2006-08-09 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-08-09 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 Business Mr ANDREWS (Menzies —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 09:01:00 —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 56, private members’ business, being called on immediately. Question agreed to. 1 Motions 1 1 09:01:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) (Consequential Amendments) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 50 and made under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, the Public Service Act 1999, and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Act 1999, be disallowed. This is the last occasion on which the House will formally have the opportunity to tear up the government’s extreme industrial relations legislation. This is the last opportunity for this House formally to vote on the adverse repercussions of the government’s so-called Work Choices legislation. We had the legislation and the consequential legislation in November-December last year, we had the attempt by Labor to disallow the regulations made under the main act earlier this year and now there is a final opportunity for the House to reject and tear up the government’s extreme industrial relations legislation. I suspect that that will not happen. What I suspect will happen is that every Liberal and National Party member in this place will again handcuff themselves to John Howard’s extreme industrial relations legislation. In division after division we have seen every Liberal and National Party member of this place handcuff themselves to the government’s legislation. This is not necessarily how they conduct themselves in their electorates. This is effectively the first occasion since the six-week winter recess that Labor has had the opportunity to debate industrial relations. What do we often find about Liberal and National Party members in their electorates in a recess or generally? They are lions in their electorates and chickens in Canberra. Over the course of the winter recess they have quietly expressed to the Prime Minister that there are a few problems out there: people think this legislation is extreme; people think this legislation is unfair; people think this legislation attacks their wages, their penalty rates and their leave loadings. They have quietly whispered that to him—not with the same voice that they have whispered or shouted, ‘Petrol prices up and interest rates up.’ How has the Prime Minister responded? He has responded by saying: ‘I’m not for turning. I’ve been ideologically and politically committed to these changes for 20 or 30 years of my public life and I’m not for turning.’ So what do we find those Liberal and National Party members doing? We find them being lions in their electorates and chickens in Canberra. Speaking of chickens, what attitude does the Treasurer have on these matters? John Howard summarised it nicely— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will refer to the Prime Minister by his title. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The Prime Minister summarised it nicely on the Insiders program in the middle of July. That was about the time when the Treasurer was trailing his coat, suggesting that he ought to be the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister. John Howard, never one to miss a trick when it comes to the internal operations of the Liberal Party, wanted to make sure that the Treasurer could not whisper in any Liberal Party backbench member’s ear and say, ‘I’ll be softer on IR than Johnny, so you can vote for me in the caucus.’ John Howard said— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Again— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The Prime Minister said this of the Treasurer, ‘Well, I think that: ... commitment to industrial relations reform is an article of faith of many people. Peter Costello to his credit has been a warrior for industrial relations reform. He was after all, involved in the Dollar Sweets case. He was a founding member of the HR Nicholls Society. Peter is no wilting violet when it comes to a tough position on industrial relations reform. He believes in it very strongly. So it is not just me, although it is true that I am very passionate about it. So there we have the Treasurer handcuffed to the Prime Minister and every Liberal and National Party member handcuffed to the Prime Minister’s extreme industrial relations approach. What do we know about this legislation? We know it is extreme, we know it is unfair, we know it is an attack upon wages and we know it is an attack upon conditions. What is the context of this disallowance motion? The context of this disallowance motion is that we return to the parliament and what do we see? We see that, courtesy of the Liberal Party, interest rates and petrol prices are up, and wages and penalty rates are down. We also see, courtesy of the Liberal and National parties, that the cost of living is up and wages are down. There is only one way in which, in the end, these laws will be thrown out, and that is to elect a Labor government—and that is the choice the Australian people will have in the last quarter of next year. Do they want 15 years of John Howard and Peter Costello and extreme industrial relations changes or do they want a fair industrial relations system under a Labor government? That is the choice that is now staring the Australian people in the face. Let us have a look at a couple of those aspects. Interest rates are up and wages are down. What did the government say about those issues? What did the Prime Minister have to say about those issues in the run-up to the last election, the 2004 election? We know that, on interest rates, there he was with his little banner across every lectern saying that interest rates would be kept at record lows. Millions of dollars were spent on Liberal Party adverts giving an election commitment that interest rates would be kept at record lows. But what do we find the Prime Minister saying in question time when that breach of faith, that breach of promise, is put to him? He says, ‘They weren’t the words that I used.’ We find the Prime Minister using weasel words to avoid a clear breach of promise and breach of faith on interest rates. What do we know about what the Prime Minister had to say about industrial relations changes in the run-up to the last election? On 28 September 2004, at the Liberal Party’s industrial relations policy launch in Brisbane, the Prime Minister was asked a question about a single national system. The Prime Minister replied: Well, we’re not setting ourselves that goal ... He was also asked: Prime Minister, on industrial relations, the 20 allowable matters that are currently in federal awards. Do you think in the interest of workplace flexibility the Government would consider reducing the number of allowable matters ... The Prime Minister replied: Well, we don’t at this stage. Not only did we hear nothing about these changes in the run-up to the last election, but on two occasions the Prime Minister positively said that he would not do things that are contained in the Work Choices legislation, particularly the attack on allowable matters. So we have a breach of promise, a breach of faith and a breach of trust on interest rates and a breach of promise, a breach of trust and a breach of faith on industrial relations. When did we first hear about the government’s extreme industrial relations changes? The first occasion was when the government realised arrogantly that it had all power under the sun. It realised arrogantly that it was now in a position to govern for itself and not for the Australian people, that it was now in a position to do the things it had long wanted to do on industrial relations but had been constrained and restrained from doing either by a balance of power in the Senate or because, as the Prime Minister knew in 1996 when he was first elected, he had to hide these things from the Australian public—he had to hide his real intentions from the Australian public. So what do we know about the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Liberal and National parties? They do anything and say anything to get themselves elected or re-elected. What is the substance or the heart of these proposals and why do these regulations need to be disallowed? At the substance and heart of these proposals is, firstly, an attack upon living standards and, secondly, an attack upon the Australian way of life and Australian values and virtues. From where does that attack upon living standards come? Firstly, the attack upon living standards comes from an attack upon wages through an attack upon the minimum wage and, secondly, through an attack upon take-home pay by attacking penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances and the like—the traditional take-home pay basket of entitlements that very many working Australian families have become used to to enable them to make ends meet. Where is it an attack upon our values and virtues? Where is it an attack upon the Australian way of life? It is an attack upon our values and virtues because it removes fairness from the industrial relations system. It expressly removes the requirement, for example, that the minimum wage, when it is calculated, has to be fair. It removes a strong independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission. It removes sensible notions of a safety net or decent minimum standards. The fact that at the heart of these proposals is unfairness is shown no better than in the question I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday at question time when I asked whether he had seen last week’s Catholic Weekly and the article titled ‘Bishop brands IR law unjust, unfair’. We have Bishop Manning branding these laws as unjust and unfair in the Catholic Weekly. I do not think you could get a better summary than that. It is interesting to refer to some of the references made by Bishop Manning in the Catholic Weekly. He is reported as saying: The Work Choices legislation is “manifestly unjust” and unfair and the Government has failed in its duty to promote the common good”. Bishop Manning said, ‘Employees cannot be treated as commodities.’ He also said that the legislation was weighted too heavily in favour of the employer and that the legislation stacks the scales in favour of the employer, particularly to the disadvantage of vulnerable groups. The message from Bishop Manning, which is a message that we have seen earlier, for example, from Cardinal Pell in respect of the minimum wage, is that central to these proposals is the notion of unfairness. At question time the Prime Minister said, ‘There’s not one Catholic view.’ I am sure the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has referred the Prime Minister to the compendiums of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church to clarify that point, but I will leave that as a matter between the Prime Minister and the minister. But we have a new example today of unfairness. We have an AWA presented to employees from a subsidiary of the airline Lufthansa—global telesales. That AWA reduces the base rate of pay anywhere from three per cent to 10 per cent and reduces Sunday and public holiday penalty rates. It does not allow any loading for working before or after 7 pm and provides for no guaranteed pay increase during the life of the AWA. The calculations that are made are in terms of a reduction in the base rate of pay, or a reduction anywhere between three and 10 per cent. In terms of the take-home components with those penalty rates, the calculation is on average a 4.9 per cent decrease in the take-home pay. This AWA has been examined by the Victorian workplace rights advocate, and the conclusion of the Victorian workplace rights advocate, in a report which I have made public and which is dated yesterday, says effectively that this AWA is consistent with the legal requirement of the Howard government but is (a) unfair and (b) potentially in breach of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act. So we have a classic example of fairness not flying with the Howard government. It is not fair but it is legal. Under John Howard, unfairness in industrial relations is legal. So we have a damning report by the Victorian workplace rights advocate on a Lufthansa AWA which essentially says, ‘You can have your base rate of pay reduced by anything from three per cent to 10 per cent, and you can have your take-home pay component reduced on average by 4.9 per cent.’ That might be unfair but it is legal. It might be unfair because of a so-called performance bonus arrangement, and it might be in breach of the state based Equal Opportunity Act. It might be unfair, but it is legal. That is the latest example of AWAs: wages down. The wages drive is to the bottom. I am sure members will recall that before the winter recess we drew attention to the now infamous Spotlight 2c an hour AWA, where, for the princely increase of 2c an hour, from $14.28 to $14.30 an hour, all of these so-called protected conditions—penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances—were removed. And the calculation showed that a full-time employee who worked on Saturdays and Thursday nights would effectively lose $90 a week for the princely sum of 2c an hour. Over the break we actually discovered a zero cents an hour Spotlight AWA. All of those conditions were shredded for no increase. That is not to say that I will necessarily put my 2c away, but it does make the point that all of these take-home pay components—penalty rates, leave loadings, shift allowances and the like—can be removed at the stroke of a pen for no compensation. That is the point. The point which the Victorian Workplace Advocate makes today is that it might be unfair but it is entirely legal under the Prime Minister’s law. It is not as if the Lufthansa or the Spotlight examples are the only ones floating around. In the most recent quarterly statistics published by the Office of the Employment Advocate we discovered that since the government’s legislation came into effect on 27 March there have been over 41,000 AWAs. Rounding the figures, there were 6,000 AWAs in April, the first month; 13,000 AWAs in the second month of operation, May; and 21,000 during June. We also know, from evidence given at Senate estimates, that in the sample taken by the Office of the Employment Advocate, 100 per cent of the AWAs 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 public holidays, 22 per cent did not provide for a pay increase over the life of the agreement and 16 per cent excluded all award conditions. We also know from the advice of Freehills—the government’s lawyer of choice—that all of this can be done at the stroke of a pen for minimal compensation, such as 2c an hour, or, more importantly, for no compensation, as is made clear by the zero cents an hour Spotlight AWA, which we drew attention to over the winter recess. So what choice does this House have today? The House can vote to disallow these regulations and make its first strike by tearing up the government’s legislation and regulations. It will not do that. Liberal and National Party members of this House will handcuff themselves again to the Prime Minister’s extreme proposals. So what will the choice be? When will that real choice arise? That real choice will arise at the next election. And what will we find the Prime Minister saying about industrial relations at that election campaign? I suspect he will do his best, as he has in the past, to hide his true intentions from the Australian people. But slowly but surely we are flushing him out on that matter. The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 July: ‘We’re not finished with workplace changes: Howard’. That is a quote, Mr Speaker. That headline is no surprise. When did we first come to appreciate that the work that the government had done in industrial relations was not at a conclusion? Senator Minchin, the No. 3 man in the government, went to his soul mates at the HR Nicholls Society and effectively apologised for not going as far as the HR Nicholls Society would have wanted, and indicated that down the track more work would be done effectively to destroy the edifice of industrial relations—including the Industrial Relations Commission generally and awards. The fact that the government has unfinished business is also shown by the FOI release of the Treasury document, The Regulation of Workplace Relations—current, proposed and for the future, which we obtained through Freedom of Information in November of last year. But when you get to the section about the future—the unfinished business—it is blacked out. The government’s unfinished business is blacked out. Now the government is resorting to conclusive certificates. A conclusive certificate signed in August of this year indicates that the Prime Minister’s right-hand man, the secretary of his department, Dr Shergold, is now signing certificates preventing the public release of these materials on the basis that it might lead to speculation about possible future workplace relations reforms. The choice will be clear. There will be more of the Prime Minister’s extreme industrial relations changes—every Liberal and National Party member handcuffed to those—and the government with a secret plan to go further, as shown by Senator Minchin, the FOI releases and the HR Nicholls soul mate discussion. The stark choice is between having wages down, interest rates up, and petrol prices up under the Liberal Party or a decent and fair industrial relations system under Labor that respects the rights of individuals and that will ensure that people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. (Time expired). 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —I second the motion and reserve my right so speak. 