper on the creation of a register 90 per cent supported its creation. It is predicted that there will be one million registrations in the first week of operation of the register and up to four million over the first year. This is not surprising given the incredible surge of telemarketing activities in recent years. Complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about unsolicited phone calls have increased by 600 per cent in the past year alone. To put it another way: there were 2,135 privacy complaints last year, with the largest number, 887, being about telemarketing. The telemarketing industry’s growth is also illustrated by the explosion in the employment figures for the sector. According to an ABS labour survey report, in 1996 there 9,400 people working as telemarketers. Compare that figure with the report of January 2005, which stated that the number of people employed in the industry had risen to 15,000—an increase of 62 per cent. Further to that point, the Commercial Economic Advisory Service of Australia recently reported that 1.065 billion telemarketing calls were made from Australia’s 30,000 call centres in 2004. Australians now receive more than one billion telemarketing calls, and I would be fairly confident in saying that most of these calls are unsolicited and, more to the point, unwanted. In establishing this register we need to find a balance between people’s right to peace and privacy and the necessity for business to promote their wares and services. The employment figures I previously quoted clearly demonstrate that call centres are also providing tremendous job opportunities for Australians. One such call centre was opened by Salmat in Bundaberg in 2003, and it was the first regional site for Salmat’s teleservices in Australia. The call centre generated around 150 jobs for Bundaberg, with its staff handling general sales, billing and new connection inquiries for Telstra, as well as some telemarketing services. The call centre has been a real bonus for Bundaberg and provides our regional centre with benefits not only in contact but also in telecommunications technology and infrastructure. The sector is also a good employment option for many people seeking to re-enter the workforce or those who require a degree of flexibility, such as students, mothers working part time and single parents. As I previously mentioned, Bundaberg’s Salmat call centre undertakes some telemarketing through its SalesForce Australia operations. I will give a few statistics in order to give some idea of its reach into the public domain. SalesForce Australia operates 3,000 workstations throughout Australia and New Zealand and it uses phone, SMS, email, fax and the internet to liaise with the wider public. Its staff use these technologies to engage in more than 50 million inbound and outbound calls annually in Australia and New Zealand. We also have to recognise that telemarketing can be a very useful tool when it comes to charity fundraising and providing information of interest to the wider community— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —I was asked to speak until 1.20 pm—hence, the reasonableness of allowing exemptions for certain bodies, including registered charities, religious organisations, educational institutions and, yes, political parties and organisations. Politicians are elected by their constituents to serve the electorate and they are pivotal to our democracy. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —And to filibuster, obviously. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —I have been accused of some things, but I have never been accused of filibustering. In Australia we have general elections every three years or so, and individuals decide where their vote will go on the strength of the policies and personalities of the local candidates. Communicating with the electorate is time consuming and costly, but it is a necessary part of the job. In order to represent the community effectively, we must be able to exchange information and canvass issues that are important to the community. While we politicians are often lambasted and parodied for our constant pursuit of the electorate, we simply would not be doing our jobs if we failed to do so. If politicians were included on the Do Not Call Register, it would effectively put a barrier— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I take it, from the member for Hinkler’s comments in response to the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006, that the government has an attitude towards the parliament of a ‘do not speak’ bill. The member for Hinkler is deliberately stopping the member for Prospect from making a contribution to this debate, which has been gagged by the government. 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—The member for Grayndler has made his point. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —The point I was making was that, if political activity were prevented by the Do Not Call Register, it would effectively put a barrier on constituents and their elected representatives. For that reason, politicians, along with charities, will be permitted to contact people. Nevertheless, politicians and candidates will have to follow an enforced standard that will cover matters such as permitted call hours, the minimum information to be provided to the recipients of calls and the minimum requirements around the termination of calls. This legislation gives people the power to decide whether they want to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. I urge people in the Hinkler electorate to make use of the register if they are being harassed by unsolicited and unwanted calls. On that note, I commend this legislation to the House. 60 13:18:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —In the three minutes I have available to me because of the government’s arrogant approach to this debate on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, I would like to say that the Howard government has been dragged kicking and screaming to the dispatch box to introduce this legislation. I pay tribute, as other members have done, to the member for Chisholm, who more than six months ago moved a private member’s bill which was very similar in content to this bill. I was surprised to read that unsolicited calls are the biggest source of complaints made to the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading and the Federal Privacy Commissioner. Research conducted last year estimated that telemarketing companies made more than one billion telemarketing calls in Australia last year—53 calls per person or 2.7 calls per household per week. No wonder we have all been deluged with complaints from constituents about unwanted telemarketing calls. In the couple of minutes I have available to me, I want to say something about the staff in telemarketing centres. The member for Hinkler referred to the fact that call centres create a lot of jobs. This bill is in no way a reflection on the work done by the good and hardworking people in telemarketing centres. But I ask: do those staff members really want to call people who do not wish to receive calls? Do they really want to receive the less-than-welcoming responses from the people they call? This bill is good for the industry as well, because it means only people who are open to receiving those calls will receive them. People who have no wish to receive telemarketing calls will not receive them. The United States has a do not call list and 70 per cent of people have subscribed to it. As a result of the growth of telemarketing calls, people are subscribing to private services or opting for silent numbers, which they should not have to do. This bill does, at last, after the government wasted the last 12 months, achieve that. What an outrage! 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—Order! It being exactly 1.20 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer to speak for a maximum of five minutes. 61 13:20:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer 1 0 Mr PEARCE —I want to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on these important pieces of legislation—the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and the Do Not Call Register (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006—and I am pleased to note the broad support they have from members in the chamber. Many members have shared their own experiences as recipients of telemarketing calls and members have agreed that this legislation is clearly a win for the community. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —We have heard more than enough from the member for Bowen. The Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 and consequential amendments— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —Yes, I know that—provide a direct response to community concerns about unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls. The number of unsolicited calls in Australia has grown significantly in recent years. This has led to rising community concerns about the inconvenience and intrusiveness of telemarketing. The government is addressing these concerns by giving Australian phone users the right to opt out of receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls and by creating a more consistent and efficient operating environment for the telemarketing industry. The telemarketing industry itself has called for action. The rules governing telemarketing practices are contained in various instruments, including voluntary codes, state and territory legislation and Commonwealth law. This fragmented and sometimes inconsistent approach has led to calls from industry organisations such as the Australian Direct Marketing Association for the government to address the issue. This is needed to provide telemarketers with more operational certainty and consumers with more effective complaint-handling mechanisms. Currently, there is no single body with which consumers can register a complaint. Under the arrangements set out in the bills, a national Do Not Call Register and telemarketing conduct standards would be established. People who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls would have the option of applying for their fixed and mobile numbers to be recorded on the register. Once a number is recorded, it will be prohibited for telemarketers to contact that number except in specified circumstances. The scheme would apply to telemarketing calls made within Australia and to calls originating from overseas. Some exemptions are provided for organisations that act in the public interest, such as charities, religious organisations, educational institutions and government. The beneficial nature of the activities of these groups has led to their exemption from the prohibition on telemarketing numbers on the Do Not Call Register in order to ensure that there are no unexpected or untoward impacts on the sector. However, it is important to note that activities in these sectors will be subject to the national standards to be established by ACMA regarding permitted calling hours, information that callers must provide about their organisation and termination of calls. This is a comprehensive scheme to address a problem that affects a large number of Australians. The telemarketing industry has attempted to address this problem, but there are simply too many operators unwilling to raise their standards and too many offshore call centres offering reduced prices and low standards. The Do Not Call Register arrangements benefit telemarketers and individuals. Individuals will be able to take effective action against unsolicited telemarketing calls through registering on the Do Not Call Register and will be able to complain to a recognised body if the requirements are not complied with. Telemarketers will enjoy efficiency gains by not making calls to those who do not wish to receive them. They will experience reduced compliance costs from having national standards legislation and will have a level playing field with all telemarketers bound to high professional standards rather than having the industry brought into disrepute by rogue operators. Drafting the bills has been a delicate balancing act. We must balance the legitimate needs of business and the concerns of the community. I think the bill hits the right targets. The bill has flexible sanctions and an enforcement regime which extends from formal warnings to infringement notices through to significant financial penalties for repeat offences, and it has an appropriately short review time frame of three years. I note that Labor has welcomed the bulk of the provisions. The member for Hunter has raised concerns about certain things and, particularly as one relates to small business not being on the register, I welcome the opportunity to explain the government’s reason for this. The reason is really very simple: many small businesses advertise their telephone number for the purposes of gaining business. Business-to-business contact, for a multitude of reasons, happens in the course of day-to-day operations. The government was concerned not to potentially expose organisations to fines and penalties for ordinary business-to-business conduct. In addition, there would be a very practical problem for businesses seeking to contact other businesses. I note, too, that a number of Labor members were critical of the time it has taken to reach this point. Let me be clear. Developing good public policy, which is something the Labor Party is not used to, does take time. (Time expired) 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—Order! The parliamentary secretary is gagged, as everyone else was. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter has moved as 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. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 62 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 63 Bills R2563 63 Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr McGauran: That the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 63 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 63 Bills R2535 63 Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Hardgrave: That the bill be now read a second time. 63 13:27:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —The Australian technical colleges are the latest example of the serious incompetence of the Howard government. There has been gross inaction in the face of Australia’s skills crisis—inaction that for 10 long years has seen this government refuse to invest in Australia’s skills. Neglecting Australia’s skills development in an era of unprecedented prosperity is an act of incompetence, foolishness and negligence, and it is now coming back to hurt Australian families and to hurt them very hard. I move the second reading amendment to the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006: 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: creating a skills crisis during their ten long years in office; its continued failure to provide the necessary opportunities for Australians to get the training they need to get a decent job and meet the skills needs of the economy; reducing the overall percentage of the Federal Budget spent on vocational education and training, and allowing this percentage of spending to further decline over the forward estimate period; its  incompetent handling of the Australian Technical Colleges initiative as evidenced by only four out of twenty five colleges being open for business, enrolling fewer than 300 students, failing to be open and accountable about the operations of the Australian Technical Colleges, including details of extra student enrolments, funding levels for the individual colleges, course structures and programs. denying local communities their promised Australian Technical College because of their ideological industrial relations requirements; and failing to provide enough extra skills training so that Australia can meet the expected shortfall of 100,000 skilled workers by 2010”. The latest skills vacancy index produced by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations shows that skilled vacancies have continued to rise. Vacancies in the trades rose by 2.9 per cent in the month of May. Vacancies in electrical and electronics trades rose by 3.3 per cent; construction, 2.1 per cent; automotive, 2.9 per cent; chefs, 3.9 per cent; and hairdressing, 6.3 per cent. Investing in trades and technical education is critical. For this reason Labor welcomed the additional $350 million of investment for these Australian technical colleges. It is, you would have to say, a welcome change from 10 long years of this government ignoring the trades. We supported the principal technical college bill in the parliament last year and we will today support this amendment bill, which will attempt to get the money spent more quickly. The bill brings forward funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 into 2006-07. The total level of funding remains the same. Establishing 25 Australian technical colleges is the Howard government’s only answer to this raging skills crisis. Let us just go through whether or not this aim is going to be achieved. Unfortunately, to date, the government has been very reluctant to provide much detail on progress. Of course, the public has a right to know—it is public money. I want to use this opportunity today to find out whether or not we can actually get some information out of this minister. Hopefully, when the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education comes into the chamber, he might provide some real details about where these colleges are up to. Because one thing is for sure: it is all taking too long. We have a minister in this case who seems to be extremely incompetent. He is unable to get these colleges up and running. We seem to have to wait longer and longer to see these colleges produce their first qualified tradesperson. Of course, it will not be until then that we are going to have any sort of dent in the massive skills shortages facing the Australian economy. If we go back to the last election campaign, people will remember the Prime Minister saying, ‘The technical colleges are the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education and training throughout Australia.’ If that is a revolution, it is a very tiny movement. It is more like a little shift of a wheel. The reality of the technical colleges comes nowhere near matching this flowery rhetoric. Let us have a look at what the government have been able to do to progress what they call their ‘centrepiece policy’. Twenty months after they were announced, there are supposed to be 25 colleges—that is how many were promised. Now, right at this moment, there are only four that are open for business. Each of the 25 colleges was supposed to have 300 students enrolled in years 11 and 12. That meant the promise was that there were going to be 7,500 students enrolled and working towards their trade in a school based new apprenticeship. How many students are there? Gladstone technical college in Queensland has one student enrolled and there are fewer than 300 students enrolled in the other colleges on the Gold Coast, in eastern Melbourne and Port Macquarie. There are 300 students in four colleges rather than 300 students in each college. Of course, there is no word on exactly how many of these students are really new to vocational education and training. Who is learning a trade for the first time in a new technical college rather than just continuing their vocational studies at a school with a new name? When these incredibly low enrolment figures were put to the government in this chamber last month, the Deputy Prime Minister cited Port Macquarie’s technical college—in his own electorate no less—as an exemplar of the government’s policy success. What he failed to mention was that the success in trade and vocational training at St Joseph’s College in Port Macquarie has not been achieved because of the federal government. In fact, St Joseph’s had been a success long before the Prime Minister announced the Australian technical colleges during the last election. It can be put no more simply than in the words of the head of that school who said to a newspaper recently: The technical college model is essentially what we have been doing since 1979. So much for a revolution. Of the 220 students enrolled at the Australian technical college in Port Macquarie, located primarily at St Joseph’s VOCOL, about 185 were enrolled at St Joseph’s vocational college in Port Macquarie last year. It is the case that this extra funding will bring new facilities, but it seems to be true that very few additional students are preparing for a trade as a result of the technical college being established to meet the serious skills shortages we have. If more than two-thirds of the enrolments in the four Australian technical colleges are located at Port Macquarie, which is not much more than building on the success of the local school, the credit the government is claiming really should go to the hard-working staff of St Joseph’s. I ask the minister to tell the parliament during his summing up how many extra students are studying vocational education because of his technical colleges. By our reckoning, if you take account of the 185 vocational students at St Joseph’s last year, there would actually be fewer than 100 extra students learning a trade as a result of these technical colleges. The opposition has been asking the government detailed questions on how the technical colleges are operating and we have been doing that for over a year here in the House through questions with and without notice and during Senate estimates hearings. Frankly, all we get from the government is stony silence. We cannot find out the detail. We cannot find out how much funding each college is receiving or what qualifications the students will graduate with. We cannot find out when the other 21 colleges will open their doors. Hopefully the minister will give us this information. All the answers we get from the department have been based on expectations, targets, and hope. We need much more than this minister’s blind faith, let alone his dumb luck, to train our future workforce. What we really need to see from this minister and from the government is the sleeves rolled up and these colleges opened. Of course, the Australian people and the parliament should be told the true story. Where are these colleges really up to? Even though it has been impossible for us to find out all the detail of student numbers, we have been able to find out fee levels. The government does seem to know what fees will be charged. The college fees so far range from $500 in eastern Melbourne to $2,000 on the Gold Coast. At St Joseph’s in Port Macquarie, we can see that the Australian technical college concept works best when it is building on the success of local schools. Let us contrast Port Macquarie with the situation in Lismore-Ballina. This contrast is a damning indictment of how the government lets extreme ideology get in the way of positive outcomes for local students. Lismore-Ballina was promised a technical college by the Prime Minister back in September 2004. The locals, the schools, the TAFE and local businesses got together and came up with good local ideas, building on their own expertise and knowledge. In May 2005, they put proposals to Canberra. Here we are a whole year later and the people in Lismore and Ballina are still waiting for an announcement about who will run their college—if they get one at all. Minister Hardgrave has rejected two proposals from local groups and the only word from him has been a threat to take their promised college away unless there is a ‘clear indication’ of local support. I would have thought that two proposals from the local community was a pretty clear indication of what they wanted. The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is desperate for trade training. They have a massive shortage of carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers and electricians. It is also the case that teenage unemployment in the area is at 32 per cent. One of the rejected proposals was from a local consortium which included the local high school and TAFE. Ballina High School won the 2004 national VET in Schools Excellence Award and the North Coast Institute of TAFE won the 2004 national Large Training Provider of the Year Award, yet their proposal to run an Australian technical college was rejected by the Howard government. Thankfully, the New South Wales government has stepped into the breach and announced in their recent state budget that Ballina High would be funded under that state’s new trade schools program. So at least we will see additional trade training happening in the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales because of the initiative of the New South Wales government. I had the pleasure of visiting Ballina High recently and met with the students and staff. They have outstanding students who are keen to get trade training and very dedicated staff who certainly know how to make vocational education and training work in our schools. They really are a great example of what we need—if only the federal minister would put ideology aside and consider working with them. The Deputy Principal of Ballina High told the Northern Star newspaper when I was up there, ‘We are still here, if the government would reconsider.’ They were rejected because they did not want to be tied to the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations requirements. This government is insisting on mixing up IR conditions with the delivery of training. At the government’s insistence, all staff employed at an Australian technical college must be offered an individual contract. If a local school or TAFE does not want to implement the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda then it gets cut off from the technical college program. I just want to say to the government: extreme industrial relations agendas have no constructive link to training our future tradespeople. The government should drop this condition and get on with the job of opening more colleges because so far we only have four open. A whole year after tenders closed, we only have 12 funding agreements out of the 22 that were announced by the minister. Three regions have had no announcement on the preferred bidder, let alone whether or not a college might open. We do not even know whether they will open at all. Minister Hardgrave let the cat out of the bag not so long ago, threatening to take the promised colleges away from the local communities of not only Lismore and Ballina but also Dubbo and Queanbeyan. In Dubbo we know that two proposals were submitted—one from the New South Wales state education department and another from a private consortium—but we hear the federal government is out brokering for alternatives in the region. What is wrong with either of the proposals? Why have they been rejected? Will either of them go ahead? In Queanbeyan, again, two proposals were received and, again, we had the involvement of the New South Wales state education department as a sticking point. The process in Queanbeyan has been criticised by the ACT Chamber of Commerce and Industry because the federal government was not willing to work constructively with industry based in Canberra who, of course, have links to the surrounding region. As local residents know, it is very easy to move between the ACT and Queanbeyan, so why can’t the federal government make a technical college work in this area? What really needs to happen is for Minister Hardgrave to sit down and work constructively with his state counterparts. That is his job; he needs to get on with it. The minister should come in here and tell the parliament how many proposals in these three regions were rejected because they would not offer individual contracts to their staff. How many technical colleges have been held up because of the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations agenda? The college promised in Darwin is also under threat after Minister Hardgrave threatened to withdraw funding from the consortium awarded the right to operate the college. There is example after example of these colleges unravelling. This minister has not been able to deliver more than empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, still only vague promises. The economy needs the colleges; our young people need the colleges. We need to make sure more opportunities are there for young people to start a trade. This bill brings forward funding into the current and next calendar year from 2008 and 2009. That is a reallocation of $62 million for 2006 and $26 million for 2007 on top of what they already had. Let us have a look at how much they have been able to spend; you have to worry about whether they are going to be able to deliver. As of the end of May this year, $185 million had been committed to the Australian technical colleges, but only $18 million had been spent. So there was $185 million committed but they have only managed to get $18 million out there on the ground. A total budget exists of $343 million over four years. The government are dramatically underspending on these colleges. Comparing the last two budget projections, it is $40 million less than promised in the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07. There can be no clearer indication that policy implementation is being bungled when you have so little of the money being spent. It is no wonder the government is refusing to reveal funding details for each of the colleges—it is just too embarrassed by very poor figures. This money needs to be spent to address our national skills crisis. Australian businesses need more welders, diesel mechanics and boilermakers, and we know that Australian families cannot get carpenters, plumbers or electricians when they need to get their homes built or renovated. With fewer than 300 students enrolled in these colleges, businesses and families are going to be waiting a very long time before they reap any benefit from the Prime Minister’s promises. We know that training a skilled worker does not happen overnight. It requires investment over a considerable period of time. There is no quick fix for properly training our young Australians. Technical colleges will take up to four years before they produce their first qualified tradesperson. So the four colleges now up and running will, at best, produce fewer than 300 extra qualified tradespeople by 2010. The Australian Industry Group says we will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers by then. There have been so many warnings given to the government. The Reserve Bank has repeatedly identified the shortage of skilled workers as one of the significant capacity constraints in our economy, putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates. We have the OECD highlighting again and again that skill shortages are a critical hindrance to future economic growth. Most recently, Peter Hendy from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that skill shortages were the No. 1 complaint of investors. All of these business groups are coming out and complaining about the government’s efforts in this regard. The Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout said just after the budget: … it is disappointing that more progress has not been made on the big nation-building goals of skills and innovation … investments in skills, innovation and infrastructure are required to build the competitiveness of Australian business and to assist in rebalancing the economy as the current minerals boom begins to fade. We on this side of the parliament know that Australia’s economic prosperity will not continue without investment in skills. We must re-invest in our skills base through strong education and training of our young people. The Howard government’s record in this area is nothing short of a disgrace. Under this government, Australia is the only developed country in the world to reduce public investment in TAFEs and universities. Public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1995; the OECD average is a 38 per cent increase. We must have a more systematic approach to promoting trades, science and technology education than the Howard government’s 25 technical colleges. Unlike the Howard government, Labor would work with the states and territories to deliver major changes to secondary schooling for the benefit of young Australians. Last September Kim Beazley put out Labor’s skills blueprint. I will touch very briefly on the initiatives that a Labor government would put in place. We would: offer young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities and rid our schools of dusty and Dickensian workshops. …     …         … Establish a Trades in Schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skill shortage and provide extra funding per place; We intend to provide specialist schools for the senior years of schooling in trades, in technology and in science. We would also: Establish a Trades Taster Program so year 9 and 10 students can experience a range of trade options, which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs. Labor has announced that we would overhaul the failed New Apprenticeships scheme. Labor has had all of these initiatives out there—all of these policies that would make a difference. Unfortunately, by contrast, we have a government that is incapable of implementing the one policy it has. Currently 40 per cent of people who start a new apprenticeship do not complete their training. Imagine if we could get those young people to complete their training. Labor’s priority is to turn that around by offering a $2,000 trade completion bonus so that we give young people an incentive to finish their trade. We have also said we would pay the TAFE fees of traditional trade apprentices and child-care trainees to encourage them into the trades and into child-care work. Labor’s priority is all about training Australians first and training them now, not, by contrast, doing what this government is doing: going for the quick-fix approach and bringing them in from overseas. The progress of these new Australian technical colleges has raised many questions, which the minister has so far left unanswered. Once again, I call on him to come into the chamber and come clean on how these colleges are really going. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr Hatton —I second the motion. 68 13:51:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased today to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. In doing so, I would like to cite a number of examples and, in the time permitted to me before question time, raise some issues relating to the technical college in my area, Perth South. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005, which is the current act, to reallocate funding from 2008-09—from the out years, in other words—to 2006-07 and to insert a new provision in the current act to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between particular years by regulation instead of by legislative amendment. I emphasise this point, because that is the crux of this bill: it allows the minister to redistribute these funds by regulation rather than by legislative instrument. I will come to that a little later, because it has some implications. We know that before the last federal election, in response to the call from industry and the community in general, the Prime Minister made a commitment to the Australian people to develop 24 new Australian technical colleges. The reason for him wanting the Commonwealth to produce 24 Australian technical colleges was that the states had failed in their duty of skilling the young workforce and the workforce in general. In fact, there was a huge cry about the fact that Australia’s skill needs were not being met. The opposition will tell you: ‘Shock, horror! This government hasn’t addressed it.’ When I was elected to this parliament as the member for Swan in 1996, apprenticeship numbers left by the previous Hawke-Keating government were approximately 105,000 apprenticeships per year. Currently it stands at close to 500,000. So that is the difference. The Australian Labor Party left the young of this country without a proper apprenticeship commitment. There were only approximately 105,000 apprenticeships being undertaken in those days and now we are looking at almost half a million. That is the difference between us and them in terms of real commitment. What was the Labor Party’s alternative in the days that they were in government and being led by such people as the member for Hotham, Mr Simon Crean? It was to create this mickey mouse training initiative called Working Nation. We all remember Bill Hunter and Working Nation, don’t we? There he stood on the edge of oil rigs and other such things saying, ‘Here we are: we’ve produced job ready people.’ Those people who were job ready were doing training courses that lasted three months. There are some brick houses around Perth that I tend to suggest people would want to have a close look at because they were built by these people who did three-month courses, and I would want to be a little bit careful about the future stability of these houses. This was not proper apprenticeship training and skills training; this was a mickey mouse scheme to get people off the unemployment statistics. They were creating jobs. We know that the statistics say that when the Labor Party created their Working Nation system it cost about $60,000 to produce a job. You may as well have paid them $60,000 rather than spend $60,000 trying to concoct jobs that were not really there. It was not proper training. So the Australian government has committed itself to a proper skills training regime with these 24 Australian technical colleges. The 24 Australian technical colleges will concentrate on skills, not alternative type arrangements such as we cop in the TAFEs now—aromatherapy, flower arranging and transcendental meditation courses. That is the qualification you will end up with if you come out of one of these courses now, which you cannot use and you cannot transport. It is just a time-filling arrangement. Currently the states have dropped the ball. If anybody is guilty in this whole argument, it is the states, who have dropped the ball. As a result of the states having dropped the ball on training in their TAFEs, the federal government has had to fill the vacuum. The 24 Australian technical colleges will fill this vacuum in training. But there is a big impediment to this—and the member for Jagajaga said recently it is going slow. Of course it is going slow. We know why it is going slow. It is because all around Australia the state Labor governments are doing their best to slow down these colleges. It is unbelievable. One of these colleges—the Perth South technical college—has been assigned to my region, and the member for Hasluck and I were very pleased on 1 May this year to open it with Minister Hardgrave, the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. One of the school principals came up to me and said, ‘Don, just by the way, the Perth district south office has said to us that we’ve got to find a way to slow these technical colleges down,’ because they do not support them. Then Ken Ticehurst, the member for Dobell, told me that the technical college in his region is suffering the same fate. The New South Wales government is trying to slow down the development and the roll-out of the technical college in his area. So no wonder there are only four currently up and running at the moment when you have the imposition of the state governments, for partisan political reasons, trying to slow down the roll-out of these colleges. As I said, the Perth South region, which the member for Hasluck and I represent, has been lucky enough to have a technical college—there was a great submission from the Stirling Skills Centre. That technical college will concentrate on the automotive industries, with a campus to be located in the Maddington-Gosnells area, and on the construction industries, with a campus which will be located around Armadale, in my area. The mayors of the cities and the industries surrounding these regions are excited about the prospect of providing young year 11 and 12 students with real skills training in the automotive and the construction areas. We are also very pleased. I am pleased to see the member for Brand here. The member for Brand, when the Kwinana-Rockingham consortium tried to put together their bid, did not support it at all. In fact, one of the reasons why they do not have one is his lack of support for that technical college in the Rockingham-Kwinana region. We know that this consortium took Minister Hardgrave down and flew him over the area, because the industrial strip in the Kwinana region is calling out for a technical college in that area and can satisfy the requirements for it. But did the member for Brand actively get in and support this? No. That is one of the reasons we won our very good application for the technical college in the Perth South region. There is also a college that has been assigned to the Pilbara. As a result, the young people of the Pilbara region, in the north-west, where there is an enormous amount of industry such as oil and mining, deserve the opportunity in year 11 and 12 at school to be skilled in the traditional trades: not the alternative skills that might be learnt—tarot card reading and this sort of stuff—but metal skills, fitting and turning, automotive skills, electrical skills and other engineering skills. But no. Again the state authorities helped to slow this Pilbara bid down. At the Minerals Council dinner the other evening, the Prime Minister announced that the Pilbara bid is up and running due to the support of the industry, and some of the issues that the industry has outlined are being addressed. 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. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 71 Questions to the Speaker 71 71 14:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I have been asked questions recently about disruptive behaviour in the chamber, related to members moving around the chamber and what were seen as orchestrated interruptions, including the display of placards. Concerning the possibility that movement around the chamber by members may interfere with the television broadcast, I am advised that it is not possible to identify which camera is producing the picture being used for the telecast at a particular time. Standing order 62 clearly indicates that members must take their seats promptly, must not remain in the aisles and must not walk between the chair and any member who has the call. I remind members that their individual conduct should be courteous, not only to their parliamentary colleagues but also to those members of the public who are watching and listening in the galleries or via the parliamentary broadcast. I also note that there has been significant noise and disruption during question time over recent sitting weeks. Any member who has the call is entitled to be heard by the House. The Speaker’s role is to ensure that this happens and to take action if there are attempts to interfere with a member’s right to speak with minimal disruption. Earlier this week a question by the Leader of the Opposition and the response by the Prime Minister were disrupted by a display of placards. Whilst a member with the call may make a passing reference to a displayed object or article, members without the call may not do so and will be dealt with accordingly. The standing orders aim to establish a minimum standard of behaviour expected of members at all times they are in the chamber so as to maintain the dignity of the House and to enable the member with the call to be heard without noise or disturbance. Again, I remind all members to ensure that their language is characterised by good temper and moderation and that directions given by the chair are complied with. 71 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 71 14:02:00 71 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his statement in this place four years ago, almost to the day, when he said: I want to make it clear that there is no intention, and there never has been, to excise any part of the Australian mainland. That is an absolutely ludicrous proposition. If this is still the case, will the Prime Minister now withdraw the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 or will he impose on his party room an absolutely ludicrous proposition? 71 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The legislation which will shortly be before the parliament does not involve the excision of the Australian mainland. That is the ludicrous proposition that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition. This legislation establishes a total consistency in the treatment of unlawful arrivals in Australia between people who might come onto the mainland and people who might come onto offshore islands. This legislation further entrenches a highly successful border protection policy, to which the government remains fully committed. It does not involve what the Leader of the Opposition has said. It is he who is being ludicrous. 71 71 14:04:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 Mr HENRY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the government’s reaction to the release of Abu Bakar Bashir? Has the government communicated its views on this matter to the Indonesian government? 72 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the honourable member for Hasluck for his question. Can I say again to the House what I said yesterday: the government, and I am sure the great majority of the people of Australia, greeted the news of the release of Abu Bakar Bashir not only with disappointment but also with a reaction verging on hostility and disgust. His release and the inflammatory statements that he has made in support of extremism since he has been released have been deeply offensive, especially to the families of the men and women of this country who died in the Bali attack in October of 2002. The honourable member for Hasluck asks me what action the government has taken to communicate its views to the Indonesian government. I can inform the House that this morning I wrote to the Indonesian President, using the words that I have just used to describe the reaction of the Australian people to Abu Bakar Bashir’s release. I went on to say that, whilst fully respecting and recognising the adherence to due process in the Indonesian court system, the Indonesian government should understand the deep anger in the Australian community and our sense of concern about what has happened. I also said in that letter to the Indonesian President that it was important that the Indonesian government monitor very closely the activities of Mr Bashir and implement fully the obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1264. As the House would be aware, I said to the President that Mr Bashir’s name had been added to a list of terrorists subject to a range of international restrictions under this resolution, including an assets freeze, restrictions on international travel and access to arms. We would hope that the Indonesian government would fully adhere to and support the implementation of its obligations under that part of the UN Security Council’s resolution. The Australian government remains strongly committed to working closely with the Indonesian government in fighting terrorism, and I place on record again the deep appreciation of the Australian people for the excellent work done by the Indonesian police in the wake of the Bali attack. The reality is of course that, of those directly involved in that attack, so many of them are being brought to justice. A number are awaiting the imposition of the death penalty and others have been sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment. So in relation to the people who actually carried out the attack, Indonesian justice has been effective, it has been diligent and it has been comprehensive. But that does not in any way relieve the sense of anger and concern in our community about Bashir’s release, and I have conveyed those concerns to the President. I might add that our charge d’affaires in Jakarta has personally spoken this morning to the Indonesian foreign minister, Dr Wirajuda, to reinforce the concern felt by the Australian community. For the information of the House, I table a copy of my letter to the President of Indonesia. 72 72 14:08:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to Esselte, an American multinational, the largest general office products manufacturer in the world, with an Australian subsidiary. Is the Prime Minister aware that Esselte Australia has offered employees at one of its New South Wales warehouses an AWA which provides for an increased rate of pay of $1.25 per hour above the current enterprise agreement hourly rate of pay but scraps Saturday penalty rates, scraps Sunday penalty rates, reduces penalty rates for public holidays and does not provide for a wage increase during the three-year term of the AWA? Isn’t it the case that this AWA leaves a full-time employee working a Saturday shift $65 a week— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth is asking his question and deserves to be heard. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Isn’t it the case that this AWA leaves a full-time employee working a Saturday shift $65 a week, or $10,140 over three years, worse off? 73 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am not familiar with the circumstances of that particular case and, as I have indicated in response to other questions of this kind, I am not, I regret to inform the member for Perth, hardly to his surprise, in possession of detailed knowledge of each and every employment arrangement made in this country. But I am in possession of the broad economic outcomes that have been achieved under this government and I am in possession of all the warnings of doom and destruction, unemployment and industrial disputation that were made 10 years ago when we made some changes. I am absolutely certain that, just as those predictions were incorrectly made and were not borne out by subsequent experience, so it will be that the experiences of the Australian workforce under the government’s new policies will be ones of increasing employment, rising real wages and continued growth of the Australian economy. 