6 09:22:00 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 —This motion achieves nothing other than to take up the precious time of this chamber. The regulations make amendments to 52 Commonwealth acts and four regulations consequential to amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. The regulations, which are the subject of this motion, largely amend the terminology and numbering of various Commonwealth acts and regulations to ensure technical consistency with the changes made by the Work Choices act. So disallowing these regulations, which the motion of the opposition does, would actually create discrepancies between the Workplace Relations Act and other federal legislation which refers to the Workplace Relations Act, and would do nothing as a consequence to assist employers and employees in Australia. Given that this would be the outcome of this motion if it were to be achieved by the opposition, it is irresponsible and it is why I say that it achieves nothing other than to take up an hour or so of the time of this chamber. The consequential regulations subject to the disallowance motion fall into a number of categories. There are amendments to terminology and section numbers in various Commonwealth acts and regulations—for example, the substitution of references to ‘certified agreement’ with ‘collective agreement’; amendments to take account of new provisions of the Work Choices act—for example, the establishment of the Australian Fair Pay Commission; amendments consequential on particular repeals made by the Work Choices act; amendments that preserve the effect of transitional arrangements in other legislation; and other amendments consequential on new provisions introduced by Work Choices. This includes amendments to the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992, which have the effect of allowing up to 500,000 additional employees to choose a superannuation fund. So the effect of the motion by the opposition, if successful, would be to destroy these regulatory changes, which would have adverse impacts on workers in Australia. The reason that the motion is being moved is, therefore, part of the ongoing campaign by the Labor Party and the ACTU against Work Choices, characterised by untruths, misleading claims and scare tactics. Indeed, opponents of the government’s legislation have slandered and maligned every employer, basically labelling them as ‘reactionary scrooges’ in this debate. More recently, we had the example of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party and the union movement generally seeking to slander the officials of the Office of Workplace Services simply for doing their job and investigating whether or not workers had been affected or adversely impacted in the way in which the ACTU had claimed that they had. When these individual honest public servants doing their job pursuant to provisions of legislation found that what the ACTU had said was misleading and deceptive and reported that, what did they get from the opposition? They got called ‘snivelling liars’ by the Leader of the Opposition in this place yesterday simply because as good, honest, hard-working public servants they have done their jobs. But their jobs involved coming to a conclusion based on all the facts—not just some selective matters that the unions wanted to put forward—that what had been claimed was not, in fact, the case. So we have this self-indulgent rhetoric on the part of the union movement and the Labor Party which ignores the reality of the modern workplace in Australia where employers and employees are not pitted against each other in a battle for supremacy but are simply wanting to ensure their skills are fully and fairly utilised. The old industrial relations system, which is what the Leader of the Opposition wants to roll back to, never empowered workers in this country. It empowered unions to create paper disputes with employers, dragging them into courts and tribunals and allowing unions to conduct unlawful strikes without penalties. We have the Leader of the Opposition attacking just about every institution that there is. The Office of Workplace Services is attacked. He has attacked the new Building and Construction Commission despite the fact that the evidence from the operation of that commission has been that there has been a marked change in the culture which has been in existence in the building and construction industry in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney and elsewhere around the country as a result of the changes put in place. In his own state, we had this ridiculous situation of the Perth to Mandurah Railway, with stoppage after stoppage costing millions upon millions of dollars, which has been the subject of criticism not just from us on this side of this chamber but indeed from the Labor Party government in Western Australia. The Leader of the Opposition wants to attack that as well, yet it is bringing about a very marked change, to the benefit of Australians. Simply, the one motivating factor behind the Labor Party’s hysterical campaign against Work Choices is that the Labor Party supported the old system because it gave power to the unions and the unions gave money to the Labor Party. Indeed, since 1996, the reality is that some $50 million has been provided by the unions in Australia to the Labor Party and that is who, in this case, is actually pulling the strings in terms of the rhetoric which is being used by the Labor Party. The parliament has already given significant consideration to the Work Choices reforms and passed this important legislation, which is designed to take Australia into the 21st century, giving it a system which looks to the future and not to the past. The member for Perth says that there will be a choice at the next election. The choice is this: do Australians want an opposition forming a government which will take us back to the 1970s or 1980s in terms of industrial relations in this country, which will not meet the challenges of the future—the challenges of an ageing population, the challenges of a global economy in which Australia must operate and be part of if we are going to sustain the prosperity of this country? Do Australians want a party in government that is going to meet the challenges of the future, that is prepared to make careful reform in order to do that so that we can continue to grow our prosperity in this country or do they want one that is simply going to look back, under the orders of the union movement in this country, and take us back to the 1970s and 1980s? It was interesting to hear the member for Perth talking about interest rates. Can I remind the House that interest rates under this government are on average five per cent below what the average was under the Labor Party when they were in government— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean —You said they wouldn’t go up. They’ve gone up three times. Don’t tell us about interest rates! They’ve gone up three times under you and you said they wouldn’t go up. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior cabinet minister in the previous government, as was the gentleman who is interjecting at the present time. Australians can remember home loan interest rates of 17 per cent, and small business in Australia can remember paying interest rates of 21 and 22 per cent. That is the reality in terms of the outcome. We can hear all the rhetoric we like from the opposition. The reality is that, on average, when you compare 13 years of the Labor government with 10 years of this government, there is a five per cent difference in relation to those interest rates. Here we are. At this stage I think we are some 137 days, as I calculate it, since Work Choices was introduced and came into operation in Australia. What we were told by the Labor Party before the introduction of Work Choices was that this would be a green light for mass sackings in Australia. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Perth and others that this was going to lead to a whole series of disastrous consequences for Australians. One of the leading union figures in Australia said, ‘This is a green light for mass sackings.’ Well, 137 days after Work Choices came into operation, what have we seen? We have not seen mass sackings. What we have seen is the creation of an additional 100,000 jobs in Australia—an additional 100,000 jobs created since 27 March, not the mass sackings that were predicted by the Leader of the Opposition and others. We heard the member for Perth talking earlier about values and virtues. What, I ask, is so virtuous about having 700,000 Australian kids growing up in homes where no-one has a job? What is so virtuous about a system that still condemns some five per cent of the workforce to unemployment in this country? Yet since Work Choices came in we have seen another slight fall in the unemployment rate. For the first time in 30 years we have an unemployment rate in Australia beginning with the figure 4. That is what we are on about—trying to create the best conditions, the conditions that are most optimal, so that more Australians can be in employment rather than fewer Australians. I remember reading in Don Watson’s biography, if I can call it that, of Paul Keating in the Keating era that the member for Perth, who was then an adviser to the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, used to tell Mr Keating before he went anywhere, before he got out of the car to go to his latest speaking engagement, to talk about jobs and recovery: ‘Jobs and recovery, mate. Just talk about jobs and recovery.’ I remind the member for Perth that this is about jobs. It is about creating jobs for Australians so that more Australians than would otherwise be in a job have the opportunity of getting a job. Why should we accept a 4.9, five or 5½ per cent—or whatever it might be—unemployment rate in Australia? Why shouldn’t we be trying to create the conditions in which there is a better opportunity, the most optimal conditions, for more Australians to get jobs than otherwise? Yet what we have from the opposition is a proposition that would simply rip all this up, not just to take us back to before Work Choices but to rip up what has been in operation for the last 10 years under the Workplace Relations Act and take us back to the 1980s so far as industrial relations is concerned in Australia. What did the 1980s give us? A prescriptive system of industrial relations. What did that prescriptive system of industrial relations do for the million people thrown out of employment as a result of the recession we had to have at the end of the 1980s? A prescriptive system of industrial relations did not save any one of those jobs. To his credit, Mr Keating at least realised that there had to be some changes away from the one-size-fits-all award approach that had been in operation in the 1980s and prior to that in Australia. Yet the Leader of the Opposition we have now wants to ignore that progress made over the last 10 or 15 years, ignore the prosperity which reforms that have been made by this government have contributed to and take us all back to the past in terms of economic management and economic credibility, in terms of who can be best trusted to run this country. I say to Australians: a man who is going to rip up these sorts of reforms, who is not going to meet the challenges of the future, is not someone who should be trusted to be in charge of the country and the economy, to take us forward into the future. What the Leader of the Opposition proposes to do comes at the bidding of the union movement in Australia, who simply want to look after their vested interests and not after the workers. Look at the proportion and the density of the workforce that actually belongs to a union in Australia today. It has fallen to less than 17 per cent and it has been in free-fall for the last decade or two. Why? Because the one-size-fits-all being told from above approach by shop stewards is not the way in which the workforce in Australia wants to operate. It wants flexibility in its operation, in the way in which people are employed, so that they can meet their various desires and aspirations, including the desire and aspiration to work. This government stands by this legislation. It is important legislation. It is legislation that will take us forward. It is legislation that meets the challenges of the future, and we are not going to be turning back or ripping up the legislation, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us do—and he will tell us more about it, no doubt, when he gets on his feet in a moment. We are going to move forward, because only by moving forward, by meeting the challenges of the future and by engaging in continuing reform, which is what governments are put in place to do—only by doing that—will we be in a position better than any other position to meet the continued prosperity that Australians want. That is why we are committed to this legislation. That is why, amongst other reasons, this motion should be defeated. 9 09:36:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —This disallowance motion represents the last chance in this parliament to rip up these laws. If the parliament does not do it today, however, we will rip up these laws when we get into government in around 12 to 18 months time. The hardworking families of middle Australia, the people raising their kids, paying their mortgages and balancing the family budgets, demand to be heard in this place on this matter. They are the ones who entrusted this government with their future, only to become the victims in this legislation of an all-out assault on their security and their dreams for a better future for their kids. This is a government that cannot any longer manage the economy in the interests of working Australians. It is a government that turns on its own people. This is a Prime Minister who says that anyone who has any difficulty with these unfair laws is a phoney. All those mums and dads fearful of this legislation are phoneys, according to the Prime Minister. How out of touch is the government becoming? Interest rates are up, petrol prices are up, the cost of living is up, and it puts in place, in the face of all this, a mechanism to slash wages and conditions. When middle Australia can least afford it, it acts to undermine the position of ordinary Australian families and it says those who oppose it are phoneys. The expression used by the Prime Minister referred to a lot of people, but among the people it referred to were those who had been victims of this law already who had made their complaints sufficiently clear. They placed advertisements with the ACTU—advertisements paid for by workers, as opposed to the corrupt theft of taxpayers’ money to pay for blatantly political advertising by this government in defence of its own legislation. Public servants have been turned into de facto secret police and political operatives by Minister Andrews, who is exiting the chamber. Public servants have been turned into illicit political operatives by him in order to undermine and discredit the various people who have made complaints about this—adding intimidation to the bullying. They did not even bother, in most cases, to interview at all the workers who had a grievance. They had a chat to a few of the employers. This was their investigation, on the basis of which they describe the propositions as phoney. It is in keeping with the indecent dishonesty which has come to mark this government as they defend themselves in most areas—but in this area above all because their extreme ideology is so actively engaged by these laws. They do not care what they do to ordinary Australians; they have developed their right to rule ideology to a fine cutting edge and they turn that cutting edge on anyone who would dare be a critic of them in this place. They have no compunction about using taxpayer dollars to turn the Public Service away from its normal obligation of balance and service to the public into an arm of low-heel political operatives. That is basically what this government has managed to do in this regard. The minister who spoke at the table, and who is personally complicit in all of this activity, always erects a series of straw men whenever he wants to address the arguments that we raise in opposition to this legislation. He said that when this legislation was passed we allegedly predicted the sky would fall in, people would be sacked en masse and there would be huge outbreaks of industrial mayhem all over the country. That was in his imagination; in his dreams. I think anyone in this place who recollects that debate will remember exactly what I said would be the consequence of the passage of this legislation. I said it would be like an infestation of termites; a slow crumbling from within. Indeed, it has been a very slow crumbling from within but nevertheless it has been a continuous process with an inevitable consequence. The fact of the matter is, because we have stood so strong on this side of the House, there are indeed a number of employers who are saying, ‘Perhaps what we ought to do is wait this process out until after the next election. If the Labor Party wins, we will not have sullied ourselves by filthying our hands with the utilisation of this legislation.’ Many of them—as I have occasion to know, having discussed things with them—do not want to go down that path. I wish I had 10 bucks for every time an employer has said, ‘We did not like every feature of the industrial relations system, but none of us ever asked for this. This is not what any of us had in mind.’ If I had 10 bucks for every time someone said that, I would have a guaranteed poultice of money that would be all we would need for our advertising campaign in the next election. The simple fact of the matter is that those employers have a major inhibition related to their own human decency. The second feature of it is that they know, like all employers, the moment a competitor acts, they act. They have no choice. They do not have an obligation in the first instance to the community, although they would like to have that obligation because they are members of the community and decent people. They know darn well that the legal constraint on them is that their obligation is to their shareholders. In the end, if a competitor acts in a particular way, they have to act. However, particularly those who are associated with the Business Council of Australia are effectively deciding—and there has been enough publicity in the press on this for you to know it is true—to hold off a bit and see what happens in the next election, knowing full well that one of two things will happen. If we win, this law will be shredded and what will be put in place will be a balanced, fair and flexible system that represents the middle ground in Australian politics and the middle ground of industrial affairs. I know that will happen if we win. If the government wins, not only will there be these laws to implement but also there will be the additional laws that are being held in secret to be brought out to put the finishing touches on the destruction of any person’s effective rights in the workplace anywhere in this country. So there is a fair bit at stake and it makes a bit of sense, if you are an employer seeing two outcomes so poles apart as likely to eventuate in the course of the next 18 months, that you would hold off for a bit. But having said that most sensible people would hold off, I know that does not mean that all people will hold off. What we have seen systematically is that crumbling way that I suggested with that analogy of an infestation of termites. You are beginning to see the cases pop up: the Spotlights, the Lufthansas and those meatworks in the bush, which are looking at all the opportunities particularly when these laws can be dovetailed with the illegitimate use of immigration visas, so particularly when you can dovetail the two of them together. What you are seeing now are the beginnings of the assault we predicted moving on much the timetable that we predicted it would occur. The government makes great play of the assumption that the only people who think these laws are appalling and indecent are the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement. I do not think anything that I have said, anything that I have heard Greg Combet say or anything that I have heard any of my colleagues in this place say can match the moral force of the comments of Bishop Kevin Manning, the Bishop of Parramatta, about these laws in the latest edition of the Catholic Weekly. He says that the Work Choices legislation is ‘manifestly unjust’ and unfair and that the government has ‘failed in its duty to promote the common good’. He goes on to say that this act breaches the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and the social teaching of the church. The article states: He said employees cannot be treated as commodities and that in Catholic thinking, people are not valued according to their work, but rather work is valued because it is the free act of a human person. He said the great injustice of Work Choice legislation is that “it obliterates the principal instrument of collection action which is collective bargaining”. “The right of workers to act collectively is central to Catholic social teaching. It was stated explicitly in [the encyclical] Rerum Novarum,” he told a Work Choices seminar ... I quote him again: “Let us be very clear about this: there is no right to collective bargaining under the legislation ... “Any collective bargaining that may take place is entirely at the whim of the employer. “This is manifestly unjust! “The removal of the right to collective bargaining places the new legislation in breach of the ILO’s Convention on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 1998, which states that all member States, even if they have not ratified the Convention, are obligated to promote and realise in good faith, freedom of association and the right to collective-bargaining.” He goes on to say: “Work Choices violates Catholic Social Teaching on the Option for the Poor and, indeed, any reasonable notion of a ‘fair go’ ... “The already unemployed, people in rural and regional Australia, women in casual and part-time jobs, the disabled, and young people will suffer disadvantage under this legislation. “In the regulation of the labour market, governments have an obligation to protect the rights of the vulnerable. No fair-minded person could say that Work Choices does that.” This is an extraordinary attack. This is not a slight, glancing reference. This is a hip and thigh assault on the fairness and decency underpinning this particular legislation, exposing it for what it absolutely is. He goes on about AWAs being weighted too heavily in favour of the employer. He says: “There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an AWA provided that the worker is highly skilled and has a sophisticated capacity for negotiation ... “In the workplace, some, but by no means all, workers will have skills of sufficient marketability, and the capacity to negotiate an AWA which suits them, but the fact remains that the majority will not. There is a percentage of the Australian workforce—about 10 to 15 per cent of it—that sacks their employers; the other 85 per cent get sacked by them. That is the nature of the power realities in the industrial situation. But those 85 per cent who are vulnerable have mortgages, they are educating their children, they are paying for the cost of their health care—all the user-pays things that this government has effectively thrust on them over the years. They rely absolutely on the income they earn to be able to carry them. And the income they earn is crucially reinforced by the rewards for hard work, and the rewards for hard work go to the very essence of those conditions most explicitly attacked by this government’s legislation: the ability to get overtime payments, the ability to be rewarded if you work on holidays, the ability to access shift allowances and the ability to get a decent rate of pay when you work in any set of unusual circumstances. Those are what are under assault here. There is not a person with a mortgage and certainly not a person with a new mortgage in the western suburbs of Sydney, in the equivalent suburbs of the major capital cities or in large parts of regional Australia—not one—who, when they are paying off their mortgage, are not reliant to some degree on some form of penalty rate. There would not be one of them out in the western suburbs of Sydney. In the last six weeks I have had an opportunity to meet many of them. I can stand up in any workplace or in any meeting place, make that claim and then ask for a show of hands, and what I get when I ask for the show of hands is unanimity. The interesting thing is that about half the people that I have been talking to are traditional Liberal voters, traditional Liberal working-class voters who understand exactly how they are being wrecked by this government. We will wreck these laws. We will put in place fair and balanced laws that represent the centrist thinking of the average Australian. Extremism is out when we are in, and these laws will go. (Time expired) 12 09:51:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —I trust that, in debates to come, as the various policies are debated pro and against, the theology of the church will be used repeatedly by the ALP to justify their various policy positions. It will be interesting to see which ones they will accept as supporting their policy positions and which ones they are willing to discard. It is a shame to see the Leader of the Opposition somehow cloak himself with the religious theology of one archbishop who made comments. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —You line up at church on Sunday, do you? ZJ6 Barresi, Phillip, MP Mr BARRESI —I trust that the member for Corio, who is not a bad man, who has been unfairly dismissed— WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —You’re an absolute hypocrite! 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member for Corio should be very careful. ZJ6 Barresi, Phillip, MP Mr BARRESI —I trust that the member will listen to my contribution, just as I listened to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. I would say to the member for Corio: take your unfair dismissal case to the union movement that will listen to it. I doubt whether there will be anyone there to listen to that case. This disallowance motion, as the Leader of the Opposition said, is a last chance for the Labor Party to muscle up—to muscle up to the government. The member for Perth, in a desperate ploy, tried to tie where we are at with the entire Work Choices legislation to leadership issues. The only leadership implications from the Work Choices legislation and from this debate are the leadership implications for those on the other side. The ACTU has laid down the law: muscle up or get out of the way. Greg Combet has even lamented the fact that unions used to run this country. ‘Wouldn’t it be great to go back to those days,’ Greg Combet has been saying. He recognises that those on the other side have let the union movement down, and that is why they have picked up the pieces and are running the debate. The extreme IR law changes that the ALP keeps referring to are nothing of the sort. I have had a good chance to look at them and to compare them with laws outside Australia. The language used by those on the other side has not changed over the years. It has been the same language, it has been extreme language and it continues. The Leader of the Opposition denies this, but in fact he has said out of his own mouth that these laws will create divorces, that they will create family breakdowns. It is the same language that we have heard for over 10 years, yet the facts do not stack up. Employment growth and wage increases have been incredibly strong under this government compared with what they were under the former Labor government. In their extreme language, those opposite keep resorting to these claims. But the extreme claims and language are now no longer sufficient for the ALP and they are no longer sufficient for the ACTU. What they have now said is: ‘We have tried the extreme language; now what we are going to do is fabricate stories. We are going to get people on the TV commercials, surround it with nice glitzy things and fabricate these stories, because our extreme language has not cut through. We need these fabrications.’ After the Office of Workplace Services has investigated these claims, we have found in every single case that these stories have in fact been a fabrication. Today we have heard those opposite mention a couple of other examples. I daresay that, once they have been investigated in the next few days, we might get a bit closer to the truth of the situation. The Work Choices legislation really is about choice. Members on the other side say, ‘But employers out there are not taking up the Work Choices legislation.’ They do not have to. That is a good thing about this legislation. Employers can keep their current conditions going. They can keep the current relationship going with their employees. This is about choice. This is about making sure that that small business has, and other businesses that are about to close their doors have, an opportunity to negotiate a situation where those doors can continue to remain open. More importantly, if those doors remain open, there is a job. There is someone out there who will continue to have a job. This legislation is providing that flexibility and those choices so that businesses are able to say, ‘There are other ways of doing this.’ 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— ZJ6 Barresi, Phillip, MP Mr BARRESI —I say to the member for Gorton that real small businesses in my electorate—not the four or five that you came up with—are telling me, ‘This is good. In fact, we are going to increase our employment.’ How unfair is it when we have actually legislated minimum conditions and standards? We have legislated a maximum of 38 ordinary hours of work per week, four weeks paid annual leave, 10 days paid personal and carers leave and 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave. These things are protected. Of course, other conditions can be negotiated if that is what they decide they want to do. The other thing that is counter to these being unfair and extreme IR conditions is that we have also made sure that the Fair Pay Commission is able to make determinations on wages in a non-adversarial setting. The previous setting, in which you had to have ambit claims from all sides, always led to a halfway situation being created. We now have a Fair Pay Commissioner who is genuinely going out there and consulting with the public, not simply with members of the union movement or employers associations. He is actually seeking genuine input from anyone out there in the Australian public who wants to make a submission. That is a fair situation to have and one which did not exist under the previous industrial relations wage-fixing situation. The Leader of the Opposition has from time to time referred to the model used by our cousins across the Tasman—the New Zealand model—and how New Zealand had to reregulate the extreme deregulations that took place in their system. I had a chance to have a look at that. I thought, ‘I had better go and look at what is happening over there rather than take the Leader of the Opposition’s word.’ A couple of weeks ago I met members of the New Zealand Labour Party, I met with members of the National Party, I met with unionists and I met with employer associations. Lo and behold, this reregulated environment that the Australian Labor Party keeps referring to is in fact still more deregulated than the Australian system—far more deregulated. There is no disadvantage test in the New Zealand system. We have minimum conditions protected by law. In New Zealand 87 per cent of the private sector is on individual agreements—we are not talking about collective agreement; these are individual agreements. They have no central wage-fixing system. Guess who sets the minimum wages in New Zealand? It is the executive. The minister of the Crown in New Zealand sets them. They are not set by some central fair pay commission or third party; they are set by the government. Is this the reregulated environment that we are supposed to be aiming for? Their system is still far more deregulated than ours is. So do not come in here and say that our conditions and what we are proposing are in some way extreme. The only thing that is extreme is your language. The only thing that has been fabricated is your advertisements on the TV. This so-called reregulated system in New Zealand is still far more deregulated than the Australian system. What we are proposing through our laws is real choice for people. They can take a new agreement or they can keep their current conditions—and of course it is great if they do that because it means that they are discussing the issue with their workforce. Let us have a look at some of the ACTU ads. The ACTU leader says that it is a disgrace that we have actually investigated these individuals. But those individuals were dragged into the spotlight by the ACTU movement itself. It got these people, put them in front of a camera and fabricated a story. Why shouldn’t their cases be investigated? The ACTU used these individuals, who perhaps were not fully aware of what they were doing, for political purposes. And we know that in each case the situation has been fabricated. Let us look at the Optus case. In this situation apparently 70 field technicians were sacked and encouraged to work as contractors. The redundant workers could end up doing the same work but earning $180 less per week. What do the findings reveal? Optus was not attempting to re-engage its staff as contractors. There was the continuation of a program to outsource these customer field services and that outsourcing had already occurred three times in the past two years. There was nothing new there. They were continuing what they had been doing in the past under the old system. Redeployment was to be attempted and staff redeployed would stay on the same pay and conditions. Those not redeployed were made redundant and were to be provided with outplacement assistance. As much as we may decry redundancy, it does occur from time to time. It is a shame when it happens. It seems that the only time that redundancy is a bad word is when it is offered by an employer and when it is alleged to be part of the Work Choices legislation. But when a union movement is involved in redundancies, it is okay. The Weekend Australian on 5 August reported the case of Dianne Rich, who appealed to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to prevent the end of her employment at the Electrical Trades Union. The ETU claimed that Ms Rich had been made redundant. When Cowra Abattoirs—a case exposed by the Office of Workplace Services—made people redundant it was ‘outrageous’. Yet when the union does it, it is a ‘genuine redundancy’. We see the absolute hypocrisy of those on the other side—hypocrisy in order to advance their fabricated stories. In the Cowra situation it was alleged that Robert Kirkman, the abattoir worker with 34 years of experience, and others were sacked on the basis of operational reasons. It was investigated by the Office of Workplace Services and it was found that there was no reasonable basis upon which to prosecute Cowra for alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act because the reason for the threatened dismissal of employees was the financial viability of the company. If you close down the business, everyone is out of a job. Of course if you restructure at least some jobs will continue and those employees can continue to go home to their families with a pay packet, rather than having the entire workforce find themselves out on the street. The second ACTU ad made claims about WorkPac. A driver, Jennifer Gillian, was allegedly sacked by text message, without explanation or warning. It was claimed that she had previously inquired about her occupational health and safety standards in the workplace and that she feared this may have been a factor in her sacking. This was investigated by the Office of Workplace Services—and we will investigate every single case that the ACTU come up with because we know that there are fabrications behind just about everything that they say. Jennifer Gillian was a casual employee of WorkPac. Kerbside services required fewer drivers from WorkPac. Three workers, including Mrs Gillian, had their casual assignments ended. She was advised twice by telephone and then received a further message on the Monday. There is no evidence that her assignment ended because of safety issues that were raised—none whatsoever. There is example after example, but I will not take up the entire debate by going through them. Those on the other side know that this is the case and that is why the ACTU movement, in their embarrassment, are now saying, ‘We’re not going to be using real people or real situations in these advertisements, because we have to fabricate situations and the Office of Workplace Services will expose us. We’ll now use actors. We’ll get the actors in and will do a dummy script for them to go through.’ As I mentioned before, in the New Zealand system 87 per cent of the private sector is on individual agreements. By the way, I said to the Labor Party in New Zealand, ‘You have been in government all these years. Is there any chance that you’re actually going to wind back some of these things?’ The answer was no. They had no plans at all to do that. They are going to keep that system going. Yet what do we have here? We have the Leader of the Opposition, who made a policy on the run on AWAs. He made a policy on the run. It was a knee-jerk reaction. The member for Perth and everyone else in the opposition then had to support him. He realised the error that he made, but of course he is not going to back down now. Now they are trying to couch it in language such as ‘common-law agreements’. AWAs have been taken up— (Time expired) 16 10:07:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —We should rename the OWS Kevin’s Goon Brigade, the KGB. Mr ANDREWS (Menzies —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 10:07:00 —I move: That the question be now put. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—To lessen the tautology, the question now is that the question—that is, the motion moved by the member for Perth—be put. 10:11:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 82 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. 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. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. 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. Mirabella, S. 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. Southcott, A.J. 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. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 61 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * 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. Katter, R.C. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. 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. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Stephen Smith’s) be agreed to. 10:17:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 60 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * 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. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. 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. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. 82 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. 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. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. * Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. 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. Mirabella, S. 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. Southcott, A.J. 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. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. 18 Bills R2451 18 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 18 Bills R2559 18 Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. 18 10:22:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP 0 0 Mr BURKE —Australia is better than this bill. The legislation before us today undermines our sovereignty, is offensive to our decency and makes a mockery of this parliament. We should oppose this bill because of what it does, because of the motivation which brought it here and because, regardless of any amendments the government might seek to move, the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is itself irredeemable. As the debate has gone on and we have seen the government go through different permutations and have various briefings of where it wants to take this legislation, we have not known whether to laugh or cry. We do not know whether to laugh at just how ludicrous this legislation is or cry at the very real impact and real pain it seeks to cause some of the most desperate people in the world. First and foremost this bill proposes to abolish the Australian border. It denies Australian processes and it undoes unanimous reforms that were made last year. Labor used to muse whether the abolition of the border was something that would ever happen. In June 2002 the member for Hotham, when he was Leader of the Opposition, asked the Prime Minister directly: ‘Will the Prime Minister rule out legislating to excise parts of the mainland?’ The response from the Prime Minister: 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. They are the words of the Prime Minister—it is a ‘ludicrous proposition’ but a proposition so ludicrous it is now before the House of Representatives for debate. It is a proposition that in the name of border protection abolishes our nation’s border. In the name of protecting a border the government has decided to throw its hands up in the air and pretend we do not have one at all. It is so insane that it has been the subject of comedy sketches. Years ago, in the 1970s, there was even an episode of The Goodies where, at the end, Graeme Garden attached a rope from the mainland to his rowboat and attempted to row the whole of England beyond the five-mile limit. Now we find the Australian government taking the whole of Australia beyond the limits of its own border. As soon as the government got control of the Senate they decided to excise every single offshore island. There are only two bits left: one is called Tasmania; the other is called the mainland. If this legislation is carried they are gone too. I want to make it clear that Labor supported for very good reason the first three excisions—Cocos (Keeling) Island, Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island—because they were in a very different position to every other offshore island and in a completely different position to Tasmania and the Australian mainland. In about a month it will be the fifth anniversary of SIEVX, when hundreds of people drowned on their way to Australia. This was a people-smuggling operation that took advantage of the desperation of those people, in boats filled largely with women and children, headed not to the Australian mainland but to places like Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island and Ashmore Reef. Those people-smuggling operations—where people in desperate situations had their life savings taken and their lives put at risk on the high seas—were only occurring because those areas were within the migration zone. Labor supported that excision for one very precise reason: to take action against the people-smuggling operations that were causing such misery and hardship for so many people. This legislation is not before us because of a people-smuggling operation. It is not a people-smuggling operation when 43 people hop in their own canoe and directly flee persecution. It is not a people-smuggling operation when there is no operator profiting from it. It is not a people-smuggling operation when every single one of those people is subsequently found under Australian law to be worthy of protection. That is an entirely different situation and this legislation denies anybody in that situation the processes of Australian law. In the last 24 hours we have heard serious reports about people who had applied for Australian protection being deported back into danger. At the first assessment, performed on Nauru, it was believed that these people were not in fear for their lives and not at risk of persecution. They were returned to their country of origin and now it appears they may well have been killed on their return, including some children. It remains to be investigated fully, but those claims show how important it is to get it right. The stakes are incredibly high when you are talking about refugees. If somebody comes to this country, makes a false claim and is not genuinely fleeing persecution, I am the first to say, ‘Send them back.’ I am the first to say that they should not use refugee principles as a way of bypassing the correct, orderly approach to Australian immigration. But you have to make sure you get that claim right. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has stated many times that a low benchmark is set. When we determine whether or not somebody has a well-founded fear of persecution, the test is not of whether it is beyond reasonable doubt; the test is of whether there is a more than remote chance. That test is put there for good reason: because, if you get it wrong, people will be persecuted. If you get it wrong families may well be slaughtered—and we do not want to be the sort of country that allows that. What would have happened to the 43 Papuans who caused all of this process to unfold if the legislation before us today had already been in place? If those 43 had arrived when the mainland of Australia had been excised, the outcome for them would have been horribly different. We are talking about individuals who are currently integrating successfully into community life in suburban Melbourne. Had this legislation been in place they would not be there right now; they would be on Nauru. They would be languishing on Nauru with no knowledge as to when they would ever be somewhere else. Instead of these communities being able to welcome these people to Melbourne, they would not even be able to visit them on Nauru because most Australians are denied visas when wanting to get to Nauru. They would be languishing on Nauru, 42 of them having been found to be refugees in need of protection. Those 42 would be waiting indefinitely while Australia went through the fiction of trying to find anther country to take them, knowing full well that no other country would do so—and why would they? Why would other countries that are currently dealing with refugees arriving on their doorstep in the thousands, particularly from Africa, want to help out Australia when our crisis amounts to 43? We are claiming there is a crisis over 43 people arriving in a canoe and they are trying to provide resettlement for tens of thousands of people arriving from Africa. Understandably they will say: ‘Surely it’s Australia’s responsibility. Isn’t that where they landed?’ To that Australian law will say, ‘No.’ They might have thought they had landed in Australia. They might have come in a boat and gone all the way up Sydney Harbour. They could have sailed underneath the Harbour Bridge. They might have looked around and thought, ‘Gee, this looks a lot like Australia.’ But, no; they discovered, thanks to the Australian government, that they had actually made it to Nauru—and no other country will take them. Australia knows no other country will take them. What happens then is simple: they will remain in Nauru, languishing, while the Australian taxpayer forks out something that has been averaging $4 million a month to make a loud point—a loud point expressed in terms of human misery. They will wait in Nauru. They would have waited until such time as the Australian government decided that it was politically expedient to let them in. That would have been the case for 42 of them—not for the 43rd. The only reason the 43rd Papuan now has a chance to get a protection visa is that he successfully appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal. There are no appeals to the RRT if you are on Nauru. So the 43rd Papuan would be in a different position to the others. While the other 42 would be waiting in Nauru and thinking: ‘The Australian government will now take years of our lives and our children’s lives. We’ll be here languishing until they decide it is politically expedient to take us, because we know no-one else will.’ In the interim, some of the 42 will pay, as others have, with the price of their sanity, as has continually happened to people who find themselves indefinitely detained. And the 43rd will be left with no prospect of appealing to the RRT, being beyond the reach of Australian law, which is the entire concept of the Pacific solution. The 43rd will now be weighing up his situation and asking, ‘Do I live the rest of my life in Nauru or do I take the risk and return to what I believed was an incredibly dangerous place where I believed I was being persecuted?’ Under Australian law, somebody who is recognised as being in need of protection would have no choice but to either languish in Nauru or return to the place where he claimed he was being persecuted. Fundamentally, that offends any Australian concept of human decency. Fundamentally, it goes against the reasons Australia become involved in the resettlement of refugees in the first place. I have heard the Prime Minister describe the refugee convention as a Cold War document. That is true; it was concluded during the Cold War. But it was not put in place because of the Cold War. It was put in place because Jewish people fled Germany and no country would take them. The rest of the world swore they would never let this happen again. Had this legislation been in place at the time the 43rd Papuan arrived in Australia, what position would he have been placed in? He would have been given two choices: languish for the rest of his life in Nauru or be treated in the same way that people were treated in the lead-up to and during the Second World War. Those are the choices this legislation gives anyone in his position in future. The legislation also undoes the reforms of last year. We do not get that many moments of true bipartisanship in this place. Last year we had a good one. It is easy for me to say, ‘The government didn’t go the whole way towards what Labor stood for,’ but we took a big step in the right direction. Last year every member of this parliament voted for legislation that said: ‘You might be able to get away with some things under the convention, but Australian standards are a bit better. You might be able to get away with detaining children under the refugee convention, but Australia set our own benchmarks and sometimes our standards of decency and our expectations are a cut above the rest.’ Everyone in this place and everyone in the Senate voted for it. We said that children would be out of detention. We said that indefinite detention would end. We said that case managed mental health care would be introduced to people in detention. We said that the oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman would be introduced so there was independent scrutiny of how people were being treated. After that great outbreak of bipartisanship, out of that sense of Australian values and decency being expressed in this place, all it took was 10 months, one canoe and it was all out the window, all discarded. We now find out that this government wants us to believe that Australia has a different set of principles. The new principles are meant to be these: it is wrong to lock children up in Australia but it is not a problem if you do it in Nauru. It is wrong to have people languish their whole lives indefinitely in detention centres but it is not a problem if you do it in Nauru. It is really important to make sure you have case managed mental health care for people within your care if you are in Australia but it does not matter if you dump them in Nauru. The oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is important but can the Commonwealth Ombudsman reach people in Nauru? He can apply for a visa and the government of Nauru will decide whether or not to grant it. Let us not forget that in recent months ASIO have had trouble getting visas from Nauru and the mental health care team sent over by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have had trouble getting visas from Nauru. What chance do we think the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose only role as far as the Nauruan government might be concerned would be to expose deficiencies in their system, will have to do spot checks whenever he wants to of people who arrive at a moment’s notice? It is entirely in the hands of another country. The starting principle behind the Pacific solution was to put people beyond the reach of Australian law. There are enough problems when you do that in terms of appeals to the RRT, but what you then do in terms of the principles we all said we agreed with 12 months ago is to say that the Australian values that mattered one year ago do not matter one bit now. And do not believe the amendments. We are meant to believe the amendment that will be moved by the government to its own legislation which says: The Parliament affirms as a principle that a minor ... will only be detained as a measure of last resort. There is a problem with that amendment: we do not legislate for Nauru, and we do not legislate for Manus Island. If anyone in this parliament believes in that government amendment, then vote against the bill, because the bill, by its very definition, makes that amendment irrelevant. Australian officials in Nauru have no special status. There is a note in the amendment—a little hint as to how this could possibly be relevant. The note says: The Minister has the power to direct officers of the Department to take all reasonable steps to work with any country ... Sure, they can work with a country, and Nauru can say no. But we have one moment of responsibility. We have a moment when we can prevent children from being detained and where we can stop indefinite detention. We have a moment where we can deliver case managed mental health care and we can make sure that the Ombudsman has the sort of access that this parliament believes he should have. The moment for us to do that is now. The moment for us to say that we want to deliver on those things is the moment in which to oppose the bill. Labor is going to oppose this bill in every way, and we will oppose it at every stage. If the government wants to move amendments that effectively have the impact of changing commas and putting up lobbying letters to Nauru, we are not going to stand in the way of those sorts of amendments, but ultimately they do not matter, because the bill is still wrong—and wrong at every stage. So why are we doing this? Why is it that the Australian parliament, without any pressure from within Australia, has decided to undo every principle that was so important a year ago? The reason we have decided to do that is not because of pressure from Australia; it is because of Jakarta. We all know that that is the reason and that that is the only reason. The minister is trying to fudge it by saying, ‘No, we’re doing this to clear up an inconsistency, because an inconsistency has arisen where if you land on an offshore island it’s only a couple of k’s from the mainland and you treat it differently from the way you handle it if you land on the mainland.’ How did that inconsistency arise? It arose because the government created that inconsistency when they excised all the remaining offshore islands. That is how the inconsistency got there. You do not say, ‘We now have to have dreadful policy, because we need to complement something really dumb we did a year ago.’ That is how that inconsistency arose. Instead, we replaced it with a new inconsistency, a bizarre inconsistency, which creates a complete change between whether you arrive by boat or by plane. So, if you directly flee persecution and you are genuinely in a desperate situation and arrive on Australian shores by boat, your life is about to be wrecked. But, if you are in a situation where you are wealthier and you want to come over here as a tourist and then claim once you are here, ‘Oh, no, I actually want to seek asylum,’ then you get to stay. You get the protection of Australian law and you get all the appeals mechanisms available to you. If you are a child you will not be locked up and, if you are detained for a length of time, it will not be indefinitely. If you end up with mental health problems, there are significant improvements in how you will be cared for and, if you are being mistreated in any way, the Commonwealth Ombudsman can investigate it and can reach you. Why is the person who comes out here on a plane, lies to Immigration authorities, then tells a new story a few months later and makes an appeal for asylum, more worthy than the person who directly flees in a canoe? That is the inconsistency that I do not understand, and that is the inconsistency that this bill demands. There is a reason why Indonesia reacted the way it did. Indonesia reacted so vehemently when protection visas were being granted to the first 42 Papuans for one reason: it believed the Prime Minister. In 2001 the Prime Minister said something which was actually never true. In 2001, the Prime Minister said—that famous line—‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstance in which they come.’ The Prime Minister actually put out there that this was a political decision. The Prime Minister did not say, ‘We have a process of independent people making these decisions.’ The Prime Minister did not say, ‘We delegate the authority for these decisions to public servants who then make assessments acting on their authority.’ No. He said, ‘We will decide’—and Indonesia believed him. Having believed him, the Prime Minister then said, ‘With regard to these 42 Papuans: no, actually, I didn’t make that decision; the process is made independently.’ Indonesia reacted the way it did because of the great lie that was told in the 2001 campaign. The reason Indonesia believed that this should be fixed by the government is that in that campaign the government said, ‘Yes, this is our decision.’ But it never was and it never should have been in terms of how you make the assessment. The assessment should always be made on the merits of the case, and in the case of those first 42 Papuans it was made validly and made well. I made the mistake of congratulating the government for that. The government responded by saying, ‘We’ll never do this again.’ Indonesia also had a concern about their sovereignty. The people who came here—those 43 Papuans—hold a belief which the government does not hold and which the Opposition does not hold, either. They hold a belief that there should be full separatism for the Papuan province of Indonesia. We do not support that, but that was never the issue in the claim. The acceptance of their claim had nothing to do with the issues surrounding Papuan separatism. The acceptance of their claim was based on the fact that it was independently determined that they had more than a remote chance of having a well-founded fear of persecution. So the outcome was right. And yet the moment Indonesia responded, the Prime Minister made it clear that what he had said previously was not true. He replaced it with something new. He replaced it with the attitude that Indonesia will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. He made it clear that no matter how concerned Indonesia was about their sovereignty, the Prime Minister was going to let that be more important than our sovereignty. Well, the legislation that comes into this place ought to be legislation that is based on the needs of Australia, not on the demands of Indonesia—and there was never a demand from within Australia for this sort of change. The government decided that they were willing to do anything. We had Senator Ellison coming up with wild ideas and we had talk of turning back boats when people were directly fleeing persecution. We had talk about identifying asylum seekers—ringing up the host country and saying, ‘Guess what? I want to give you the names of the citizens of yours who are claiming you’re persecuting them.’ We then had the claim that there would be a national interest test that would decide whether claims should be assessed purely on their merits. And finally we ended up with this, the most bizarre proposal of all: that border protection would be abolished and replaced with border abolition—that Australia would become a nation without a border. Indonesia want this law to be passed right now. They have made that clear. I do not know whether they have been told the truth about what it means. After Michael L’Estrange was sent to Indonesia on 22 April to explain the proposal, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Wirajuda, came out and explained why he was pleased with the change. He used these words: ... even if they would be classified as refugees they would not be accepted in Australia. This is positive for us for the future. That is not the meaning of the bill as I have been briefed on it. That is not the way the Prime Minister has explained the bill in his comments. So why does Indonesia think that that is what we are doing? If you are concerned about the relationship with Indonesia, think about what will happen in years to come, after these individuals have been robbed of years of their lives by languishing in Nauru, where Australia has no control over the way they are treated. What is Indonesia going to say when we eventually accept them because no other country in the world will have them? The problems that we have right now with Indonesia will only be revisited because of the approach that has been taken with this bill. The approach that should have been taken is the approach that is normally taken. It is called diplomacy. That is meant to be the job that diplomats do—that is, to treat Indonesia the same way that Indonesia treats us. That is, when we complain about their domestic law they say, ‘Well, it might be your citizens that it is impacting on, but this is our country and our law will prevail.’ That is all we had to do: explain to Indonesia how our legal process works. But instead of doing that, we have gone down the bizarre road of saying, ‘If any other country—one of our neighbours—kicks up enough fuss, Australia will change its domestic law.’ The policy of appeasement only leads to more claims. The policy of appeasement only leads to people saying, ‘Well, if I make a new ambit claim there is a country down south that will change its domestic law for me.’ The sovereignty of this parliament is too important to do that. We do not do that with countries with which we have the closest ties in the world. We do not do that for countries with which we have the deepest alliances. We should not allow pressure that has only come because of the just operation of our law to cause us to surrender our sovereignty and abandon our legal processes. This bill is irredeemable. The amendments that are before the House are largely meaningless. I started by saying that Australia is better than this bill—and it is. What we did in this parliament last year, across the parties, shows what we can do at our best. And there is a principle. It is a pretty simple Australian principle, which, up until this debate, I thought we held. There will be differences of opinions about people who, before they get to Australia, travel through many countries where they could seek asylum but do not, and there will be differences of opinion when people-smuggling operations are involved. There will be differences of opinion throughout the Australian community about how those situations should be handled. But this is a response to people who directly fled persecution. This situation does not arise often in Australia, but recently it did. And the Australian principle is pretty simple: if you are directly fleeing persecution, then the moment you reach Australia, the persecution must end. A bill which allows children to be locked up, which turns a blind eye to indefinite detention, and which does not care about case management, health care or proper oversight from the Ombudsman, is a bill that allows some of the most desperate people in the world to have their pain compounded and made worse because of deliberate actions of this government. I have been asked on many occasions whether I am throwing down the gauntlet to moderate Liberals in this debate. I throw down the gauntlet to every member of this parliament. Explain to me what has changed. Explain to me why principles that mattered 12 months ago do not matter now. Explain to me why you can have one morality in Australia and turn a blind eye to creating a different morality in Nauru. That is what this bill does. The bill before us is wrong—it is just plain wrong. Labor will not have anything to do with it. 25 10:51:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This bill today is a significant bill because unless this legislation is passed through both houses of parliament the status quo will remain. There are a number of things which the member for Watson opposite said that I will deal with in the time I have allotted. One of them is the fact that his rather impassioned rhetoric fails to be honest in addressing the fact that this bill with its amendments will give to offshore settlement exactly the same conditions that were negotiated 12 months ago for authorised arrivals on excised territory. That is the whole nub of this. He has been dishonest when he has said that this bill does not do that. The amendments to this bill offer offshore arrivals the same terms and conditions as have been offered to those coming to Australia from excised offshore places already, negotiated last year, as the member said—and, as he said, it was a bipartisan approach. This bill actually does make the distinction between the offshore excised places and those who reach the mainland and that is the effect of the bill. Why do we have to have this bill? We have to have this bill because Australia’s legal system cannot deal with unauthorised arrivals on the mainland. I will explain that in detail later but at the moment let us just be clear about it. There are people in Australia who have been here for 17 years through a succession of appeals where they can go to every court in this land. They have access to every advocacy group to make sure that they get access to the highest courts in this land and eventually, through the use of Australian taxpayers’ moneys, they can be here for up to 17 years. What is the problem with that? The problem with that is that after 10 years a child born to those people in this country automatically becomes an Australian citizen. If that child becomes an Australian citizen, we then have a problem of whether we send the parents offshore, if they are deemed not to be legitimate arrivals, leaving only the child here. This is the conundrum we are faced with in this parliament today: do we address this legislation because of the failure of the Australian legal system? We know that our Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, has endeavoured to negotiate, through the legal system, opportunities to deal more expeditiously with appeals as is done in many other countries, such as the US, where there are two appeals and that is it. But he cannot negotiate it through, even with his endeavour to use the privative clause, because we do not have the support, firstly, from the opposition and, secondly, through the courts of Australia. There is the separation of powers and we cannot impose ourselves on that. So this is the alternative arrangement that has been made. Just as a short reflection, let us remember who initiated mandatory detention in this country. It was under the Keating-Hawke Labor government; it was Gerry Hand. I have mentioned in this place before—even though I have a growing fondness for the member for Fremantle—that, when I was in Western Australia, before becoming a member of this place, the member for Fremantle, then the state Premier, was the Premier when the Port Hedland detention centre was opened with glee to detain unauthorised arrivals in Western Australia. So let us not have this cant and hypocrisy about how, on the one hand, we support you and how, on the other hand now, shock horror, this is terrible. Essentially that is it. We have to assign Australia as a designated unauthorised arrival zone because if people arrive on the Australian mainland then they are treated differently than the legislation provides for now. I will go to the amendments demonstrating that we are going to give people the same terms and conditions. Not only members of the Labor Party but also some members of the Liberal Party have told us they dissent from this legislation sought last year. I say to those people in my party who call themselves dissidents et cetera that your electorates do not support you on this. I know this because people come and tell me by the droves. In fact, the vast majority of Australians support what the government is doing in toughening up the legislation in this area. They come to me and say things like, ‘Mr Randall, how come these people have unfettered access to the courts when we as parents going through the Family Court, for example, can’t get legal aid? We have problems getting support on unfair dismissal et cetera; we can’t get legal aid in those areas. Yet these people have unbridled access to legal representation and are not even Australian citizens.’ These same people are housed in centres where, compared to some of my constituents in Western Australia, they have first-class accommodation, ensuites, halal food, education and health care, all at no cost. The people in my electorate say to me, ‘Why does this happen to people who aren’t deemed to be lawful Australian citizens and yet I, as an Australian, can’t get this?’ Politicians, particularly in my party, want to think about this because their electorates are asking them the same question. That is something they might want to ponder rather seriously. We do know that we had to excise territories previously because Ashmore Reef, as the member opposite said, became almost a stop-off point for anyone who could reach it. If they made the Cocos Islands, for example—and we know many Sri Lankans made the Cocos Islands—they saw that as Australian territory and they were then able to seek all the terms and conditions that refugee status gave them in Australia. It was the same if you made Christmas Island. So those islands and territories were excised, as they should have been, and that stopped much of the flow. What we do know is that before the infamous Tampa incident, from 1997 to 2001, something like 10,893 people arrived here unlawfully. Since then, post-Tampa, there have only been 114. What does that tell you? That the legislation and our strong border protection measures are working and that is the message that we have to send to the rest of the world. The rest of the world would love to have our strong border protection measures. I recommend to those here in the parliament an article in the West Australian by Ben Harvey, on 30 May last year, which says ‘UK groans under its soft refugee system’. It says: When The West Australian told a Home Office official that some Australian politicians were lobbying to abandon the policy of detaining asylum seekers, she was stunned. “The Government should hold its nerve on that one,” she said. “In a few years time we will have the courage to introduce a policy of detention. Don’t let them weaken. Britain is seen as an absolute soft touch. Italy is the same. It has a porous border. When I visited a detention centre in Italy last year, they pointed out clearly to me that one of their prime objectives was to put people in detention centres briefly and then send them on through to Germany, because Germany is such a soft touch. They actually help finance their transport and rehabilitation to head towards Germany. One of the reasons why Germany is running into such problems is that it has this huge out-of-control itinerant illegal migration into its country. That is affecting its economy. The offshore processing centres on Nauru that are being designated have previously been highly successful in determining the status of people seeking asylum, determining whether they are refugees or not, and I will go into figures shortly. It has been made quite clear that those going to Nauru will have special purpose visas which give them status. They are not actually detained as such but they do have a visa to be on Nauru. The status of this visa has been determined by both the court of Nauru and the High Court of Australia, so I would think that that makes it quite legitimate. The accommodation on Nauru will be first class, because we are currently in negotiations, if this legislation goes through, to get probably the best accommodation on Nauru, in a former weightlifting village, and to make sure that it is built to such a level that it will accommodate families