73 73 14:11:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 Mr SOMLYAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the government’s reaction to reports that the United Nations World Food Program is using Abu Bakar Bashir’s Islamic organisation to distribute its food to victims of the Yogyakarta earthquake? What steps has the government taken to prevent Abu Bakar Bashir from supporting further terrorist acts? 73 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First of all, can I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest. I am aware of reports that the World Food Program, which is an agency of the United Nations, has given an organisation called Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, known as MMI—Abu Bakar Bashir was the co-founder and at one time the chairman of this organisation—95 tonnes of food to donate to victims of the 27 May earthquake in Central Java. It has been brought to my attention that a spokesman for MMI has said that Abu Bakar Bashir intends to distribute this food, which was provided for and by the United Nations, to the victims himself. Let me make this absolutely clear. We regard this decision by the World Food Program, by the United Nations, to use MMI as one of the organisations that would distribute food as completely unacceptable. Our Jakarta post has contacted the World Food Program in Indonesia and made that view perfectly clear. Our ambassador in Rome will also be speaking to the World Food Program, whose headquarters are in Rome, during the course of today, when he is able to do so, making the same point: that we regard the use of an organisation like MMI, which was co-founded by Abu Bakar Bashir and of which Abu Bakar Bashir was the chairman, as completely unacceptable. Obviously, this organisation plans to use the distribution of this food, funded by the international community, as a propaganda tool and therefore the United Nations should not allow itself, in any circumstances or through any of its agencies, to be unintentionally, of course, manipulated in that way. Let me say, just in case honourable members are wondering, that actually no Australian government funds have been given to the World Food Program for the earthquake victims in Yogyakarta. Our aid has gone in different ways. But having said that, Australia is a major contributor—I think off the top of my head it is the third or fourth largest contributor to the World Food Program—so we are particularly sensitive to this type of action. In relation to the second part of the question, the Prime Minister has already indicated that we have made high-level representations to the Indonesians—we have been for quite some time—in relation to the release of Abu Bakar Bashir. Those representations have included a discussion between our acting ambassador, the Charge d’Affaires in Jakarta, and Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda. We of course are making the point to the Indonesians that we hope that they will be able to monitor on a continuous basis the activities of Abu Bakar Bashir, but we have reinforced to the Indonesians that under Security Council resolution 1267 Indonesia is required to ensure that Abu Bakar Bashir, who is listed by the UN as a terrorist, will not be able to harm people. The restrictions imposed by the UN on Abu Bakar Bashir include the freezing of his assets. No funding can be provided to Abu Bakar Bashir. He is not allowed to travel internationally and he is not allowed access to weapons or to military equipment. The Australian government and the Indonesian government will continue to consult with each other on this issue. I am not going to go into the responses they have given us, excepting to say that we have constructive discussions with them and I think that constructive relationship on this issue will continue. 74 74 14:16:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr PRICE —My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why, when Indonesia will not change its terror laws to keep Abu Bakar Bashir in jail, he will change our immigration laws to keep Indonesians happy? 74 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —We are changing our laws to make them stronger in Australia’s national interest. I am very interested indeed that the Chief Opposition Whip should have asked this question. It took my mind back to the latter months of 2001, when the current Leader of the Opposition was also then Leader of the Opposition and he was highly critical of the anti-people-smuggling policies of my government. One of the strongest arguments he advanced was, in a nutshell, that in order to solve this problem you had to have total cooperation with Indonesia. The strongest possible argument was that we should make sure that we cooperated with Indonesia. This is what the Leader of the Opposition then said: Effective measures to combat people-smuggling require cooperation with neighbouring countries that are serving as transit routes for illegal people movement to Australia. People-smuggling poses a significant national security problem not only for Australia but also for our neighbours, including Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. This is what he went on to say: A Labor government will pursue the issue of people-smuggling with the highest levels of the Indonesian government. We will do so in the context of a wholehearted commitment to build a mutually beneficial relationship with the new Indonesia. In essence, what the Leader of the Opposition was saying then was in fact true—that is, in order to stop people-smuggling you need the cooperation of Indonesia. Everything that we have done has been designed to maintain that cooperation. But to suggest that that is an exercise in anything other than the sovereignty of this country is, to borrow a phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, plainly ludicrous. 75 75 14:19:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. How has the government helped Australian businesses to create jobs? Is the Prime Minister aware of any proposals to undermine growth? What has been the response of Australian business? 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. It goes to the heart of what is very important to the lives of millions of Australians—that is, the strength of the Australian economy. He asks what we have done to promote growth and strengthen the economy. I remind him of the remarkable record in fiscal management, of which the Managing Director of the IMF spoke so approvingly when he was in Canberra yesterday— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello —Glowingly. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Glowingly, the Treasurer quite properly adds. Glowingly, he spoke of the way in which we have reduced our debt, the way in which, through labour market and other reforms, we have created a first-class economy for a first-class nation in the 21st century. The member for La Trobe asks me whether I am aware of any threats to this. There are many threats. There are some over which the Australian people have no control—threats such as international factors, like the high price of crude oil, which is leading to very painfully high petrol prices in Australia. That is amongst the things that we do not control. But we do control our domestic policy, and this government has made it clear that part of the reform process is to make sure that we maintain further changes to our labour markets. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Shortland is out of her seat and highly disorderly. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Those policies are under direct attack from the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has committed himself, if he becomes Prime Minister, to the abolition of Australian workplace agreements, which will cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Australians. In the process of attacking our policies the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are engaging in many tactics that are designed to misrepresent and to mislead. Mr Speaker, let me take you back to the last sitting week, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a completely false accusation about Teys Bros meatworks in Naracoorte in South Australia. I remind the House— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —Have you been down there yet? ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I notice the member for Jagajaga interjects. If she is a little patient, I will come to what she said. I remind the House that the member alleged that overseas workers were being given preferential treatment compared with Australian workers. That claim was totally and completely false. Since it was refuted in this House, I have received a letter from Gary Teys, the Deputy Chairman of Teys Bros. I will table the letter in a moment. Amongst other things, this is what he had to say. It bears very directly on this dishonest campaign that is being waged by the opposition alleging that people entering this country on temporary 457 visas are taking the jobs of Australians. This is what he had to say: It seems strange to me that we have become the target of the opposition and the media in this matter of overseas workers on temporary 457 Visas. He goes on to say: Had it not been for the overseas workers in our plants we would never have been able to fully utilise these facilities. Despite extensive efforts to recruit Australian Workers through advertising and enlist the assistance of the AMIEU— an Australian union— to provide us with names of workers, we were unsuccessful in obtaining the numbers of staff required at our various plants. This is completely contradictory to what was represented in this House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is of a piece with the way in which question time day after day is used by the opposition to make completely false claims about the impact of this on the country. He goes on to say—and this really puts it in perspective: We saw the overseas workers as our only opportunity to keep the plants operating at an efficient level and we are certain that if the labour shortage had not been filled by these overseas workers, then some of our plants would have been forced to close, thus costing the jobs of Australian Workers. In other words, not only were these foreign workers brought in because there were no Australian workers to fill the new jobs but, if they had not been brought in, existing Australian workers in jobs would have lost their jobs. In other words, there would have been a double whammy effect. That is the sort of policy and attitude that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her leader are flogging around this country. It does a great injustice to the foreign workers, it does a great injustice to Australian companies and it is contrary to all the experience of a nation that is now experiencing levels of unemployment that the Leader of the Opposition when he was last in government could only have dreamt of. I table the letter. 76 76 14:25:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer again to the Esselte AWA. Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that that AWA provides for an increased rate of pay of $1.25 per hour above the current enterprise agreement hourly rate of pay? Isn’t it also a fact that the AWA reduces the availability of overtime and the rate of pay for overtime, scraps shift loadings for morning and afternoon shifts, scraps weekend penalty rates and does not provide for a wage increase during the three-year term of the AWA? Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that this AWA leaves a full-time employee working two hours of overtime during the week and a Saturday shift— 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Blair. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth has the call and the member for Blair is warned. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that this AWA leaves a full-time employee working two hours of overtime during the week and a Saturday shift $60 a week or $9,360 over three years worse off? 76 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Let me say in reply to the member for Perth, firstly, that it is a fact that often questions asked by the opposition are not true. That is a fact. It is a fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a totally false set of assertions when she asked a question of me about Teys Bros. It is a fact that I am not, for the reasons that any reasonable person would understand, in possession of the employment details of every employment arrangement made in this country. But it is a fact that since this government have been in office we have created 1.8 million more jobs. It is a fact that real wages have risen by 16.8 per cent. It is a fact that that compares with wage rises of about one to two per cent in the 13 years of the previous Labor government. It is a fact that when we reformed the industrial relations laws 10 years ago we were told that they would drive down productivity, they would push up industrial disputes, they would push up unemployment and they would depress productivity. All of those claims were wrong. It is a fact that economic predictions made by the opposition are almost always totally false. 77 77 14:27:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government’s workplace policies have helped exporters and regional businesses remain competitive? How has this increased job opportunities in regional Australia? 77 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. The honourable member for Cowper would recognise that one in four jobs in regional Australia relies on exports. He would recognise that, as a result of many of the government’s policies, unemployment is now at its lowest level in 30 years—at a 4.9 per cent average across Australia. In his area of the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, unemployment has fallen considerably. He would also recognise that there has been significant growth in real wages over the life of our government. It has all been a result of good economic management and a reform process that has helped us maintain our competitive and efficient edge both domestically and internationally in the international marketplace. It is important that we recognise the importance of workplace reforms in helping make sure that Australia’s exporting industries maintain their competitive edge across the world. There are a number of examples that have come forward in recent days of domestic Australian businesses, regional businesses as well as export businesses, maintaining that competitive edge because of the reforms that our government has put in place. I will give the member for Cowper some examples. There is a company in Central Queensland called Mobbs and Co., which is a steel manufacturer and supplier to mining and rural industries, both export industries, as well as the building industry, including those key exporters. They have been using AWAs with all of their 30 staff since 1997. The managing director, Kym Mobbs, said: If we hadn’t had AWAs, we would not have been able to compete. Our advantage is that we have the flexibility to adapt to changing customer needs because our staff feel part of our business. They are part of the business because of the AWAs. Last night there was a most enjoyable function held in Canberra, and I know that a number of the members of the opposition were there as well. It was the farewell for Peter Corish, the former President of the National Farmers Federation. He spoke about AWAs in his own personal business. With regard to his business, he said: We have found them very effective in providing agreements that gives certainty for the employees as well as for us as employers. He said ‘certainty for employees as well as for the employers’. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sydney. SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —I will leave the last quote to a small business person from Dubbo. Tina Reynolds, who runs a business called A1 Tree Service, was quoted in the Daily Liberal, the newspaper in Dubbo, talking about AWAs. It is an interesting name for a newspaper. It is in the electorate of the member for Parkes—it is in one of our electorates. Tina Reynolds said about AWAs in her business: They’ve worked well for us. It’s a wonderful way of communicating between employers and employees. Our employees have sick days, public holidays and all of that. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sydney is warned! SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —Ms Reynolds said: If they’re a good employee, because of the skills shortage, your employer is going to look after you. That is the last word from a small business person. Of course, that is exactly the case: good employers are going to look after good employees. The skills shortage is there, but we have to keep the economy going. We have to keep good skilled staff engaged in the workplace. That is the evidence coming from across regional Australia. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition should listen to the last line of that quote: if you are a good employee, because of the skills shortage, your employer will look after you. So if he is a good employee, because of the skills shortage on the frontbench, his employer, the unions of Australia, will look after him. 78 78 14:32:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, just like Spotlight—really look after you. 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 fact that a hotel cleaner employed on the relevant ACT award receives the current minimum wage of $25,188 per year. Prime Minister, is it not the case that, had the government’s submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission over the last 10 years been agreed to, that minimum wage would be $22,588—$2,600 less? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I issue a warning to everyone who is holding up a placard, and I will deal with them immediately if they raise them again. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —How does the Prime Minister explain to the cleaners present in the gallery today that cutting their wages will make them more efficient, make our economy more productive and how, by cutting the wages of one hotel cleaner, there will somehow magically be two cleaners cleaning the same number of hotel rooms? 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —Are you going to apologise? 78 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I say to the Leader of the Opposition: what matters in relation to economic performance is what you deliver. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sydney will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Sydney then left the chamber. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The Leader of the Opposition can gesticulate, the Leader of the Opposition can yell and scream during question time, but that yelling and screaming does not reach the ears of the 1.8 million Australians now in work compared with those who were in work when he last sat on the treasury side of the Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s rhetoric cannot alter the fact that— 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —Are you going to apologise? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —all the predictions he made 10 years ago were of a piece with the predictions he is making now. He said then that wages would be driven down. He said then that unemployment would go up. He said then that productivity would go down. He said then that industrial disputes would rise. And every single prediction that the Leader of the Opposition— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 104—this is about the government’s new laws: if he cannot defend them, he should just sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. He will not debate his point of order. The Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Every single prediction he made 10 years ago was proved wrong. I know he is unhappy about the fact that we now have unemployment of 4.9 per cent. I know he is unhappy about the fact that we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. I know he is unhappy about the fact that we have 1.9 million more people in work. He is unhappy about the fact that the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: on many occasions when questions are asked of the government from their own side— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will come to his point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —they ask for the alternative views or views of the opposition. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will come to his point of order! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —This question has not done that, and I asked you to bring the Prime Minister back to the question under standing order 104. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I simply make the point that under the standing orders this is plainly a disorderly point of order taken by the member for Grayndler, and it is plainly part of an orchestrated campaign of disruption by members opposite. It does need to be dealt with if order in this House is to be maintained. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler is well aware that if he continues to raise points of order I will deal with them as being frivolous. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I have not ruled. In response to his point of order, I am listening carefully to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s answer is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I simply conclude by making the obvious generic point that, 10 years ago, we were told that the world was going to come to an end. We were told that the sky was going to fall in. We know the Leader of the Opposition is broken-hearted that the economy is doing so well, but he should not try to take out his political frustration by asking absurd questions. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat is warned! 79 79 14:37:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 Mr VASTA —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports of opposition to the government’s major superannuation reform? What would it mean if opponents were successful in defeating the government’s changes? 79 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Bonner for his question. In this year’s budget the government announced the most significant superannuation changes in the last two decades, and they were very widely welcomed. The Investment and Financial Services Association said: The effective removal of end benefits tax and tax on super pensions is a major step toward the simplification of an overly complex ... regime. ASFA said: The 2006 Budget plan could sweep away some of the frustrating complexity of Australia’s superannuation system ... AMP said: These initiatives help ensure Australia maintains one of the most progressive and well-managed retirement income systems in the world. The Institute of Actuaries said: The Institute strongly applauds the government’s big bang approach to the government reforms. So we have near universal endorsement of the government’s plan for the greatest reform to superannuation in the last two decades. Who would oppose it and on what grounds? I was very concerned to read in the Age newspaper today in an article titled ‘ALP digs in over no-tax super plan’: Labor is reserving its right to oppose the Howard Government’s headline-grabbing promise to make superannuation payouts tax-free for workers ... Yesterday I raised the issue that Labor had been ominously silent—that Labor had not come out and supported this change—and now we see Senator Sherry slipping around to the Age newspaper to tell us Labor’s real plan. Labor’s real plan is to dig in over the abolition of taxes on superannuation. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —You don’t have a policy! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hunter is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Seeing that we are interested in employee entitlements, let me tell people what Labor’s opposing this superannuation reform will mean for them. If you are a 25-year-old on $1,000 a week and receiving the SG, and if Labor is able to defeat these reforms, you will be worse off in retirement by $7,000 a year. If that same 25-year-old earning $1,000 took his lump sum, and if Labor succeeds in opposing this plan, his lump sum would be reduced by $37,000. Just in case you thought that it was only young people that Labor was against, a 65-year-old retiring with a $400,000 allocated pension under Labor’s system would have their allocated pension reduced by $4,900 a year. If that same 65-year-old took their money in a lump sum, their lump sum would be reduced by $43,000. The young and the old stand to benefit from this superannuation plan. It has the support of IFSA, ASFA, AMP and the Institute of Actuaries. The only person who does not have the guts to stand up and back the government’s reform is the Leader of the Opposition. He was warned about this by former senator Susan Ryan, who endorsed the government’s plan. Not only did former senator Susan Ryan—a former Labor minister—endorse the government’s plan but she finished off her article in the Australian on Friday, 12 May 2006 by saying: Maybe faced with the Treasurer’s bold gazumping of Labor’s cherished but slightly shabby super property, the Opposition will find the resolve to get another big picture worked out, and the wherewithal to let voters know about it. Maybe or maybe not—no big picture, no wherewithal, no leadership, no policy, no credibility and no support. ET4 Bevis, Arch, MP Mr Bevis interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Brisbane is warned! 80 80 14:43:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of new empirical research undertaken by the OECD in its newly released 2006 Employment Outlook that finds: No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified. And: The minimum wage could encourage higher participation by helping to make work pay for the low skilled. Treasurer, don’t these new findings from the OECD severely undermine the economic case for the government’s objective to lower minimum wages through the Fair Pay Commission? 81 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —No, of course they do not. And anybody who had any familiarity with the OECD would know that since 1994, when it introduced its job strategy, one of the things that it has been consistently advising developed economies to do is to remove barriers in their labour markets. One of the things that it has been consistently advising the Europeans in particular to do is to get rid of strong employment protection legislation—what we call ‘unfair dismissal’ laws—because unfair dismissal laws are a hamper on job creation. In fact, if the honourable member had listened to my answer yesterday, I actually read out— Opposition members interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —I know; it is funny, isn’t it, that he would listen to anything. If only he had listened to the answer yesterday he would have heard me read out the very survey to which he refers. I read this quote: The link between the standards of employment protection legislation and aggregate unemployment is uncertain in theory and, in practice, highly dependent on specific national context. However, there is evidence that too strict legislation will hamper labour mobility, reduce the dynamic efficiency of the economy and restrain job creation. I repeat, ‘There is evidence that too strict legislation will hamper labour mobility, reduce the dynamic efficiency of the economy and restrain job creation.’ That is precisely what the OECD said. If you want further reassurance on the point, let us go to the IMF. The IMF has repeatedly said that Australia’s industrial relations laws will enhance job creation and improve the economy. The IMF was so supportive of this government’s reform that—get a load of this—the ACTU despatched a delegation to Washington to complain. Sharan Burrow went across to warn the IMF. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. Maybe his ears were ringing with Alan Jones this morning, but the question was about the minimum wage. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The leader will resume his seat—I will rule on it. The member for Lilley asked a question which referred to a report and I believe the Treasurer is using that report. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —In IMF article 4, this is what the IMF said: There is now an exceptional opportunity to implement further reforms to sustain and improve Australia’s strong economic performance. In particular ... by implementing proposed reforms of labour markets ... 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I didn’t mention the IMF, Mr Speaker; I mentioned the OECD. Why don’t you answer the question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer is responding to the question. The Treasurer is in order. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Mr Speaker, I have been asked about the connection between industrial relations reform and economic growth and wage growth. That was the IMF’s report in September 2000. The ACTU was so upset that Sharan Burrow went to Washington to complain to the IMF that the IMF was supporting labour market reform in Australia. ‘We warn the Tsar!’—Sharan Burrow warns the IMF. The IMF not only dismissed her complaints but issued a new report redoubling the advice on the Australian economy. I will finish up by reading from the World Economic Outlook— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a question about the OECD. It had nothing to do with Sharan Burrow. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley will resume his seat. The Treasurer is answering the question. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —The World Economic Outlook of April 2006 says this: ‘In Australia, recent reforms to the industrial relations system and changes to tax and benefits systems will improve work incentives and should set the stage for strong employment growth.’ So, you have the IMF, the World Economic Outlook and the OECD—experience all around the world—and, on the other side of the argument, you have the member for Lilley. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —I have got to say: the member for Lilley and Sharan Burrow versus the OECD, the IMF and the World Economic Outlook—not a close race, Mr Speaker. 82 Distinguished Visitors 82 14:49:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform members that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the National Youth Roundtable. On behalf of all members, I offer them a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 82 Questions Without Notice 82 82 14:49:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 Mr RANDALL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister explain to the House how the workplace relations reforms have strengthened the Australian economy? Is the minister aware of proposals to roll back these reforms, and what is the minister’s response? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler is warned! 82 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr ANDREWS —I thank the member for Canning for his question. As the Treasurer was pointing out to the House, a series of world economic bodies, including the IMF, have confirmed the workplace relations reforms as being part of the strength of the Australian economy over the past decade or so. Indeed, I noted that the managing director of the IMF, while in Australia this week, said something which the government knows and which the Leader of the Opposition is trying to ignore—that is, countries cannot prosper into the 21st century with workplace laws from the seventies, eighties and nineties. But that is where the Australian Labor Party wants to take Australia: back to the Keating era reforms. I was asked about proposals to roll back these reforms. It is interesting that, over the last few months—indeed, over the last year or so—the member for Perth has been running around the country privately intimating to business organisations— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Tell the truth, Kevin. Tell the truth. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —sort of nudge, nudge, wink, wink—that we are going to retain the system of individual contracts in Australian workplace agreements. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Where’s your evidence, Kevin? Where’s your evidence? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Perth is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —He has been running around Australia telling the business groups that. And, as he, this week, quite deliberately, pointedly and repeatedly said, when the Leader of the Opposition decided to repudiate this policy—and, in effect, repudiate the member for Perth—he did not even consult the member for Perth about this; he simply made a unilateral decision which he announced before the union bosses in Sydney last weekend. So this morning, the member for Perth, having been contradicted and embarrassed— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under, I think it is, standing order 62. The member for Mackellar is blocking the member for Menzies’ best side. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is a frivolous point of order. I have warned the member for Grayndler. If he wishes to leave the chamber, he will try that again. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —This morning we had from the member for Perth one of the most outrageous attacks that I have heard of from a member of this place on the business organisations in Australia. Having been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Perth was out at the doorstop this morning, taking out his anger on the business organisations in Australia. The first person he got stuck into was Michael Chaney, the head of the Business Council of Australia, whose only crime, it seems, was to write to the Leader of the Opposition and express the concern of the Business Council of Australia—the companies that employ some million Australians—about the Leader of the Opposition’s roll back, his backflip, on Australian workplace agreements. Let us just look at this. Mr Chaney is somebody who has actually run businesses in Australia. Mr Chaney is someone who has actually created jobs for thousands of Australians and their families. That is unlike the member for Perth, whose main activity has been as a political apparatchik. So we had this extraordinary attack on the head of the Business Council of Australia by the member for Perth. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will be heard! The minister has the call, and the minister will be heard. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —Not only do we have this extraordinary attack on the Business Council of Australia; also we have an extraordinary attack on the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, an organisation that represents the employers of some four million Australian people, saying that it was only interested in pushing down for lower wages. In fact, the member for Perth said in his doorstop, about the ACCI, ‘Maybe it’s about a lazy, easy way of increasing your profit.’ This is an outrageous thing for a senior member of the opposition to be saying about a business organisation, the members of which employ some four million Australians. But the member for Perth went on and said, ‘You should go and ask the business community this question: what flexibility do you get from statutory individual contracts that you can’t get from common-law individual contracts?’ If the member for Perth and the opposition do not know the difference between common-law contracts and individual AWAs then they are deeply in trouble, because the reality is that, as has been the law in Australia for some 90 years, common-law contracts do not replace awards. In fact, the ACCI pointed this out today in a press release. They said: Common law agreements do not deliver changes to working arrangements that are prohibited by awards or union agreements. They cannot do so because they are not allowed to alter (in any way) any of the terms of an award or a union agreement, no matter how inflexible, restrictive, inefficient, costly or inappropriate those terms might be to the situation of that employer and that employee. So the reality, when you decode what members of the opposition are saying, is that they are saying, ‘Let’s rip away the entitlements of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers on individual Australian workplace agreements.’ The proposition from the Leader of the Opposition is to replace them with common-law contracts. In effect, he is saying to those hundreds of thousands of Australians and their families: ‘We’re going to take you back to the award conditions. We’re going to take you back to conditions that pay 100 per cent less, on average, than do individual Australian workplace agreements.’ As I said, if the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth do not know the difference between common-law contracts and Australian workplace agreements then they are in deep trouble. The member for Perth ought to apologise to the business organisations in Australia for his outrageous statements this morning. If he does not do so then the Leader of the Opposition should sack him. He has already repudiated him in any case. 84 84 14:57:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. I refer the minister to her statement this morning that she is not aware of any other incidents at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in the past 12 months. Why is the minister unaware that the nuclear regulator, ARPANSA, has publicly stated in these four compliance reports tabled in this parliament that there were 12 incidents at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in 2005? In the light of the minister’s ignorance, how can the Australian public have any confidence in her statement yesterday that there has been no impact at all upon the health of workers at Lucas Heights or the surrounding community and that the matter is under control? 84 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 her question. In answering this, I will restate the facts that I provided to the House yesterday. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister is entitled to be heard. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The fact is that there was a ruptured pipe in a production process. This production process is the one that produces the radioisotopes for use by thousands of cancer sufferers across Australia each year. This ruptured pipe occurred almost half a kilometre away from the actual reactor. Yesterday I said that there would be no impact on the health of workers or the community, and that is absolutely correct. I am advised that in fact the incident was so minor that it is not deemed to be an incident reportable to the regulator— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —but the Australian nuclear science agency reported it anyway. Yesterday I said that there was no radiation threat. I am advised that the level of radiation was less than that normally in the atmosphere. It is less than that emitting from the granite used in this House. Yesterday I said that there was no measurable contamination. I am advised that the puff of inert gas was harmless— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lalor is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —In fact, the air quality on that side of the House is more toxic. This is just blatant scaremongering by a Labor Party which is too scared to have a debate on nuclear power. It is just an attempt to discredit a valuable process, a valuable service for cancer patients—a lifesaving service. Labor is trying to discredit it. In relation to reportable incidents, the ignorance of the member for Jagajaga is astounding. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition continues to interject on the question she has asked. I ask her to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). The member for Jagajaga then left the chamber. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call and, for his benefit, the deputy leader was warned. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation operates against world’s best practice. It notifies the regulator within 24 hours. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This minister went out to the public today and said that there had been no incidents at the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights this morning. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The leader will resume his seat. The minister is relevant. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The question I was asked this morning was whether there were other incidents that were not deemed notifiable that had not been notified, and I said that, no, there were not. Of course there have been incidents that have been notified. They were notified to the regulator. Opposition members interjecting— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —I will start again. An incident— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —Ooh! Ooh, you’re nasty. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Lilley then left the chamber. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —ANSTO notifies the regulator, the regulator notifies parliament, and that is the end of the matter. 85 85 15:02:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 Mrs ELSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on international efforts to combat terrorism in the Middle East. Is there any domestic opposition to these efforts? 85 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First of all, I thank the honourable member for Forde for her question and her interest. I think that the highlight I should refer to in answering her question is the death last week of the al-Qaeda terrorist al-Zarqawi. We congratulate the Prime Minister of Iraq, the Iraqi defence forces and the United States forces on the job they did in tracking down this terrorist—this brutal and cruel man—and finally bringing him to justice. He was the mastermind of terrorism in Iraq, and he was also, I think, a very effective manipulator of the Western media. Whilst one normally would not express pleasure at the death of anybody, the death of a terrorist like that is a good thing. The al-Qaeda backed terrorists in Iraq will continue to try to kill people, and some of the insurgents will continue to try to kill people. But the view of this government is that we should do all we reasonably can and, more importantly, the international community should do all it can to ensure that the forces of freedom and democracy in Iraq are successful and that terrorists and the insurgents are defeated. When President Bush was in Iraq a couple of days ago, he said that ‘Iraq is a central front’ in the war on terror and that America would keep its commitments. I commend not just the international forces and our own forces but also—in a way more importantly—the people of Iraq for their determination to stand up to terrorism and their determination to make sure that their democracy and their freedom succeeds in the teeth of those terrorists. There are alternative views in this country. We give our commitment to see through this task. The opposition has an alternative view. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked on 9 June in a doorstop what he thought about the death of al-Zarqawi, he said that the war in Iraq is ‘a major distraction’ in the war on terror. In other words, the international community should pull out of Iraq and leave that country in the hands of the insurgents and the terrorists. That is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has endeavoured to convince commentators that he has some sort of knowledge of and expertise on international strategic issues. In other words, the world would be better off if the insurgents and the terrorists were successful in Iraq. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lyons is warned! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —We would be better off if we hauled up the white flag and were defeated. We would not be better off if we were defeated— 83R Edwards, Graham, MP Mr Edwards interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cowan is warned! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —we would be better off if we won. We would be better off if the terrorists were defeated in Iraq. This government will never be defeatist and it will never step backwards in its determination to support the international community in Iraq. But the Leader of the Opposition leads a political party which has a candidate in Victoria called Khalil Eideh. Khalil Eideh is a man who speaks of ‘colonial’ and ‘Zionist’ plots to ‘enslave the Arab world’ and praises the work of ‘Arab martyrs’. If the Leader of the Opposition were a person of strength and courage, he would ensure that this Labor candidate was disendorsed. This is not a candidate who articulates the courageous views of the mainstream of Australia. The mainstream of Australia denounces and stands up to these people. Labor have a candidate they are running in the Victorian election—some sort of multimillionaire candidate they are enormously proud of—who apparently talks about ‘Arab martyrs’ and how there are ‘Zionist’ plans to ‘enslave the Arab world’. I think we have heard that language somewhere else. Now we hear that language from the Australian Labor Party—the party that wants to haul up the white flag in Iraq, the party that wants to roll over in the teeth of terrorists. The Leader of the Opposition should show some courage and get this man disendorsed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Has the minister completed his answer? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —Yes. 86 86 15:07:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Further to the explosive incident at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor on 8 June—the same day that Ziggy Switkowski stood aside from the ANSTO board—has the minister been briefed on a further incident at the nuclear reactor at 11 am yesterday? Can the minister confirm that a canister carrying radioactive material was received from the ANSTO cyclotron in Camperdown and an apparent contamination on the outside of the canister vaporised during processing at Lucas Heights? Is the minister aware that radiation alarms in the immediate work area were not activated but that barrier alarms were triggered by the technician who was working with the canister and that the technician was scanned and found to have ingested radioactive iodine 123? In relation to this further incident, what investigation and action has the minister ordered into the cyclotron in Camperdown, the transport of radioactive materials through Sydney and at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor? 87 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 his question. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fowler! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —There are in place world standard practices for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. There is a regulator in place—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fowler is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —We know what this is about. This is all about Labor trying to get the Lucas Heights reactor closed down. You are trying to close down a medical service for cancer sufferers across Australia. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat has guessed correctly. She will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Ballarat then left the chamber. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. A very specific set of questions was asked. There was no room for this— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister has barely begun to answer the question. I call the Minister for Education, Science and Training. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —This is all about an attack on a medical— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Shortland will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Shortland then left the chamber. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —This is clearly a blatant scaremongering campaign on the part of the Labor Party to close down a medical research facility that provides diagnosis and treatment for thousands of cancer patients. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler has asked his question. Does he have a point of order? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Yes, Mr Speaker, under standing order 104. This was a very specific question about an incident. If the minister did not know about it, she should just say so. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will not debate his point of order. I remind the member for Grayndler that he asked a rather long question. The minister is in order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —As I was saying, this is a blatant scaremongering attack on the Lucas Heights medical research facility. There is in place the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fowler will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Fowler then left the chamber. 87 87 15:11:00 Anderson, John, MP 4K4 Gwydir NATS 1 Mr ANDERSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on how the government is assisting Indigenous Australians to improve their health and wellbeing? 87 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Gwydir for his question. I acknowledge his concerns and I pay tribute to the work that he has done with the Indigenous people of his electorate, particularly in conjunction with Dick Estens in Moree to improve their employment outcomes. The fact that Indigenous life expectancy remains about 20 years below that of the general community should trouble every member of this House, notwithstanding the significant improvements in Indigenous mortality achieved in the last few years. Although Indigenous ill health has many causes, better health services are certainly essential if things are to improve. Since 1996, the Howard government has increased Indigenous-specific health spending from about $100 million to about $350 million a year. The recent budget committed an additional $137 million over the forward estimates period. In particular, the government will spend $40 million to get an additional 80 health professionals or their equivalents working with Aboriginal people in both Aboriginal and mainstream health services; it will spend $21 million training over 1,200 Aboriginal health workers to better recognise and deal with mental health problems; it will spend $20 million converting 130 part-time positions into full-time jobs with Indigenous health services; and, perhaps most importantly, it will spend an additional $55 million to combat the scourge of petrol sniffing in Central Australia and other remote settlements, which will mean targeting and removing petrol sniffers from affected communities and also extending the roll-out of the unsniffable OPAL petrol. As members of this House on both sides would know, there is no panacea for these difficulties. It is, I regret to say, easy to spend money but not easy to get outcomes. However, this government certainly will not hesitate to invest in programs that it is confident will work. 88 88 15:14:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Can the minister now confirm that on 1 May this year the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation ceased providing radiation monitoring and protection services by health physics surveyors at the Lucas Heights reactor between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am? Is the minister aware that New South Wales fire brigades will attend incidents they are called to at the Lucas Heights facility but may be unable to enter the site to deal with incidents unless they have a full briefing on the radioactive hazards on the site from these expert surveyors? Is the minister aware that the reduction in onsite expert staff may lead to a delay in emergency services responses of up to two hours? What action is the minister taking to address these very serious potential delays? 88 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 Leader of the Opposition for his question. The changes to the staffing rosters have been effected with the full support of ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, and with the support of the unions. There is, in fact, a site operations safety supervisor onsite 24 hours a day. These staff have the expertise to address any health and safety concerns. The change in monitoring arrangements has no effect whatsoever on the safety of workers at Lucas Heights. 88 88 15:16:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 1 Mr SCHULTZ —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of the federal government’s funding to states and territories for education purposes? Is the minister confident that this money is being well spent? DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question asked by the honourable member for Hume offends standing order 98(d). By asking the minister if she is ‘confident’, he is asking for an opinion. I would ask the question to be ruled out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I listened carefully to the question. There was more to that question than the last point. I call the minister. 89 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 Hume for his question. He will be interested to know that the Australian government has increased funding to Australian schools by some 116 per cent in the 10 years that the Howard government has been in office. For example, in the ACT that increase has been 96 per cent. This year, some $49.2 million will be provided to government schools in the ACT. In addition, we have provided some $7½ million under the Investing in our Schools program to government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. I have been asked about how this money is being spent. If we look at the Australian Capital Territory, we find that Labor is in fact closing 39 government schools in the ACT. It has been revealed today that Jon Stanhope and the education minister, Andrew Barr, want to kick out what they call ‘out of area’ enrolments. They want to kick students out of schools that they say are out of area. The member for Hume will know that that means children from New South Wales are going to be kicked out, by Labor, of Australian Capital Territory schools. This is outrageous. Labor wants to kick out of school children whose parents want to vote against them at the next election. These parents pay their federal government taxes. In fact, $7½ million of their money has been paid to schools in the ACT, and now Labor wants to kick out their kids. In the Hall Primary School, which is right on the New South Wales border, the federal government, for example, has paid $88,000 for a shade structure for the children in that school, and now Stanhope and Barr want to close down the school. Labor had the gall to launch a website entitled ‘100s of reasons to live in Canberra’, and one of the reasons is the 60 schools—less the schools that they are closing. I can think of two good reasons why you would not want to live in Canberra—Jon Stanhope and Andrew Barr. The members opposite ought to call on the ACT Labor government to save these schools or pay back the money. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 89 Personal Explanations 89 15:19:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I have been badly misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —The Minister for Foreign Affairs characterised statements that I made about the death of al-Zarqawi completely wrongly. I welcome the demise of that gentleman. I am glad to see him gone from the face of the earth, and I will not be lectured on this subject by a man who funded Saddam Hussein—personally! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! All members resume their seats. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Throughout question time the Minister for Foreign Affairs constantly shouts and interjects without reprimand or warning from you. If you would ask Saddam’s favourite bagman to adhere to the standing orders— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith will resume his seat. 90 Questions to the Speaker 90 90 15:20:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you under standing order 105(b) regarding a question that was asked to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations about the legal costs of his department. Could you write to him and ask why he has failed to answer this question from me, even though it is nearly six months outstanding, particularly when 12 of the minister’s colleagues have been able to answer the same question and as yet we do not have the final details from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations? 90 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Gellibrand, and I will follow up her request. 90 Personal Explanations 90 15:21:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 83Y Hoare, Kelly, MP Ms HOARE —Yes, in three places. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 83Y Hoare, Kelly, MP Ms HOARE —The first time was in question time yesterday by Senator Ian Campbell. The minister referred to a letter I wrote to him making representations on behalf of my constituent regarding a proposed coalmine in the Hunter Valley. The minister stated that the views in the letter were mine. They were not. They were the views of my constituent for whom I was making representations. The second time was in a media release put out by the member for Paterson yesterday. The member for Paterson asserted that I made claims in the same letter to the minister that were my views. They were not. They were the views of my constituent, which I was representing to the minister. My concluding paragraph in the letter made it very clear that the content of the letter was based on my constituent’s concerns. It said: Your consideration of (my constituent)’s concerns and response in due course would be appreciated. Third, I was misrepresented in a statement published in the Newcastle Herald today stating that I specifically opposed the Anvil Hill proposal. This is also not true. My position is of support for the local coalmining industry and those who work in it. Mr Speaker, it is a travesty of democracy that members of parliament— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member has made her point. She will not debate her point. 90 Questions to the Speaker 90 90 15:22:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 Mr KERR —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. This morning my attention was drawn to claims appearing on the honourable member for Bass’s website, which is linked to this parliament’s home page, that the honourable member had been: ... awarded the Order of the British Empire Award for Community Service in 2000. Mr Speaker, will you give consideration as to whether the publication of a false claim to have received an honour in the gift of the Crown by a member of the House in a document linked to this parliament may be a contempt of the House as an act of deception or as a deliberate misleading of it? If in your opinion such conduct may constitute a contempt, would you report to the House so that further consideration may be given to a motion. I hand up a clean copy of the text as it appeared this morning. For completeness, I inform you the text has since been altered following public disclosure of this issue in the other place. 90 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Denison. I will make further inquiries on the points he raises and respond accordingly. 91 91 15:24:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 1 Mr PEARCE —Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. Earlier today in the House I gave a speech—it was a very good speech; it was a summing up speech to the Do Not Call Register Bill. The deputy speaker in the chair at the time was the member for Blaxland, Mr Hatton. I have a copy of the transcript. At the end of my speech after my time had expired, Deputy Speaker Hatton said: The parliamentary secretary is gagged, as everyone else was. I again stress that the member for Blaxland was in the chair. My question is: would you please investigate as to whether or not this is an appropriate comment for somebody occupying the chair and what action could be taken? In other words, could it be struck from Hansard or could the member for Blaxland— Opposition members interjecting— 91 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —Order! I thank the member for Aston. I will follow up the question by the member for Aston and report back as appropriate. 91 Personal Explanations 91 15:25:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Mr Speaker, as we have just heard, the member for Denison has said in this House that I have claimed an award which I have not received. I remain very proud of the recognition that I have received from both the OBE Association and the National Australia Day Council some five years ago. I have never set out to mislead anyone in this regard and I reject the member’s claims absolutely. I have added to my website accordingly. 91 Questions to the Speaker 91 91 15:26:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker under standing order 103, I have a question for you. Is it the case that on Tuesday during question time the following people were warned: the members for Sydney, Calwell, Melbourne and O’Connor? Is it the case that yesterday the members for Brisbane, Gorton, Hotham, Ballarat, Lilley, Swan, Sydney, Blaxland, Hunter and Grayndler were warned and that the members for Brisbane and Lilley were excluded from the chamber under standing order 94(a)? Is it also the case that today the members for Shortland, Fowler, Sydney, Ballarat, Swan, Hunter, Brisbane, Lilley, Grayndler, Perth, Lalor, Jagajaga, Lyons and Cowan were warned and the members for Shortland, Fowler, Sydney, Ballarat, Jagajaga and Lilley were excluded from the chamber? In addition to that, the member for Blair was also warned. That makes this week, in a three-day sitting, a total of 30 people being warned—29 on this side of the House, one on that side—and a total of eight being removed from House, all of them on this side of the House. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to page 164 of House of Representatives Practice, which says: The Speaker must show impartiality in the Chamber above all else. A Speaker should give a completely objective interpretation of standing orders and precedents, and should give the same reprimand for the same offence whether the Member is of the Government or the Opposition. Mr Speaker, is it your view that it is an accurate reflection of the number of interjections that occur in this parliament that, of the 30 members who have been warned, 29 were on this side and one was on that side; and, of the eight people who have been removed from representation in this chamber, each and every one of them, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today, who was excluded after she had asked her question, when the minister opposite was chanting at her ‘you’, deliberately defying standing orders— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will not debate his question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Yet she was excluded from even listening to the answer to the question— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will not debate his question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —that she asked. Do you think you have been impartial this week, Mr Speaker? That is my question to you. 92 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. He will not reflect on the chair. I will respond to his question as follows. All members are well aware that when disorderly conduct is noticed I call them to order. If they continue to display disorderly conduct they are warned. If members choose to ignore that warning and continue to be disorderly they will be dealt with. I will continue to uphold the standing orders fairly and as impartially as I can, as indeed all members occupying the chair have done. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, while the honourable member for Grayndler was making that point, I counted eight members of the government who interjected on him. Not once was any attention drawn to it. 92 Personal Explanations 92 15:30:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —The member for Grayndler just implied that, having received your warning, I continued to interject. I did not. I appreciated and honoured your advice to me, and I welcome it if you do it again. 92 Questions to the Speaker 92 92 15:31:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms HOARE —I have a question to you, Mr Speaker, and it goes to my personal explanation. Could you advise me what protection is available to members of parliament when we make representations to government ministers on behalf of our constituents and then have the views and concerns of our constituents portrayed as our personal views? 92 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Charlton. I believe the member for Charlton has already used the suitable forms of the House to respond to the very point that she raises in her question. 92 92 15:32:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 Mr McMULLAN —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you, too. It also goes to the question of consistency and follows from a question I asked earlier this week. Today again you allowed the Leader of the House to rise to speak on a point of order raised by another member—in this case the member for Grayndler. In my view that was a correct interpretation. But in the last sitting week you refused to allow me to rise to speak on a point of order raised by another member, saying that I had no right to do so. I ask you to once again examine the Hansard of the last sitting Thursday—and there were two occasions this week on which that has occurred—and provide to me some explanation of the rationale for the distinction between the treatment of the Leader of the House and my treatment. 93 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —In response to the member for Fraser, I will agree with the first part of his question. 93 93 15:33:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. I have had a look at the transcript of the Hansard for question time yesterday, when the Manager of Opposition Business raised a point of order concerning the conduct of the Leader of the House in relation to standing order 90 and you said ‘There are forms of the House.’ My question to you concerns the meaning. Are the ‘forms of the House’ you are referring to personal explanations or a request for a withdrawal? I ask this because standing order 90 has been enforced against me by you and by the Deputy Speaker, but I cannot see it being enforced against the Leader of the House or, for that matter, any other government members. 93 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Wills. I would be happy to re-examine the Hansard, but, as I recall, the Manager of Opposition Business asked the Minister for Health and Ageing to withdraw and he withdrew. That was using a form of the House. But other forms of the House are available, as appropriate, for whatever reason members choose to apply them. 93 93 15:34:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —Mr Speaker, I seek to assist you in your determination in relation to the argument put previously by the member for Aston. I simply want to point out that I was enforcing the gag motion that had been moved on that bill. I had previously indicated that there was an absolute five-minute limit for the parliamentary secretary to speak. He continued to speak, and I indicated that I was gagging him, as all other members had been gagged by that motion. Even if, Mr Speaker, you sought to agree with him that that should be scrubbed out of the record— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I am listening to the member for Blaxland. LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —I will finish on this before the member for Mackellar— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I am listening to the member for Blaxland. LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —Even if you did agree with him, and seek to scrub from the record what I said, his restatement of it in the House would involve a serial scrubbing out, which would reinforce the stupidity of what he did. 93 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Blaxland. As I said to the member for Aston, I will investigate the points raised. I thank the member for Blaxland for his explanation. 93 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 00:00:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Reports— No. 33—Report of an inquiry into a complaint made by Ms Tracy Gordon of discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record. No. 34—Report of an inquiry into a complaint made by Mr Daniel Clark against the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of a breach of his human right to freedom of expression. National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2005. Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act—Report of the Security Legislation Review Committee, June 2006. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 94 Matters of Public Importance 94 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to ensure Australia’s industrial relations system will generate the productivity gains necessary to increase our nation’s international competitiveness. 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— 94 15:36:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The government’s industrial relations changes are bad for our economy. The government’s extreme and unfair and divisive industrial changes are bad for our economy. They are bad for our workforce, but they are bad for our economy. They are bad for our economy because they are no more, no less than an attack upon wages. An attack upon wages will see nothing more, nothing less than low productivity. This is a straightforward shift from the wages section of the total factor income of the economy to the profit section of the total factor income of the economy. It is all about lowering wages. It is the easy way to a profit, relying upon lower wages and low productivity. There is no requirement, no incentive and no demand to say to the business community: ‘We want good management. We want investment in productive things.’ It is another example of the complacency of the Howard government, its massive economic complacency given the benefit of 15 years of continuous economic growth set up largely by the structural reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments, including the introduction of enterprise bargaining and a resources boom to China. The last election was front and centre all about the economy but we heard nothing about these proposals during the last election. The first time we heard about these proposals was when the government realised it had all power in the Senate and pushed through proposals that John Howard has had floating around not just since the nineties but since the eighties and seventies. This is no more or no less than an easy way to move part of the economy from wages to profit with no corresponding productivity or competitiveness gain. Where does that attack come? That attack comes on the minimum wage and that attack comes on conditions and entitlements through the introduction of AWAs under the government’s reduced minimum standards taking away the no disadvantage test. Two of the culprits are at the table. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources let the cat out of the bag a few months ago when he said, ‘Wouldn’t it be terrific if we could have New Zealand wages next week!’—as if somehow you could survive on New Zealand wages in Sydney. Take the logical extension of that view, which is proselytised by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who is at the table—and I will apologise in advance: I cannot stay for any or all of his contribution but I will read the Hansard carefully. The logical extension of the two ministers’ views and the policy approach of the government is this: if it is New Zealand wages tomorrow then it is Indonesian, Indian and Chinese wages next week. It is a view which says we can only be internationally competitive if we pull down labour input costs; that is the only way that we can be internationally competitive and that is the only way we can be competitive in the Asia-Pacific region against India and China. There is nothing about going to the next level of productivity improvements and investing in infrastructure, skills, research and development—all of the things which have traditionally made us a great trading nation and an attractive place for capital investment. Let us see how the attack on wages goes, firstly through the minimum wage. What do we know? We know that the minimum wage is currently $25,188. We know that, if the government had had its way with its submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission over the last 10 years, the minimum wage would be $60 a week lower, or $2,600 a year worse off. In other words, the minimum wage would not be $25,188; it would be $22,588. If the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had had its way over the last 10 years through its submissions to the Industrial Relations Commission, the minimum wage would be $95 a week lower, or $4,940 a year worse off. In other words, it would be $20,248. That is the way the minimum wage goes under the government’s and the ACCI’s submissions. It is a straightforward attempt, which the government is now seeking to make through the back door of the low pay commission, to reduce the minimum wage in real terms. Why is that? Because the government says, ‘If we reduce the minimum wage and reduce wages at the lower end of the spectrum, a couple of things will magically occur. We will become more competitive internationally, we will become more productive and we will create more employment.’ The Leader of the Opposition asked a question precisely on that point in question time today. We have in Canberra cleaners who work in the hotel industry who are on the minimum wage. This point was put perfectly clearly by the Leader of the Opposition: if you are a cleaner on the minimum wage cleaning a hotel, the logical extension of the government’s approach is that if they reduce the minimum wage that you are on from $25,188 per year to $22,588 a year—$2,600 less—a number of things will magically occur. Firstly, the cleaner will become more efficient; secondly, our economy will become more productive; and, thirdly, somehow magically we will have two cleaners to clean the same number of hotel rooms. It is an economic nonsense. The shadow Treasurer made the point that the most recent OECD report, its 2006 Employment Outlook, released overnight, says: No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified. And that the: ... minimum wage could encourage higher participation by helping to make work pay for the low skilled. There goes your OECD-IMF argument, and I note that the director-general of the IMF, who was here during the week, spoke in glowing terms of the fair and flexible industrial relations system—and I was happy for that endorsement of our approach. The second area of attack on wages comes of course with AWAs and the attack upon conditions and entitlements—the penalty rates, the shift allowances and the leave loadings. We have drawn the parliament’s attention to a couple of examples. We have had the Spotlight example. Under the government’s minimum standards, the Spotlight AWA knocks off penalty rates, shift allowances, leave loadings and the like for the princely sum of a 2c an hour increase in your pay rates. By the average rule of thumb, you are 90 bucks a week worse off. I just happen to have one of my 2c coins here. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —As they’re not unemployed, here it is—$338 better off, Mate! 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I will match your Liberal Party fistful of dollars any day of the week, Sunshine! So we have drawn attention to that, and today in question time we drew attention to the Esselte AWA, where for $1.25 extra per hour you lose all those things and you end up being, on the examples that we gave, $60 or $65 a week worse off and there is no wage increase in that AWA for a three-year period. So it effectively means that, if you are a full-time employee and you work a Saturday shift, you lose 65 bucks a week, or $10,140 over three years, for the princely sum of $1.25 an hour—and I might just happen to have $1.25 here. If you work overtime for two hours and a Saturday shift, you will be 60 bucks a week worse off, or $9,360 worse off over a three-year period—double the amount that the ACCI would see the minimum wage reduced by and nearly four times the amount that the government would see the minimum wage reduced by. That is all for the princely sum of $1.25 an hour—and I will not table that money because Mr Liberal Fistful of Dollars might just reach across the table. Knowing the Liberal Party, as I do, if they had the chance they would round the 2c and the $1.25 down. The Prime Minister was presented with not just the Spotlight AWA but the Esselte AWA and he had his attention drawn to the fact that his own government man, the Employment Advocate, said that we had had about 6,200 AWAs signed since the introduction of the government’s legislation. We drew attention, as a result of good work in Senate estimates, to the fact that, of the AWAs sampled, 100 per cent excluded at least one protected award condition, 64 per cent removed leave loadings, 63 per cent removed penalty rates, 52 per cent removed shiftwork loadings, 41 per cent did not contain gazetted holidays, 22 per cent did not provide for a pay increase over the life of the agreement—like this one I have here—and 16 per cent excluded all award conditions and replaced them with government legislated minimum standards. The Prime Minister said that 78 per cent of them will give ‘very significant wage increases’. This followed on from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations who, after the Spotlight AWA was revealed in the parliament a couple of weeks ago, on a Friday morning said that the vast majority of protected award conditions have remained in AWAs since the government’s legislation was changed—and three days and three nights later the OEA blew him out of the water. The Prime Minister has no evidence for the claim that there have been ‘very significant wage increases’. If he has any evidence of that, he should produce it for the parliament and for the community. He is also out there asserting that somehow there are significant increases in wages under AWAs rather than collective bargaining. All the studies by Professor Peetz and by Freehills—the government’s hired gun—show that that is not the case. As a result of that, the Leader of the Opposition decided that we would adopt a policy of abolishing AWAs, which just happens to be consistent with our election platform and our public policy. I want to make a couple of remarks about the business reaction to that. Let us very clearly understand what AWAs represent. We have the business community out there, we have the BCA, the Business Council of Australia, who say that their employers represent one million employees; we have ACCI, who say their employers employ four million employees; and we have AiG, who say their employers employ two million employees. So seven million employees from those business groups have expressed their views about our commitment to abolish AWAs. How many AWAs do we have? We have 538,000—half a million. So there are half a million AWAs for the seven million employees represented by those organisations. And what do we know from the government’s own stats? About 20 per cent of people are on awards; about 40 per cent of people are on enterprise bargains, where the big productivity boosts have come; about 30 per cent of people are on common law contracts, which have been in existence for a long period of time; and anywhere from 2.5 per cent to five per cent are on AWAs. But, if we abolish AWAs, despite the fact we have committed ourselves to flexibility through variations to collective agreements and to an overall advantage approach so far as common law contracts are concerned—despite the fact that we have promised that flexibility—the economy as we know it will crumble if AWAs are abolished. In the face of 15 years of continuous economic growth, set up by the last Labor government, a resources boom to China, a current account deficit of six per cent which has the benefit of record high favourable terms of trade and record high commodity prices, 49 consecutive monthly trade deficits, an infrastructure crisis, a half-trillion dollar foreign debt, a collapse in research and development, a collapse in innovation, a collapse in skills, education and training, the single biggest threat to the Western world as we know it is the abolition of a 10-year-old statutory instrument, of which there are about half a million in a workforce of 10.1 million. And guess what? When my friend and state colleague Geoff Gallop said he was going to do the same thing in Western Australia, the business community and the Liberal Party said exactly the same thing. They said: ‘Gallop’s in the hands of the unions. The Western Australian economy as we know it will collapse. This is a regressive approach; it is back to the 18th century of employment relations.’ Last time I looked, off the back of 15 years of continuous economic growth and a resources boom to China, Western Australia had 10 per cent growth. But, if we take away an employment instrument that half a million people out of 10 million have, the Western world as we know it will collapse. It is no longer the reds under the beds; it is not having the AWA under the bed. That is the problem. My complaint with Mr Chaney is that the Business Council writes a letter, which it describes as a personal letter to the Leader of the Opposition, which journalists get at the same time or in advance, and says: ‘Unless you do AWAs, everything else you do has no credibility.’ I say a couple of things to Mr Chaney publicly and privately. Firstly, Mr Chaney is on record as saying that fairness is not a requirement of industrial relations legislation, that fairness is not a criterion required in the employment relations area— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews interjecting— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —And you share that view and you endorse that view. The second thing I say to Mr Chaney is that he should say to the Leader of the Opposition what he says in his adverts. When you read the BCA adverts—the ‘four steps’ we need—is there anything in there that says, ‘But if you don’t do these things with AWAs, the Western world, the Western economy and the Australian economy as we know it will crumble’? I say to the business community publicly what I say to them privately: you should focus on this, you should accept our offer of consultation, you should accept our offer of flexibility, you should look at what we are saying—overall advantage and the combination of our approach will ensure ongoing flexibility. And the minister at the table should resolve and resort to having an argument on the facts, not to scurrilous personal slurs against me or the Leader of the Opposition. If he wants to say that we are in the pockets of unions or that we have said this or we have said that, then he is no more and no less than a toady of corporate Australia. If that is the level of debate he wants to have, that is fine, but he should address the facts: the government’s attack on the minimum wage, the government’s attack on conditions and entitlements, no productivity benefits, complacency about a whole range of economic issues, a massive foreign debt, a massive trade deficit and a massive collapse in exports. But the Western world will collapse if we cannot have a 10-year-old statutory independent contract, which half a million people out of 10 million have. It is an economic, a social and a political nonsense. (Time expired) 98 15:51:00 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 —The problem with the argument advanced by the member for Perth is that it contains a major internal flaw and contradiction. The nub of his argument goes to the mining and resources sector in Western Australia. He says—correctly on this point—that the mining and resources sector in Western Australia is booming and, indeed, that it is a major contributor to the economy in Australia. The essence of his argument is that, therefore, any changes that have been put in place in Australian Workplace Agreements are irrelevant to that booming mining and resources sector of the Australian economy, particularly in Western Australia. This is where there is a major internal flaw and contradiction in his argument. The very same sector of the Australian economy has said over and over again—and this is what Mr Chaney said in his letter, and I will come to it shortly, to the Leader of the Opposition—that part of the reason they are able to thrive and to provide more jobs and higher wages to those employed in that sector is the flexibility that this government has brought about through its workplace relations legislation. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on one hand, as the opposition wishes to do, that this is a sector which is thriving the way it is, yet say on the other hand that we are going to rip away from that sector one of the very mechanisms which has enabled it to thrive in the way it has. That is the nub of the complaint made not by me but by Mr Chaney, the President of the Business Council of Australia—a body whose members employ some one million Australians. He makes that complaint against the opposition and the foolish decision of the Leader of the Opposition—without consulting, we are told, the member for Perth, the industrial relations spokesman for the opposition; he himself concedes that—to go out to the Labor conference at the weekend and say, ‘I propose, if elected to government, to abolish Australian workplace agreements.’ What does Mr Chaney say? These are not my words. These are the words of a man who was the managing director and CEO of Wesfarmers, one of the biggest companies operating in this country, and a man who is regarded by his peers in the business community in Australia as being of sufficient standing to be the leader of the Business Council of Australia. That body has over the years been critical of this side of government, as it has been critical of the other side of government. What did Mr Chaney say in his letter? Let me quote a little bit of Mr Chaney’s letter: For the past two years, the BCA has argued for an integrated package of economic reforms that will allow Australia to lock in its current prosperity for the long term. It has consistently argued these reforms cannot be cherry-picked for political purposes, but need to be implemented as a whole. It is for this reason that the BCA has called for, and supported, the most recent reforms to workplace relations. These reforms continue a 20-year process of making Australia’s workplaces more flexible and responsive, and the economy more competitive. This reform process, started by previous Labor Governments, has delivered improved living standards and low unemployment. This MPI is about living standards and international competitiveness. Mr Chaney points out that this process of reforming industrial relations, which was, as he alludes to, started by the man that the member for Perth once worked for—namely, Paul Keating, when he was Prime Minister and previously Treasurer of this country—has led to the competitiveness and the prosperity that this country enjoys today. It is obviously of some great offence that the leader of the Business Council of Australia should come out and say this. There was an extraordinary attack on Mr Chaney and the business community in Australia from the member for Perth at his doorstop press conference this morning. Mr Chaney said: ... AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity, particularly in sectors that are critical to Australia’s current and future growth, notably mining and resources. Mr Chaney nails the argument that is being advanced by the member for Perth today. As I said, you cannot say on one hand that the Australian economy has been so dependent upon, so boosted by, what has happened in the mining and resource sector, yet say on the other hand that you are going to rip away one of the very processes, one of the very mechanisms, that has enabled that sector of the Australian economy to boom in the way it has. That is what Mr Chaney says in his letter: ... AWAs have played a significant part in improving productivity, particularly in sectors that are critical to Australia’s current and future growth, notably mining and resources. Mr Chaney goes on: The fact is that independent research shows that workplace reform—including the introduction of AWAs—has delivered significant opportunities for Australians. They are the words of a very successful Australian business leader, a man regarded by his peers as being pre-eminent to lead the Business Council of Australia. That is the complaint he makes to the Leader of the Opposition. It is hardly a complaint that deserves the sort of approach we got from the member for Perth this morning, who talked about business being lazy and only looking for an easy way of increasing its profits. That is what he said in his attack in his doorstop this morning. We know why the member for Perth is upset, and that is because he has been repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that, for the last year or so, the member for Perth has been going around the business organisations and the major businesses in Australia trying to rebuild relationships after the disastrous relationship the Labor Party under Mark Latham had with the business community of Australia. That is the reality. The member for Perth has been trying to rebuild that relationship, as have a few others on the other side—knowing the disastrous level it got to under the leadership of Mr Latham, the previous Leader of the Opposition. This is what happened at the weekend. It was unbeknownst to the member for Perth until he was told that the decision of the Leader of the Opposition was a fait accompli. The Leader of the Opposition, ignoring whatever advice he might have had from the member for Perth, went along to the New South Wales Labor conference and there, to the no-doubt populist cheers of the union bosses—those who have over the last 10 years donated millions of dollars to the ALP—he said, ‘I’m going to rip up AWAs.’ The egg is all over the face of the member for Perth following the announcement made at the weekend by the Leader of the Opposition. What was the reaction to that? The reaction to that from the business community, not just from almost every editorial writer of almost every major newspaper in Australia, was one of complete astonishment. They were getting the nudge, nudge, wink, wink from the member for Perth, who over the last few months and the last year had said to them effectively, ‘Look, we’ll keep AWAs.’ The Leader of the Opposition said eight months ago: ‘There’ll be a million AWAs in place by the next election; you can’t just rip up a system that involves that.’ So you have the member for Perth, given that sort of lead by the Leader of the Opposition, going around to all the business groups in Australia and then suddenly, out of the blue, last weekend the Leader of the Opposition comes out and says: ‘No, we’re not going to keep these AWAs. We’re going to rip them up. We’re going to remove this system.’ That is the reality, and that is part of the reason why we have seen the negative reaction—contrary, I believe, to what the Leader of the Opposition expected—in the media and from the business community this week. And it is not just the Business Council of Australia, although they represent companies that employ something like one-tenth of the workforce in Australia—about one million Australians are employed by BCA companies. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry represent companies and employers that employ about four million Australians. Equally, they have come out in condemnation of this policy from the Leader of the Opposition. And the Australian Industry Group, which represent companies employing something like two million Australians, have condemned this policy backflip by the Leader of the Opposition. The problem with this policy is that it rips away from Australians their entitlements, their wages. It rips away from them the ability to work harder and earn more for their families. Let us take an example: the line workers, the fault workers in Telstra on AWAs. The history of that is there are ordinary, blue-collar Australian workers out there who are earning more on AWAs. Why? Because they have been able to increase their productivity, they get a bonus, which they are paid in return for doing extra work, and the result has been that their take-home pay has considerably increased as a result of being on AWAs. You can multiply these sorts of examples right across the country. The seafood processing works that I went to in Western Australia a little while ago, where something like 80 per cent of the workforce were part-time and casual employees— BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —What do they pay? HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —They were put onto AWAs, and now the vast majority of those workers have a permanent job. What that means for them and their families—and I believe the member for Lyons will be sympathetic to this—is that they have a permanent job. It means that they can go to the bank and get a loan. It means they can do something about a mortgage on a house that they want to buy. It gives them a degree of security which they did not have in the past. In the member for Lyons’s own electorate, there is the example of the famous Banjo’s Bakehouse in Strahan where AWAs enable workers to be employed not just for six months of the year when the tourists come and then not have a job for the rest of the year; it enables the smoothing out of their employment with different hours in different seasons and different months. It enables those workers to have a permanent job, although with a variation of hours across a period of time. These sorts of examples of the flexibility which is being offered and which has been grasped eagerly by workers in Australia show why we have people using AWAs. But the problem with the Leader of the Opposition and member for Perth is that the rhetoric that we have heard today is no different to the mantra and the rhetoric we have heard for the last 10 years in this place. The sky was going to fall in when the workplace relations changes were made in 1996. We have seen 1.8 million extra jobs in Australia, a 16.8 per cent increase in real wages for Australians over the last decade compared to just a 1.2 per cent increase for the previous 13 years of the Labor government. We have seen something like an extra 315,000 Australians in work, because of being able to drive down the unemployment rate. If we had not made these changes, according to Access Economics—the economic modelling firm of choice for the Australian Labor Party—the unemployment rate in Australia would be closer to eight per cent rather than the 4.9 per cent it is today. There are more than 300,000 extra jobs that Australians have today because of these changes. We have seen the IMF and other international organisations saying that the Australian economy is one of the powerhouse economies of the world. I was at the ILO meeting in Geneva last week and had a series of meetings with employment ministers from around the world. One of the most interesting was the meeting with the German employment minister. Germany, of course, still has an unemployment rate of well over 10 per cent—as has France, for that matter. The German employment minister said to me, ‘If we had the unemployment conditions that you’ve got in Australia, if we had the economy of Australia, it’d be like we’re celebrating the World Cup every month, and not just the World Cup that we’re celebrating at the present time.’ All of this is because of the changes and the economic conditions that this government has overseen over the last 10 years. This was a serious misjudgment on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, and now we have headlines like the one in the Australian today, ‘Beazley another Latham: business’. And why are businesses saying that? Because we had ‘troops home by Christmas’ from Mr Latham and we have ‘AWAs out by Christmas’ from Mr Beazley. Without consultation with his caucus, without consultation with his shadow minister, without consultation, apparently, with his shadow ministry, he just rolls along to the conference on the weekend and repudiates the policy that had been in place prior to that, and repudiates what he had even said himself prior to this. This is a foolish policy. The reason for it is that the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership was being destabilised, in particular by Unions New South Wales and Mr Robertson and co, who were sending out quite clear messages that they were unimpressed with the way in which the Leader of the Opposition was conducting himself. They pulled him into line. He buckled under, and he changed this policy, because that is what the paymasters in the unions in Australia, which have paid $50 million to the ALP over the last 10 years, wanted with regard to this. The question is where this goes from here, because the long list of union demands goes on and on and on. There is no secret about the other things that the unions want. They want to do things like reimpose the unfair dismissal laws that cost jobs, have compulsory union bargaining fees, have a payroll tax added to businesses in Australia, have mandated good-faith bargaining  et cetera. The list goes on and on and on, and the Leader of the Opposition, having buckled under and appeased the unions in the first place, is in a position where they know he is weak, like every other Australian does, and know that he will buckle under to all the other proposals. That will drive Australia backwards. Tony Blair had the courage to stand up to the unions in Great Britain and say, ‘They may not like it, but the real world would be much warmer than the one which they are proposing, because it would be better for the employment prospects and the prosperity of the men and women of Britain.’ Unfortunately, and quite regrettably for Australia, the Leader of the Opposition in this country, the Labor leader in this country, does not have the courage of Mr Blair to stand up to this sort of nonsense. (Time expired) 102 16:06:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The fact is that the Work Choices legislation will fundamentally change this society because it seeks to drive down wages and conditions. It will hurt ordinary Australians. That is the reality that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations decided not to mention. Over the last 15 minutes, he had the opportunity to justify why there have been such fundamental changes to our industrial relations system. So little evidence, so little reason, has been given for such fundamental change to this public policy. The reason the government has failed to give compelling answers to questions about why changes have been made to the industrial relations system is that it knows what we know—this system is about driving wages down and setting up two sets of workers in this country. The lucky ones, unfortunately in the minority, will possibly have good or better wages; but the majority of workers in this country—those without the capacity to bargain individually with their employer and those who do not have a rare set of skills to bargain with in the marketplace and cannot argue that their skills are so scarce as to warrant a sufficient wage increase—will find themselves at the bottom of the heap. That is the situation as a result of these changes. The shadow minister made it very clear: there is no nexus between the changes to the industrial relations system that have been sought and gained by this government and productivity improvements. There has been no argument set in place by the government to explain the nexus—the cause and effect of Work Choices. Instead, empirical evidence gives example after example of maltreatment of employees by employers. Since the act came into operation on 27 March this year, a series of agreements has been lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate that will drive down wages of ordinary working Australians. I reiterate the statistics that have been provided by the Office of the Employment Advocate to Senate estimates: 100 per cent exclude at least one protected award condition, 64 per cent remove leave loadings, 63 per cent remove penalty rates, 52 per cent remove shift loadings, 40 per cent remove gazetted public holidays and 19 per cent remove all penalties in awards. This is all by virtue of this new instrument, AWAs. Why is it a new instrument? Taking the no-disadvantage test out of the Workplace Relations Act effectively removes any safety net for ordinary workers. To expect the ordinary worker to negotiate with his or her boss is a complete and utter nonsense. Every worker in this country knows that they cannot go into their boss’s office and say, ‘I just want a 10 per cent wage increase.’ For that matter, they cannot go into the boss’s office and say, ‘I don’t want a 10 per cent cut to my existing conditions of employment and my wage rate.’ The reason they cannot do that, as we all know in this place and as every employee knows in every workplace in this country, is that the capacity for an employee to individually bargain with his or her employer is nigh on impossible, because the relationship is inherently unequal. Whilst Labor did not accept some of the changes that occurred in the Workplace Relations Act, the reason why the no-disadvantage test was inserted into the legislation was to enable its passage through the Senate in 1996. You can be assured of this, Mr Deputy Speaker: the government did not want a no-disadvantage test in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The government had to compromise to get that no-disadvantage test inserted into the Workplace Relations Act 1996. As soon as the government took control of the Senate, they ripped the no-disadvantage test out of the act so that an employee would not have any protection whatsoever in attempting to negotiate an individual agreement with their employer. It is not surprising that, until the operation of this act, only three per cent of the entire workforce of this country were on AWAs. After 10 years in operation, three per cent of the workforce are in receipt of or party to an Australian workplace agreement. I have said this before in this place: how Orwellian is the title Australian workplace agreements? They are not Australian. They are not intrinsic to the way in which Australia has negotiated industrial arrangements since 1901. The fact is that they are alien to the way in which Australians have gone about setting employment conditions in this country. They are certainly not ‘workplace’, because they rely upon the vulnerability of an individual employee to be put in a position to have to accept and to cede the changes sought by employers. As we know, only in the rarest of circumstances would they be ‘agreements’, because unfortunately they are coercive—so much so that the new act actually expressly says that it is not coercive to force someone to take an AWA if they want a job. It expressly says in a provision of the Work Choices legislation that it is not coercive. It has to expressly say that, because in any other common law understanding of contracts of employment you could not force someone to take an agreement without an offer, without consideration or without acceptance. These things are basic standards of common law that have been taken away by this government because it knows it is putting workers in a situation of duress and it wants to expressly allow that to occur. As someone said to me recently, this is allowing rogue employers to do legally what they have been doing illegally. This effectively ensures that rogue employers who want to act badly are given that imprimatur to treat their employees badly. The worst of it is that they are forcing good employers to consider doing the same. That is a tragedy. Labor knows that the majority of employers do not want to place their workers in unfair situations. Labor understands that most employers want to ensure that their business is operating properly. They want to have a decent relationship with their workforce. In fact, small businesses have a very close relationship with their employees. It is the nature of the business. They know them and they know their families. We spoke to many small businesses on the task force that went around the country. We were told by a number of small businesses that they were concerned about the way in which the legislation would force them to push wages down. They were also concerned about the prescription, the complexity and the confusion that the laws enshrined. Michael Fern, the owner of an engineering company in Gladstone in Queensland, said: Clearly I haven’t read all 400 pages and the 800 pages of how to read the legislation or whatever is available. And this isn’t unusual because we are inundated with legislation and if I read it all I wouldn’t do any work. That does concern me greatly, but I don’t really understand the legislation ... Small businesses like mine are the backbone of ... this economy and clearly we can’t spend that time to understand all this legislation so who is it helping? Who’s gaining out of this? I have no idea ... Every day there’s more and more of it and this Work Choices is just another example. Another small business operator in Melbourne, a pharmacist from Mitcham in Deakin, George Liarakos, who we met in the member for Deakin’s electorate, said to us about the Work Choices act: To start off with individual agreements, AWAs—the way [the government] are putting the spin on it, it’s a great thing, it’s about workers’ choice. You can actually get rid of unions and bargain for yourself more effectively against an employer. I think that’s crap. Do you know why the pharmacist in Mitcham thinks it is utter nonsense? Because he knows that his employees do not have the bargaining capacity to bargain with him fairly. And he told us so. He effectively said that they do not have that capacity. He said: The way I see it, without legal representation ... our accountants, our lawyers ... if we want to draft up something and take advantage of this we could do so easily. The pharmacist in Melbourne said that if they wanted to draft something up and provide it to their employees, they could take advantage of this easily. That is the new system this government has enacted. Taking away the no-disadvantage test and forcing AWAs without any protection whatsoever is denying the right for employees in this country to bargain effectively. The statistics of the Office of the Employment Advocate that were provided to the Senate estimates committee showed that many of the award conditions have been stripped already from those AWA instruments—and there are more to come. (Time expired) 104 16:16:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —I think I am probably more qualified than anyone in this parliament to talk on this particular MPI. Not one of the people opposite has worked in the areas that I have worked in. I started life as a manual cane cutter and a member of the AWU Queensland. One of the problems we have with those opposite is that they are a single species. You have all the union apparatchiks and the shop stewards; you do not have any breadth of thinking whatsoever on the opposition benches. A few of us on this side have got our hands dirty. I could certainly name as examples the member for Grey and, I dare say, the member for Hume and others who have worked out there in the workforce and understand what the workforce is all about. We have had the flexibility to go out and get better wages. In those days we were the vanguard of aspirational Australia, because we wanted to succeed. As I said, I have cut cane by hand. I have also picked up potatoes. I have been a contractor, a farmer and a publican. As a farmer and a publican, I employed people. So I think I know, right across the board, what employment, wages and work are about. I have not seen anyone on the other side who comes near that. The problem is that most of those opposite have never worked in the workforce. They do not know what it is about and they have no understanding of what the workers think. I will give you a particular instance, from my days as a cane cutter. In 1959, we were earning about £100 a fortnight. To put that in perspective, that was five times the award rate. In about 1961 there was a good price in sugar and for some unknown reason the union officials said, ‘We want a productivity loading, because the farmers are making too much money.’ They did not come to the cane cutters and ask, ‘Do you want to apply for an increase in your wages?’ They just decided that they were going to go out on strike. A number of us said, ‘No. We are not going to do that.’ But they took us out anyway for a fortnight for a productivity loading. We lost £100 in that fortnight—one-tenth of the cost of a Holden car in those days. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —But you still had to pay your union fees. 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —But I still had to pay my union fees, of course, even though they took us out and we lost money. The fact is that we got £2 a fortnight productivity loading. Just imagine how long we were going to have to work to make up the £100 we lost. The thing about this legislation is that it does not abolish unions. I just do not understand why the unions are so petrified. I imagine they are petrified because they do not want to get off their butts and work; they do not want to get out there and represent the workers. If the unions represented the workers, the workers would support them. But they do not; they go out there and look after themselves. The union bosses do deals with some of the big business people around the place. We have all heard about some union reps who have big houses with swimming pools—some of them in Sydney. If they were representing the workers they would have no problems because the legislation allows the unions to negotiate on behalf of the workers. The unions are not abolished, so they should be able to get out there and do something if they are prepared to get off their backsides and do it. I believe in unions. I was a member of a union. But I think the unions have caused this themselves because they have lost sight of what they were intended to do—and that was to represent the majority opinion of workers. Let us go through some of these issues. I think some of them need to be talked about. The task force that we just heard about from the member for Gorton went through my electorate. Surprisingly, I had a cockatoo at the meeting. Twelve people turned up—12 people. I also checked up with the member for Richmond to see how many turned up there—11 turned up there. The member for Gorton is here quoting what he heard at the task force. For goodness’ sake! If 12 people is representative of the workers of my electorate then I have to say, ‘Pity help us with the government we are going to get from over there.’ Let us look at the Spotlight issue. The Prime Minister has said quite often that you always want to look behind the detail of the issues that are raised in this parliament. You always want to look behind the questions. On the detail that was raised in this parliament about Spotlight in Coffs Harbour and Mrs Harris being offered an AWA, and the 2c that the member for Perth paraded around with and the 2c that was held up here by the members of the opposition: Mrs Harris did not take up the AWA. It was offered to her. She stayed on the award. She was able to stay on the award, and she stayed on the award. Mrs Harris, of course, is an ex-schoolteacher who works 15 hours a week at Spotlight and is the union rep. We didn’t hear about that, did we? No, we never heard about that in the issues that were brought up. We also heard today about an issue—raised, I think, by the member for Perth—about warehouse wages. I think it was in Sydney; I might be wrong on that. Just by chance, a fortnight ago, flying home from Sydney to Lismore, I happened to meet the son of a very good friend of mine who happened to be on the plane. I said to him, ‘What are you doing?’ and he said, ‘I’m working in Sydney.’ Now, I have nine per cent unemployment in my electorate, and half of them do not want to work. They have said in the papers that they want to continue to surf. This guy had gone out and got a job in a warehouse in Sydney. He was the foreman of the warehouse. And he said to me, ‘You know, we’re offering $25 to $30 an hour’—in a warehouse in Sydney—‘and we can’t get workers.’ Yet out in the mid-west of Sydney there is 10 per cent unemployment. What is the member for Watson doing about that, about people who are only a few kilometres away? Here is the work. It is available. But I dare say he would be like the member for Richmond. When I raised the issue in the papers up in my area about the fact that I have nine per cent unemployment yet employers cannot get workers, she said, ‘You can’t force them to work.’ That is typical Labor, isn’t it? That is typical Labor; there is no doubt about it. Let us talk about another issue that keeps on being referred to and raised by the Labor Party, about the government holding down wages. The Prime Minister has told us that in our period of government wages have increased by 16 per cent, compared to three per cent—or I think it might have been two per cent—under the Labor Party. Let us talk about it. They keep on saying, ‘Of course, if the government’s offers’—which I dare say means the employers’ offers—‘in the arbitration commission were accepted, then wages would be much lower.’ They do not refer to the real issue here. The real issue here is the old arbitration commission, which I used to deal with as chairman of the Cane Growers. That is the real issue, because you have these ambit claims put in by the unions that are about 10 or 20 times more than they expect to get. What do you think the bosses are going to do? Do you think they are going to make an offer that is somewhere near it? Of course they are going to put their bid down low, and it is arbitrated in between. That was the way the system worked. And yet they are dishonestly trying to say that this would have been accepted because that was the offer that was made. It was the way the system worked, and that was what was wrong with the system. So let us get rid of that baloney that goes on about that particular issue. I come from an area on the coast. I do not know where these people come from, because quite frankly they do not understand what goes on in business. How do you think we have shops open on a Thursday night, on a Saturday morning and on a Sunday morning if there is not flexibility in the workforce? The flexibility in the workforce is that the bosses and the workers come to an agreement. Many of the workers like the flexibility, I can tell you. In my area, they like the flexibility, because if they work on a Saturday or Sunday morning then they can take two days off through the week if they want to. I can tell you that many of them like to go fishing, to go surfing or to play golf for two days through the week. They take the flexibility because that offer is available to them. This morning we saw some television. I found it very interesting. It showed Greg Combet and Premier Iemma. Greg Combet was saying to the nurses of New South Wales, ‘The federal legislation will reduce your wages 20 per cent,’ and Premier Iemma was getting up and supporting him. Who employs the nurses in New South Wales? Premier Iemma. And he is complaining because he is going to cut their wages 20 per cent. That is what they said they were going to do: cut the wages 20 per cent. They are under a state award. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is now concluded. 106 Bills S499 106 Bills S500 106 Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 107 Bills R2535 107 Debate resumed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 107 16:27:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —In this dislocated debate, with the few minutes I have left on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, I would like to say three brief things. One is that these 24 Australian technical colleges will go a long way to upskilling the young people of Australia. They will provide them with real, traditional trade skills to go out and earn a good living in the industry and the community that they live in, rather than something fatuous. For example, the current TAFE system is so bureaucratised that teachers in the local TAFEs in my area tell me that there are more teachers and more administrators in the TAFEs than there are students. They tell me that the bureaucracy—that is, the administration—are unbelievable, in that not only do they get paid exorbitant wages and generally end up with a car to go with it but they are unproductive in turning out meaningful trades and skills through the TAFEs. That is why the Australian federal government have had to take over this area. That is why we have had to show leadership in this area. What are the states doing? They are trying to stymie it by slowing it down. One of the ways they tried to slow it down in my state of Western Australia—and, I know, in other states like New South Wales and the Northern Territory as well—is that they fought against the Australian technical colleges providing AWAs as a means of providing job prospects. This held up the whole arrangement for some time. Trying to enforce that, plus the unions making it difficult for these young year 11 and year 12 students to do work experience on construction sites, has held it up. So, when the Labor Party say that there are only four rolled out so far, we are rolling them out in the face of opposition from the state and territory Labor governments, because they do not want to be shown up in this area of training. I conclude, in the few seconds I have left, by saying that providing flexible funding to allow these colleges to be brought forward and paid for in a timely way would be not only good for the young people of Australia by providing training and apprenticeships but good for Australian industry as well. I endorse the bill. Debate interrupted. 107 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 107 107 16:30:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —Mr Speaker, your office is an invidious one. When you are sitting in the chair, I think that it is truly one against 149. But, in talking about parliamentary standards, I do not think that we should be dwelling on the actions that you take from the chair; we should be looking at the way in which members behave within the chamber. I want particularly to look at the events of this week within the chamber and at the way in which the use of the advantage the government has under the standing orders is being abused by those opposite. The headline in this morning’s Canberra Times is ‘Abbott drugs slur raises Opposition’s anger’. The headline in today’s Sydney Morning Herald is ‘Trouble in the House as Abbott the stirrer strikes again’. If we look at the dorothy dix question given to the Minister for Health and Ageing yesterday, we get an understanding of what is wrong with this place. As I have said to you before, Mr Speaker, the fact that we have something like nine or 10 standing orders about questions—two pages of the standing orders—and one standing order, standing order 104, which speaks about the relevance of the answers, shows that it is not a level playing field. There are great advantages for those on the other side, not just because they are the government but because of the way in which the standing orders operate and the use of the standing orders to avoid proper accountability. The question yesterday, which was obviously driven by some focus group or Mark Textor polling, was about drug policy. The only intention of the Minister for Health and Ageing was to accuse the opposition of being soft on drugs. Of course that made the opposition angry, because that is a nonsense. There may be differences in the way we wish to achieve the battle against the drug problem, but to indicate that differing views mean that one side or the other is soft on drugs is a nonsense. Furthermore, in his answer, in supporting the contention that the Leader of the Opposition surrenders to the premiers over heroin injecting rooms, along the way the minister said that the Leader of the Opposition surrendered to the Islamists over Iraq. What sort of answer is that if not provocative? During question time the government, this executive, uses the great advantage that the standing orders give to debate issues and to provide answers which not only put their own case but fit the opposition with the case it believes should fit. In one of these newspaper articles there is a quote of I think an unrecorded interjection from one of my colleagues along the lines of ‘Show some leadership, Hawker’. I have to say to that colleague of mine in the Labor Party that he is wrong. It is not about the Speaker showing leadership. If it is an action of the Minister for Health and Ageing, there is one person in this chamber who has to show leadership and that is the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who, when elected to that high office, said that he intended to raise the parliamentary standards in this chamber. What has happened? On every criterion, standards continue to drop—the way we have seen question time operate over the last couple of sitting weeks, the lack of answers and responses to committee reports and the lack of answers to questions on notice. Truly, if we were to look at the way in which this government treated the parliament, we would have to say that we are going backwards. There are so many important things that come before this parliament that really need and require ministerial statements. But the attitude is: ‘Oh, no, don’t do that; use up a question. Get only one side of the argument. Fit the opposition if it feels right. Use the terminology that the focus groups, Textor and the polling show should be used.’ If standards are to be improved in this place, there has to be goodwill—I acknowledge goodwill on both sides—but the last few weeks have shown that the government are not going to do anything to try to improve parliamentary standards. In fact, they are cranking things up because they believe that there is a political advantage in blowing this place up. I do not think that is correct. If they were truly looking at parliamentary standards, they would send to the Procedure Committee a reference to look at question time—to have it as a proper question time instead of one side asking a question and the other side debating the issue. That is wrong, and it needs correcting. (Time expired) 109 109 16:35:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 0 Dr JENSEN —The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, if he ever got into government, should be the minister for wishful thinking. In articles in the Sound Telegraph he demonstrates extreme ignorance on issues relating to energy. It is no wonder his climate change blueprint is long on leftie rhetoric and so short on substance. He states: Only Labor has done the hard work to develop a plan to safeguard Australia’s energy future. If this blueprint is evidence of hard work, I understand now why Labor is so bereft of policy and why their policy lurches are based on flawed ideology rather than objective reality. To say that the Leader of the Opposition is ignorant of issues relating to energy, particularly nuclear energy, is putting it lightly. I would be quite happy to engage him in a debate on the issues, but I have no doubt that he would lack the ticker to engage me on the issue. He believes that we should focus on things like solar and wind energy. I agree that they have a minor place in the portfolio, but they are unable to contribute significant amounts to baseload power supplies. If the member for Brand were right, surely you would expect at least one nation on the planet to have a significant baseload power contribution from renewables—and here I am excluding hydro. This is more fanciful stuff from the member for Brand and his supporters, the Greens. One could refer to their attitude as ignorance with prejudice. However, there is one aspect where I agree with the opposition leader. It is the importance of evaluating alternative transport fuel. I, however, believe the ultimate fuel for the transport sector is hydrogen. Hydrogen barely rates a passing mention in his document, and I can understand why. How would the member for Brand propose to generate hydrogen? I have the answer: nuclear reactors are ideal for generating hydrogen using either electrical or thermal processes. The member for Brand also does not understand issues relating to oil from coal or gas-to-liquid technologies. In reality, although the final product is far cleaner burning than normal petroleum, the production of these fuels releases significant amounts of pollutants. Having noted that there are pollution issues related to these technologies, I believe that we need to challenge industry to develop these technologies, especially oil from coal technologies using the Fischer-Tropps process as used by Sasol in South Africa. The Sasol process has been a commercial concern for about 50 years. We should actively investigate using it here, as I believe it is commercially viable. Production of fuel using this process would be around the $US40 to $US50 mark per barrel. Gas-to-liquid prices are projected to be lower than this but, as there is very little use of this technology at present, it is difficult to say how realistic they are. Having highlighted these technologies, it is clear that they are merely an interim measure pending the ultimate introduction of hydrogen. Biofuels have been touted by Labor; but, while on the face of it they appear attractive, a choice needs to be made between fuel and food. While Australia has a current abundance of food, it is likely that the price of food will increase quicker than that of biofuels; hence, the availability of a cheap base stock is likely to be very variable and not provide a good basis for stability of supply at a reasonable cost. Given these arguments, as with the case of electricity generation, all fuel sources should be included in the energy portfolio. Given Labor’s position statement, however, it is clear that hydrogen is not really on the Leader of the Opposition’s radar—and for obvious reasons. The real problem with the opposition leader’s view on energy is that he is looking through the blinkers of an ideology gone mad, promising the electorate fairytale promises of a future energy nirvana. The government believes that we have an obligation to the Australian people to analyse the alternatives through the objective lens of reality, which Labor is patently not prepared to do. If the Leader of the Opposition has a genuine desire to be educated on the facts of energy, I am quite happy to discuss these safe, exciting and innovative technologies with him. However, I do not think he will avail himself of this opportunity. This is a leader who simply puts politics before probity. (Time expired) 110 110 16:40:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —In light of a number of events that have occurred this week, I thought it was important to again rise in the House and speak on David Hicks and Guantanamo Bay. We have learned this week that the United States has denied the British government consular access to David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay. The British government was seeking access so that they could register him as a British citizen. We have also learned that the US has suspended all military trials for suspects at the Guantanamo prison camp, where three detainees committed suicide over the weekend. Only 10 of the 460 inmates held as enemy combatants have been formally charged since the camp opened in early 2002 at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Human rights groups said that the suicides showed that the inmates were in a state of despair because of the indefinite nature of their detention. Before the three successful suicides on Saturday, the US military had reported 41 suicide attempts by 25 detainees. Professor Alfred McCoy gave an interview on the Lateline program this week. He is a Professor of history at the University of Wisconsin and has just written the book A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror. He says of Guantanamo Bay: Guantanamo is not a conventional military prison. It’s an ad hoc laboratory for the perfection of the CIA psychological torture. Guantanamo is a complete construction. It’s a system of total psychological torture, designed to break down every detainee contained therein, designed to produce a state of hopelessness and despair that leads, tragically, sadly in this case to suicide. Also of concern is that David Hicks’s lawyer has attacked his solitary confinement at Guantanamo Bay. As reported by a news wire, Major Mori said: Hicks was in poor health, showing weight loss and continuing signs of depression ... He also said that his client: ... was put back in solitary three months ago without explanation, confined to a cement room for 22 hours a day. The news wire then states: At one stage, Hicks spend 16 months in isolation at Guantanamo’s Camp Echo, half that time in a cell which received no sunlight. I condemn what has happened to David Hicks. His continued indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay and the lack of effort on the part of this government to have him returned to Australia is a national disgrace. You are judged on the way you deal with your citizens. The British managed to have their citizens returned from Guantanamo Bay; Australia has remained silent. Indeed, on 14 June Minister Ellison—who had recently been to the US and had spoken with the Attorney-General—in answering a question from Senator Allison, said he: ... reinforced Australia’s earnest desire that Mr Hicks be brought before the military commission as soon as possible. We should realise that the US government has sought to use Guantanamo Bay to create a legal black hole where people can be excluded from the American judicial process and not have the protections of the American constitution. American citizens cannot be dealt with in the way that aliens are dealt with under Guantanamo Bay and under the military commission. It is not allowed, because the American constitution protects them. So Australian citizens are being treated as second-class citizens. Hicks should be given a fair trial. He should be dealt with according to law. As I said in the past in an article I wrote that was published in the Australian: If we are to defeat terrorism, we must uphold the human rights principles our societies hold dear. These include the basic rights of persons held in custody: the right to humane treatment; the right to be informed of the reasons for detention and to be able to challenge the lawfulness of detention; the presumption of innocence; prompt access to and assistance of a lawyer; prompt access to medical assistance; and the ability to communicate with family members. The Geneva conventions afford those protections. They should be the benchmark. Why should we argue for them to be used? Because in the event that Australian citizens or US citizens are captured by the enemy, we would want them treated humanely. The way we are treating people in Guantanamo Bay leaves it open for our citizens, if ever they are detained or captured, to be treated in an undignified way. Human rights demand decent treatment of captured troops and captured citizens. (Time expired) 111 111 16:45:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —In the 10 years that I have been in this parliament, those members who have been here with me would have heard me speak about the infamous Scoresby Freeway on many occasions. The Scoresby Freeway is now known as the EastLink tollway. The spectre of the EastLink tollway emerged again last week. We all know that a home is the most important and valuable asset a person is likely to possess in their lifetime, often working for years to pay it off, raising a family in it and filling it with precious memories. Therefore, a home is a very precious and important asset to all of us but not, it seems, to the Victorian Bracks Labor government. The sheer arrogance and incompetence of the Bracks government has seen the lives of residents at Hillcrest Avenue in Ringwood turned completely upside down. The construction of the EastLink tollway next to their street has needlessly become a nightmare. Last week, I met with the residents of Hillcrest Avenue, residents who do not oppose the construction of the road itself. On the contrary, they are willing to put up with the noise, the dust, the mud and the disruption to their daily lives that the construction of EastLink has caused. What these residents are not willing to put up with is the construction of a series of large-scale maintenance buildings directly opposite their homes. These giant sheds have now been labelled the ‘Taj Mahal’ by local residents, and that is exactly what they are—enormous permanent structures that will be used to house heavy equipment. This ‘Taj Mahal’ was constructed without any genuine consultation with residents. They believe they have been misled, and that is why this has turned into such a disaster. Initially, local residents had been promised that the site would be parkland. They were shown promotional material identifying it this way. Then they were told that this promised parkland would be used to house a shed and that this shed would rise only marginally above the residential fence height and, furthermore, that it would be down the road, not opposite their homes. Even though the local residents would lose their parkland, they accepted this decision. They were keen to work with and not against ConnectEast, the company building the tollway. And how did ConnectEast and the Bracks government respond? They responded with total contempt for the soon to be neighbours. They extended the height of the building to well above fence height and moved its location. In fact, it rises so high as to completely block the views from the local homes of the area around them. I note in this week’s Maroondah Journal that a Ms Mary Baker, a spokesperson for ConnectEast, claimed that there were once houses on the building site that would have previously blocked views. This is a blatant misstatement of the facts. ConnectEast knows full well that the houses on that site did not rise to the same height as these giant structures. I feel especially sorry for local residents Alan and Rona Miller, who have lived on Hillcrest Avenue for 58 years. For 58 years they have enjoyed looking out their front window onto the Dandenong Ranges. Now, thanks to ConnectEast and the Bracks government, they feel that they have no choice but to leave their home. After talking to real estate agents, the Millers have been told that their property could be devalued by as much as $60,000. This is a travesty for old people and for young people who have moved into the area to make a home for themselves and their families. Mr Miller and his elderly wife should not be expected to face a financial blow like this. All of this could have easily been avoided if the Bracks government and ConnectEast had taken the time to sit down with local residents and consult with them in a genuine way. The building site could easily have been excavated. This would have eliminated the need for the concern that we have today. The only practical option now available—because you cannot tear down this ‘Taj Mahal’—is for the Bracks government to enter into serious financial compensation for the residents of Ringwood who are affected. The failure to consult also raises issues of accountability. Where was SEITA, the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority, whose role it is to keep the community informed? Where was the community advisory forum and local Maroondah Councillor Tony Dibb, whose job it is to provide feedback and advice to the project team at ConnectEast and to also keep local residents informed? Where were the state Labor members for Mitcham and Bayswater, Tony Robinson and Peter Lockwood, to stand up to Batchelor and Bracks for these residents’ quality of life? Tony Dibb, SEITA, Robinson and Lockwood have completely failed the people of Hillcrest Avenue. Local residents have been misled, their property values have been slashed and the amenity of their homes has been permanently damaged. I call on Councillor Dibb, as our local member on the community advisory forum, to start taking his job seriously. He is dealing with people’s lives and must now act urgently. (Time expired) 112 112 16:50:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —It has been a week where the consciences of government members in this parliament have been challenged—challenged because our opportunity to participate in full and extensive debate, which is the hallmark of a democracy, has been curtailed by the use of the gag; challenged because the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, which clearly concerned some members opposite, was withdrawn; and challenged because the government continues to resist repeated calls made, including calls made in a motion in the Senate this week, for Guantanamo Bay to be closed. I support the remarks of my colleague the member for Banks. I want to say that Guantanamo Bay is a prison of shame and that it is to Australia’s great shame that, as a government, we continue to participate in the operation of that prison. Revelations this week that three inmates at Guantanamo Bay had committed suicide is again confirmation that the conditions experienced by those who are held there are in breach of basic human rights, of the basic principles of our legal and democratic system and of the rule of law. Not one of those three who committed suicide had been charged. And no argument need come from this government, including the Attorney-General, that to question the conditions and the inhumane periods of detention is to countenance terrorism. It is a false argument, it is a false imputation and it does them no favour. The fact is that Guantanamo Bay is a prison camp that is a discredit to American democratic traditions as much as it is to our own. Incidentally, it is such a discredit to the American political and democratic traditions that it is not located in the United States. But even more so, it is a discredit to our democratic traditions because we, alone amongst countries, continue to acquiesce to the conduct that goes on in this prison. The United Kingdom Attorney-General stated it clearly: ... the existence of Guantanamo Bay remains unacceptable. It is time, in my view, that it should close. The United Kingdom Attorney-General had already determined that the military commission set up to try the detainees would not guarantee a fair trial. That point has been emphasised by a number of leading human rights lawyers and journalists here in Australia as well. British detainees were subsequently returned to the UK, but in the case of an Australian citizen, the Australian government was mute. It is to the discredit of this Attorney-General that he, as first law officer of the Crown, is so indifferent to the fundamental principles he is charged with protecting that the aberration of Guantanamo Bay continues without a murmur from him or any minister in the government. The best the justice minister can come up with is that he wants to get the military commission to consider the Hicks case. But recent events, including the suicides, mean the case is delayed. Hicks’s attempts to become a British citizen have been stymied and the Pentagon itself blocks the access of British consular officials attempting to reach Hicks in prison, notwithstanding the links between those two countries. The debate rages in the US, Europe and afar over Guantanamo Bay, and calls for its closure are repeatedly heard. Yet the government says and does nothing. The government’s absence and silence on Guantanamo Bay shows the extent of its capture by the hardline neocon elements of the US government. That is clear. The foreign minister was on television this week assuring Australians that the conditions Mr Hicks was experiencing were acceptable. An Australian consular official was cited by both the Prime Minister and the foreign minister as saying that, in their words, ‘the visit was positive’. I would like to see a report from the consular official on Mr Hicks’s state of health. But at the same time as these comments were put through, Mr Hicks’s legal adviser, the American, Major Mori, was saying clearly that Hicks was in poor health: No, David is in isolation. He is not fit and well—he is depressed. Who are we to believe—the foreign minister running his line or Mr Hicks’s American lawyer? Whatever the circumstances or past activities of any inmate in this institution, they should not be subject to long periods of indefinite detention or the possibility of suffering subtle and continual psychological torture. It is a mark of a civilised and humane society that it treats prisoners, any prisoners, in such a way so as not to deny them basic rights. It is a mark of politicians that they stand and argue for those rights, wherever they are being impeded upon. The Howard government, the foreign minister and the Attorney-General are failing us terribly on both of these counts. 114 114 16:55:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon in the adjournment debate to speak about the Do Not Call Register Bill, debate on which finished in the House just prior to question time. In my opinion this legislation could not be passed soon enough. The current system whereby people can register with the Australian Direct Marketing Association, or ADMA, only stops businesses calling if they are also registered with the ADMA. Unsolicited and unwanted phone calls have long been a problem for many households across the country. I am sure many members have had complaints to their electorate offices about these unsolicited calls from telemarketers. By providing Australian phone users with the right to opt out of receiving these calls, we will be providing benefits to consumers and businesses alike. The benefits for consumers are that they will not be interrupted, and scandalously interrupted at times, such as when the family is sitting down to have a meal—a very important time in any family when they are able to communicate with each other. It is an opportunity for the family to talk about the day’s events or perhaps what they may be doing in the future. Or there may be a time when a mother is bathing her child and the phone rings. Obviously this leads to safety issues for the child and the mother. Another benefit for consumers will be peace of mind that they will not be deceived by fraudulent telemarketers. There have been many cases in my electorate where people, particularly the elderly, are called and are led to believe they are speaking to their current phone provider. I have had many complaints about this. They agree to switch ‘plans’ with their current provider, when it is in fact a devious move to switch providers, not plans. Unscrupulous telemarketers prey on the innocence of so many wonderful older people—and not just older people. We are dealing with people who have been professionally trained in telemarketing. They are professional and they have deceived many innocent people. Many elderly and disabled people, who make up a considerable percentage of my constituents, may find it difficult or a hindrance to get to the ringing phone from time to time, only to find at the end of that phone a telemarketer trying to sell something. This rush or scramble to get to the phone before it stops ringing may cause accidents. The other group of people who would be interrupted by telemarketing calls are shiftworkers trying to sleep during the day. They might be people who work in mines, nurses, security people and guards who work at night, or police and other shiftworkers who have to sleep by day and work by night. Some cannot disconnect the phone, because in many cases they may be called to an emergency, so they have to leave their phones active. These people do not need to be woken from their valuable sleep to listen to a nuisance phone call. For businesses there are many benefits as well. It is going to increase efficiency because they will have access to a more targeted list of people. Time will not be wasted calling people who are simply not interested in their products. The passage of this bill will also bring benefits to businesses who want to legitimately utilise telemarketing. They will have a list of people who are interested in receiving calls from telemarketers. A recent newsletter I sent to my constituents included a brief mention of the register which was operating with the ADMA. My offices in Dalby, Warwick and Emerald were bombarded with people calling to get more information about how to sign up to that register. This overwhelming response is proof that a legislated register is long overdue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 115 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 115 Notices The following notices were given: EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable proceedings as specified below to occur during government business on Monday 19 June 2006: in relation to proceedings on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006—at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 8.30p.m., whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate and any Government amendments that have been circulated for at least two hours shall be treated as if they have been moved together; and any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 12.30 p.m. Tuesday, 13 June 2006, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting, and for government business to take precedence from 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on that Tuesday. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen to present a bill for an act to require annual reports of departments and agencies to report on the payment of accounts. (Payment of Accounts by Government Bill 2006) (Notice given 15 June 2006.) MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr Baird to move: That the House: notes the serious discrimination that exists in Iran towards Bahá’ís, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Serbo Mandaeans; calls on Iran to recognise the legitimate rights of minorities involving their access to university training and enrolment in professions; and requests the United Nations Human Rights Commission to undertake dialogue with Iran over their continued human rights concerns in that country. (Notice given 15 June 2006.) HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to move: That this House. notes that: microcredit is a particularly effective and sustainable means of eradicating poverty; microcredit borrowers, particularly women, generate income that allows them to feed, clothe, educate and care for the health of their children; to date 66.6 million people in the world have been reached with microcredit services; Goal 1 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) seeks to eradicate poverty, while its 2015 target is to reduce by half the number of people living on less than $1 per day; if the new Microcredit Summit goal of having 175 million of the world’s poorest families receiving microcredit were reached by 2015, then nearly half the MDG target would be met; Australia spent $14.5 million on microcredit in the 2005-06 Aid Budget, which is 0.6%of the Aid Budget; and the USA, which funded microcredit longer than most donor countries, has established an international benchmark for microcredit spending, being 1.25% of the aid budget; urges the Australian Government to agree to support the new Microcredit Summit goal of having 175 million of the world’s poorest people receiving microcredit by 2015 as a means of achieving the MDG; and urges the Australian Government to increase the proportion of money it allocates to microcredit to 1.25% of the aid budget. (Notice given 15 June 2006.) 2006-06-15 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.37 am. 117 Statements by Members 117 117 09:37:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise today to speak on behalf of cleaners on International Cleaners Day. Many members opposite may not be aware but today is the day that we acknowledge all cleaners for the wonderful work they do. I want to take this opportunity to recognise and congratulate the cleaners on the fantastic work they do here in Parliament House and in our electorate offices; many of you may even have cleaners who clean your homes. Many of us take it for granted that we can turn up day in, day out and find our offices spotlessly clean—the carpets clean and vacuumed and our desks freshly wiped and shining. All these things happen because of the hard work that people do as cleaners. They come in at odd hours while we sleep in the comfort of our beds or are enjoying the comfort of our families around the dinner table. At these times, the cleaners are out there cleaning our offices and workplaces. I thought it important that I do bring this up, having grown up in a family in which my mother was a cleaner for many years. I saw the hard work that she put in for very low pay for many years. As I said, when I was young she cleaned offices in Adelaide’s central business district. Her hours were similar to those that many cleaners work today, and for little remuneration. Her work caused her to miss some of the most special occasions a family can share together. Things have not improved over the years for many people who perform such work. The introduction of the new Work Choices industrial relations legislation by this government means that workers in low-paid industries such as cleaning will need our support to ensure that they can achieve a decent standard of living. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that there are 3,031 commercial cleaners in South Australia. Of these commercial cleaners, 40 per cent are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, over 50 per cent are women, about 50 per cent are parents with dependent children living at home and over a third left school before completing year 12. Most cleaning jobs are part time or casual, and cleaners face job insecurity and often have two or three jobs to make ends meet. The average income for a cleaner in Australia is $8,200 per annum, which is well below the poverty line. So I would like all of you today to show your support for some of the most vulnerable workers in our society by supporting the Clean Start campaign. I know that today there have been many events organised around Australia by cleaners and their union, the miscellaneous workers union. I know there is a rally planned here in Canberra and one in Adelaide. It is very important that we pay tribute to the cleaners who clean the federal parliament. I congratulate them and acknowledge the work they do for very little pay—cleaning being one of the lowest paid professions. I also take this opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the cleaner who cleans my electorate office day in and day out, Mardi Battye, who does a wonderful job and should be congratulated. I ask you all to support the Clean Start campaign. By supporting this campaign you will be supporting some of Australia’s lowest paid and most vulnerable workers. 118 118 09:40:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —I rise this morning to discuss a school in my electorate, the Belgrave Heights Christian School. On Friday, 9 June, I had the great honour and privilege to announce the opening of its recently completed capital works. These works included a double classroom, a food technology area for kitchens, a science laboratory, a chemical storage room and staff offices and amenities. The Australian government contributed $500,000 to this $1.3 million project. The funding was provided under the capital grants program. The new facilities will be used for secondary classes in cuisine, science, mathematics, English, geography, history and French. I congratulate the school’s principal, Mr Andy Callow, and all those concerned who made these new facilities possible. The generosity of the school community continues to play a vital role in the school’s development. I would especially like to single out the extraordinary efforts of Mr Ian Birchell, who has volunteered his time, his earthmoving equipment and his considerable building skills to the school for over two years—an amazing effort. The Belgrave Heights Christian School was originally conceived with the aim of bringing Christian education to the hills. After five years of hard work and prayer, the school first opened its doors to 15 students in February 1983. Today the school has grown to 193 students, enrolled from prep to year 10. I have great admiration for the school’s emphasis on character development. With the enormous pressure students and schools are under to achieve academic success these days, values can often be overlooked. In November 2003, the Australian government published its values education report, which showed that values based education was being ignored in a number of Australian schools. Accordingly, I applaud the Australian government’s commitment of almost $30 million to redress this through the establishment of the Values Education Program. But Belgrave Heights Christian School certainly does not suffer from this failing. To the contrary, Belgrave Heights Christian School is renowned for its efforts to instil in each student high standards of morality, self-discipline, social justice, decision making, leadership, tolerance, respect for others and good manners. Belgrave Heights Christian School also strives to continually improve and upgrade its facilities. I am also pleased to say that the Australian government has been very supportive. We handed over $130,000 in 2001 and $225,000 last year. In closing, it is a fantastic school. I thank all the staff, I thank the parents and, of course, the students. They are going to have a wonderful future as a result of going to that school. 118 118 09:43:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —Over the last two months I have been travelling around Australia holding many public forums and consultations on my portfolio responsibilities. I have been very pleased with the response that I have had, particularly the youth consultations. Last week I hosted a consultation in the Campbelltown area of south-western Sydney where one-quarter of the population are under 25 years of age. The area is home to many young people, and many of these young people experience some disadvantage or multiple disadvantages. There was a terrific turnout from not only young people but also children’s lawyers, youth workers, youth centre health workers, youth homelessness service workers and advocates from other youth organisations. I was particularly pleased to welcome a number of youth workers in training from the local TAFE college. The people in Campbelltown raised many of the issues that, unfortunately, have been raised with me time and time again around this country. I say ‘unfortunately’ because they are issues of great concern. The first thing that is often raised with me is the lack of interest that is shown by the federal government in youth issues and the way that is demonstrated in the breakdown of the youth representative structures that used to exist in Australia—the defunding of the Australian Youth Policy in Action Coalition and the halving of the National Youth Roundtable. I am pleased to note that they are meeting in Canberra today, although the lack of resourcing and the halving of the number of youth representatives on that roundtable is certainly of concern. People also raise the fact that there is no longer a youth minister. The fact that youth issues are not represented around the cabinet table is very serious. The effects on young people losing their right to vote with the changes to electoral enrolment is an issue that is always raised. Health issues are raised, as is mental health, including depression and youth suicide. The rate of youth suicide has decreased in recent years, but we still have one of the highest rates in the Western world. Also, young people always raise their experiences in the workplace and how they fear that the Work Choices legislation will have a terrible effect on vulnerable workers. The notion that a 17-year-old can walk in and negotiate on an equal level with Coca-Cola Amatil or some large employer is just nonsense. Young people understand that, as do their parents, and they constantly raise the issue. At a time when we have a significant budget surplus, young people cannot understand the lack of funding for TAFE and they cannot understand why there are now more than 60 degrees which cost $100,000 or more. They cannot understand, with the incredibly high rates of youth unemployment, why we are still turning young people away from TAFE and importing apprentices from overseas. (Time expired) 119 119 09:46:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —As chair of the government’s defence and veterans affairs policy committee, I take a keen interest in veterans’ affairs issues. I would like to thank the member for Maribyrnong for his representation yesterday on behalf of Mr Kevin Lee. Naturally, I made some inquiries on this issue. Mr Sercombe made quite a reasonable connection with the morale within the Australian Defence Force. I would add, particularly for those deployed in operations or those who have served for extended periods, that there is recognition of this service through the awarding of medals. He highlighted the absolute agreed need for justice, fairness and proper process. He then made a representation on behalf of Mr Kevin Lee. Unfortunately, Mr Sercombe went on to accuse those who have progressively dealt with Mr Lee’s case as being a source of ‘intensive bureaucratic mucking around’ and as being guilty of an unwillingness to have a substantial look at Mr Lee’s case. He characterised those responsible for this unenviable task as ‘boffins and brass’ within the defence establishment. None of those accusations or slurs is accurate or indeed fair. Nothing Mr Sercombe said in this case can be further from the truth. Mr Lee is seeking the award of the long service and good conduct metal. Two key points apply. The first is that, for a person to qualify for this significant award, they must have served 15 years with continuous very good character and have been recommended by the captain of their ship. The second related issue is the determination and recording of the assessment of the person’s character over this 15-year period. Mr Lee was not so assessed in 1955 and has been trying to reverse the presumed cause of this for many years. Additionally, he was not recommended by his captain in that year. In 1955 Mr Lee was convicted of two serious offences. Those offences were assault occasioning actual bodily harm and committing an act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline. Initially arrested by the royal military police and handed to the Japanese civil authorities, he was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Navy to be dealt with. He was convicted of both offences and sentenced to 60 days detention. Mr Lee has sought on six occasions to have the conviction overturned. On each occasion the matter has been considered, and advice tendered to both Mr Lee and those who have represented him has consistently stated that there is no legal basis or mechanism for his conviction to be overturned. In essence, in the absence of substantial and compelling evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that the disciplinary proceedings brought against Mr Lee at the time were correct. Without evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to presume that a view from 51 years past would be less accurate than a view at this time. Further, Mr Lee has sought to distance himself from the actual assault and injury effected. Again, legal advice is that his acknowledgement of his involvement implicates him as being involved and, accordingly, he shares the same common criminal purpose as the other offenders. Further to this, regardless of whether the conviction might be reversed— (Time expired) 120 120 09:49:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 0 Mr SWAN —I wish to support a local community protest in Lilley, which is taking place as we sit in the chamber this morning. Australia Post employees and many other members of the community are gathering outside the Northgate mail exchange to protest against plans to close the Northgate mail processing facility. More than 700 staff are currently employed at Northgate and at the Gold Coast mail sorting facilities. Up to 200 of those may potentially lose their jobs when Australia Post moves the mail processing facilities from both the Gold Coast and Northgate to the new operation at Yatala. This issue is of considerable concern to me and of great importance to the 500 staff who work at the Northgate centre and live locally. Moving the site to Yatala would have devastating consequences for local employees. If Australia Post goes ahead with this decision, it will be tantamount to summary dismissal for a large number of workers who would simply not be in a position to uproot their families and engage in the sort of commute Australia Post expects them to do. A round trip from Northgate to Yatala is over 100 kilometres. It has been calculated that, if the move goes ahead, workers will have to find hundreds of dollars extra a week out of their family budgets just to get to work. Local families are already squeezed enough. They cannot afford these extra travel costs and reduced wages and conditions. Australia Post’s not so hidden agenda is clearly an attempt to take advantage of John Howard’s new unfair industrial relations laws to reduce costs at the expense of ordinary postal workers, their families and the local community. The new work site at Yatala is a ‘work choice’ trap. Under Work Choices, the Yatala mail centre would be a greenfields site where Australia Post management could offer postal workers pretty much what they please. At the new site at Yatala, Australia Post would be able to employ new workers under vastly eroded conditions of employment, now available as a result of the industrial relations changes. For employees at the Yatala site, it would be: ‘Goodbye EBA. Goodbye penalties and allowances’ and ‘Hello AWA—take it or leave it.’ In this dog-eat-dog world, even Australia Post employees’ base pay could be eroded in stages. Australia Post have forged ahead with plans to relocate mail-processing facilities at Yatala, despite overwhelming community opposition. They are so determined to proceed with their plans that they have even bought the site before informing the employees, the union or the local member. It appears that Australia Post are prepared to run roughshod over our local community to take full advantage of the Howard government’s extreme workplace laws. I want to make it very clear to Australia Post that I oppose their plans. I will do everything within my power to stop this move from going ahead. I serve notice on Australia Post that, if they continue to go down this route, they will be met with fierce opposition. Be assured our local community will fight tooth and nail to secure the jobs and employment conditions of the letter processors at the Northgate centre. 121 121 09:52:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —Of course the response to the comments by the previous speaker, the member for Lilley, would be simply this: if Australia does not continue the very necessary reform to keep our country productive, then someone else will be eating our lunch. It is as simple as that. Yesterday the Australian Labor Party again irresponsibly raised the nuclear question. They raised this issue without giving all of the information in relation to the incident that occurred at the Lucas Heights reactor. This incident was not in the main reactor area— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I might just tell the member for Shortland that the reactor is the size of a washing machine. The fear and scare campaign that continually goes on needs to be put to bed. The issue occurred in an adjacent laboratory where pharmaceuticals were being made for the good of Australians. For some reason or other the Australian Labor Party wants to see that shut down. What happened was that there was a problem with a pipe. Problems with pipes can occur anywhere. They can occur in this building. ANSTO said that there was no danger to anybody. But the Australian Labor Party wants to beat this up for the emotionalism involved. Yesterday the member for Jagajaga indicated that krypton, argon, xenon or something or other had been released into the atmosphere— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper —Did she talk about Superman? HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —No. It occurs naturally in the atmosphere. There is no problem with it. Radioactivity occurs naturally all over the country. It is background radioactivity, and that is all that occurred at Lucas Heights. It is just extraordinarily irresponsible for the Australian Labor Party to be trying to put fear into the people of the electorate of Hughes and, more generally, people across Australia. It is time to recognise the realities of our nuclear reserves and to develop a safe and responsible policy regarding their use in Australia. I certainly have been quite distressed that the storage of nuclear waste has been in a state of paralysis in Australia, and worldwide, for years. There have been unrealistic fears foisted by activist groups and the Australian Labor Party which have been very damaging to the better good of all Australians. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper —They’re not an activist group. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Aren’t they? They do not do anything. The member for Fisher says the Australian Labor Party are not an activist group, and I guess I would have to agree with that. This debate has to be held on a sensible and scientific basis. I call on the Australian Labor Party to stop this irresponsibility that they have been engaging in. 122 122 09:55:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —Today I rise to outline some of my concerns about an issue affecting many of my constituents and about which they are very passionate—that is, Australia’s live animal export trade. For at least six years the Howard government has known about the atrocities committed at Egypt’s Bassatin abattoir but, as usual, has failed to act. Australia exports more than half a million live cattle every year to almost a dozen different countries, largely in the Middle East and South-East Asia. Between December 2004 and June 2005 alone, 11,298 sheep died before stepping off the boat. Despite this, the agriculture minister only suspended the trade when confronted with the public reaction to the graphic report on 60 Minutes. But temporarily suspending the live animal trade with Egypt is only a very small first step. The next step should be the finalisation of a memorandum of understanding covering the welfare of Australian cattle and sheep shipped to Egypt. This was promised by the Howard government in 2004 but they are yet to deliver. I have received an overwhelming amount of correspondence from constituents within the seat of Adelaide who are gravely concerned with animal welfare issues that arise from Australia’s live export trade. One constituent wrote to me stating that he was ‘deeply distressed by the unspeakable cruelty animals exported to the Middle East are subjected to’. The federal government has the power to ban exports permanently. The live export trade should not continue until these issues of animal welfare are properly addressed. Labor has already taken action on live exports. Labor’s shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries, Gavan O’Connor, has already put the industry on notice. He has met with industry leaders and stated that an incoming Labor government would have no hesitation in withdrawing licences, suspending or even banning this trade if the animal welfare issues are not adequately addressed. My own personal position on this matter is a little more staunch than this because I have serious concerns about how the Australian government can be convinced that these animal welfare issues will be addressed on the other side of the world. Labor should instead be focusing the industry on expanding the carcass trade. The Howard government must announce whether it is planning on lifting the suspension on live animal exports. I call on the government to let the parliament and the people of Australia know when the suspension will be lifted. It is my very firm view that no amount of profit legitimises brutality. The Australian government must take a united stance against cruelty to animals and should start by showing some real leadership on this issue by pursuing the memorandum of understanding and by putting an end to brutality ahead of corporate profits. 123 123 09:58:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I rise in the chamber today to express my genuine concern at the appalling performance of the Beattie Labor government in Queensland. I think it is singularly unfortunate that Queensland currently is saddled with a government which appears not to be able to control any of the issues and does not seem to be able to provide the good government that Queensland expected. As far back as 1989, when the Goss Labor government was elected, it was wise enough to appoint the honourable member for Griffith as chief of staff to the then Premier. I suspect that, had the member for Griffith been the chief of staff to the Premier of Queensland today, we would not have a situation where people are not able to receive hospital treatment, where in fact the government appears to be totally out of control. When one looks at the complete lack of leadership at the very front of the ALP, it is clear that the ALP is not prepared to take the necessary steps required to bring themselves before the people as a serious alternative contender for government at the time of the next poll. The member for Griffith is undoubtedly the most able member of the Labor Party frontbench, and I certainly hope that is not a kiss of death. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —It’s not saying much though. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I thank the minister. If the Labor Party is not prepared to use the talents of the member for Griffith by appointing him Leader of the Opposition then maybe the Premier of Queensland might look to repeat the actions of his predecessor, Mr Goss, and seek the advice of the member for Griffith in an attempt to paper over more effectively the cracks of a number of years of ineffective Beattie government in Queensland. We should not forget that Queensland Health has been plagued by serious problems: long waiting lists, insufficient numbers of doctors, underpaid, disgruntled staff and the list goes on. We even had a situation at the Caboolture hospital where there was a motor vehicle accident just a short distance from the entry of the hospital and yet the hospital, because it did not have an emergency section, was not able to look after the people who were injured and they needed to be carted off to hospital in Brisbane. I think the Courier-Mail, no friend of the coalition in Queensland, actually asked: ‘What do you call a health system that can’t cope with a car accident outside a hospital? A sick joke’. That was the very appropriate headline in the Courier-Mail. Queensland of course is rightly celebrating the State of Origin win last night and no doubt the Premier of Queensland joined other Queenslanders in celebrating that happy event. However, the Queensland Labor government under Mr Beattie remain in a serious state of confusion and chaos. They lost the member for Noosa—no real loss—a few days ago when she walked out over the dam decision. The dam decision is a disaster but so is the member for Noosa and I hope that the Liberal candidate, Glen Elmes, is successful at the next poll. (Time expired) 123 123 10:02:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —This week is Men’s Health Week and I thought I would use my time to draw the chamber’s attention to the issue of men’s health and the fact that men should take better care of themselves. Men are notoriously neglectful of their own health. They tend to believe that they will be okay. They ignore the pain in the chest. They do not go and have all the tests that they should have for cancer—and I will highlight some of those tests in a moment. I believe, to a large extent, this is cultural. Men in Australia have been encouraged to be macho, not complain, accept their lot and believe, ‘I’ll be okay’ when, in actual fact, they are not always okay. It is just as important for men to care for themselves and to have medical tests as it is for women. Women quite freely discuss the fact that they need to have mammograms and pap smears and they have those tests. If they are feeling a little unwell, they talk to each other about it; they discuss it. It is okay. But men are totally different. They ignore the symptoms and they tend not to discuss the fact that maybe there could be a problem with their prostate. It is no different for a woman who has to have a pap smear and talks about it. Once they reach that age of 50, particularly if they have a family history, men should have a PSA test. They should have a colonoscopy; bowel cancer is one of those cancers that is very avoidable and one that men tend to ignore. As recently as last week, my son told me about a young man, one of his friends, who is in his very early 30s and has melanoma. He has had half of his lip removed. This could have been avoided if he had a test, had it looked at when it was at a stage where it could be treated. Now this young man is fighting for his life. In relation to prostate cancer, I am holding a prostate cancer forum both in the Charlestown area and on the Central Coast at the Halekulani Bowling Club on 4 July this year. Wayne Swan and a number of experts in that field will be at the forum, and I would like to encourage those people who are interested to come. (Time expired) 124 124 10:05:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —I would like to use the last few minutes available to reiterate my concern about the member for Maribyrnong and the case of Mr Lee he spoke about yesterday. I would like to say that further to this, regardless of whether the offence might have been reversed, there is no guarantee that Mr Lee’s rating of ‘fair’ for 1955 would have been upgraded to ‘very good’. Mr Sercombe characterised the most recent response from the Prime Minister’s office—one of six—as ‘total nonsense’. In truth, the reply highlights that military discipline is not subject to political interference. It is not appropriate for the Prime Minister to intervene in matters of military justice, either current or from more than 50 years past. Mr Sercombe sought justice, fairness and a proper process. In Mr Lee’s case, that is precisely what he got. Justice is represented by the Navy justice processes of the day. Fairness is epitomised by the six reviews of the situation. The proper process sees that individuals must meet exacting criteria to be given such important awards. If this approach is not maintained, a progressive degradation of the recognition occurs. Mr Sercombe’s initial point is absolutely critical: such awards must be in recognition for something. They must be earned and deserved. In the time left to me, I would also like to congratulate the YWCA in the electorate of Gilmore on receiving $220,000 to mentor youth in the Shoalhaven. It comes under the partnering employment pathways program, funded under the Australian government’s Mentor Marketplace program, and those participating in the program will be provided one-to-one mentoring opportunities with carefully matched mentors, with a broad aim of providing employment and training outcomes. The program targets young people aged 14 to 25 who are at risk of becoming or are currently long-term unemployed by providing the skills and encouragement needed to keep their lives on track, to stay in education or to gain employment or training opportunities. The partnering employment pathways program in the Shoalhaven is run, as I said, through the YWCA New South Wales, which was established 125 years ago to work with women and families, providing opportunities for them to meet their potential. In New South Wales the YWCA has over 900 members, employs 178 staff and has almost 800 volunteers. In the Shoalhaven area the YWCA has successfully delivered a number of programs for young people, including Links to Learning, job placement, employment and training, Positive Futures, youth enterprise projects and Work for the Dole. The YWCA in my electorate of Gilmore deserves this recognition. It does an enormous amount of work for the young people in our area, and the mentoring program is such that I actually put my hand up to become a mentor for these young people because I believe in its importance. 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. 125 Bills R2551 125 Consideration resumed from 14 June. Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $3,357,492,000. 125 10:08:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —In this consideration in detail, one of the things that the opposition and the parliament are interested in is the current nature of Australia’s deployment in East Timor and the circumstances which gave rise to that deployment. Obviously, having visited East Timor myself, I know the Australian Defence Force are doing well on the ground and are dealing with a difficult and dangerous situation which presents itself. The task for which they were sent was to ensure that civil war did not erupt between the disintegrating elements of the East Timorese defence force and the East Timorese police force. On that score, their job so far has been well executed. Of course, when it comes to the law and order function within Dili itself and beyond, that more properly is a function which should be given to the police. One of the problems that the Australian Brigadier Mick Slater has encountered on the ground is not having those police resources at his disposal. The debate, though, which legitimately arises from the nature of Australia’s continuing commitment—in budgetary terms as well—to East Timor is how we have ended up in a situation where this deployment has become necessary. There are a couple of questions I would therefore appreciate the minister providing us with some enlightenment on. When it comes to the question of the wind-back of Australia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping force in Timor from 2003 onwards, on what basis did the government in 2003, with the consideration of UN Security Council resolution 1473, begin a process of winding down Australia’s military commitment? Did the UN Secretary-General, in the consideration of that UN Security Council resolution, have a different view? Was a different view put by the government of East Timor at the time when that resolution was passed by the council? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Does the minister wish to reply now or wait till the end? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —I will wait. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the member for Griffith got other issues he wishes to raise? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —When it comes to the East Timor question, I am happy for the minister to respond as these things unfold. There are a number of UN Security Council resolutions which then followed between 2003 and 2005. When you look at UN Security Council resolution 1543 of May 2004 you will see that again the question is: why did the government make a decision to further reduce Australia’s military commitment to that peacekeeping force? What particular representations—and these are questions to the minister—did he or the government make through our mission in New York to the United Nations on the composition of that force, any reduction to it or any change in the scope of its operations? Did the government of East Timor at the time of Security Council resolution 1543 in May 2004 express any contrary view about the need to retain the force as it was prior to that date? Finally, on the question of East Timor, we come to the most recent resolution—UN Security Council resolution 1599 of April 2005. This is of course where we see the radical wind-back of the remaining elements of the military commitment to East Timor and a number of statements were made at that time about whether or not that was a wise course of action. One thing which has struck us, and which I would appreciate the minister’s response on, is: given that those forces were finally withdrawn in about May 2005 and given that we began to see the outbreak of significant instability in the East Timorese defence force by the end of that year or early the following year, does the minister regard that as having been a wise course of action given the role played by the PKF over a long period of time in stabilising arrangements on the ground in Dili—a stabilising force both in the perception of various sides of East Timorese politics and in the capacity of the East Timorese defence force to continue to resolve their own internal difficulties in the absence of the stabilising presence of the United Nations peacekeeping force which had been there from 2002 onwards? Again, in the consideration of each of the Security Council resolutions of 2003, 2004 and 2005, the question arises: why did the government on each of those occasions decide to roll down Australia’s military commitment? Did the government of East Timor, in the consideration of any of those individual resolutions in New York, express a contrary view about that roll down? Did the foreign minister of East Timor express a contrary view, and why did Australia decide ultimately to pull its troops out, given that instability erupted so soon after? 126 10:13:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —If that is the end of the East Timor issues, I am happy to deal with a few of those issues without going into all of the details of consultations and discussions that there have been over those few years, including with Security Council members—in particular, the five permanent members—and with the East Timor government. Let me just make a broad point about this. I think we quite rightly took the view—and I feel very strongly about this—that a country like East Timor has got to learn to stand on its own two feet. It has got to learn to take responsibility for its own actions and behaviour. Political leaders in East Timor cannot expect the international community to be investing very heavily in their country, as well as in other countries which have difficult security or political situations, and to hold their hand indefinitely. I think one of the problems we have today in East Timor is that the East Timorese leadership are looking too much to the international community to solve their problems and not enough to themselves and are not taking responsibility themselves for what has happened in their country. The purpose of the peacekeeping force was to deal with the problem of the Indonesian backed militias which were in East Timor—transgressions across the Indonesian border and the continuing activity of Indonesian backed militias—not to deal with political malfeasance amongst political players in East Timor. That was not the purpose of the peacekeeping force. The changes that took place in Indonesia, the work that the peacekeeping force and the UN more generally, the United Nations police, have done in East Timor had, for all sorts of reasons, absolutely solved the problem of Indonesian backed militias in East Timor. In the context of the current crisis, I have no evidence that those Indonesian backed elements have been involved, that Indonesia has any part to play at all in the activities that are occurring in East Timor. With respect to the decisions that were made, the East Timorese have always wanted more support from the outside world than the international community has been willing to provide, but the fact is that the support in the context of Indonesia and the militias was decreasingly needed, and the decisions which were made at that time were the right decisions to make. What has happened recently is an entirely home-grown disaster. It is a disaster of the East Timorese’s own making. This is where I would quite strongly disagree with the opposition: the opposition’s proposition here, which I think is muddle headed, is that the international community should, in effect, take responsibility for East Timor and the East Timorese. I think, now that the country is independent and it is free of negative interference from the outside world—in particular from Indonesia—that the East Timorese should take responsibility for their own affairs. The current catastrophic situation in East Timor is brought about by poor management by the East Timorese of their own affairs. As I said to Jose Ramos Horta only last night on the telephone, we have been prepared to help out, given that the alternative, which was to do nothing, would have been catastrophic for the people of East Timor, but they must sort out their political problems themselves. They must learn to do that. We look forward to the East Timorese sorting out their political problems, because we have had troops there for a little while. We are, as the honourable member for Griffith is suggesting, going to send police. We have nearly 200 police there already. More police will be sent; there will be around 500 international police when they reach their full strength. But, at the end of the day, the East Timorese need to come to a political accommodation. They need to find political solutions and they need to deal with the problems of what are called the petitioners—the 595 people whom they sacked from the army and those other elements known as rebels who have left the army and who support the petitioners. They have to sort those problems out themselves. This notion that somehow we should have had hundreds upon hundreds of troops permanently in East Timor— (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. 127 10:18:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —The notion that we should have kept peacekeepers, that the United Nations should have kept hundreds of military in East Timor in case their politicians behaved badly, is muddle headed. I don’t think that was the right thing to do. I think the sooner the East Timorese take control of their own affairs, the better off that country will be. 128 10:19:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the federal member for Ryan, representing the western suburbs of Brisbane. Many of my constituents have a very deep and abiding interest in the foreign policy of this country. At the outset, let me commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his stewardship of the foreign affairs portfolio. I suspect history will judge him as this country’s finest foreign minister. With my own interest in foreign policy and international affairs, I want to make some comments and ask the foreign minister about the Howard government’s relationships with our Pacific neighbours, how we are promoting our interests— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the member for Ryan that we are looking at how estimates money has been allocated to certain things. This is not an opportunity to make a speech; it is for questions on estimates. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr JOHNSON —I am getting to that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am going to the topic of the amount of financial support which the Australian government is providing to our Pacific friends. Our bilateral relationships with countries such as the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are very extensive and diverse. On behalf of the electorate of Ryan, I am very keen to hear from the foreign minister about the nature of our support for those countries. Also, from the budget delivered by the Treasurer last month, what sorts of aid measures are we putting in place to assist the countries of the Pacific, particularly the Solomon Islands and PNG, where I grew up and in which I have a very strong interest? How are we playing a role? How are the taxpayers of Australia strengthening the corporate governance of countries like PNG and the Solomon Islands? How are we helping their young people through mechanisms such as scholarships? How are we helping disadvantaged people in those countries through aid in health and education? We all know that HIV-AIDS is a tremendous issue for Papua New Guinea. Our own nation has an obligation, I feel, to help as much as we can. I am keen to hear from the foreign minister about the measures that the government is putting in place to promote some of the issues I outlined. The people of Ryan are very keen to hear how Australian taxpayers’ dollars are spent in strengthening the countries of the Pacific. 128 10:22:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —I thank the member for Ryan for his excellent contribution. Firstly, I can give him some numbers. We will be spending an estimated $332 million on assistance to Papua New Guinea during the course of this year. This money is increasingly focused in areas such as governance. As the honourable member will know, we have established the Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea. That involves sending not as many police as we had originally hoped; we were hoping to have police on the beat. That was impossible to do as a result of a challenge in the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. It is simply too complicated to change the constitution to provide for the legal protections that our police would need. Nevertheless, we have a considerable police presence there and that is being enhanced. In fact, only yesterday I met with Ministers Willie and Kimisopa from Papua New Guinea. We are taking a number of different initiatives to enhance our police cooperation and contribution. In the area of law and order, under the auspices of the Enhanced Cooperation Program, we are providing very significant additional assistance to Papua New Guinea. Law and order is a big issue around the Pacific. In the rest of the Pacific we are spending around $434 million and are providing a lot of support, particularly to local police forces, to improve their capacity. In Fiji, for example, the police commissioner is an Australian, Andrew Hughes, whom some members here—I think the member for Maribyrnong—may have met. Andrew Hughes is doing a simply outstanding job. We have the police commissioner in the Solomon Islands, who is doing what could only be described as a courageous job, and a number of Australian police are helping in countries around the South Pacific. We have also been focusing very much on governance. One of the arguments that we put in our white paper on aid, and one of the arguments I have made for a very long time, is that the reason many countries are struggling is that they are badly run. It is as simple as that. It needs to be said and it needs to be understood. How can we help? We can help to improve the quality of governance. We have a series of programs around the Pacific in which Australians are assisting in improving the operation of government departments and the operation of service delivery mechanisms, particularly in areas like health, education and so on. The last point I want to make is that it is probably worth reminding the Committee that we are in the process of establishing an Australian technical college for the Pacific, and we will have more to say about that soon. I know members opposite favour the labour mobility proposal. The Labor Party’s position—and I think I have this right—is to allow unskilled workers from the Pacific to come to Australia. I think we should have more of a debate about that because it does not sit very comfortably with the new position of the Leader of the Opposition to keep migrants out of Australia. In relation to the Pacific very specifically, this is a position where we bring people in. I do not think the public know enough about that, but I am sure I will find the opportunity during the next week to draw their attention to it. We think the challenge is not to bring unskilled labour into Australia; we think the challenge is to improve the skills of the people in the Pacific and to set up a technical college there. We have not announced yet where the college will be located or the detail of how it will work, but we have done a lot of work ourselves on that and will have more to say about it soon. I think that will make a very solid contribution to improving the capacity of the people in the Pacific to build their economies and build their welfare. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —May I remind members that this process is about expenditure and that it is important to go the line item of the part of the budget that has the expenditure on the questions asked. 129 10:27:00 Sercombe, Bob, MP QK6 Maribyrnong ALP 0 0 Mr SERCOMBE —I would certainly welcome a debate with the minister on a broad range of matters. On questions of expenditure in relation to aid to the Pacific Islands, could the minister confirm that total funding for Papua New Guinea and Pacific programs has fallen by 12 per cent in this budget, and specifically in relation to PNG by 34.1 per cent? I note that the failure to pick up implementing the Enhanced Cooperation Program mark 1 and the withdrawal of most Australian police would clearly explain a significant proportion of such a drop. Nonetheless, a drop of some 34 per cent is massive, particularly for a country which in the Pacific context is our most important neighbour and geographically our closest neighbour. Given the enthusiasm of the member for Ryan and the minister on the importance of programs, it seems somewhat anomalous that there is such a substantial drop when there are so many pressing needs in relation to development assistance in PNG. The minister might also confirm that funding for the Solomon Islands is down by 11.8 per cent in this budget. Once again, given events in April, in particular in the Solomon Islands, that drop would also seem to be somewhat anomalous. I ask the minister to give us some further information as to how he sees the ongoing development of RAMSI and related programs in the Solomon Islands. I have had the opportunity on three occasions over the last 18 months to have discussions in the Solomon Islands with RAMSI staff, and I have to say that in general terms it is an outstanding program and one which clearly continues to have the support of the majority of Solomon Islanders. Having said that, the Solomon Islands is facing within the next decade potentially catastrophic economic circumstances. Therefore, whilst law, justice and governance programs are fundamental, against a backdrop where the Solomon Islands economy is facing a cliff because of the fact that the place is almost logged out—and logging is its principal source of foreign revenue—it would be useful to know how the minister sees the socioeconomic future of the Solomon Islands and the RAMSI context to that. Would the minister agree with me that there are deep-seated and serious long-term problems for the Solomon Islands economy and how does that sit with the government’s cut in aid funding to the Solomon Islands by almost 12 per cent? 130 10:29:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —I am happy to take up the points that the honourable member has raised and take the opportunity, too, of acknowledging the real interest he has in the Pacific. He has travelled there a lot and I think he has done a very good job in focusing on a lot of those issues. The parliament is grateful to him for the contribution he has made. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson —It’s a shame he’s gotta go! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —It is a pity that Labor Party branches are not so grateful, as the member for Ryan points out. I think the member for Maribyrnong has been treated abominably. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —The member for Ryan knows a lot about branch stacking—he’s Brisbane’s biggest branch stacker! 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson —Envy is terrible. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I am sure the member for Griffith has done a bit of stacking in his own time too! While the pot is calling the kettle black, let’s move on. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! This debate is about expenditure. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I do not wish to generate disorderly conduct in the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. The numbers have changed in relation to Papua New Guinea because of the anticipation that we were going to deploy police, including into community policing positions, so that was built into last year’s budget. Of course, we were not able to do that, so that expenditure is not going to take place. We would not just spend money willy-nilly on anything; we had the money set aside for that and the program has been much reduced, and that is the explanation. If you take the overall expenditure on the Solomon Islands, of course, I think you will find that, regardless of what the budget numbers say, there has been a rather substantial surge in expenditure in the Solomon Islands as we have deployed quite a number of Australian Defence Force members and, from recollection, we have had to deploy an additional 70 or so police, mainly but not exclusively from the Australian Federal Police. So we will have to look at those numbers in time, but we are not running general cuts in the budget to those countries. In the context of providing aid, I am not of the view—as are, in particular, people on the political left around the world—that the measure of success is the amount of dough you spend. The measure of success is the efficacy of the programs you run, not how much they cost. You have to provide money to run the programs, but the benchmark for good aid should be good and successful outcomes and a tightly focused program, not just unloading bucket loads of money into the Third World. On many occasions, as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and I were agreeing yesterday, it can actually cause quite substantial economic problems for a country if you just unload too much money into that country. For example, it can have significant exchange rate implications, thereby in fact having the effect of undermining its economy. The honourable member raises some very important points about the Solomon Islands more generally. Suffice it to say that we have been concerned about its economy. My recollection is that in 2003 the Solomon Islands’ GDP—somebody may correct me here—declined by about 14 per cent in that one catastrophic year. In the last year, though, the Solomon Islands’ GDP grew by around four per cent. On the face of it, the honourable member might think that that is not such a bad figure and he might be pleased to hear that, and he should be. But it is not a great figure, because, to put that into some context, the Solomon Islands became independent in 1978. So, if you take 1980 as the benchmark for the Solomon Islands economy and work on the basis of a four per cent rate of growth—and, of course, there will be some disruption to economic growth caused by the events of a couple of months ago—the Solomon Islands’ per capita GDP will not return to what it was in 1980 until 2025. That is quite an alarming figure, so the honourable member is quite right to point to some of these issues and ask from where it will generate its economic growth. Obviously, industries such as the timber industry, sustainably developed, and tourism have good potential—tourism has great potential in the Solomon Islands. If they could reopen the Goldridge mine, that, of course, would have a very substantial impact. That is potentially a good mine, but the political issues surrounding the mine need to be resolved. Solomon Islanders have to play a key part in resolving that, but those issues are being worked through and there is some prospect of that mine reopening. The mine made a major contribution to Solomon Islands’ GDP. I think it contributed a quarter or a third of its GDP; it was something in that vicinity. I think it has very good prospects. I can see my time is running short, so I will leave it there. 131 10:35:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —On the question of the government’s allocation of $43.6 million in aid to East Timor—more broadly, allocations which relate to East Timor—I should have acknowledged before that the minister’s presence here is, of course, welcome. I have been attending this chamber now for four years for the consideration in detail stage, and I think this is the first time the minister has graced us with his presence. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —The parliamentary secretary came before. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It is unfortunate that the minister has not been present until now and that he has brought with him his own professional filibusterer, the member for Ryan, to consume opposition time. On the question of East Timor, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, the matter we were discussing before you came into the chamber to assume the chair was the appropriate function being performed by a peacekeeping force under the United Nations flag and whether in fact that had any broader function than policing the border. I think it is fair to say that the minister characterised as ‘muddle-headed’ a view which suggested that this sort of peacekeeping force had any function in the broader security of East Timor itself other than policing the border. I think that is a fair characterisation of the minister’s position. That being the case, it would make entirely muddle-headed the government’s current deployment because that is exactly what the government is now doing. The current force, in being on the ground in East Timor, is precisely dealing with how to resolve tensions arising from a failure in the East Timorese political process—tensions which have a capacity to spill over into the fragmented nature of the East Timorese defence force on the one hand and the East Timorese police force on the other. So if it was muddle-headed—this is a question for the minister to reflect upon and I would appreciate his answer to it—to ever have a view that the peacekeeping force prior to 2005 had such a function then presumably it is muddle-headed, in the minister’s argument, for them to be performing any function like that now. Of course, the reality is that, when we are dealing with complex matters on the ground in East Timor, there are a range of impacts which security presences on the ground perform, one of which is to provide broader stabilisation and the other to provide a confident environment in which the political process can operate. The first question I would appreciate the minister considering in response to this intervention on East Timor is: again in that period 2002 to 2005, did the minister, in making decisions about the draw-down of Australia’s military presence under successive UN security council resolutions, receive any advice from his department, or did the government receive advice more broadly, as to any consequences which would flow in terms of East Timor’s internal security? The second question it would be useful for the minister to reflect upon is: did the government receive any advice, given its responsibility for the training, primarily, of the East Timorese defence force, as to whether that defence force could effectively operate and manage any tensions within its own ranks once Australia withdrew from the field altogether? These are live considerations. The third question I would like the minister to address is this: in considering this draw-down of Australia’s military commitment to Timor between 2002 and 2005 and, furthermore, the consequences, effective or otherwise, of our training of the East Timorese defence force over that period of time, did the minister also receive advice in terms of Australia’s other military needs? It needs to be registered—and I would ask the minister to reflect on this in his response—whether Australia’s military requirements in Iraq and in Afghanistan at this time had a direct bearing on the government’s decision to cut and run from East Timor at this time. It is quite plain that the intense commitments arising from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 were of significant moment within the ADF and the resources available for deployment. Furthermore, when Australia had initially cut and run from Afghanistan at the end of 2002 and then recommitted, after pressure from all sorts of quarters, a year or so later back to Afghanistan, was that also a material factor in the government’s consideration of how to sustain a military commitment to East Timor during that period of time? We all know that there are constraints on the defence budget. Therefore, I would appreciate the minister answering whether, over that critical three-year period which saw the successive drawn-down of Australia’s military commitment, he was in receipt of any advice or recommendation from the government as to where Australia’s military resources were better deployed vis-a-vis Iraq and Afghanistan. (Time expired) 133 10:40:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —First of all, I think I have canvassed the issue of the decision that the United Nations Security Council made to downsize the UN presence in East Timor. Of course, there has been an ongoing UN presence there in the form of UNOTIL and that has included a small number of military advisers and UN police advisers. The Security Council made that decision for the reasons I described earlier, so I will not bore the Committee by going back over that. In relation to the East Timor defence force, which the honourable member raises, I suppose it is fair to say that this is a point of some disagreement between us. I am not sure about advice from other people, but as the minister I am entitled to my own view—funnily enough. All sorts of people give me advice. You should see some of the advice you get from the opposition. My view has been that it was a mistake for East Timor to have a defence force at all. The reason I think it was a mistake for East Timor to have a defence force is that a defence force in an emerging, developing country can have implications for internal security. I rest my case: my advice and my view were right—it has had implications for internal domestic stability. The East Timor government sacked 595 members of the East Timor defence force. That is two-fifths of the East Timor defence force. The implication by the opposition that somehow Australia, of all great countries—or, for that matter, the United Nations Security Council or Kofi Annan—is responsible for what has happened in East Timor is simply preposterous, as everybody knows. I was not in favour of them having a defence force. The East Timorese wanted a defence force because they wanted to ensure that the Falantil people, the people who were on the military wing of Fretelin and had been fighting in the hills against the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, had a role. Those people wanted to be in a defence force, so that is why they did what they did. But it was the wrong call and now they are stuck with a defence force, or what I could only describe now as the remnants of a defence force, and with those remnants they are going to have to work out what they will do. The East Timorese must take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. The East Timorese are responsible for the fact that they have a defence force. They are responsible for the sacking of 595 members of that defence force, not the United Nations and not Kofi Annan. Not even George W Bush is responsible for that, funnily enough. The East Timorese are responsible for that. The third question is the old canard about Iraq. We actually had 2,000 troops in Iraq during the initial invasion, not 20,000. Of course there was no advice that we should downsize in East Timor because of our commitment to Iraq. We progressively downsized—I think the largest number of troops we had there was around 5,700 at one stage. The opposition may think we should have kept 5,700 troops in East Timor. If they do not think that then they must have been in favour of downsizing. They were in favour of downsizing but not of downsizing so much—not that they ever said so or ever criticised the downsizing or the decision of the Security Council at the time. No, not at all. In fact, when it comes to Afghanistan, the opposition leader put out a press release congratulating the government on its decision to withdraw the special forces we had in Afghanistan at that time. Governments make decisions on the basis of the information they have at the time and judgments they make at the time. If we were all able to foretell the future—all of us—we probably would not be here; we would probably be at the races. This kind of constant strategy of the opposition saying, ‘We, the opposition, were able to foretell the future; the government wasn’t,’ is summed up in one word: childish. 134 10:45:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I have a few questions for the foreign minister in relation to our commitment to the Pacific region and territories. When I visited Vanuatu and Kiribati some years ago, I noticed that the Australian government provided a substantial patrol boat program. In fact, the economic zone around Kiribati is, I am told, as large as that of Australia. As a result, the patrol boat program to patrol their territorial waters had been seen to be somewhat welcome, but one of the criticisms was that, rather than actually using these patrol boats for the function for which they were intended, they had become interisland ferries. As a result, the actual patrol work was not being done and the local business people raised the issue that poaching was happening on a large scale, which had an effect on their fishing stocks Minister, could you provide me with any information, if you have it readily available, as to the current status of our commitment to the patrol boat programs to the Pacific island nations that I have referred to? Are we upgrading these fleets, and do we have an ongoing commitment? I noticed when I visited Honiara, for example, that there were two patrol boats in the harbour and apparently they had not left for some time. So I am interested in whether it is a good program that we should continue, given its lack of activity. The other issue I would like to raise is the activity of the Chinese and the Taiwanese governments in these island nations, which has also been under some scrutiny, for all the reasons that we are aware of. Also, there appears to be a large amount of Japanese investment in places like Kiribati and Tuvalu. Given the fact that we are endeavouring to seek their support on whaling, the Japanese seem to be providing similar support. The cynic in me tells me that Japan has probably very little interest in whaling around Tuvalu, for example, but is endeavouring to provide some economic enticement for their vote. Do you have any details which might support that view of mine? If so, could you outline what the extent of the dollar value of projects may be and what Australia is doing in response in economic aid to counteract that? 134 10:48:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —The first point in relation to the patrol boat program is that this is part of the Defence Cooperation Program in the Pacific. Some years ago—I think it was during the life of the Hawke government; either the Fraser or the Hawke governments—the Australian government donated patrol boats to just about all of the Pacific island countries, including the countries mentioned by the honourable member. That program is now going through a process of reinvigoration and renewal in that these patrol boats are being refurbished and rehabilitated. Some of them have been quite well looked after and some of them less so. Under the Defence Cooperation Program we have people from the Australian Defence Force in a number of countries in the Pacific solely to assist with the maintenance of the patrol boats. I note the honourable member referred to the fact that in Honiara the two patrol boats sometimes sit in the harbour. I would have to say I am pleased to see that because I recall a couple of years ago that one of those patrol boats went down the Weather Coast and a little bit of machine gunning of the shore and people on the shore was done from the patrol boat. So the fact that it is tied up at the moment is not necessarily all bad news. In the case of Kiribati, the honourable member is right: the area for patrolling is simply massive, but the fact that they have some patrol boat capability is, at least, a minor deterrent to people conducting illegal fishing activities. These countries in the Pacific do not just depend on patrol boats; they also get assistance from the Royal Australian Air Force and the New Zealand Air Force and, if I recall correctly, the French Air Force, based in New Caledonia, who do aerial surveillance. The patrol boats can act on information that is provided to them. Illegal fishing obviously is a problem for the region. I would not put it in the same league as in some other parts of the world. The honourable member is from Perth, and off the north-west coast of Western Australian and across the north coast of Australia the illegal fishing problem is a very significant one. What happens out in Kiribati, I suspect, is a relatively small problem on that scale. As far as whaling is concerned, we obviously provide aid programs to these countries and not in order to win their votes in international fora. To be fair, I suspect the Japanese are not motivated, at least solely, by trying to win their votes in the International Whaling Commission or other fora in the provision of their aid programs. Japan is a big aid donor in the Pacific and we are grateful for the work that the Japanese do. A lot of it is done in cooperation with us. There are allegations about some Japanese activities in some countries, not just in the Pacific but in the Caribbean and in other parts of the developing world and Africa. Obviously, in rounding up the votes in the International Whaling Commission, it is a fierce contest. We depend heavily on the votes of countries such as Luxembourg, San Marino and Andorra—and their fishing fleets are not big, I think you probably realise, if you think about those countries. The Japanese obviously work very hard to get votes as well in their own way. One final point I would make about this is that the argument that the Japanese have been putting to countries like Kiribati, whatever else may be behind the way they vote in the International Whaling Commission, is that whaling is important in the conservation of fisheries. They have been led to believe that the whales come and eat fish. It might not be an argument that appeals to us or to environmentalists, but it is an argument that has been sold, for example, to the Kiribati government, so you hear that from time to time. I thank the honourable member for his contribution. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—I will permit a final intervention from the member for Griffith but I would ask, in the constraints of time and the next portfolio to be dealt with, if he would mind keeping it short. 135 10:53:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is regrettable that the minister has had to rely upon two professional filibusters to consume the opposition’s time. The first question relates to the government’s allocation of funds to the— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. By indulging in allegations of wasting time, you are indeed wasting it. If you keep the intervention short, we can proceed. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you for the remonstration, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is always appreciated. The Australia-Indonesia relationship contains within the allocation to the aid program $165.9 million in 2006-07. The question to the minister in the short time remaining is: have you obtained from the Indonesians an assurance and a guarantee that Abu Bakar Bashir will be placed under 24-hour a day surveillance from this time on and have you obtained from the Indonesians a guarantee that if the religious schools, to which he has now returned, continue with anti-Australian and anti-Western incitement those schools will be closed? The second question I would pose to the minister in the remaining time is with regard to the allocation of $1.64 billion on the Iraq war so far. Can the minister confirm to the Committee the precise number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the commencement of hostilities in March 2003? 136 10:54:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —I have not got a number in relation to the second question, but I can say that not all but almost all of the Iraqis who have been killed have been killed by the insurgents and the terrorists. I think it is extremely important that that point— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Can’t you give us a number? In 3½ years you can’t give us a number. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —In that case I will not bother with the rest, because I can see the honourable member just wants to talk over everybody in the chamber. The allegation that two members of the Liberal Party are not allowed to make speeches and are just sneered at as conducting filibusters— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are interested in hearing the response from the minister. The minister can proceed. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I think is outrageous. Let me try to get my point across through the fusillade of gabbling coming from the member for Griffith. In relation to Abu Bakar Bashir, the Indonesians have made a very clear commitment to the United Nations Security Council in resolution 1267 and the decision of the 1267 committee to register Abu Bakar Bashir as a terrorist. Having done that, it means that it falls upon the Indonesian government to fulfil its obligations under that resolution. Those obligations include freezing the financial assets of Abu Bakar Bashir, which is obviously welcome, to ensure that he has no access to military equipment of any kind. The Indonesians have been working very hard in the area of counter-terrorism, including endeavouring to ensure that the messages taught in and sent out from the pesantren, the Islamic schools in Indonesia, are moderate and are broadly based messages. The suggestion that the Indonesians are soft on terrorism is quite wrong. The Indonesian government has done an excellent job in fighting terrorism. In relation to Abu Bakar Bashir, it can only be repeated that the government is deeply disappointed by the shortness of the sentence. The sentence was much shorter than we and the international community would have liked to have seen, and I think the Indonesian government shares that view. Contrary to the implication of what the honourable member has said, the Indonesian government is very concerned about Abu Bakar Bashir and his activities. The honourable member may have overlooked this, but the Indonesians themselves have suffered grievously from acts of terror by Jemaah Islamiah, and the suggestion that somehow they do not care about that, I think, is a little offensive to them. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Health and Ageing Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $4,442,462,000. 136 10:58:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I start by noting that once again the Minister for Health and Ageing has refused to attend for consideration in detail on the appropriations for the Health and Ageing portfolio. He is clearly in the parliament. Indeed, both he and I were just in the House dealing with a piece of health legislation. There is no reason why he could not have taken the same walk up the stairs that I did. The consistent refusal of the minister for health to defend the appropriations for Health and Ageing, I think, reflects poorly on his competence and on his understanding of the importance of parliament and is obviously meant to shroud from the opposition’s inquiry the appropriations in Health and Ageing. If he is too incompetent to defend his appropriations, one wonders why he is drawing a ministerial salary. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—I remind the member for Lalor that this is a question on the detail of the appropriations, and it must be connected to the financial matters or policy. We have had the introductory remarks. I remind her that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing is present and that that is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps she could proceed with her questions. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We will ask some questions of the parliamentary secretary for health, but of course much of what we would have wanted to question him on he will say he is not responsible for. This is just a mechanism to avoid accountability. Having said that, I will direct some questions on mental health to the parliamentary secretary, and I would appreciate very detailed answers to them. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, the Howard government has announced additional expenditure in mental health—$1.05 billion appears in the forward estimates of this budget—but none of the measures in the government’s mental health package have an implementation date. Will the parliamentary secretary, who is responsible for mental health, detail when each measure that the government has in its mental health package and which is the subject of appropriations in this budget will commence? Very little detail has ever been given about the measures that are the subject of the package. Given that detail must still be in the stage of development because it has not been publicly released, will the parliamentary secretary indicate whether it is the Department of Health and Ageing or the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that is the lead agency for the development of that detail? I also ask: will the parliamentary secretary indicate what mechanisms are in place to ensure coordination with the states and territories on mental health issues? One of the measures is to allow Medicare rebating for mental health services. A fact sheet released by the government says that in the fifth year of operation it is expected that 35,000 people will see a psychiatrist under this Medicare rebating program and 400,000 Medicare services will be delivered by psychologists. I note that this compares with 100 million GP services and 20 million specialist services a year, so in the scheme of things it is not a large number. Will the parliamentary secretary at the table confirm whether or not psychologists will have direct access to Medicare—that is, will a GP referral be required? Can he indicate whether psychologists will have direct access to Medicare for all services that they provide? Will every psychologist in the country have direct access to Medicare or will there be some credentialing process in order to get access, which means some psychiatrists may not qualify? Will the parliamentary secretary at the table confirm whether or not it is the intention of the government to scrap the Better Outcomes for Mental Health program? Will he confirm the average out-of-pocket cost now experienced for a patient seeing a psychiatrist? What average out-of-pocket cost is it that the government factors that patients seeing a psychologist under this new program will experience in using the program? 137 11:02:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —To facilitate the shadow minister, if she wants to continue to put her questions sequentially, I am happy for her to do so, rather than to be constantly interrupted. What would you prefer to do? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —No, you—so we can see whether we are getting the answers. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —All right. I thank the shadow minister for her questions. I am delighted to be asked questions about mental health because, as she would know, mental health is my primary area of responsibility as the parliamentary secretary. I think the government has a very good story to tell about the mental health package in this budget. I am happy to answer her questions. I do not think any of them go to secrets that cannot be revealed. If it will assist her in promoting and supporting the government’s mental health package, then I am very happy to oblige. As to the lead agency responsible for implementing the mental health package, there are a number of government departments that are responsible for different aspects. So, when the shadow minister says the funding is about $1 billion, it is just over $1 billion for Health and Ageing. But of course the whole package is worth about $1.9 billion and it is spread across a number of departments. FaCSIA’s role is one of the largest in the mental health package but DEWR also has a role. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet forms a large part of the discussions that are going on about how to implement the package. The Department of Health and Ageing obviously has a major role in implementing the package. We are working closely with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as one would expect us to do, because the Prime Minister has a particular stake in this package through the COAG process. He has been leading the mental health reforms in Australia. The Commonwealth government was the first government to put its package on the table. We expect the states to respond generously and we hope they will match the $1.9 billion. The Prime Minister has a large interest in how this program is rolled out and how this money is spent. This was discussed in February at COAG and will be discussed again in July at COAG. I note that Victoria and New South Wales have put some new money on the table, but it is a long way short of what one would expect if one were providing $1.9 billion pro rata across the states. The New South Wales government has attempted to pretend that it has matched the funding at the Commonwealth level, but a large part of the expenditure that New South Wales has announced is a restatement of previous announcements, and Victoria is the same. One would have to say that at least they are trying, whereas in the Queensland budget last week there was not one extra dollar for mental health. They have made no attempt at all to match the Commonwealth’s very generous package. South Australia’s budget will not be handed down until September. That has been delayed, and they have shown a real lack of understanding of how the process works. It will be discussed again at COAG. In terms of the coordination of the states, I think I have answered that question: it has been coordinated through the COAG process. In July the national mental health action plan that was discussed in January will hopefully be signed off by the Commonwealth with all states and territories. We would expect all of those states and territories to make real commitments of dollars on the table for the mentally ill. I do not think the commencement dates of the various programs are a secret, and I am happy to tell the shadow minister. New early intervention services for parents, children and young people, at $28.1 million over five years, are expected to commence on 1 July 2006. The new funding for mental health nurses, the nursing care and support services, commences from July 2007, with a funding commitment of $191.6 million over five years. Improving the capacity of health workers in Indigenous communities, which is $20.8 million over five years, begins on 1 July 2006. Support for day-to-day living in the community, which is $46 million over five years, begins on 1 July 2006. Better access to psychiatrists, psychologists and general practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Scheme begins on 1 November 2006 and is expected to cost $538 million over five years. (Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Canning. 139 11:07:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —Madam Deputy Speaker— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the shadow minister please complete his answer? I know he had not quite finished— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I’m not the shadow minister, Jill. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Could the parliamentary secretary answer— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Shortland will resume her seat. When the time is appropriate again for the parliamentary secretary, he may use that time as he sees fit. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Further to the point of order— 0000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is the point of order, and which is the standing order you are speaking under? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I just wish to draw your attention to the fact that— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry, that is not a standing order. The honourable member will resume her seat. I have ruled on the matter. I call the honourable member for Canning. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —I would like to address some comments and a question to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. They relate to autism. If those opposite consider this filibustering, then they reflect on all parents with autistic children and on a community that is suffering from this huge issue of increased autism— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —We agree with that, thanks. And we work with the Autism Council, so don’t slur us. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —In fact, I praise the member for Holt again for his support for autism in the Committee the other day. In terms of my interest in autism, I support a local group called the Unique Mothers, for mothers of children with autism in the Canning electorate. One problem is that people with autism suffer greatly because, as I understand it—and the parliamentary secretary can confirm this or otherwise—autism receives less funding than other areas of health because it is not considered a syndrome. Because it is not considered as a specific syndrome, it does not receive funding as such. I know that this is an area that comes under the responsibility of the parliamentary secretary. I receive many representations from parents of children with autism. For example, in Canberra there is a group called A4, which is very active in contacting us in relation to further funding and resourcing for parents of children with autism. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: what programs and funding does the federal government continue to assign to autism? One of the areas that parents of children with autism are continually seeking support on is early identification and early programs. The earlier you take on the role of identifying and then working with children with autism, the better the results are. One other area of great need for parents of children with autism is respite. It is not just about respite; it is about flexible respite. By way of an aside, in an adopt-a-politician program in Western Australia, which is largely unique to Western Australia, I have adopted a boy with autism. I went through a formal adoption process in the state parliament to do so—along with other members on both sides of parliament, state and federal—to help people with disabilities. I would recommend to the parliamentary secretary that this program be funded so that it can become an Australia-wide program. It not only helps awareness but also helps the parents involved in many different ways, which I will not go into now because of time constraints. Flexible respite is needed for when a parent is absolutely at their wit’s end. We know that in the past some parents have actually harmed their autistic child because they cannot take it any longer. Flexible respite is something they crave. There is no point in saying, for example, ‘You have a respite time next Sunday between the hours of two and six,’ because you might not need it then. You need respite when the child is absolutely out of control or the parent has had enough. This stops harm. In fact, I understand there have been cases where parents have caused the death of their child. That is how serious the matter is. I ask the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the parents of children with autism: what programs and funding have we allocated in this budget and what can we do into the future for this very needy program? 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Before I call the parliamentary secretary I would point out that it is up to him whether he responds after every question or wishes to answer at the end of the session. Probably after each intervention is wise on this occasion. 140 11:13:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I am happy to respond to the member for Canning’s query. It is well known in this place that the member for Canning has a particular interest in autism, and he has lobbied me on a number of occasions about autism. He will be very interested to know that the meeting I had immediately before coming to the Main Committee was with Bob Buckley from A4 and ASA, the national autism organisation. Bob Buckley is an extremely passionate advocate for parents, particularly, and children with autism spectrum disorder. I wish we could do all the things that Bob wants us to do but, of course, there are issues to do with state responsibilities and Commonwealth responsibilities and amounts of revenue available to spend on every problem that could be fixed. Having said that, now that the mental health package is being bedded down and we have had a substantial injection of funds into mental health, I was happy to tell Bob this morning—and I am happy to tell the member for Canning now—that my goal in next year’s budget is to work on a substantial autism package to address what I think is a glaring difficulty in the community for parents of children with autism and the children themselves falling through cracks and not getting the early intervention that is needed, not getting the correct early diagnosis and therefore not being saved from a difficult life when they could have a very productive life. One of my goals in the next 12 months is to work on an autism package. In this budget, though, I am pleased to tell the member for Canning that the mental health package item to do with accessing psychologists through the Medicare Benefits Schedule means that, after referral from a GP or psychiatrist, psychologists will be able to be accessed by children with autism spectrum disorder. This is an improvement for them and means that they will be able to see psychologists on the MBS when they have been referred by a GP or a psychiatrist. That is a substantial step forward, and Mr Buckley was very pleased to hear that. In last year’s budget, the member for Canning may remember, we altered the requirements for access to the carers allowance and the carers payment. Many children with autism spectrum disorder were falling through the cracks in the various definitions in the criteria and we enabled the carer of any child with autism spectrum disorder to have access to carers allowance and carers payment, so that was an improvement for them last year. We are making gradual steps forward in each budget, but I would like to be able to do more for them in next year’s budget. One of the difficulties with autism is that it falls between many stools. There is no one department in the Commonwealth government which is responsible for autism spectrum disorder. So FaCSIA has significant responsibilities, DEWR has responsibilities and the Department of Health and Ageing has responsibilities. We are trying to narrow that down so that one area has more responsibility and control. The member for Canning would remember that we had a conference here last year, which I initiated with the member for Casey, who is also a passionate advocate for services and support for families with children who have autism. That conference came up with a number of recommendations, one of which was a research project to drill down into what sorts of services would be useful for people with autism spectrum disorder. That has been funded and is nearing completion, and we will soon have the response from the research that arose from that conference we held last year. So we are making steps forward. We could do a great deal more in terms of respite. One problem with respite, of course, is that the services are largely provided by the states under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Unfortunately, because of that, the Commonwealth have little control over how that money is spent. We would like to have a lot more control. I think there is a chink of light for us in that area, because the mental health package also contains support for 650 new respite places for people with mentally ill children. Therefore, I guess we have broken the dam wall a bit through this mental health package, and we might look to see how we could do that further in areas that affect families with children affected by autism. 141 11:18:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Madam Deputy Speaker, can I reiterate—and it relates to the program that was the subject of the last discussion, prompted by the question from the member for Canning—that we are seeking details of the operation of the Medicare rebate by psychologists. My question once again is: under this measure, will all psychologists have access to Medicare for every service they provide? If it is not for every service, what services is it for? If it is not for every psychologist, how will psychologists have such access determined? Will psychologists have direct access to Medicare or will there need to be a GP referral? Is the government intending to scrap the Better Outcomes for Mental Health program? That ought to be capable of a yes or no answer. Does the government have an average figure for out-of-pocket costs paid by patients who currently access psychiatrists who are entitled to Medicare rebating? If so, what out-of-pocket cost does the government project that people will be required to pay for accessing psychologists with the benefit of Medicare rebating? To pick up the point of the member for Canning: it is one thing to say that people will get access to psychological services and have a Medicare rebate to support them, but if the remaining out-of-pocket cost is still prohibitive then that obviously creates an access issue. We would like an answer to that question from the parliamentary secretary. Given that the spatial distribution of psychologists and psychiatrists in this country is very much confined to major cities—indeed, very close to the centre of capital cities—how will Australians in regional, rural and remote areas benefit from the Medicare rebate arrangements for psychiatric and psychological services? The parliamentary secretary would be aware that funds are provided under the budget to increase access to treatment services provided by workers such as psychologists, social workers and mental health nurses in rural and remote areas, but the delivery mechanism for this funding is not at all defined. How will these services be delivered? Will it involve Better Outcomes for Mental Health—once again, that relates to whether or not that program is going to still be in existence—or will the delivery mechanism be the More Allied Health Services Program? Will accessing the services of a psychologist, social worker or mental health nurse require a GP referral? How many services are expected to be delivered each year under this program? What types of services are going to be funded and provided by these health professionals? 142 11:21:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I think I was up to commencement dates when I was answering the member for Lalor’s previous questions. I think we are up to the better access to psychiatrists, psychologists and general practitioners through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, to which many of her questions related, so I will return to that. The start-up date is 1 November 2006 and the amount of money is $538 million over the next five years. Funding for telephone counselling, self-help and web based support programs is expected to begin on 1 July 2006. There is $56.9 million over five years for that. Assistance for the national telephony system is one payment this financial year—that is $2.4 million to Lifeline. Alerting the community to links between illicit drugs such as cannabis and mental illness is a matter which I think Deputy Speaker Bishop is particularly interested in and speaks on regularly. I think she has played a significant role in ensuring that money has been put aside for this issue. That begins on 1 July 2006 and it involves $21.6 million over four years. Improved services for people with drug and alcohol problems and mental illness starts from 1 July 2006 and involves $73.9 million over five years. Increased funding for the Mental Health Council of Australia commences in the 2006-07 financial year and involves $1 million over five years. Mental health services in rural and remote areas commence on 1 November 2006 and will have $51.7 million over five years. The additional education places, scholarships and clinical training in mental health commences in 2007 and involves $103.5 million over five years. Mental health in tertiary curricula commences in 2007 and involves $5.6 million over five years. There are a lot of programs and you did ask for the commencement dates. I am sorry if that is taking a bit longer than you expected but, of course, it is a very big package and therefore will take some time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Should nobody else rise at the end of your five minutes, you may have another five minutes. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The expansion of suicide prevention programs commences on 1 July 2006 and will get $62.4 million over five years. That is the end of the package. I am happy to answer some of the other questions that the member for Lalor asked. In terms of the MBS items, which relate to the substantial change to the way we are structuring Medicare, I think it is a very welcome change to allow psychiatrists to access the Medicare Benefits Schedule. It has certainly been very well received by the psychology organisations that I have had discussions with and by psychologists generally who have talked to me. It is the substantial item in the package—it is $538 million—and I think it will make a substantial difference in access to psychiatrists, GPs and psychologists, as psychiatrists are able not to clear their books but to ensure that patients who are better seen by psychologists can do so effectively—and have the financial access that the member for Lalor also craves—and therefore allow psychiatrists to see the patients who really need to be seeing psychiatrists, rather than those patients who do not need to see psychiatrists but sometimes are. The member for Lalor asked if a GP or psychiatrist referral will be required to see a psychologist. The answer to that question is yes. Psychologists will only be able to access the Medicare Benefits Schedule on referral from a GP or a psychiatrist. Psychologists who will be able to be referred to will be a certain category of psychologists. Not every psychologist in Australia will be able to receive a referral from a GP or a psychiatrist; they will have to meet certain criteria. We are working through those criteria at the moment with the stakeholders, obviously, to ensure that those people who see psychologists under this Medicare Benefits Schedule item are ones who have practical clinical experience rather than every psychologist who currently has qualifications, of which there are many, many thousands, not all of whom—in fact, less than half of whom—would have clinical experience in recent history. So we want to make sure that those— (Time expired) 143 11:26:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —What I think I might do in view of the time—I trust that the parliamentary secretary is going to answer the remainder of those questions, because they are of importance—is, whilst we are on the mental health topic, put some additional questions to the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps in the next five minutes he can conclude his previous answer and ensure that these questions are answered too. The parliamentary secretary made reference to the web linked services and the call centre services in the mental health budget appropriations. I ask the parliamentary secretary: what proportion of the total Lifeline budget is now supported by government funds? What proportion of the total Kids Help Line budget is supported by government funds? How will the services provided by these two agencies be linked to the mental health services to be provided as part of the National Health Call Centre Network? Is there going to be integration of those services or not? When the parliamentary secretary refers to web based support programs, is he aware that there has been previous funding given to a successful web based support program known as depressioNet? Why is there no inclusion of a continuation of this initiative, given the desire for web based support programs for people with mental illness and that this has been a successful one? Will there be any initiatives that would link depressioNet, a current and successful initiative, to the new system? On the question of the new mental health workforce, which the parliamentary secretary has also referred to, there is funding, as he would be aware, for new mental health nurse places and new clinical psychologist places. There is also a reference to full-time and part-time postgraduate scholarships for nurses and psychologists. Can he give us the breakdown of what funding will be directed to scholarships for nurses as opposed to the funding that will be directed to scholarships for psychologists? As he would be aware, the scholarship initiative is just bundled together. Given the significant educational costs faced by those who do not access scholarships—the parliamentary secretary is aware that the cost for someone who seeks to be a mental health nurse, given mental health nursing is a postgraduate course, is in the order of $50,000 a year and in the order of $20,000 a year for a person who seeks to be a psychologist—how many scholarships are going to be provided in each category and how many places, therefore, will be left without the benefit of a scholarship, leaving people to face those sorts of costs in order to access the course? 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Before I call the parliamentary secretary, I point out that this session was due to end at 11.30 am, but as we were running 10 minutes behind on the initial program this morning, we can proceed for another 10 minutes. 144 11:30:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —In continuation of the answer to the member for Lalor’s question, I think we were up to access to the MBS item by psychologists and I had said that a certain criterion would be applied. They will require a GP or a psychiatrist referral and not every psychologist will be able to simply access the MBS item. The member for Lalor also asked whether psychologists should be able to access the MBS item for all the services they provide and the answer to that is no. They will be able to access only the MBS item for services referred to them by a GP or psychiatrist. How that will be done in detail I cannot tell the shadow minister at this point, but I can certainly go into the detail that answers her question, which is that they will be able to access the MBS item for a service that has been referred to them by a GP or a psychiatrist but they will not be able to unilaterally apply the MBS to all of the services they provide. The member for Lalor asked whether we are scrapping the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care program, which surprises me because we have absolutely no intention of scrapping it. That program continues and I am not aware of why the member would think we are scrapping it. It is possible that she has information which has not been provided to me and I would be more than happy to receive that information if she wants to write to me or to ring my office. I am sure we can facilitate a discussion over that matter. She may want to provide me with that information because I have no instructions that that is the case. The government is a very enthusiastic supporter of the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care package. We think it is making a substantial difference. Certainly the number of GPs who are being trained in mental health and all the stakeholders are happy to see it expand rather than not so. In the Youth Mental Health Foundation measure which was announced before the budget $15 million of the $69 million was put aside for GPs to work through the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care package in order to help young people, particularly with early intervention. There is no enthusiasm on the part of the government for the scrapping of Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care. I look forward to that continuing as a vibrant and active part of our arsenal of activities with which we seek to help people with mental illness. The member for Lalor asked about the level of rebate. I think that is what she was getting at in terms of psychologists being able to access the MBS, therefore how much out-of-pocket expenses clients would be expected to provide. I can tell her that we are currently working closely with stakeholders on what the rebate should be. There is obviously a divergence of view, as the member for Lalor would expect, between what  psychologists would like to receive and what GPs and psyhiatrists and others think psychologists should receive. I am not in a position to tell her today what the rebate will be but we are close to finalising those figures and that will be announced well in advance of the 1 November start-up date on which we expect this new MBS item to come on board. The member for Lalor asked about the distribution of psychologists across the country. I obviously come from an inner-city suburban electorate and we do not have quite the same difficulties as other members would have. In fact, I think everyone currently in the chamber is in the same position as me, except perhaps the member for McMillan, who has a more regional based electorate and might have issues— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —I am hardly inner city. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —You are not exactly in the country either. Regarding the distribution of psychologists and how that will work, as part of the mental health package we will provide $51.7 million for mental health services in rural and remote areas. We anticipate that some of that money will be used to ensure that mental health nurses coming on stream are placed in rural and remote areas and that the changes to the way psychologists are treated are rolled out in rural and remote areas. (Time expired) 145 11:35:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Perhaps it will suit the convenience of the chamber if I briefly outline some additional questions to the parliamentary secretary and then the remaining time can be taken by the parliamentary secretary in reply. There are some outstanding workforce issues which I asked about and which have not been answered. I will turn briefly to an alternative topic and seek answers to the following questions. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the only current Department of Health and Ageing initiative which directly addresses the issue of childhood obesity is the $15 million Healthy School Communities grants initiative? Can the parliamentary secretary tell us how many schools have applied for grants under this initiative and how many schools have received funding? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on overweight and obesity have not been updated since September 2002? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on nutrition and healthy eating and Eat Well Australia have not been updated since 9 October 2003? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the department’s website pages on the National Child Nutrition Program, which was funded in 2001 to provide three-year community grants, say that half of the 110 projects funded will be completed by the end of 2003 and that summary reports will be available, but there is exactly one summary report on the website? What has happened to the more than 100 others that are missing? I ask that the parliamentary secretary, in the time remaining, address those questions and the remaining mental health questions. 145 11:37:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I will attempt to respond to those questions in the very short time that is still available. I think I was up to the distribution of psychologists. The answer is that this $51.7 million is designed to assist in the roll-out of psychologists and mental health nurses to rural and remote areas. We expect that that will assist. We understand that the ‘spatial distribution’, as the member for Lalor has coined it, is not as perfect as we would like it to be. That is why the Minister for Health and Ageing has a number of programs in place to try and address that issue. The member for Lalor asked what the mechanism for the roll-out of these extra services under the mental health package would be in rural and remote areas. The member for Lalor would probably like to know that we intend to use the existing Australian Divisions of General Practice to roll out these services. In those areas where that is not appropriate, we will use the services that are there. In some areas Aboriginal health services will be used and in other areas regional health services will be used. Obviously, whatever service that is available and appropriate in the area will be the one that the Commonwealth puts to use for this program, but our leading area of rolling this out will be through the Australian Divisions of General Practice, in which we have great confidence. I think the issue of web link services was the next item the member for Lalor raised. I am pleased to say that we are putting substantial funds into internet, telephone and counselling services. The member for Lalor would know, as would most members of the House, that the first source of treatment or advice for teenagers and young people is not going to be their parents or even their peers. If they have concerns about their mental health, they will happily go to the internet for advice—and, to some extent, self-treatment—because it is anonymous and they can find out a great deal of information. So the Commonwealth is putting substantial funds aside for the internet to try to reach young people. Some excellent websites are already in existence, such as MoodGYM, which is run from the ANU, and there are other sites that I have visited. We expect those to expand. I cannot answer the question as to the proportion of the Kids Help Line budget or the proportion of the Lifeline budget that is Commonwealth funded. That is a question that is best put to Lifeline and the Kids Help Line. It is not something that I would necessarily know. Therefore, the member for Lalor might wish to approach Lifeline and the Kids Help Line. I am sure in their annual reports she would be able to find the answers to those questions, but I am not going to answer them because it is not part of my particular responsibility. The member for Lalor also asked about depressioNet. DepressioNet was given extra funding last year by the minister for health. DepressioNet is perfectly able to apply for funding under this mental health package. DepressioNet has not been singled out for mention in the budget; neither was MoodGYM or any of the other web based services that are available. Like them, depressioNet is more than welcome to apply for funding under the package and if it is successful in achieving it then good luck to it. The breakdown of the scholarships between nurses and psychologists is a question that I do not have a specific answer to. I am happy to take it on notice and ask the department to see whether they can come up with a breakdown. I imagine that, because these are not commencing until 2007 and many of the other parts of the program are commencing in July 2006, the specific breakdown of scholarships between nursing and psychology has probably not yet been decided. It is a matter that will obviously be decided before the end of this year and the member for Lalor will be one of the first to find out, I am sure, as will the institutions that are providing this training to the 420 new nurses and 200 new clinical psych places that the Commonwealth has put aside as part of this mental health package. As the member for Lalor and other members of the House would know, there is a chronic shortage of the labour that is required in the workforce in this area. The Commonwealth is moving to make a difference in that area even though many would say that the states bear a substantial responsibility for the workforce situation. The member for Lalor also asked a number of questions about nutrition and obesity. I would point out to her that the minister for health has primary responsibility for those areas and, as a consequence, I am happy for him to answer those questions if he chooses to do so. 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—The time allocated for this section of the debate has almost expired, but I will allow one more question. 147 11:42:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I ask the parliamentary secretary, if he is unable to answer the questions on childhood obesity, whether he could commit to procuring an answer from the minister for health, who is not here and ought to be here, and that that answer be provided to us in writing. In the same vein, I ask: if he is unable to answer this series of questions, will answers be procured for us? This series of questions relates to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. I would seek an answer from the parliamentary secretary as to whether or not the screening program is on track for an August roll-out as promised or whether that promise is about to be broken and an August deadline not achieved. Are there agreements with the states and territories about the National Bowel Cancer Screening initiative? If there are, when were they signed? If there are not, when we will they be signed? Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that what will actually happen is not a national roll-out but a region-by-region roll-out? Is it correct that this will not include major parts of the country? If so, which parts of Australia will miss out and when will there be a national program? Is the limitation on the roll-out because there is currently no way of ensuring that people who get a positive first instance test result will be able to get access to a colonoscopy? What procedures are in place to ensure that everybody who gets a positive first instance test result will get a colonoscopy in a reasonable time frame? How will this work for patients in remote and rural areas? Who will bear the medical indemnity implications if a patient with a positive first instance test result then does not get timely access to a colonoscopy? Is it correct that programs to ensure Indigenous Australians get access to bowel cancer screening are still only at ‘a fairly early stage’, as we were told at Senate estimates? 147 11:45:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I am sure the member for Lalor would be well aware that the areas that she has asked about are specifically matters to do with the Minister for Health and Ageing. I have, for almost an hour now, been happy to answer questions generally in the department of health, but I thank her for asking questions specifically in my areas of responsibility so that we could have a useful exchange in this part of the parliamentary process. But, for those areas which are the particular responsibility of the minister for health, such as nutrition, obesity and the like and the cancer-screening program to which she has referred, I am happy to refer those matters to the minister for health. How he chooses to respond to the member for Lalor is best placed in his hands. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Defence Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $17,540,556,000. 147 11:46:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —I have a couple of questions I would like to put to the minister. The minister will be aware that I have been fairly complimentary of the job that he has generally done since he was appointed. I think that complimentary approach has been warranted in some areas. However, there are other areas where I would really appreciate some direct answers in relation to a couple of issues. You would be aware, Minister, that one of the great areas of consternation within the current serving and broader veteran community is the issue of the recently announced Australian Defence Medal. I want to refer to a press release which was put out by the Hon. Mal Brough on Saturday, 26 June 2004. I will quote three parts of that. He says: The Howard Government has today announced the intention to establish a new medal that recognises volunteer service in the Australian Defence Force. It goes on to say: Mr Brough said the Australian Defence Medal would be retrospective … However, those who completed National Service would not be eligible unless they subsequently volunteered and completed the requisite six years volunteer service. In conclusion it says: Nonetheless, the Australian Defence Medal provides the Government and the Australian people the ability to recognise those service men and women who do volunteer and serve the flag in a variety of roles and are prepared, should the call come, to put their lives on the line. I want to ask the minister why the criterion of this medal was changed from one, importantly, of recognising volunteer service, following the recognition of national service with the previous National Service Medal. Why was it changed from a volunteer medal? Minister, who did you consult in the process of making that change? 148 11:49:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —I thank the member for Cowan, and I thank him also for his warm-up kind words. I was pleased to open the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in Perth and—it must be a mutual love-in society—I was pleased to praise the member for Cowan for his contribution to VVCS. Thank you for that. On the issue of the ADM, the Australian Defence Medal, the government did vary the eligibility entitlement. The member for Cowan rightly outlined the initial announcement at that time. For completeness, I should emphasise that quite a deal of consternation followed the announcement of the initial eligibility criteria, to the point where the government engaged in quite an extensive range of consultations with ex-service organisations, and I can provide a list of those. That occurred largely before my appointment on 27 January, which I am sure the member for Cowan is aware of. There was also consultation and discussion within the government. The topics that arose were not limited solely to the question of national service. There were issues around particularly women. Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, you may have had representations, as I had, that the actual period of initial enlistment for women was in some cases under the minimum eligibility criteria for the medal. There were also other issues we characterised as employment related policies within Defence. For example, if a female member serving in the defence forces fell in love, she was invited to leave. If she was married, she was invited to leave. If she became pregnant, she was invited to leave, and some other relationships that she may have been involved in also could have meant there was an invitation to leave. In that light, the review was carried out. The defence chiefs were involved; the government revisited that eligibility criteria. The member for Cowan is quite right: the emphasis on ‘volunteer’ was removed because the focus of the ADM, and the announcement that I made on behalf of the government, went to the question of service and all of the things that the member for Cowan mentioned about a preparedness to serve, to be called upon, to defend the country and to be involved in other defence related activities in the national interest. A view was taken that if an individual had planned as part of their career to be a member of the ADF and had served out their initial undertaking, they were very deserving of the award of an ADM. The view was also taken that people might have had other career plans for their lives. They might have wished to do other things with their lives, but they were called upon through national service to also serve and, if they fulfilled that obligation appropriately and satisfied the enlistment period, they were equally deserving of having their service recognised. The key issue that has caused some contention is a view amongst those who volunteered during the period of national service that the nashos have received double recognition; that they have received the National Service Medal and they are eligible for the Australian Defence Medal. This is true; it is a cause of consternation and it has been raised with me. What I have emphasised is that the ADM is to recognise service, and service has been provided and deserves recognition, regardless of the pathway that brought people to serve our country, and to serve well. In relation to the National Service Medal, this is a commemorative medal. It is a ceremonial medal, not an honour or an award, yet many are saying it is still a medal, and some of the volunteers feel quite strongly that they have not been given the level of recognition for their voluntary service. I have met with a number of veterans organisations recently, and I am sure the member for Cowan would know they have put their views quite vigorously to me, and some points of view I have taken on board. The eligibility criteria for the ADM are sound, principled and, I think, entirely defensible. They will not be changed. The question of whether someone who was a national serviceman is receiving both the ADM and can claim the commemorative National Service Medal relates more, in my view, to the issue of the commemorative National Service Medal than the merit or otherwise of the eligibility criteria of the ADM. 149 11:53:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —I would like to come back to that, but time absolutely precludes me from doing so, so I will conclude by commenting on two further issues. Firstly, I encourage the minister to look at the reason why there are such long delays in the provision of this medal, and why there are anomalies arising where people with the same sorts of service eligibility are being, on the one hand, rejected, while others in exactly the same situation, on the other hand, are being approved. Something is wrong here and the minister needs to get a handle on it. The last question I will ask the minister relates to the bravery awards following the Battle of Long Tan. I know the minister is aware of this issue, and I want to ask him whether he feels that the officers who actually fought in the battle have been treated fairly. I want to know whether he feels that the downgrading of their bravery awards was a fair thing to have happened at the time and, particularly in this year—the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan—what action he intends to take to review those bravery awards, which were given to the officers who actually took part in the battle—the trigger pullers, the men who fought the fight? I want to know what steps he is going to take to rectify what is now becoming a longstanding embarrassment to our honours and medals system. 149 11:55:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —The member for Cowan asked two questions. The first one related to the issue of medals. I think there have been about 7½ thousand Australian defence medals issued within about eight weeks—but I will check the exact number. My sense is that, with all the medals that have been issued in recent times, the ADM experience would be at the high-water mark. But, if the member for Cowan is aware of some eligibility issues or some anomalies in the implementation of what I think is a sound and principled eligibility framework, I would welcome receiving that information. I am encouraged by the turnaround time in applications, and the way defence honours and awards are processing those medals is a credit to them. We are still working through a considerable backlog with other awards, and I am encouraged by the whole team’s effort to get those awards out to people who so richly deserve them. On the second point, the member for Cowan knows that I have some incredible sympathy for those people involved in the battle and the circumstances surrounding the recognition of their service, their gallantry and their honour. He knows how I feel about that. Dave Sabben is a man whom I greatly admire and count as a friend. I receive much wise counsel from him and, via him, some advice and thoughts from the individuals involved in the battle. One of the things that I have turned my mind to is what I can do about the feelings and residual sentiments of those individuals about how they were treated some 40 years ago. One of the issues that I confront is that I am not able to change the history of the time. There were some decisions made at that time by people in the command structure who were not immediately part of the action but who were close to it. I am not sure how safe it is for me to second-guess judgments made by serving members of the ADF who, in all the circumstances of that battle and our engagement in Vietnam at that time, arrived at some conclusions that differed from the immediate hierarchy of those very brave men involved in that incredible fight. Member for Cowan, my issue is that, having recognised my sense that there has been an injustice here, my second step is trying to find a positive way of responding to it without inadvertently bringing into question the judgments about the medals, honours and recognitions not just from that battle but from the Battle of Coral and all the other conflicts that were part of our Vietnam engagement. So I have sought some advice on that. I have spoken widely about it. I am seeking wise counsel from people about what I am able to do, given the current law. I am keen to see what I can do. Precisely what that is, I do not know just yet. I am not sure. There are issues about imperial medal systems that we do not have with us any longer. There are issues about reopening some assessments made at the time, on the ground, by people directly involved in full recognition of all the circumstances. As someone who was barely a pup when that battle happened, how wise is it for me to revisit some of those judgments? If they were to be revisited, what is a fair and equitable way of honouring the services of the people involved while not in some indirect way dishonouring the services of others who were involved? These are the things that I am grappling with. Frankly, I would welcome a chat with the member for Cowan if he has some views on that, because I share his sentiment. The road forward to remedy it, though, is less clear. 150 23:59:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP 0 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I will be very brief, given the time. I have two questions for the minister. Firstly, can he provide any detail to the House regarding what commitments have been made with respect to funding for the children of Vietnam veterans health study? That is an issue on which I can assure him there is cross-party support. Secondly, the minister would also be aware there has been quite a furore in elements of the veterans community regarding comments attributed to him in the Cynthia Banham article in the SMH some time ago. I would like to give him the opportunity to clarify that on the public record. 151 12:00:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —What an unfortunate episode the article in the Sydney Morning Herald represents. At no time have I discredited nor will I discredit the service of previous members of the ADF or serving members of the ADF. In fact, that rather long interview was about carrying forward the best military traditions of the ADF and recognising the demands placed on serving members, past and present—that it is a place for high-calibre individuals. The Sydney Morning Herald, in trying to summarise a 45-minute interview in a summary paragraph of its writing, not mine, left some with the impression that I was discrediting past or serving members of the ADF. I have taken that issue up with the Sydney Morning Herald. To the credit of the Sydney Morning Herald, they have quite accurately said that I never said that any serving or past members of the ADF were misfits. I never said that and the Sydney Morning Herald has made that clear. I welcome the opportunity to again make that point, as I did to the national congress of the Vietnam veterans in Nerang. I would welcome anybody who is interested in the circumstances of that to contact me because that is so at odds with everything I have said and everything I believe. I am grateful to the member for Bruce for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record. The second area he asked about was the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans health study. He would be aware that the feasibility study has now been completed. There was some considerable discussion, debate, disagreement—argy-bargying, if I could put it that way—in the preparation of that feasibility study, involving a scientific advisory committee and a consultative committee. The report that has come to me points to some risks, some concerns, some hazards about undertaking certain kinds of research and proposes that we undertake a pilot study, which of itself would take a number of years to complete, just to see if the methodology that people think might work will actually reveal some new insights. What I know is that there are sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans who need help now. To sit back and procrastinate for a number of years in the hope of a full study that may lead to some new insights I think is to do a disservice to the Vietnam veteran community and their sons and daughters. What I have targeted is a more staged approach that can get earlier insights sooner, that enables us to respond to those insights as they arise, adapt and change our services to meet those new insights, and then go further on with the research. This is a stepping forward process. That will get us meaningful results sooner and we can better target our health and support programs for the sons and daughters of Vietnam veterans and we can extend that study as far as it needs to go to find the insights that we are looking for to make sure that we get services delivered and parallel research as well. One of the things that concerned me about the scientific advisory committee’s analysis was questions about control groups and whether a safe scientific research project would possibly exclude members of the Air Force and the Navy. I am not going to agree to a study that risks treating serving personnel differently on the basis of the service that they undertook. I am also not going to conduct a study which may not be helpful to the veterans community because it has not taken account of the healthy soldier effect. The shadow minister would know that we only recruit healthy people. If we cannot find a comparative group that takes account of the fact that we start with a healthier cohort in the community of the serving personnel than the broader community then some of those analytical comparisons might mask the very insights we are looking for. I have been in extensive discussions with members of the scientific advisory committee, my own department, the Repatriation Commission, some of the individuals, Mr and Mrs Parker as an example on the consultative committee, saying, ‘Here’s how I think we can move this forward.’ I have been encouraged by their response and they tell me they are encouraged by my desire to get something constructive happening. One final comment, though, is that there is a body of non-veteran related research too which I think might be instructive. How do we make sure that insights gained in the broader community can be brought to bear on what is very much a veterans related body of work helping the sons and daughters of people who served in Vietnam? That is where that is heading and I am happy to keep you informed of the progress. 152 12:06:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 Mr McCLELLAND —In the time available, I would like to ask the minister about a few issues in respect of the budget allocation, in the order of $340 million, for our ongoing commitment in Iraq. The minister announced in a media release on 31 May the commencement of new training roles for our troops in Iraq. The first one is at a basic training centre and another will be at a counterinsurgency academy. The first issue I wanted to ask is: roughly, how many of our troops will be involved in those training tasks? The second question is: what will then happen to the bulk of our troops in Iraq in terms of a security overwatch? Is the minister able to explain a little more as to what will be involved in that security overwatch? In particular, where will our troops primarily be allocated, how many roughly will be involved, who will we be with and what backup resources, importantly, will be provided to our troops in that role? In particular, there was a controversy regarding the provision of helicopter support in the Al Muthanna province. Will that similar sort of support be available and will it be in the context of the British retaining an involvement, presumably in an area in southern Iraq, or will it be in the context of the British actually scaling down their contribution? 152 12:07:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 0 Dr NELSON —Firstly, in relation to Iraq, we budgeted $392.7 million over the three years and, as the member for Barton can see, we have budgeted for the continuing Al Muthanna rotation through to the end of the financial year. From that, it should not necessarily be concluded that they will definitely be there for that period of time, but the government has chosen to responsibly budget for it, and the Al Muthanna contribution component is approximately $198 million. What I have announced so far is that we are going to deploy 30 of our troops to the basic training centre, which is at Tallil, just inside the border in Daiqa, the large American air base. We will also send three of our highly specialised people to the counterinsurgency training centre at Taji, which is about 20 kilometres from Baghdad. As far as Operation Overwatch is concerned, it relies very much on the decisions that are going to be made by the Japanese. In Singapore on the weekend before last, in a meeting with Minister Nukaga, the Japanese minister, I again made it very clear to him that, whilst we are very supportive of supporting the Japanese engineers, who have done a tremendous job in Al Muthanna, clarity on their future would be greatly appreciated by us in terms of future planning. The Japanese minister has made it clear to me that one of the things that is important to Japan, apart from supporting basically what we are all trying to achieve in Iraq, is that the move to the Iraqi national government and the appointment of key ministers, and then the transfer to provincial Iraqi control in Al Muthanna, will be key milestones in their own decision making. Operation Overwatch is yet to be clarified to our full satisfaction. We are disposed to redeploying the approximately 460 Australian troops who are currently protecting the Japanese engineers in Al Muthanna to other tasks in the southern part of Iraq. We are not at this stage prepared to specifically nominate where they will be predominantly based, because we are negotiating that with the Iraqis, the British and our other allies, including the Italians. We are, however, certainly not disposed to being based in Basra, which seems to be occupying the minds of certain people in the media—if not the opposition. The nature of the tasks that we envisage undertaking in Operation Overwatch is, as I say, the subject of negotiation, but will primarily involve training. We have already provided training to the Iraqi 2nd Brigade of the 10th Division and the Iraqis in Al Muthanna province are themselves already providing security forces and protection. Apart from training, mentoring and working cooperatively with the provincial Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces, we envisage that, along with our coalition partners, we will be in a position to provide direct assistance to the Iraqi security forces should it be absolutely necessary to do so—in the same way that our own defence forces in Australia might occasionally, but very rarely, be required to provide aid to the civilian community. We are at the moment having detailed negotiations with the Iraqis and our coalition partners as to the terms and conditions under which we would do that. It is absolutely essential to the Australian government that we have that clearly defined before we move to that phase of our support in the southern part of Iraq. This will be one of the issues I will be discussing with the US Secretary of Defense when I see him in just over a week or so. It will also be the subject of discussion with the British Defence Secretary, Des Browne, when I see him a few days later. 153 12:12:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the minister. He made a point about the Japanese having mentioned the transition to the new ministry—I surmise, the interior minister for defence—which, I understand, has recently been appointed after a gap of several months following the election in Iraq. In that context, has the Australian government voiced its concerns regarding reports that militia connected in particular with the minister for the interior may have been involved in—and it would be naive to assume that they do not continue to be involved in—sectarian violence? To what extent is that a concern of the Australian government? It is at least perceived that militia connected with the government have been involved in sectarian violence. Insofar as it seems that this new role would be a security overwatch role more closely connected with the Iraqi security forces, to what extent should we question at least in part the connection of the Iraqi security forces with elements involved in sectarian violence? To what extent would that make Australian troops subject to retaliation? What precautions will be taken to protect our troops in the event that they are the focus of attacks by elements within the Iraqi population—namely, those more aligned to the Sunni elements? 153 12:15:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 0 Dr NELSON —I am not able or prepared to discuss things that involve intelligence and operational things in detail. I know you are not asking for that. The issues that the member for Barton raises are very much the subject of discussion between us, our coalition partners and the Iraqis. A lot of what we will be doing involves mentoring, training and support, and it has been publicly reported that there are elements involved, perhaps even insurgencies, who seem to have infiltrated sections of the Iraqi security forces, particularly the police forces. We are very aware of that. Before we make the final commitment to Operation Overwatch, that and quite a number of other issues will be settled to our satisfaction. At the risk of sounding flippant, Iraq is a war zone and a dangerous place. We have undertaken a very thorough risk assessment in terms of what our ADF personnel may be doing in the next phase in southern Iraq. The next phase is going to be very dangerous for some of the reasons which the member for Barton raises and, indeed, for a lot of others, but it is the next very important phase in the campaign in the sense that provinces in southern Iraq, in Al Muthanna in particular, will be moving to provincial Iraqi control with their own government, security forces and so on. I can only say by way of reassurance that that is one of the priority issues which we are actively discussing at the moment and, whilst we are in principle disposed to redeploying to this particular role known as Operation Overwatch, we will not do so until we are satisfied that the risks have been managed to our satisfaction. 154 12:17:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 Mr McCLELLAND —In that context and in the time available, perhaps by opening with a political comment that the minister may or may not want to respond to, we would argue that it seems that the Australian government is almost looking for things to do in Iraq after the Japanese depart and after the British hand over authority in the Al Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces. It would seem to us that we are actually looking for things to do when there are pressing issues in our region. That is not so much a question and the minister may or may not want to respond to it. In the context of the pressing issues in our region, most urgent of course is our involvement in East Timor. I understand there is a total of some 2,600-odd members of the ADF there. The total number of troops is in the order of 1,400 on the ground. I have questions with respect to East Timor. To what extent has there been an analysis of the adequacy of the skill sets of our troops—that is not to demean their professionalism or dedication—in terms of controlling civil unrest and the capacity to quell riotous behaviour? Has there been an assessment of whether there was a need to, or whether there may be a need to in the future in similar situations, provide troops with riot gear, such as shields, riot helmets and so forth? To what extent will there be an evaluation as to whether we need to focus on that broader crowd and riot control skill set in the ADF? It has recently been pointed out to me that we have a military police battalion in the Victorian police that is trained to a riot control standard. To what extent, if any, has consideration been given to either expanding the capacity of that battalion or creating a similar skill set? That is not simply for a response in East Timor but, presumably over the next decade, may be required should a riot erupt in the Solomons or, regrettably, in some other country. I acknowledge that this is with the benefit of hindsight—and temper my political remarks by that opening—but it was suggested in the Bulletin of 6 June that the training provided by Australians—we say by the Australian government—to the embryonic East Timorese defence force was inadequate. In particular, there was a reference to an allegedly secret memorandum—which the minister may not want to comment on—suggesting that as early as 2001 there were reports of the risks of the then embryonic East Timor defence force being susceptible to infiltration by criminal elements and also the potential for the former guerrilla fighters to fracture on the basis of ethnic and geographic lines. To what extent will the Australian government review the adequacy of training that we provided to the East Timorese defence force with a view to identifying whether it could have been done better and, indeed, with a view to looking at how we may wish to do it in the future in East Timor or other countries in the region? 155 12:21:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 0 Dr NELSON —Firstly, in relation to Iraq, I can assure the member for Barton there is no shortage of things to be done that require a military presence from those who are committed to seeing that these people have no less a right to self-determination than we or the East Timorese may have. I note in that context that on 9 June, in an interview with Sky News, the member for Griffith said: I would say to anyone thinking of going into this total war zone— that is, Iraq— unless there is some overwhelming family reason to be there, just don’t. In other words, his assessment, at least, is that there is plenty to be done. With respect to the skill sets of MPs, obviously the member for Barton has taken a much more active interest in what has happened in East Timor than perhaps the average everyday Australian whom we all represent. But if you look at the circumstances which led to our predeployment and then the deployment of our Defence Force, it was obvious that we needed a military presence and we needed it there quite quickly once the events rapidly unfolded. What happened, as is our experience, by virtue of the presence in considerable numbers of Australians, Malaysians, New Zealanders and subsequently Portuguese is that the gun battles in the streets, which we had immediately preceding the deployment, stopped and we moved then into orchestrated gang violence, arson and a range of things which clearly required a police presence. Australian soldiers, in my opinion, are the finest in the world for all kinds of reasons and in all kinds of ways—I know the member for Cowan knows this very well—but they are not policemen. One of the discussions I had with the Chief of the Defence Force and also with Brigadier Slater, who is commanding the joint task force in East Timor, was that I certainly did not want to see, nor did I want them to have, rules of engagement which basically saw them using extreme force for what ought to be policing activities. The government made a judgment just before the deployment that we would not immediately deploy Australian Federal Police. We have subsequently done that; we have almost 200 there now. We have 250 Malaysian police arriving, and then obviously the Portuguese—the GNR. We would expect that we will have a United Nations policing presence there. As is frequently the case, we have seen on television one small part of a broader picture of what has actually been happening in Dili. Australians have been led to believe that the entire city has been hostage to this kind of behaviour. Whilst there have been a significant number of incidents, they have declined rapidly over the three weeks of our deployment. One of the things that I have discussed with the Defence military leadership—because, of course, we do have military police—is whether some sort of military policing capacity is necessary and appropriate. Whilst we have discussed this, we have no specific plans to develop it. As an Australian, apart from being the Minister for Defence, I do not particularly want to see Australian soldiers doing police work. Both of those roles are important, but they are quite different. I think what we are focused on is the capability of the deployable arrangements in our AFP to complement what our military may be doing, particularly in our region. That, of course, is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Customs. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I can only say, in relation to the training that has been provided by the ADF to the East Timorese. The Australian government, I am advised, gave advice through our ADF to the East Timorese sovereign government about the nature, size and composition of its security forces, both policing and military. The East Timorese government, as it is perfectly at liberty to do, chose a particular path and we provided training. In the future, which is probably now more of a focus, I think Australia has the right to be more assertive about what we view might be appropriate in providing advice to the Timor Leste government—and indeed the UN, should it take on the role that we expect. In training, I think we need to focus a lot more on leadership. Leadership is at the heart of everything that succeeds and everything that fails. (Time expired) 156 12:26:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —I draw the minister’s attention to a statement he just made where he referred to the member for Barton having ‘taken a much more active interest in what has happened in East Timor than perhaps the average everyday Australian whom we all represent’. I want to bring the minister’s attention to some average everyday Australians whom I represent who are taking a very keen interest in what is happening in East Timor. They happen to be very good friends of mine—Bruce and Lyn Boyd. Bruce is our local police sergeant at Toronto. All of their three children are in the Navy. Brendan is on the Parramatta, Michelle is on the Melbourne and Michael is on the Manoora. The minister’s decision about East Timor not being declared a war-like zone has an impact on pay levels and conditions, and on whether or not a member of the ADF will be entitled to an active service medal and be eligible to join the RSL when they return from particular service. Bruce sent me an email asking me to explain something to him which I could not explain. I take this opportunity to ask the minister to explain to my dear friend, who writes: Kel, Please explain to me this. When Brendan went to the Persian Gulf in October 05 the war was over. But it’s still regarded as a war zone and rightly so. But according to Mr Bush the war was won. Supposedly some form of law and order prevails in Iraq even with the suicide bombings going on each day. There are still relatively safe zones within the country and with Baghdad itself. This is probably because the ADF with their coalition partners are attempting to STOP THE VIOLENCE AND BRING SOME TYPE OF ORDER TO THE NATION OF IRAQ. When Michael went to East Timor May 06 all law and order had broken down. Police officers and civilians were being murdered by the army and other ethnic groups and no-one was available to stop it. So in come the ADF. No law, total civil disobedience, armed offenders all about the place and no place safe to hide. Their job is very simply to STOP THE VIOLENCE AND RE-ESTABLISH SOME TYPE OF ORDER TO THE NATION OF EAST TIMOR. It seems like one of those cartoons where you have to spot the differences. I must be missing the point. I can’t see the difference. Mr Howard’s work choices legislation takes away entitlement from the workers of this nation. Perhaps this is just his militarised version of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. All I can say is it’s a disgusting decision. Bruce To put this family and personal issue into context, he is now considering applying for a position as an administrative sergeant in East Timor. I am sure that Lyn and I and all of his other good friends will try to talk him out of that. Here is a whole family who give their service to the protection of us all. 157 12:30:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —My question relates to exactly the same issue. Minister, I am appalled by the decision that the government took not to make this warlike service, and I say this very strongly in the context of the message which was delivered to the soldiers and to the families by you, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Prime Minister, when in the parliament the Prime Minister gave rise to the dangerous nature of the deployment and told the House and the people of Australia and the soldiers who were going there that we could expect casualties. Minister, I ask you one simple question: why did the government not immediately declare the deployment to be warlike and then review that warlike designation perhaps four or six weeks into the deployment? Why did the government not give the benefit of the doubt to the troops? They went there expecting dangerous situations and casualties and they went there expecting to operate in a warlike environment. Why didn’t the government recognise that up front and then take the opportunity to review that decision once things had settled down? 157 12:32:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 0 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Charlton and the member for Cowan for (a) their concern and (b) asking the question. I cannot express enough my admiration to Bruce and his family for their significant contribution to our country. It is extraordinary. In terms of warlike or non-warlike, the definition of what is warlike or non-warlike occupied the mind of the then Keating government in 1992. It then spent a long time working with the Australian Defence Force in developing definitions for conditions of service for ADF personnel who would be deployed. There were essentially six categories that were defined and approved in 1993 by the then Keating government, three of them falling into warlike and three of them falling into non-warlike. A warlike deployment is one where there is a declared state of war, where ADF personnel are engaged in combat, or perhaps they are involved in a peacekeeping operation under a chapter 7 resolution of the United Nations Security Council where in that peacekeeping operation they are the target of some kind of military style of attack. The way the definition or the recommendation works is that there is a Strategic Operations Division in the Australian Defence Force. It comprises a variety of people from the ADF, who themselves have significant deployment experience. Two principal things are taken into account. One is the military risk and the other is the environmental risk. The military risk involves the threat to life that is presented by the military task that lies ahead, and there is also environmental risk. For example, the maintainers of our C130s in the Gulf States have to work with icepacks because they are working in 57 degrees Celsius to maintain planes. They have to work for 20 minutes and have a 40-minute break, and that is a significant environmental risk, as you could imagine. The Chief of Defence recommended, on behalf of the Australian Defence Force, that this be classified as non-war-like, and, yes, it was considered to be very risky. In fact, before the deployment, the Prime Minister said, and I think I may also have said, that it had the potential to be riskier than it was in 1999. As you know, we had then, and we still have, renegade rebel groups of armed soldiers, and possibly civilians, up in the hills. As you know, on the day prior to the deployment we had—and it will be the subject of an investigation—what would appear to be the murder of unarmed people on the streets of Dili. The recommendation was, as I say, non-warlike. That was accepted by me and it was a whole-of-government decision that it be non-warlike. Were we to take the advice of the member for Cowan, as distinct from the Australian Defence Force itself, and declare it to be warlike prior to the deployment, I cannot begin to imagine the environment that would have been created by the government establishing something as warlike and then having to present to the Australian Defence Force why the definition and terms of deployment and conditions of service would suddenly change. Further to that, the conditions of service are paid from the day of deployment. So in any real sense, whatever the ultimate decision made is, the conditions of service and the money that is paid to the Defence Force personnel remain as whatever the determination of the ADF, supported by the government, is. I think it was the member for Charlton who said it was the picture that is the difference. It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph, when reporting this, had a photograph of a burnt-out car in Dili and a photograph of a burnt-out car in Baghdad with an armed Australian soldier standing in front of it. It said, ‘What is the difference?’ The difference is that in Baghdad the car has been the subject of an attack, probably using an improvised explosive device, possibly a suicide bomber, and anywhere from a small number to 30 people will have been killed. The target of that attack is coalition forces, of which the Australians are but one. In Dili, the burnt-out car is the result of an arson attack by a group of vandals and youths who are in organised gang related attacks. It is a different environment. (Extension of time granted) East Timor is very dangerous, but the target of the attack is not the Australian soldier. The member for Barton said to Mike Carlton on 2UE that he agreed with the proposition that people were shooting around our soldiers. They are not shooting at our soldiers. Under no circumstances would I or anybody else seek to diminish the threat to their safety in Dili, but it is different from the threats to their safety in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I also point out that the deployment allowance for Dili is $78.60 a day. In the Solomon Islands—and there are soldiers serving in Dili today who served in the Solomon Islands—it is $44 a day. This reflects the assessment that the risk to our soldiers in the Solomon Islands is lower. In the Sudan, it is $69 a day. In the Middle East, it is $61 a day. It is $78.60 a day in Dili to reflect the higher risk. I also add that the field allowance in Dili is $42.80 a day. In Iraq, it is $25 a day. The field allowance is higher in Dili because environmentally, as distinct from militarily, it is a more difficult place for our soldiers to be living. I go back to the statement made by the member for Griffith, who described Iraq as a total war zone and said, ‘Under no circumstances go there.’ The same member for Griffith went to Dili as a private citizen and demanded not to have any military support, protection or anything of the sort. In fact, he wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to that effect. He has made a very clear distinction between risk in Iraq and risk in East Timor. The allowance for our soldiers in East Timor is $128 a day for a soldier with dependants and $121 a day for those without dependants. In addition to that, from day 91 every dollar is tax free. The deployment allowance is $78.60, which is tax free from the day that they arrive. The tax free arrangements from day 91 apply from the first day of deployment. As you are aware, the soldiers will receive an Australian Service Medal with a Timor clasp. The veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that are serving in Timor are also aware of the difference in risk between the two. As Neil James from the Australian Defence Association said, this is not something that ought to be politicised in the way that it is. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. Adjournment Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) 12:40:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 159 159 12:40:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I have previously spoken in this House on numerous occasions to urge the Minister for Health and Ageing to grant an exemption under section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act in order for a particular overseas trained doctor to take up a position at a surgery in my electorate and thus help to ease the huge and overwhelming workload. That case is currently under appeal, and it is not my intention to go through it again today. I would like to speak more broadly and outline to the House some of my deep concerns over the current guidelines which govern exemptions under section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act and, further, to outline my absolute horror at evidence that decisions made under this provision are apparently being determined based on factors outside any of the published guidelines. From the outset, let us be very clear: it is people who get sick, it is people who need access to GPs and it is people whom our system must be centred around, not postcodes. Yet, strangely, this is not the way that the system is set up. The current guidelines are flawed and are failing us. In assessing areas of workforce shortage, the reality of what is happening within our surgeries and how overworked they really are is not considered to be as important as where these surgeries are located. Part 4 of the guidelines provides that an exemption may be granted if work is undertaken in districts of workforce shortage. The definition of a district of workforce shortage is given in section 4.1.3 and is restricted to geographical features, including surrounding postcodes, the areas that make up a shire or local district, a division of general practice or a local area as defined statistically by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This definition does not provide for consideration of the realities of the actual patient catchment area of a surgery. In surgeries such as those operating in my electorate, patients are not necessarily from the immediate local area or the local postcode. In fact, there is a lot of evidence of patients travelling from outside the area to seek treatment. Our system must recognise this fact. There are enough flaws in these guidelines for me to talk on for hours, though I recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you may not be that generous with my time, so I want to turn instead to the issue of what is not in these guidelines. In a letter of advice sent from the Department of Health and Ageing in January this year it was stated: The delegate generally does not grant exemptions for inner metropolitan areas irrespective of whether they are statistically a ‘district of workforce shortage’ except in exceptional circumstances. Since the inception of the Act in 1997 there has been a general policy that overseas trained doctors would not be granted an exemption under section 19AB of the Act in inner metropolitan areas. This is deeply concerning. This governmental ‘general policy’ is not documented in any of the guidelines, which is a requirement of the legislation. The legislation states: The Minister must, in writing, determine guidelines that apply to the exercise of powers under subsections (3) and (4). Further, this undocumented policy has injected an extreme bias against inner metropolitan surgeries into the system. The so-called policy indicates that socioeconomic factors, which the guidelines require to be considered, are not at all taken into account by the government. I believe that all members of this House should be deeply troubled if the Department of Health and Ageing is conceding here that it bases decisions on factors which are not outlined in the guidelines. I must add, as a representative of an inner metropolitan electorate, that I am further horrified if my constituents are being particularly discriminated against not on the basis of their health needs, their workforce shortage and their need to access GPs, as every other Australian needs, but on their location. I believe that this matter is serious enough that the minister for health must today come into this House and confirm or deny the existence of a government policy whereby overseas trained doctors will not be granted exemptions in metropolitan areas. If he confirms this policy then I will argue against the merits of it with him and I will ask him where it is stated in the guidelines. At least then metropolitan surgeries will know where they stand. At least surgeries, such as those in my electorate, will know that it does not matter if they meet every publicly outlined guideline because they do not have a chance. Maybe that will stop surgeries wasting their already so precious time. If this advice from the department is incorrect then the minister must immediately set the record straight and ensure that the government and the department are making decisions based only on the printed guidelines, as required by the legislation. 160 160 12:45:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 0 Mr HAASE —I rise today to speak on the subject of child care. In a perfect world, the issue of access to child care would be considered a luxury. Unfortunately, in today’s economy, with a shortage of participants in the workforce, affordable commercial child care becomes a necessity if we are to maintain our standard of living and improve our balance of trade. I am acutely aware of enormous problems that exist across my electorate for parents wishing to participate in the workforce and being able to access affordable child care. Whilst I encourage the budget measures to improve the child-care system, and I am confident they will have some positive impact on the situation, availability of child care for parents in regional and remote areas remains a critical issue. My office receives regular contact from constituents complaining that there is no child care available in their town. Some say they cannot even get on a waiting list. A constituent in Port Hedland called recently to say that she and her husband had to take it in turns to go to work in order to look after their son. I conducted a check across my electorate and found there are approximately 30 centres in all, about the same number as in the Sydney CBD alone, and generally speaking parents have little to no chance of securing a place for their babies in less than 12 months. There is availability in most towns for older children but parents cannot choose times or days because there may be only one place for half a day on one day per week. Full-time care is rare and in huge demand with very long waiting lists. Calls to child-care centres provided the following information. The worst affected towns are Carnarvon, Newman, Tom Price and Meekatharra. Tom Price, with a population of 3½ thousand, has one centre with some availability for certain times and certain days and a 12-month waiting list for babies. Meekatharra, with a population of 1,500, has no centre. The nearest centre is in Newman, four hours drive away. There is one playground in town but, sadly, that is only for Indigenous children. In Newman the population is 4½ thousand and there is one centre. There is a waiting list of six months due to the rapid expansion of the town and a lack of qualified staff. Carnarvon has a population of 6½ thousand and one centre. It has a full and very extensive waiting list. With the exception of Carnarvon, mining is the major economic activity in these towns and across my electorate. The industry is vital for Australia’s economy and right now the federal electorate of Kalgoorlie is driving Australia’s economic boom. The major problem in remote centres is that the base population is lower; the percentage of employable population in full-time employment is higher, where everyone is wearing many, many hats. Therefore the need is greater but the availability of qualified carers is less. I applaud the insistence on high standards being set and the need for qualified staff, but more needs to be done to encourage people to undertake child-care courses. In some towns in my electorate there is one qualified child-care worker. Employers are currently offering premium terms, conditions and rates of pay in order to attract and retain staff. The current $2.88 per hour paid to centres is insufficient and child-care centres are in financial jeopardy. The lack of a career structure and poor rates of pay need to be reviewed in order to encourage people to become child-care workers. A career structure needs to be created to discourage those who are qualified from leaving child care for other industries such as teaching. The high cost of living in the bush and the isolation make it incredibly difficult to attract staff. Once again I would remind my colleagues that the review of the taxation zone rebate payable would make a difference to attracting population to these centres. The taxation zone rebate introduced in 1945 was considered the answer to attracting employees away from cities and into remote areas. Since 1945 the value of that payment has deteriorated to the point where it is almost not worth the time it takes to claim it. I say once again that an increase to $5,000 and up to $7,000 per annum in the taxation zone rebate would make those situations in remote Australia far more appealing. As a government our policy is to encourage participation in the workforce by everyone who is able to work. More must be done to support parents who want to work, and this means doing more to provide affordable day care. 161 161 12:50:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —I want to raise in the parliament an issue that has been receiving a lot of media attention of late—that is, the situation of the Australian citizen David Hicks, who is being held in Guantanamo Bay. This issue has received very little attention in our parliament and I think that comes from the fact that he is charged with some serious offences, and I think no-one on any side of the House would be supportive of people being involved in such activities. However, Mr Hicks has not been convicted of any offence. He has not had the opportunity yet to put his defence anywhere in a fair trial process. He has been held now for 4½ years without trial in circumstances which none of us would ever contemplate a constituent in our electorate being held in were they detained or even charged with serious offences, such as murder and others, in Australia. This is something that we do need to address as a country. It is an embarrassment to us that we have not been able to argue with the US that at least a fair trial process should apply. I am extremely concerned, as I would think members on both sides of the House would be, at the recent reports of three suicides at Guantanamo Bay. I have to say frankly that I was shocked at the language from the Pentagon that described these suicides not as acts of desperation but as ‘asymmetrical acts of warfare’. I think that, somehow or other, we have lost our way in this fight if we can use language in such an appalling manner. I think it is up to the government to make all attempts to assure itself and to be able to confirm to the Australian public that, as he is an Australian citizen, it has made proper consular attempts to ascertain both the health of Mr Hicks and the conditions in which he is being held. A very well regarded academic expert in the US has said in recent weeks that holding people in solitary confinement in the conditions that have been reported widely, such as those in which Mr Hicks is being held, is a form of sensory torture. None of us is there and none of us can know exactly what the conditions are, but all of us should stand united against the use of torture. It is something that as a parliament we have opposed and which is not party political; it is something that we have never conceded is a proper method to be used in either the detention or the prosecution of any case against people. I do not think that the government has done enough to satisfy itself as to whether these claims are true, whether Mr Hicks as an Australian is being subjected to these sorts of conditions and whether more should be done to ensure that people are being held in proper conditions. I also note that in the last couple of days the US has announced that it is suspending the military commission process. That obviously is mixed news. Labor have argued for a long time that the military commission process is not a fair process, and we know that a number of military insiders have argued that as well. However, to suspend the military commission process but then keep people in detention for year after year after year, in an apparently endless way, obviously does not resolve what has become quite a shameful situation. We have also heard recent reports that Mr Hicks has had to turn to the UK government and is seeking citizenship there. Again it is an embarrassment for Australia that we cannot assure a citizen of their basic rights being argued for, such that that person goes to another country to try to get the protection of its citizenship. The reports say that the US is refusing the UK any consular access to Mr Hicks, which apparently is required as part of the citizenship application process that he is going through. The poor man is in no man’s land as it is, and he continues to be both in a legal sense and in a military sense. I do not have any sympathy for people who are charged with being involved in terrorist acts. I do not have any sympathy, frankly, for people who are charged with acts of murder. But every day in our courts in Australia those people are still entitled to the basic rights of a fair trial and to basic humane treatment while they are being detained awaiting that trial. That is what I am asking for. This Australian citizen has now been detained for 4½ years and it is an embarrassment to us that the Australian government is not paying more attention to the conditions he is being held in and ensuring that he gets a fair trial. 162 162 12:55:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —Hinkler’s state and non-government schools are powering on and delivering better classroom facilities and technology to their students, thanks, I might say, to the funding from the Australian government. I recently attended an official function at St Francis Catholic Primary School at Tannum Sands to celebrate the unveiling of a St Francis plaque and the announcement of stage 2 development of the school. This will involve an interim library, half a covered basketball court area, pupil amenities, physical education amenities, preparatory amenities, school parking, furniture and equipment, and it has only become possible because of  funding of $2.4 million from the Australian government for the Investing in Our Schools program. Boyne Tannum has a population of roughly 8,000 people, and this school is giving local children a choice of education facilities in the area. The Commonwealth has already contributed to the area’s social development with the Tannum Sands State High School, into which the Commonwealth made a substantial contribution. I am sure that this growing dormitory area of Greater Gladstone will actually need a second high school in the years to come, possibly a private one. At the southern end of my electorate, the Bundaberg Christian College and the Bundaberg Adventist Primary School also share in $150,000 from round 2 of the IOSP to carry out major capital works within their grounds. Each school has been allocated $75,000 under the scheme. Bundaberg Christian College will use its funds to upgrade its oval and install airconditioning in classrooms, while the Adventist school will build a modular learning centre with its funding. To date, the Australian government has delivered around $3.4 million to 31 schools in my electorate so that they can fund improvements which they have prioritised themselves. I recently opened a terrific IOS program in a remote country area. It was a major upgrade of the Monogorilby State School. Most members probably have not even heard of Monogorilby. Monogorilby is a little school, 72 kilometres from Mundubbera and well off the beaten track in the extreme south-west of my electorate, surrounded by the Maranoa electorate on three sides. Students come from local grazing families, and the school currently has 12 students enrolled in years 1 to 7. It is one of the smallest schools in my electorate. Thanks to a grant of $85,650 under round 1 of the IOSP, the school community was able to use those funds to carry out a major facelift on the school, including construction of a small multipurpose building for the students, purchasing better IT as well as sporting equipment. They resurfaced the multipurpose courts and updated the school resource centre. That project would never have been possible without funding from the Commonwealth. At last night’s NFF dinner, the outgoing president, Peter Corish, made an appeal in his farewell speech for the future of the family farm. If we are to keep families on the land, if we are to have people on family farms, it is the Monogorilby’s of the world, it is the people like the Monogorilby principal, Tim Youngberry, and the Jenkinson, Ratky, Lithgow, Tong, Weier, Fredericks and Payne families that we must support and invest in. These are the salt of the earth people and the school is the centre of their community. These sorts of projects, though often desperately needed by state schools, never seem to make the priority list of state governments, and the teachers, the parents and the wider community face the long and arduous task of raising the necessary funding themselves. Under the latest round of IOSP funding, almost $2.4 million has been allocated to 23 state schools across my electorate with funding going towards IT equipment, playgrounds, classroom airconditioning and sports facilities. Earlier this year the opposition criticised the program and said the government was favouring schools in coalition seats. There is a simple reason for this: the coalition holds more seats, and particularly more rural and regional seats, which have been systematically neglected by state governments. The fact is that the IOSP assessment process is independent and is overseen by state based assessment advisory panels. They comprise a parent and principal representatives, who receive technical advice from a state government adviser. This is a very good program. I commend it and I thank the minister for the funding for my area. (Time expired) 164 164 13:00:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —In the brief time I have today I want to speak on the Civil Unions Act 2006, which passed through the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Sadly, this issue has become very prominent in the federal parliament. I speak on this with great regret at the federal government’s action on this act and its decision to interfere with the democratic processes within the ACT. I believe very strongly that it is the inherent right of the ACT to legislate for civil union laws. The ACT government is democratically elected, and I believe that the use of the disallowance instrument under the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act constitutes unwarranted interference by the federal coalition government into the governance of the ACT. The Civil Unions Act 2006 clearly states that a civil union is a legally recognised relationship that may be entered into by any two people regardless of their sex and that it is different from a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —That’s the problem. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I am pretty certain, as the interjection from across the chamber is uttered, that that is the government’s problem with this legislation. It is a pretty pathetic problem if they have manufactured it in that way, because I have no doubt that those are the words upon which the government and the Prime Minister are hanging their objection. The reality is quite different. The ACT presented its first draft of this legislation. The federal government, through the Attorney-General, suggested that changes be made to accommodate their views, so the ACT government made 63 changes to its bill—that is not exactly a light-hearted pencil running over a piece of paper. I believe that at that time the federal government gave a very loose suggestion that the legislation might now become a bit more acceptable. Then, of course, a different decision was taken. An objection has arisen and we now find ourselves where we are. The federal government is claiming that this act is a replication of marriage for same-sex couples, and this is not the reality. In fact, when you look at a fact sheet published regarding this legislation—Is a Civil Union a Marriage By Another Name?—you find that a civil union is not a marriage by another name. While the bill provides that a civil union is to be treated in the same way as a marriage under territory law, that does not mean that a civil union is a marriage. For instance, the ACT cannot legislate for marriage per se. They are not and cannot be the same. In my view, the ACT government has attempted to accommodate the queries that the federal government had, but that has been done in a vacuum. It is like playing ducks and drakes; it is like asking how long is a piece of string? ‘We want you to change it.’ ‘How?’ ‘We want you to change it.’ ‘How?’ The debate continues. The ACT government want a resolution to this. The ACT government very strongly believe that there should be no discrimination against same-sex couples in this country, and this is their way of solving that problem. The issue for me is that, while the federal government party room was debating this issue—while some members of the government were in the party room putting their case that maybe this should be rethought in a genuine debate—at the very same moment the federal Attorney-General and the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads were at Government House in Yarralumla organising the very deed to disallow the bill under section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988—a highly unprecedented action. Beyond all of this, of course, is the basic question of discrimination, fairness, basic human rights and equity in our society as we see it. Personally, I just cannot understand the threat that this act appears to be posing to some of its opponents. I cannot see why some people, in particular the Prime Minister and his government, feel so strongly that heterosexual couples can choose to marry, can choose whether or not to have a religious based ceremony, can decide to have that union recognised and celebrated by their family and their friends in law and in a societal way, but at the same time homosexual couples cannot. I want to finish by quoting Andrew Barr, a newly elected MLA and an openly gay person. He said: What is it about loving, caring relationships that they oppose? What is it about Anthony— Barr’s partner— and I living next to you all in this community? What is it about our relationship that undermines you? He also said: This bill affords us equality under the law. … It allows us to hold our heads up high as equal members of the community and to celebrate our relationships. …       …            … I do not think anyone’s marriage is undermined because Andrew and Anthony living next door to them will have their relationship recognised in law. (Time expired) 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Well said, Annette. 165 165 13:05:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —The member for Fowler, Mrs Irwin, and the member for Canberra, Ms Ellis, will likely know that I am very much on the public record as supporting civil unions. So it distresses me that the government has taken the action that it has, but it effectively had to, and I will tell you why I think it did. The words from the act that the member for Canberra quoted, linking civil unions to marriage, were extraordinarily provocative. That is the problem. I think Jon Stanhope actually decided to put those words in there to make the Commonwealth government reject the legislation. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms Annette Ellis —Sorry, but I cannot stay. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —That is okay; I understand the member for Canberra has to go. I think that that was done for political purposes, to make it difficult for the federal government, and that is why the government has taken the action that it has. So I am disappointed for the people of the ACT that this legislation has been overturned, because I do share the views that the member for Canberra articulated in the latter part of her speech. Today the Mayor of Thuringowa, Les Tyrrell, as well as his director of infrastructure services, Mr Colin Phillips, were due to come to Canberra. They were due to be here at half past 10 this morning, but Canberra fog has intervened. I know that they got to Sydney, but they are not here yet. They are coming here to gain support for their applications for federal government funding which I certainly think are very good applications and deserving of every support. Thuringowa is a sister city of Townsville and up until now it was seen as a poor relative. But it is no longer seen that way in our community. Thuringowa City Council is probably every bit as good and probably better than Townsville City Council in many ways. It is a very professional council led by the CEO, Mrs Lyn Russell, who, incidentally, received a Public Service Medal in the Queen’s Birthday Honours—and congratulations to Mrs Russell; she certainly deserved that award. The Thuringowa funding applications that are before the federal government are for regional flooding and natural disasters, and there is also one under the AusLink Strategic Regional Program. The natural disasters funding application relates to a regional flood mitigation program for $1.25 million in the suburb of Kelso. That is part of a five-stage flood mitigation project that will ultimately improve current levels of inundation in this suburb for about 5,000 people. That is a very good project and certainly worthy of support. Thuringowa City Council also applied for funding under the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program of $219,000 for a project that is an all-hazards study and includes an investigation into natural hazards—including inundations, storm tides, storm events, cyclones, bushfires, landslides, earthquakes and dam breaks—that impact on the city’s hard and soft infrastructure. The outcome is expected to be a report providing options, solutions and recommendations on how to manage, protect and improve the city’s infrastructure network. Congratulations to Thuringowa City Council on doing this; we all remember, when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, how unprepared the city was. This is Thuringowa’s effort to be prepared for any major event by providing improved levels of service and protection of infrastructure that might be impacted. In relation to roads, the Thuringowa council is seeking almost $5 million for an upgrade of Kern Brothers Drive to three lanes from Carthew Street to Sandstone Drive. That program will certainly improve safety. It will improve pedestrian safety, as the centre lane acts as a pedestrian refuge. It will conserve fuel by reducing delay times. It will decrease pollution by reducing delay times. It will alleviate driver frustration by reducing delay times, and upgrading to two-lane roundabouts will also reduce delay to and from side streets. In addition, the council is seeking $1.615 million, again, to upgrade Kern Brothers Drive to four lanes from Sandstone Drive to Hinchinbrook Drive, a key area, particularly with traffic going to the Willows State School. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 166 13:11:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.11 pm 167 Questions in Writing 167 167 2250 167 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 Ms Grierson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 6 September 2005: Does the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding; if so, what are the details. Are the programs identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each program (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise it and (b) were these paid advertisements. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds. With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle received funding in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005. What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 and what are their names and addresses. 167 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducts a scholarship program for university students who are studying mathematics/statistics. The program provides for approximately 16 scholarships at an annual cost of $64,000 and currently operates at 4 Australian Universities (the Australian National University, University of Wollongong, University of Queensland and Adelaide University). The program is open to people from the Newcastle electorate who study mathematics/statistics at one of the 4 qualifying universities. The ABS scholarship program is advertised within each University and students are made aware of the scheme when ABS staff present information sessions. There are no paid advertisements in any other media outlets. The scholarship program is designed to promote and support statistical expertise within Australia by encouraging university students who are studying mathematics/statistics to concentrate on statistics as a major. The funds are allocated by the ABS through a competitive process. No individuals from the Newcastle electorate received scholarships in 2003-04 or 2004-05. Not applicable. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Australian Office of Financial Management No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Australian Securities and Investments Commission No ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Australian Taxation Office No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Inspector-General of Taxation No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. National Competition Council No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Productivity Commission No. ,  (3), (4), (5). Not applicable. Treasury The Treasury administers one programme, the HIH Claims Support Scheme, that community organisations, businesses and individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding from. In order to qualify for support from the scheme individuals and not-for-profit organisations must have held an HIH policy at the time of the collapse of the company and have suffered an insurable loss or have been receiving salary continuance or other payments from HIH at that time. Eligibility for assistance is also means tested for some types of claim. Small businesses in Australia may also qualify for claims assistance in some circumstances. The scheme closed to new applicants in February 2004. However late claims may be made in limited circumstances. Advertising was undertaken when the scheme first opened and prior to its closure to alert policy holders. This advertising was in metropolitan, regional and some ethnic press and on radio. The advertising was paid for as part of the cost of administering the programme. The purpose of the programme was to minimise hardship for Australian HIH policy              holders unable to make a claim against the company due to its collapse. Approval of a claim is made by an independent assessor against the scheme criteria and the insurance policy of the applicant. The claims made against the scheme by organisations and individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle cannot readily be determined. The claims made against the scheme by organisations and individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle cannot readily be determined. 169 169 2508 169 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms Hoare asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 October 2005: Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programs to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programs. Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print or other media outlets have been used for the advertising of each of these programs, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses, and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Charlton received funding in (i) 2003, and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient. 169 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: Commonwealth funded programs in the electoral division of Charlton Questions 1, 2 and 3 (1) program (2a) print/media outlet (2b) Advertisement paid (2b) cost of advertvertisment (3a) Purpose (3b) Responsibility for allocation of funds National Feral Animal Control Program Enviroinfo email newsletter NRM jobs email newsletter Yes Yes $500 per year $500 per year Supports the development and promotion of improved management techniques to reduce the agricultural impacts of pest animals Bureau of Rural Sciences Australia-China Agricultural Cooperation in Agriculture (ACACA) Program Print Media The Weekend Australian The Sydney Morning Herald The Age The Brisbane Courier Mail The Adelaide Advertiser The West Australian The Hobart Mercury The Canberra Times The NT News The Weekly Times Qld Country Life Yes $3558.27 $2617.32 $2339.88 $2668.99 $1517.76 $1989.00 $542.13 $617.71 $743.24 $975.12 $716.55 The agreement promotes agricultural cooperation between Australia and China on the basis of mutual benefit and reciprocity. ACACA’s main value to Australia is the program’s ability to assist the development of commercial links between Australian and Chinese agriculture and associated agribusiness enterprises. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Recreational Fishing Community Grants Programme Websites, email lists, industry contacts Expressions (1 page flyer) Expressions (2 banners) Australian Fishing Tackle Retailer No Yes Yes Yes $1,510 $1,952 $1,000 Support local initiatives that enhance recreational fishing and tourism experiences, both through on-ground activities and education and awareness raising, as well as protecting near shore coastal environments and capture the flow-on benefits to the economy. Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation New Industries Development Programme – Pilot Commercialisation Projects The Australian The Land Aust Financial Review Made In Australia www.daff.gov.au/agribiz Yes Yes Yes Yes No $2,161.40 $602.80 $1,969.00 Approx $25,000 per edition N/A Provides grants up to $120,000 to eligible Australian agribusinesses, to commercialise new agribusiness products, technologies or services. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry New Industries Development Programme – In Market Experience Scholarship The Australian The Land Aust Financial Review Made in Australia www.daff.gov.au/agribiz Yes Yes Yes Yes No $5,088.80 $904.20 $5,337.20 Approx $25,000 per edition N/A Provides up to $12,500 for agribusiness managers or emerging managers to develop skills and business opportunities that will help them commercialise agribusiness innovations Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Food Industry Strategy Food Innovation Grants programme National print media outlets Nil in Charlton electorate Nil Assist Australian-based food processing firms to improve innovation performance and increase investment in research and development National Food Industry Strategy Ltd under an agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry National Food Industry Strategy Food Chain Programme National print media outlets Nil in Charlton electorate Nil Build food industry skills and knowledge in chain management, by providing matching funding for demonstration projects and supporting capability building activities. National Food Industry Strategy Ltd under an agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Industry Partnerships Programme – CWA Emergency Drought Aid Fund Media Release No Nil Provide funding to the Country Women’s Association to distribute to farmers who may otherwise be reluctant to apply for assistance. Country Women’s Association (CWA) AAA – Industry Partnerships Programme Advertisements for tenders and grant applications – print media Yes Average $7,000 for advertisements in national rural press and $12,000 for rural press plus The Australian and the Financial Review Provide opportunity for agriculture, fisheries and forestry industry’s to improve their profitability, sustainability, competitiveness, resilience and self-reliance. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Farm Help Nil Nil Nil Farm Help – Supporting Families Through Change is the Australian Government’s key program for helping farm families in financial difficulty plan for the future. The program is funded under the Agriculture Advancing Australia package and emphasises the use of strategic information, analysis and advice to support decision-making. The assistance provided through Farm Help is flexible and can be tailored to meet the needs of each farm family. Farm Help i Australian Government Envirofund (2003-04 funding round) *Print Media Sydney Morning Herald Daily Telegraph Financial Review Weekend Australian Newcastle Herald Port Stephens Examiner Hunter Valley News Lower Hunter Star News The Land Weekly Times Yes $7,141.20 $5,004.72 $4,132.80 $8,050.80 $1,157.52 $382.20 $389.76 $273.00 $1,446.72 $1543.92 The Australian Government Envirofund has two main objectives: To provide the opportunity and means for community groups to undertake small on-ground projects tackling important local problems; and To provide a mechanism through which community groups (in particular those that have had little or no previous engagement with the Natural Heritage trust) can move towards effective engagement in broader regional approaches to natural resource management. Allocation of funds by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation and the Minister for the Department of Environment & Heritage. 2003-04 National Landcare Programme Community Support component (2004-05 funding round) *The National Landcare Programme advertising was distributed Australia-wide but for the purpose of this exercise only those papers available in the Electoral Division of Charlton have been included in this response. *Print media The Weekend Australia Newcastle Herald Sydney Morning Herald The Land The Weekly Times Yes $2,012.70 $413.40 $1,623.00 $488.70 $551.40 The principal goal from National Landcare Programme investment in landcare is increased profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of Australian primary industries. Funding under the NLP’s Community Support component is available to landcare, industry and other volunteer community groups for community projects that will significantly increase the uptake of sustainable resource management practices, enhance the skills of natural resource managers, promote the implementation of best management practice and improve the integration of NRM into business and property management plans. Allocation of funds by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry. 2004-05 National Landcare Programme Community Support component (2005-06 funding round) *Print media The Australian Newcastle Herald Sydney Morning Herald The Land The Weekly Times Yes $2093.10 $458.56 $1,668.30 $482.24 $611.84 2003-04 National Landcare Programme Natural Resource Innovation Grants (2004-05 funding round) *Print media The Weekend Australia Sydney Morning Herald The Land The Weekly Times. Yes $2,012.70 1,623.00 $488.70 $551.40 The Natural Resource Innovation Grants are one-off grants to encourage people engaged in farming, food, aquaculture and forest industries to contribute to sustainable production by developing and/or adopting and promoting innovative practices, production techniques, technologies and products. By encouraging innovation the grants support a primary aim of the NLP to achieve more efficient and sustainable production, leading to an increase in profitability, competitiveness and sustainability for Australian primary industries. Allocation of funds by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry 2004-05 National Landcare Programme Natural Resource Innovation Grants (2005-06 funding round) *Print media The Weekend Australia Newcastle Herald Sydney Morning Herald The Land The Weekly Times Yes $2,721.03 $558.87 $2,168.79 $632.94 $745.68 Australian Government Community Water Grants Lake Macquarie News Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Post Yes Yes $337.76 $775.20 The Australian Government’s Community Water Grants are grants of up to $50,000 to help local community organisations save, reuse or improve the health of their local water sources. Minister (4) 2003 2004 (a) community organisation (b) business (c) individuals (a) community organisation (b) business (c) individuals 3 1 1 1 Recipient Name Recipient Address Les Safarik Lot 29 Rocky Point Road PO Box 6107 Dora Creek NSW 2264 Araleun Landcare Group 65 Gaucett Street, Blackalls, Park, NSW 2283 Country Women’s Association (CWA) As privacy is a consideration in rural families seeking assistance the funding is distributed through the Country Women’s Association network. Araleun Landcare Group 65 Faucett Street, Blackalls Park, NSW 2283 2003 National Landcare Programme Community Support component – Data not available by electorate. 2004 National Landcare Programme Community Support component – Data available in Financial Years, not calendar years. Lake Macquarie Landcare Inc / Landcare Resource Office PO Box 3006, BLACKALLS PARK NSW 2283 173 173 2579 173 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 7 November 2005: Has he read the article by Nick O’Malley and Jessica Irvine titled ‘Henry VIII powers let Andrews chop and change’ in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 November 2005 which reported that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 contains a clause conferring on him the power to strip from federal awards or agreements any condition he chooses, without consulting Parliament. Can he confirm that the bill contains a clause that will confer on him powers as reported in the article; if so, (a) will the exercise of these powers be a disallowable legislative instrument and, if it will not be disallowable, why not and (b) will this be an increase on his current power to regulate the labour market and, if it will be, why is this necessary. Has he read the comments by Dr John Buchanan, Deputy Director, University of Sydney Centre for Industrial Relations Research under the heading ‘What the experts say’ in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 November 2005 who said that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 effects a massive centralisation of power and allows managers to do whatever they want to do without being bound by the need for genuine agreement making. Can he confirm that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 will allow employers to apply to end agreements if negotiations over a new agreement have extended over three months; if so, can he explain (a) why the limit has been set at three months and (b) how employees will be protected if their employer stalls negotiations during the three month period. Can he guarantee no Australian worker will be worse off under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005; if not, why not. 174 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 contains a provision that allows the Governor General to make regulations to specify matters that are prohibited from being included in workplace agreements. As I have conveyed to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, these regulations are subject to the usual tabling and disallowance regime under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and to the scrutiny of the Regulations and Ordinance of Bills Committee. The majority of the matters that are prohibited from being included in workplace agreements are matters that could not be contained in pre reform agreements, for example matters that discriminate against employees on grounds of race, sex, disability etc, matters that do not pertain to the employment relationship or which offend the freedom of association provisions. In addition, some new matters have been prohibited. These are matters which are inconsistent with the Government’s stated policy for some time, for example, terms that restrict parties from making Australian Workplace Agreements. Yes. The Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005 (the Act) does not enable an employer to end an agreement on the grounds that negotiations over a new agreement have extended over three months. The best possible guarantee the Australian Government can give is that if we make further sensible change we have the best prospect of being able to ensure that jobs grow in Australia and wages continue to rise. A flexible workplace relations system is one of the ways in which we can further improve productivity and living standards in Australia. 174 174 2727 174 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4—Tradespersons and Related Workers—at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 175 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: This information is published in Defence’s and the Defence Housing Authority’s annual reports for the respective years. Defence Apprentices 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Commenced 719 549 595 798 549 Employed 719 549 595 798 549 The Defence Housing Authority does not employ new apprentices. All were traditional apprenticeships. 987 in 2005-06. 175 175 2850 supplementary 175 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 8 December 2005: Does his department keep records of representational costs incurred by Australia’s overseas missions; if so, (a) how are representational costs broken down and (b) are representational costs broken down into wine and food. What sum was spent on representational costs at Australia’s missions overseas in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005. What sum was spent on representational costs in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 in (i) London, (ii) Washington, (iii) Tokyo, (iv) Seoul, (v) Geneva (WTO and Embassy), (vi) Berlin, and (vii) Paris. 175 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I refer to the answer previously supplied to the honourable member and I refer to Hansard, 27 February 2006, page 164; Part (2) (b) of the answer states that the sum spent on representational costs at Australia’s missions overseas in 2004-2005 was $4,075,488. In light of further advice provided by my department the reference to $4,075,488 should be corrected to $4,082,596. 175 175 3109 175 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 February 2006: Has his department examined the (a) labour force implications and (b) cost to revenue of allowing child care expenses incurred by working parents to be tax deductible. Has his department calculated the value to child care users in each income group of a tax deduction for work-related child care expenses; if so, what are the details. Has his department analysed the workforce participation implications of different levels of government spending on child care; if so, what are the details. 176 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. (b) Yes. Yes. Preliminary costings which form the basis of policy advice are not published. No. 176 176 3289 176 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Will the Minister provide a list of the recruitment agencies which were used by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio in 2005. What sum was paid to each agency identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on recruitment agencies by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 176 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Defence Force Recruiting (DFR): Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Defence Signals Directorate (DSD): Effective People Pty Ltd in 2004-05 and 2005-06; and Candle Recruitment Pty Ltd in 2005-06. The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO): Talent2 Ltd; Quadrate Solutions; HR Partners Staff & Executive; Kowalski Recruitments Pty Ltd; Effective People Pty Ltd; Recruitment Management; The Select Group Management; Verossity; Hays Personnel Service; Wizard Office Personnel Recruitment Agency; Hudson Global Resources Pty Ltd; and ETM Placements in 2005-06. Defence Housing Authority (DHA): Careers Unlimited; Effective People Pty Ltd; Firstwater; GMT Business Services; Greythorn; Hays Personnel Service; Hudson Global Resources Pty Ltd; Julia Ross Recruitment Ltd; Profile Ray & Berndtson; Real Estate Recruitment; Recruitment Management Company; Recruitplus ACT; Ross Human Directions Ltd; and SMS Consulting Group Ltd in 2005. DFR: Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd $46.695m in 2004-05 $35.742m in 2005-06 to 30 April 2006 These figures are not inclusive of GST. DSD: Effective People Pty Ltd $27,544 in 2004-05 $70,876 in 2005-06 to 30 April 2006. These figures are inclusive of GST. Candle Recruitment Pty Ltd: Nil in 2004-05 $71,348 in 2005-2006 to 30 April 2006. These figures are inclusive of GST. DMO: DMO records are not separated into expenditure on each recruitment agency. Nil in 2004-05 $170,000 in 2005-06 This figure is inclusive of GST. DHA: Careers Unlimited - $694.51 in 2005 Effective People Pty Ltd - $12,656.84 in 2005 Firstwater - $16,883.51 in 2005 GMT Business Services - $25,230.49 in 2005 Greythorn - $12,283.71 in 2005 Hays Personnel Service - $48,572.13 in 2005 Hudson Global Resources Pty Ltd - $26,295.80 in 2005 Julia Ross Recruitment Ltd - $3,810.06 in 2005 Profile Ray & Berndtson - $27,059.26 in 2005 Real Estate Recruitment - $8,391.55 in 2005 Recruitment Management Company - $10,050.00 in 2005 Recruitplus ACT - $1,165.93 in 2005 Ross Human Directions Ltd - $560.79 in 2005 SMS Consulting Group Ltd - $37,122.27 in 2005 These figures are not inclusive of GST. The total sum spent on recruitment agencies by DFR, DSD and DMO was $46.723m during 2004-05 and $36.054m during 2005-06 to 30 April 06; and $230,776 during 2005 by DHA. 177 177 3410 177 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 30 March 2006: How many, (a) community-based, and (b) private childcare centres are located in the electoral division of Banks and what is the name and address of each centre. In respect of each centre, what sum did the Commonwealth provide during (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001- 2002, (c) 2002-2003, (d) 2003-2004, and (e) 2004-2005 and from which programs was the funding provided. How many children in the electoral division of Banks were catered for in (a) community based and (b) private childcare centres. How many children in the electoral division of Banks are (a) under two years of age and (b) under two years of age and enrolled in (i) community-based and (ii) private child care centres. How many Commonwealth funded places for (a) Before School Care, (b) After School Care, and (c) Vacation Care are there in the (i) electoral division of Banks and the post code area (ii) 2196, (iii) 2209, (iv) 2210, (v) 2211, (vi) 2212, (vii) 2213, (viii) 2214, (ix) 2222, and (x) 2223. Which organisations in the electoral division of Banks coordinate the provision of these services. 178 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Information on the name and location of child care services is available publicly through the Child Care Access Hotline on 1800 670 305. Information on the amount of Commonwealth funding paid to child care services, the number of children using child care, the number of before school care, after school care and vacation care places and on the organisations involved in the provision of child care is not readily available at the level of detail requested and would require too many resources for collation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics may be contacted for information on the number of children, by age, usually resident in the electoral division of Banks. 178 178 3431 178 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Has his department sold the site known locally as the Army Signals site on the corner of the Great Western Highway and French Street, Werrington, NSW; if so, when and at what price. Was an agent used for the sale; if so, which agent and what was the method of selection. 178 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Defence sold part of the Werrington site on 16 June 2005 through an open market tender process for $8.5 million. Yes. Chesterton International was selected following a competitive tender process. 178 178 3493 178 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 May 2006: Has he or his department recently revised or re-considered the timeframe for the sale of the Bulimba Army Barracks. What is the expected timeframe for the sale of Bulimba Army Barracks. 178 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The Government has not taken any decision to vary the current use of the Bulimba Army Barracks. 178 178 3506 178 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 11 May 2006: What is the total value of the Guywire Replacement Program at the Naval Communications Station at North West Cape, Western Australia. What private contractors are involved in the Guywire Replacement Program and what is the nature of the work being undertaken by the contractors. 178 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Naval Communication Station Harold E Holt does not have an approved ‘Guywire Replacement Program’. Guywires are replaced on an ad hoc basis as required under the general maintenance concept and as funding becomes available. By the end of 2006 seven guywires will have been replaced at an approximate cost of $2.052m (including $470,000 for ancillary equipment and site works). Over the next two years, 13 additional guywires will be replaced at an approximate cost of $3.279m. All costs are exclusive of GST. The contractors involved, and work being undertaken, are: Wire Rope Industries - Canada makes the guywires. It was the only company (of those that responded to the internationally-advertised open tender in 2005) that was capable of manufacturing the size of guywire required at the Station. Boeing Australia Limited is responsible for the maintenance, operation and support of the Base. Boeing orders the wires, ensures sizes, lengths, etc are correct, organises delivery to the Station and provides quality assurance. Le Blanc Pty Ltd is subcontracted by Boeing to install the guywires. 179 179 3523 179 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What projects were funded during 2005-2006 in the electoral division of Scullin under the Roads to Recovery, (ii) Roads of National Importance, and (iii) Blackspot Program. 179 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Roads to Recovery The electorate of Scullin contains parts of three council areas. The Department of Transport and Regional Services holds information on projects lodged for funding by councils but does not hold this information by electorate. Funding provided to the three councils in Scullin from July 2005 to May 2006 inclusive is set out below: Council Payment Banyule $416,369 Nillumbik $178,579 Whittlesea $660,110 Details of the projects lodged for funding by these councils can be viewed on the AusLink web site at www.AusLink.gov.au Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery Program In the May 2006 budget, a further Australian Government contribution to local roads was announced. An additional $307.5 million will be provided in 2005-06 under the Supplementary AusLink Roads to Recovery programme to accelerate works on local roads. Each council will receive a grant under the Supplementary programme equal to one quarter of its allocation under the AusLink Roads to Recovery programme. The funds will be provided during June 2006. The payments planned for the councils in Scullin are set out below. Council Payment Banyule $431,576 Nillumbik $501,204 Whittlesea $575,860 Roads of National Importance The Roads of National Importance Programme did not operate after 30 June 2005. There were no projects being funded as Roads of National Importance in Scullin at that date. Blackspot Programme One project was funded under this programme in 2005-06. This is project number V03252, for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Wedge Street and Howard Street in Epping, for which the total approved funding is $337,000. 180 180 3559 180 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Does Australia export any radioactive material to the United States of America; if so, what agreements or safeguards are in place to ensure that this radioactive material is not used for the production of nuclear weapons. What trade agreements are in place to ensure that radioactive material exported from Australia is not on-sold or re-exported to anyone other than the intended recipient and, if there are no agreements in place for this purpose, will he explain why not. 180 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australia exports uranium to the United States. These exports are subject to the Agreement between Australia and the United States of America concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy which entered into force on 16 January 1981. Article 8 of the Agreement proscribes the use of Australian uranium for “any nuclear explosive device, for research on or development of any nuclear explosive device or for any military purpose”. Australian uranium exported to the United States is also subject to the United States’ safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States announced in 1991 that it had ceased production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Australian uranium is exported in accordance with the provisions of Australia’s bilateral safeguards agreements. These agreements include a prohibition on any retransfer to another country without Australia’s prior consent. The conditions of Australia’s safeguards agreements are described in the Annual Reports of the Director General, Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office – for example, at pages 23-5 of the 2004-05 report. A list of Australia’s safeguards agreements is at page 82 of that report. A copy of the report may be found at http://www.asno.dfat.gov.au/annual_report. 180 180 3565 180 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Can he say over how many days since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza have Kassam, missiles or other devices been fired into Israel proper from the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority; if so, (a) when did this begin, (b) has there been a single day since that they have not fired at Israel from Gaza, (c) which civilian towns, villages and cities in Israel have been hit, (d) what are the casualties caused by these over the last six months, and (e) is the range or frequency of these missile attacks increasing. How does his department evaluate the attitude in word and deed of the Hamas government to these missile attacks from territories in which it is the elected government. 180 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There have been frequent missile attacks on Israel from the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Regardless of the number and frequency, these attacks are completely unacceptable. The Department strongly condemns such terrorist attacks and any support for them from the Hamas government, including failures to publicly condemn the attacks.