with children in particular in air-conditioned accommodation with all the mod cons that many Nauruans would seek for themselves. One of my colleagues, the member for Cook, said yesterday that when he went to New Zealand last year the Tampa distribution of refugees was only 35, and I said I would correct the record. I would like to put on the record that this is how the 433 asylum seekers aboard the Tampa were distributed: 131 were sent straight to New Zealand without any assessment and the remaining 302 were placed in offshore processing centres in Nauru. There were 301 assessed by the UNHCR and one by DIMIA. Of those who were taken to Nauru, 101 were found to be refugees and resolved as follows: 28 have been resettled in Australia, 63 in New Zealand, seven in Sweden, two in Norway and one in Canada. Of those taken to Nauru after New Zealand had taken its 131, 201 were found not to be refugees. Of those 201 who were found not to be refugees, 186 were voluntarily repatriated. In other words, they got their $2,000 and went home. The families got $10,000 per family and went home. But 186 of them were voluntarily repatriated. They did not have to go by boat. They went home via plane in all the conditions that brings. Fourteen were resettled in New Zealand, one died of natural causes and we know that there are two who are still on Nauru because there are security concerns about these people, who have been assessed as security risks to come to Australia. So I might say to the member for Cook: what have we got? New Zealand took 131 and then another 63. There are almost 200 of them that New Zealand took. This is one of the things that our colleagues are saying that they are not happy with: if people wish to come to Australia as refugees by choice, and if they are found to be refugees, can they stay in Australia? The answer is no, because under the UN protocols Australia is not obliged to do that. The 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the protocols quite clearly state that the refugee convention does not set down any particular process and it does not create a right for people to select a preferred country for processing their claims or the country in which the protection will be provided if they are found to be refugees. That is the UN protocol. So the fact that they might want to come here does not mean to say that they can come here if they are deemed to be refugees. As we know, many of them are not, particularly from the figures I have just given you in relation to the Tampa. Can I say that Australia’s generosity towards refugees is outstanding. We are the third most generous country in the world in terms of taking refugees and humanitarian entrants. In fact, in the last few years we have consistently taken close to 14,000 people on the humanitarian and refugee register. Compare that to the figure for New Zealand, which champions itself as being this great country of humanitarianism and taking so many refugees. It takes somewhere between 700 and 800 a year. If you put that into proportion with New Zealand’s population, it is nowhere near the generosity of Australia. If New Zealand had anywhere near the generous disposition that Australia has towards humanitarian refugees, it would be taking 2½ thousand refugees or humanitarian entrants a year. So do not tell us that you have a mortgage on compassion, New Zealand, because we outdo you almost four to one. As a result, our compassion stacks up against that of anybody else in the world. Our orderly migration system is something that we should be very proud of and, as I said previously, is the envy of the world. We can actually track who comes into this country. We know who comes to Australia, whether they come in the skilled migrants stream or otherwise. There are thousands coming to Australia in the orderly skilled migration stream, there are thousands coming in under the family reunion system and there are thousands coming in under other visa subclasses, such as those visiting as tourists and students. So Australia is a great destination for many people wanting to visit or migrate, but people do it in an orderly fashion, and that is one of the outstanding things that Australia can do. We can track the people who come here, we do know where they are and we do know when they are coming and going, which makes Australia unlike Britain and many other countries of Europe and the rest of the world, as we have seen just recently in the US. Unlawful arrivals crossing their borders have become a huge issue. We do not have a porous border, and this is one of the reasons why the mainland has been designated in this legislation as an area for unlawful arrivals. The reason for that is that one of the great pull factors is that now, if you can bypass all the islands and run up onto a beach somewhere in Australia, you get treated quite differently. The amendments to this legislation are quite extensive and have been negotiated with a range of people, but particularly with those in our party and in the government who want to see the same conditions, as the member for Watson said, that were negotiated last year. The conditions we are offering are the same and in many respects better—that no children will be detained in detention. He says, ‘But how can you guarantee this in Nauru?’ We organise memorandums of understanding, whether it be through free trade agreements or any other international agreements, with countries all over the world. Why can’t we do it in this case? For some reason he thinks that immigration cannot be negotiated. Nauru has made it quite clear that it is willing to negotiate on the terms and conditions. One of the sticking points was about children in detention. They will not be detained. They will be given residential housing, as they are in Port Augusta now. I visited the Port Augusta residential housing facility and all I heard was laughter from children. They were happy. They had people coming in after school to do a huge number of activities with them. They go out into the community, to the beach and to the schools there. They were very happy and they were very pleased to be in Australia. What is the matter with the residential housing in Nauru that is on offer, with a 90-day turnaround for those seeking to be assessed? We know that is even better than in Australia now. At the moment, there is no-one in detention in Australia who has not had a primary assessment and yet we are saying, ‘We are going to make it even faster on Nauru and have a 90-day turnaround and, if you are not happy with the decision, we are going to give you a 90-day turnaround on your review,’ suspected to be carried out by former officers of the Refugee Review Tribunal. Those detained offshore will receive legal representation. The minister has put that offer in her amendments. The Commonwealth Ombudsman will have an overarching ability to examine the whole process. It is happening in Australia. People were happy with the amendments made for those under Australian terms and conditions. Why would they not be happy if the Australian Ombudsman was given permission to do the review on detention in Nauru? This is a fatuous argument coming from the opposition. There will be an independent review of the whole process after two years. I thought that was very reasonable. There will be a sunset provision after five years. After five years, we will look at this and ask, ‘Is this working or not and what can we do to improve it?’ You cannot offer more than that. That is better than what was being offered in last year’s arrangement. Again, for those offering criticism, you are being disingenuous and you are being hypocritical in your attack on this because it is politically expedient to do so. You are doing it not because it is right but because of political opportunism. This is particularly so of those opposite but also of some of those in our own party who either do not understand this or see it as an opportunity to take a different stance, for whatever reason. I am sure they will tell you those reasons during their contributions to the debate today. As I said, Australia is incredibly overgenerous. On the business about Australia bringing this legislation in just because of the Papuans, this is legislation that we should have had for some time. There was an argument that the Papuans could only come to Australia. They could have gone straight across the border into New Guinea, yet they did not. They chose to come to Australia because they were being organised by refugee advocacy groups who we know met them and accommodated them as soon as they got here. It was staged well in advance. What is the matter with having a good relationship with Indonesia? That is one of the reasons why Indonesia is no longer a staging point for all those illegal immigration people smugglers, as it was previously. If this legislation is not passed, we will have what we have now. It is not as if this legislation is going to wipe out anything that we have now. If it is not passed, it is inferior legislation that will be in place. We are offering people who come unlawfully to Australia superior legislation for offshore detention. It is a bill that should pass both houses of parliament because it is good legislation and it is about time that we showed the courage, as we have done so before, to protect Australia’s borders to make sure there is orderly migration to this country. I support this bill. (Time expired) 29 11:12:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —There is not much integrity and honour about the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. There is not much national spirit about this bill. This is a piece of craven legislation and I will outline the reasons why we would argue that. This is not one of the honourable moments of the House we happen to be going through. This is a pretty supine piece of work by a pretty ordinary old soul running a pretty ordinary old government. It is obviously the case that not all people on the other side of the House are at all comfortable with it. We oppose the bill and we will vote against it. I say to those on the other side of the House: come on over; come on over and vote with us to uphold Australian sovereignty; come on over to vote with us to protect our borders; come on over and join with us today in the national interest. Your vote is your own. It is not for the Prime Minister to tell you that you ought to abstain if you disagree with him. Come on over and support a stand for Australian national sovereignty and a stand for basic human decency. The bill removes asylum seekers from the process and protection of Australian immigration laws. It is as simple as that. There is no question about that. There is nothing in the amendments that can change the underlying reality: once you move people to another country to be processed, they are beyond the reach of Australian law. Australian law stops. Any principles of fairness and decency that underpin our law will not automatically be applied, because Australian law cannot be enforced in other nations—very properly so. We oppose the legislation on the grounds that we are an independent nation. We must frame our laws independently and in our national interest. We should do that without acquiescing to pressure from foreign governments, particularly when that pressure happens to be based on misinformation and poor understanding. Children should never be held in detention and no-one should be held indefinitely in detention. Those two principles are impossible to enforce in another country. It is as simple as that. Australia has a responsibility to meet its refugee obligations. We also oppose this legislation because it removes the direct oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. For example, a visa will be required if the Ombudsman wants to enter Nauru. It is not necessarily the easiest thing in the world to get a visa to enter Nauru. It is not our business that Nauru decides from time to time to make visas difficult to get; it is their sovereign territory. But the simple fact of the matter is that what it means is that the Ombudsman will attend to affairs there if the Nauruans say that is okay. Therefore for anyone picked up under this legislation there is no automatic protection from the Ombudsman in the situation that will pertain once folk are located outside the direct area of Australian sovereignty. There will no longer be any case managed mental health care, and the bill imposes a ludicrous situation where the government’s approach to border protection is to redraw the map so, for the purposes of migration, Australia has no borders at all. We have heard about that marvellous organisation originating in France, Doctors Without Frontiers, but it becomes a bit absurd when we have a piece of legislation which says that we are Australians without frontiers. It is bad legislation. Its principles are flawed because it is motivated by appeasement, not the national interest. We should not change our laws to suit any other country. As well, it is a backflip from the government’s position last year. The government’s position last year moved close to Labor Party policy. Last year’s changes meant an end to children being held behind razor wire, an end to indefinite detention and also the introduction of appropriate case managed mental health care. This bill completely reverses those reforms, abandoning the interests of asylum seekers to further the interests, in the government’s mind, of another government—not the Australian national interest but interests elsewhere. Last year the Prime Minister described our current immigration policy of mandatory detention as ‘mandatory detention with a softer edge’. Where is the soft edge to holding kids in detention in Nauru? How can it be wrong to lock up children in detention in Australia but right to lock up the same children in detention in Nauru? How can it be wrong to remove oversight of the Ombudsman in Australia but effectively right to do it in Nauru? I want to talk a little bit about the relationship with Indonesia in this regard because that actually is what underlies this bill and why we are having this discussion. We are having this discussion not because of anything intrinsic or long term or longstanding in the relationship that we have as a country with our neighbour but because of the specific aspect brought to it by the character of the Australian Prime Minister and his practice in relationships with Indonesia. Others writing about this matter have talked about the Prime Minister being hoist with his own petard. I like that expression in relation to this, speaking as the person who had to debate him in the 2001 election. I like in one sense the notion of the Prime Minister being hoist with his own petard, but unfortunately that is not the case. It is not the Prime Minister who is hoist with his own petard; it is Australia that gets hoist with the Prime Minister’s petard in this situation. Indonesia is a fascinating country at this moment. What is happening inside Indonesia is an inspiration in many ways. Here we see a fabulous nation of vast diversity, one extraordinarily geographically dispersed, making the effort in the most difficult circumstances to produce a democracy. It has not been a nation that has in its experience, in its period of time since the independence struggle of Indonesia, which we strongly supported—the Labor government of the time strongly supported it while the Menzies-led opposition opposed it—enjoyed an untrammelled experience with democracy. It has not enjoyed a continuum of inevitable progression to a closer and closer understanding of what is meant by the rule of law. That thing has not been Indonesia’s experience, but it is now dealing with that and it is struggling to deal with it as effectively as anyone can. Those of us who visit Indonesia frequently, and I am one of those, can never fail to be impressed by the efforts that the Indonesians are putting forward in that regard. Nevertheless, there is a legacy in Indonesia of a comprehension of political power untrammelled by the rule of law so that, when a person of authority in a political process—a Prime Minister, a President or whoever—stands up and says, ‘I will decide who comes to this country; I will decide the circumstances in which they make landfall,’ it rings like a bell in the historical experience of our neighbour. ‘Yes,’ they say, ‘that must be true because that is what we have experienced over the years in the structure of our government.’ Whatever the status of judges and whatever the status of parliamentary legislation, there is almost invariably going to be a set of circumstances where the person of power can override the consequences of law and ensure that their will is imposed. When they were megaphoned by the Prime Minister during the course of the few months prior to the 2001 election, when he hectored and lectured them on the requirement on their part to stop sending on refugees for whom they were the first point of call and we were the second point of call, they were engaged intensely by the Prime Minister hectoring them to change their practice of permitting people to come on. All that reinforced the impression that in Australia you had a situation where there was no rule of law, that in Australia you had a situation with which they are wholly familiar. The law might be there on the statute books, with forestloads of trees being chopped down in order to be able to print vast numbers of them and circulate them around the country, but what it actually said was not necessarily so: it was an issue of who you knew and it was an issue of who actually had the numbers at any point in time. That is the impression, created by the Prime Minister of Australia in his relationship with Indonesia, of the nation of Australia. They did not have emanating in anything from a presentation to them by the Australian government that there was in fact a tradition in this country, centuries old, of the rule of law, that ministers and prime ministers are not unencumbered by broad legal principles, that ministers and prime ministers govern within the framework of laws which are passed by the nation. Those laws are, supposedly and probably, interpreted by the courts within the framework of the meaning of those laws as opposed to what might be the political preferences of any in power when the laws are applying to a situation with which they are very directly involved. So when the asylum seekers from West Irian came ashore in Australia, the Indonesian government absolutely believed that, were they to stay in this country, they would stay only if the Prime Minister of the day wanted them to, that they would be accepted as refugees only if the Prime Minister of Australia agreed that they were refugees, and that they would exist in Australia only if the Prime Minister and government of the day harboured in their hearts a view that the constitutional situation of West Irian within Indonesia was wrong. Whether we like it or not, that is a product of many aspects of an Indonesian interpretation of what Australian political processes have conjured up. The Prime Minister, in his conduct, in his personal relationships, in his behaviour in the internal political processes of this nation, has created a distinct impression in this, our most important of neighbours, that we somehow do not accept their legitimacy as a state, that we somehow wish to undermine them and that we somehow take the view that refugees are only refugees where we politically agree with the source of their refugee status or the cause of their refugee status. Therefore, there is no dispassionate law in this country; there is only a preparedness to insult our neighbours. That is the impression given; that is what all of this emanates from. That erroneous view in Indonesia, directly influenced and created by the Prime Minister’s ineptness as a leader of this nation, has created the circumstances in which we are now dealing with a piece of legislation which, quite frankly, is a nonsense, is absurd and is a disgrace to any nation interested in and covetous of its sovereignty. This is an absurd piece of legislation which we should have nothing to do with. What should have happened when these issues arose between us and the Indonesians is that we should have gone into an all-court press with Indonesia to explain the character of those laws. It might have been useful if the Prime Minister had said: ‘It is conceivable, Mr President, that you have been misled by my behaviours in the past. Understand that there is an Australian political process in which it suits our interests to simplify things, to create impressions of robust defences here and there. In fact, it is done within a framework and that framework includes very robust law and very robust legal practice. So, while I might look like a man of great mana and power, the truth of the matter is that I am bound by law and bound by legal processes.’ The laws in relation to refugees are laws which are based on a definition of refugees that in no shape or form reflects any approval of the political causes which may have created their refugee status. In fact, in all likelihood, it is the opposite. In many of those instances the political circumstances that create that refugee status are, on the other hand, in Australia, political circumstances and commitments that they have assumed and of which we would disapprove. But the point is that their adoption of those positions has created a set of circumstances in which an objective judgment must be entered into by an independent body, an independent person, an independent tribunal or official, subject to judicial testing subsequently, in which the status of the level of threat to the individual’s wellbeing is assessed. On those grounds only is a refugee created. That is what we needed to do with Indonesia. When you are acting in the Australian national interest, every now and then you actually have to sit down and have a difficult conversation. I have had to do it myself a few times as a minister. I had to do it when I was changing the structure of the Australian defence policy back in the 1980s. I knew that in shifting Australian defence forces to Darwin and Western Australia I would create alarm in the minds of the Indonesians, and I did. I created a great deal of alarm in the minds of Indonesians. Before I introduced that white paper, I went to Indonesia and sat down with my counterpart, who was the Minister for Defence, and explained all the things that I was going to do. I explained how important their unity as a nation was to us and explained also that a sensible appraisal of Australian strategic geography would tell them that there is nothing other than this that we could do if we were sensibly planning for the defence of the nation. They did not like it. They did not like it at all, and it did not stop them from attacking me when the white paper was brought down. But I did learn over time that they respected the fact that I treated them with decency at that point of time by assuming that they would have a problem and that they would have an explanation and that the explanation would not necessarily change Australia’s position—we are not going to determine our defence policy on the basis of how another nation might feel about it. Nevertheless, there were ways of doing this which were respectful and ways of doing this which were insulting, and we should always act respectfully. So when problems arose over this I would not have expected the Prime Minister to megaphone the Indonesians about how mistaken they were in their interpretations. They were entitled to a prime ministerial visit. They were entitled to several prime ministerial visits. They were entitled to a detailed explanation. They were entitled to words of comfort in relation to how we saw the Indonesian nation. They were entitled to statements from the government and from everybody else that we are not in the business of dissolving Indonesia. They were entitled to all of that. What they were not entitled to was a rewrite of the Australian laws. That is what they were not entitled to. The problem—and I know this well from dealing with these folk—is that they now believe, because we are changing the laws like this, that what we were doing was wrong. Many in the Indonesian political process now believe that, yes, in subterranean fashion in the Australian government there are many people who feel that the people from West Papua are legitimate refugees not because they are threatened but because we agree with their cause and that they have cunningly tumbled us, exposed us and forced us to change. It is so erroneous, it is so wrong and it leaves inside the Indonesian administration the seeds of further trouble as a result of what we are doing here. I will conclude because there is no further evidence I need to give to my Indonesian friends than the fact that the vast bulk of the refugees from the Tampa went through Nauru, were assessed as refugees and ended up here in Australia, so anybody who is processed in that way will probably end up here as well. I could go through all of that; but I do not want to because, apart from the fact that this is exceptionally bad foreign policy and exceptionally bad in terms of building a relationship with our neighbour, it is also exceptionally bad in humanitarian terms. This is so totally dumb and wrong. All I can do is end up where I started off and say to those on the other side of the House: come on over and join us and defend our national sovereignty. (Time expired) 34 11:32:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 0 Mrs ELSON —I am very pleased to rise today in support of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. It is a bill that without doubt strengthens our government’s positive and successful border protection policies. In effect, this bill will treat unauthorised arrivals who enter the Australian mainland by sea, or by air after attempting to enter by sea, the same as unauthorised entrants to excised offshore places. This surely makes good sense. It means that all illegal entrants will be treated in the same way whether they happen to make it to the mainland or to an offshore island. It is a very positive outcome whereby in recent years we have managed to dramatically decrease the number of illegal entrants to our shores. In fact in 2001-02 there were just 1,277 illegal arrivals on seven boats. The following year—the year after our strong border protection measures were introduced—there was not one unauthorised arrival by boat. In 2003-04 there was just one boat carrying 53 people. Of course the case of 43 West Papuans who arrived at Cape York in January this year has received much media attention. I do not believe that this legislation is any sort of knee-jerk reaction to that particular situation, as many in the media and on the other side have tried to assert. I do not believe that at all. Rather I think that case exposed an inequity and a loophole in the current system which this legislation will close. Personally I think any regulation that makes it tougher for people to enter our borders illegally should be strongly supported. I know that the vast majority of people in my electorate of Forde certainly support and appreciate the tough stand that the government has taken on this particular issue. I want to make a distinction here today in this debate. Decreasing the level of arrivals of illegal entrants to our shores does not in any way mean we are diminishing our responsibility as global citizens to take our share of genuine refugees. This is where the critics of the government’s tough border protection measures get it all wrong. In 2004-05 a total of 13,178 visas were granted under our humanitarian program. This included a 50 per cent increase in the number of allocated refugee places. So it was a 50 per cent increase in the number of refugees that we accepted as a nation. Having recently visited a refugee camp at Kakuma in Kenya, on the Sudanese border, I know what circumstances these unfortunate people face. I know the huge impact it has when they are given the news that they have been accepted for migration to Australia. These are people living in dire conditions. Many of them wait for a number of years before being accepted by another country. They cannot afford to travel through various nations. They cannot afford to pay people smugglers to get them where they ultimately want to end up. They are genuine and they are working through the international framework that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has put in place. These are the people who rightly ought to be the focus of our humanitarian program. Why should anyone who happens to be able to get illegal passage to our mainland or to an excised island be subject to less stringent guidelines? Why should they have access to more legal channels of appeal? Why shouldn’t they be processed in accordance with the UNHCR? The fact is that our streamlining of the system in Australia has made it fairer for genuine refugees around the world. It is precisely because of the strong measures we introduced in September 2001, particularly in relation to offshore processing, that we were able to afford to increase our refugee intake by 50 per cent last year. That is surely a worthy humanitarian outcome. Those who decry our strong approach ought to be taking a look at the bigger picture. They ought to be looking at the conditions in which people are living in places like Kenya. I am sure very few of those who like to portray our government as heartless have ever visited a genuine refugee camp. I heard the member for Brand inviting government members to ‘come on over and support Labor on this bill’. I invite him to go on over to the refugee camps in Africa and see the conditions they live in there. They are absolutely appalling. They live in these conditions while they are waiting to come on over to Australia, but they are pushed further down the queue each time queuejumpers in Australia arrive on our shores illegally. The other positive thing about those who are processed offshore is that on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea they are not subject to mandatory detention as they are on the mainland or on Christmas Island. Surely that has to be a positive outcome. The same people who object so strongly to mandatory detention are the ones who complain bitterly about our offshore processing, but the fact is that offshore processing means that people are not subject to mandatory detention. Isn’t that exactly what they want? I also want to note in today’s debate the changes that were made to this legislation on 21 June to help address the concerns that some of my colleagues had about the original legislation. For the record, I did not share their concern and I was happy to support the original proposal. But I note that the changes include a five-year sunset clause, a review process and the inclusion of a provision to affirm the principle that minors will be detained only as a measure of last resort. These measures do no significantly alter the original legislation, and I am pleased that they have allayed some of the concerns that people may have had. In this context, I reiterate that the government does not take these steps lightly. Contrary to what some people might think, we are a compassionate government and we do believe that detaining minors should always be a measure of last resort. This is a complex issue. The nature of ‘illegal entry’ means that many people arrive without any documentation and it is totally appropriate that we thoroughly ascertain the suitability of anyone entering this country. To do otherwise would pose a potential security risk to our nation in these uncertain times. It should also be remembered that people who enter our nation illegally, even those claiming refugee status, are breaking the law. It is totally appropriate that they are dealt with in a manner of our choosing, consistent with community standards and expectations. As I said before, the vast majority of people in my electorate support the strong and successful border protection policies that our government have put in place. This legislation further strengthens our border protection and national security. As we see it, illegal entrants to either the mainland or an excised area are now rightly processed under the same international regime as those unfortunate people seeking asylum in refugee camps in Africa. Why should someone who can afford to pay a people smuggler or have the opportunity to make the decision to attempt to enter Australia illegally have access to the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal or the Australian courts when a Sudanese refugee, waiting in a refugee camp for many years and desperately wanting to come to Australia, does not have access to these bodies? Where is the injustice in treating these individuals in the same manner under the UNHCR guidelines? The truth is that Australia, an island nation, must be vigilant in this matter. We simply cannot afford to be seen as a soft target in any way. The majority of Australians support the strong stance the government has taken on this issue. They recognise that the Australian ideal of a ‘fair go’ is undermined when people can queue jump or try backdoor measures to get what they want. Australians also know that, in this day and age, border security is more important than ever and illegal entrants have to be strictly dealt with, especially as many do not have any identification papers. I do not wish to take up an inordinate amount of time in today’s debate. To me, this legislation makes sense and is entirely equitable. As I said at the outset, I am sure members opposite will deride this bill as a knee-jerk reaction to West Papuans seeking asylum. That merely highlighted the inequity in the way claims are processed on the mainland versus on excised islands. This bill closes the loophole. It makes our successful border protection policies even more effective as a deterrent to people smugglers. I am pleased to support this legislation. 36 11:41:00 Corcoran, Ann, MP 009CW Isaacs ALP 0 0 Ms CORCORAN —On 13 April the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced the government’s intention to introduce legislation that will see all so-called unauthorised boat arrivals subject to forcible removal to offshore processing centres either in Papua New Guinea or on Nauru. I want to quickly say that, whilst I will be using the word ‘unauthorised’ where I cannot easily avoid it, as it has come into common usage, it is actually a derogatory term. I do not like it. It is part of this government’s campaign of using language to denigrate those who come here seeking our protection. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 means that all persons arriving on mainland Australia in an unauthorised manner by sea—even those airlifted to Australia at the end of a sea journey—on or after 13 April this year will now be treated as though they have not landed in Australia at all. These asylum seekers will then have any applications they make for protection processed under laws that exist on Nauru or in PNG, not under Australian law. They will not have access to legal assistance or review that is provided in Australia. This bill has been listed on the Notice Paper for debate and then withdrawn a number of times since the April announcement, because a number of people within the Liberal Party room have struggled with this bill. To their credit, they have been prepared to stand up and argue that what this bill sets out to do is wrong. It is to the government’s shame that this bill has only now been brought on for debate. Whilst media attention has recently been on government members who are standing up for decency, I make the point that this bill reverses some of the changes that everyone in this House and in the Senate agreed to about 12 months ago. For instance, 12 months ago, everyone in this parliament voted to ensure that kids are no longer held in detention. This bill will put children back into detention. Let us just step back for a moment and have a look at the background of asylum seekers in Australia. Refugees living in Australia have come here in one of two ways. The vast majority have been resettled here through our humanitarian offshore resettlement program. These people have fled from their homes to another country, have been assessed by the UNHCR and have been found to be refugees. These people have been resettled in one of a number of countries, one of them being Australia. Our intake of refugees under this process is notionally around 12,000 per year. The second way in which people become refugees living in Australia is by coming here one way or another and, once here, seeking protection—in other words, seeking asylum. Of this second group of people, some come here with paperwork—for instance, a visitors visa or a student visa and, once here, claim asylum. Others come here without paperwork, usually by boat, then claim asylum. It is this last group of people that the government describes as unauthorised. In doing some research for this speech I tried to get an idea of the number of people involved. I tried to find out how many people are currently in the country and have applied for asylum. I tried to find out how many of these people arrived with a visa of some sort and how many arrived without paperwork. It is very hard to get solid stats in this area. The DIMA website notes that 3,200 people applied for a protection visa in Australia in 2004-05. All of these must have arrived by air as there were no boat arrivals in that year. I understand that about 1.5 per cent of those seeking asylum in 2003-04 arrived by boat. On 9 May 2006, Minister Vanstone stated that unauthorised boat arrivals—people without a visa—in the last four years represented three to four per cent of all asylum seekers. The highest period of recent unauthorised boat arrivals was in 2001, with 4,137 arrivals. In the same year, 12,355 asylum claims were lodged onshore in Australia. The point I am making is that, even at its height, the number of people arriving by boat was always a small proportion of those who came to Australia and then claimed asylum or sought our protection. This bill focuses on those who arrive here by boat. I cannot see the logic of using the means of arrival as some sort of justification for treating asylum seekers in different ways. Once initial investigations and tests have been carried out—health checks, security checks et cetera—why distinguish between those who arrive by boat and those who arrive by aeroplane? The only way of seeing any logic in this bill is by looking at it from the point of view of what it does to appease our neighbours—and I will talk about this further in a few minutes. I want to set out for the sake of completeness just what a refugee is. The United Nations 1951 convention, to which Australia is a signatory, defines refugees as people who are outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence; are unable or unwilling to return to, or to seek the protection of, that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and are not war criminals or people who have committed serious non-political crimes. People who claim asylum and are processed offshore are treated differently to those processed onshore in the following ways: obviously, the first difference is that, under the new arrangements, those who arrive by boat—and, therefore, by definition, are treated as offshore claimants—are forcibly removed to a declared country such as Nauru or Manus Island, while those processed onshore are detained on Christmas Island or in a mainland detention centre; detention in offshore centres is discretionary under the act and is subject to the memorandum of understanding between Australia and the host country and any visa conditions issued by the host country—detention in Australian centres is subject to the Migration Amendment (Detention Arrangements) Act 2005; those processed offshore have no access to legal assistance, the Refugee Review Tribunal or the Australian courts for judicial review; recognition of refugee status does not automatically qualify an applicant for an Australian visa—refugees can be resettled in a third country; and people processed offshore receive no professional assistance with their applications and may receive limited or no access to legal advisers, media, visitors and charitable or religious assistance. Jennifer Pagonis, spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has raised serious concerns that these new measures will see asylum seekers ‘taken offshore for assessment of their claim, with Australia’s responsibilities to bona fide refugees deflected elsewhere’. Ms Pagonis also recently pointed out that Article 35 of the 1951 refugee convention obliges the government to consult with the UNHCR on all policy development relating to refugees. The first time the high commissioner saw this legislation was the day after it was tabled in this chamber. The human rights implications of the bill are perhaps best summed up in a statement released by John von Doussa QC, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes. I think it important to read at length from their statement, which states: The commission is concerned that the proposed changes breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child including the obligation to act in the best interests of the child (Article 3(1)) and the principle that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort (Article 37(b)). …            …            … The proposed changes do not address the possibility of excessive or indefinite detention. There is no set time for offshore processing of claims for asylum and no set time in which a person who is determined to be a refugee must be resettled in a third country. This potential for asylum seekers to be detained for an excessive period raises serious concerns about arbitrary detention, in breach of Article 9(1) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It may also result in Australia being in breach of its obligations under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which requires that asylum seekers are not penalised for arriving illegally. It also states: The practical effect of the present Bill is that children, once again, will be detained in conditions which endanger their well-being and mental health. Being held in an offshore processing centre is, without doubt, a form of detention. And there is no argument here. Let me restate what this bill will do. This bill will see women and children back in detention; it will see people potentially facing indefinite detention. This bill will deny asylum seekers who arrive by boat any access to community or religious groups and the moral and practical support that these groups can give. This bill will deny asylum seekers access to proper legal assistance and the Refugee Review Tribunal. I am aware that the government is moving amendments to this bill, but the only acceptable change to this legislation would be to throw it out completely. I said earlier that it is difficult to see the logic of this bill unless one looks at it from the point of view of appeasing our neighbours. On 18 January this year, 43 West Papuans arrived in Australia by boat, directly from West Papua, and claimed asylum. By March 2006, 42 of the 43 had been granted a protection visa by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The 43rd asylum seeker was initially denied a protection visa but was granted one just recently after he appealed the decision. It is clear that this policy was hastily developed in response to Indonesian displeasure at Australia’s acceptance of the 43 asylum seekers. I fully recognise the importance of our relationship with Indonesia. However, we need to remember that the strongest foundation of that relationship is mutual respect. Just as Australia has respected the laws and policies of Indonesia in recent legal cases such as Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine, so too must Indonesia respect Australian law as it exists in relation to asylum seekers, regardless of where the asylum seekers come from. Setting aside the glaring inhumanity of this policy momentarily, it is extraordinarily bad foreign policy to allow another nation to shape our approach to such an issue. It seems quite clear to me that that there are people in West Papua or, as Indonesia calls the area, the Papuan Province who are being persecuted. The evidence is in the success of the 43 West Papuans who in a fairly short time frame have recently been granted refugee status in Australia. Amnesty International reports that operations by the Indonesian security forces have resulted in gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and arbitrary detention. I think that we should deal with the essential problem, not try to find ways around it. As unpalatable as it may be, we should be talking to our Indonesian friends and encouraging them to stop their people from persecuting others. By ignoring the guts of the problem—the violation of human rights by some Indonesian security forces—and simply trying to work around the problem by denying asylum seekers from West Papua, or anywhere else, the chance to seek refuge in Australia, we are not contributing to any real or lasting solution in West Papua. We are not helping anyone in the long term by ignoring the real problem and simply seeking to work around it by dealing with the fallout of the problem. The government knows just how detestable this legislation is. The government knows that it is turning its back on decency here and it simply does not care. Once again, it has employed the cynical tactic of rushed policy development, introduced with virtually no consultation with relevant stakeholders. I collected over 200 signatures in my electorate in just a few short days from people who want this legislation voted down. Amnesty International Australia has sent a petition with over 10,000 signatures stating that remote and offshore detention is not acceptable, children should not be held in immigration detention, persons deemed by Australia to be refuges should be given protection in Australia, this responsibility should not be passed to other countries and the Australian Navy should not be used to return asylum seekers to places where they may face persecution. A Just Australia has sent a letter to me and, I assume, all MPs, pointing out the federal government’s document Values for Australian Schooling. A Just Australia asks us to test this legislation against these stated values. The values that this government has set out for Australian schools to adopt are: ‘care and compassion’—care for self and others; ‘doing your best’—seek to accomplish something worthy and admirable, try hard and pursue excellence; ‘fair go’—pursue and practise the common good where all people are treated fairly for a just society; ‘freedom’—enjoy all the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship, free from unnecessary interference or control and stand up for the rights of others; ‘honesty and trustworthiness’—be honest and sincere and seek the truth; ‘integrity’—act in accordance with principles of moral and ethical conduct and ensure consistency between words and deeds; ‘respect’—treat others with consideration and regard and respect another person’s point of view; ‘responsibility’—be accountable for one’s own actions, resolve differences in constructive, non-violent and peaceful ways, contribute to society and to civic life and take care of the environment; and ‘understanding, tolerance and inclusion’—be aware of others and their cultures, accept diversity within a democratic society and be included and include others. These are excellent values, but how can we reconcile these values with what this legislation is trying to do? How can we stand up in front of our kids and teach these values and then turn around and pass this legislation? Like A Just Australia, I cannot reconcile this legislation with these values. I know from listening to those who work closely with refugees that there is a high incidence of mental health problems amongst detainees. This is bad enough in itself, but think about the ramifications this has for how these people can live and contribute to society once they are released from detention, whether that society is ours here in Australia or another society in another country. It is not humane or sensible to put people into a situation where they are likely to suffer mental health problems. This morning I and a number of other MPs—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—had breakfast with the Royal Australian College of GPs. As I was leaving I had one of those very quick conversations that you wish you had the time to explore more deeply. It was with a doctor who is interested in this bill. She is appalled at the thought of sending asylum seekers to places like Nauru. She told me that the health facilities on Nauru are just not good enough. She told me that, if an asylum seeker there gets appendicitis, they are not flown out for proper treatment—they just do not get treated properly. If the government is not convinced about the immorality of sending asylum seekers away from our shores, then it should consider the health issues. We should not deliberately put people into a situation where we know that their health will suffer when we can quite easily do a whole lot better. I would like to take a moment to respond to those who question my opposition to this bill when the ALP supported the excision of Christmas Island and other islands in 2001. Those places are Australian territory but are geographically a long way from Australia. They are close enough that, to a desperate asylum seeker, they appear reachable by boat from Indonesia. They represent a very different proposition to trying to reach the Australian mainland. At the time when these areas were excised, which was a move supported by the ALP, the boat operators—people smugglers—were at their busiest. These people smugglers were not necessarily interested in the plight of the asylum seekers, but they were aware of an opportunity to make a quick profit. They were not above offering a leaky boat to people desperate to get away from very difficult circumstances. A number of asylum seekers were succumbing to the temptation. They were probably aware that Christmas Island is a lot closer to Indonesia than Australia but probably did not fully appreciate the distance involved and were putting their lives seriously at risk. So there was some logic to that excision. I am utterly disgusted by this legislation. I am embarrassed and ashamed to see our once proud reputation for upholding principles of human rights further sullied by this amoral government. Australia’s program of taking refugees through UN processes has an excellent reputation. We offer a range of settlement programs, but this fine reputation is being spoilt by our dreadful treatment of those who come here to seek asylum. I condemn this bill completely and urge all members to look into their consciences and their hearts before voting on it. 40 11:58:00 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 1 0 Mr GEORGIOU —Thirty years ago, after a long and hazardous journey, a small group of Vietnamese refugees landed on a remote beach in Northern Australia. In today’s parlance they were ‘unauthorised arrivals’. These Vietnamese inaugurated Australia’s modern era of boat people. There were shockwaves. The new arrivals were Asians and the White Australia policy had only recently been abandoned. The Fraser government decided that the refugees would be accepted and helped to settle successfully. But then, in 1992, the Keating government introduced a policy that the Fraser government had rejected—the mandatory detention of asylum seekers. Later, further stringent measures were implemented by the Howard government to prevent and deter asylum seekers from arriving here. Temporary protection replaced permanent protection, more punitive reception centre procedures were introduced and, in 2001, with the agreement of the opposition, parliament legislated to excise some Australian territory from the ambit of the Migration Act. Further excisions followed. The rationales advanced for the harshness of these policies were that asylum seekers were being transported for profit by people smugglers—smugglers who were cruelly indifferent to the fate of their desperate passengers—that asylum seekers had passed through other countries and not sought protection en route to Australia, and that asylum seekers were not fleeing persecution but seeking economic benefit. I do not disclaim responsibility for the measures adopted by the Howard government. Whatever my reservations at the time, I voted for them. The rationales for harshness, however, have been undermined in recent years. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers have been found to be legitimate refugees. A combination of factors has led largely to unauthorised arrivals ceasing. The disturbing consequences of the mandatory detention regime became more apparent. It was recognised that vulnerable children, women and men had been harmed, that they had been physically and mentally damaged. It became transparent that people who had committed no crime were being detained for years with no certainty of them ever being released. The fact that the policy itself was open to abuse progressively became exposed. Revelations about the treatment of Cornelia Rau shocked us all. Other revelations have continued to shock us. Public attitudes shifted. Australians who had once accepted the policy as being necessary came to see that it was cruel and wrong. These were not the usual suspects; these were the people who said: ‘I believed in the policy at the time. Now I know what the consequences are and I think it’s wrong.’ Fewer Australians felt threatened by or hostile towards the new arrivals. More Australians believed that we should treat asylum seekers with greater compassion. The government, to its credit, did respond. A year ago the Prime Minister announced a program of significant measures. He said: The broad framework of the Government’s approach is unaltered.  ... There can however be significant improvements which will mean that current policy is administered with greater flexibility, fairness and, above all, in a timely manner. These changes were long overdue. Under the government’s broad framework, people who sought asylum on our mainland—and Tasmania—were all assessed under Australian law and granted protection in Australia if they needed it. There was no difference between an asylum seeker who arrived by boat or one who arrived by plane. Within that broad framework the improvements were, as the Prime Minister stated, significant. In fairness, the improvements did not go as far as some of us wanted, but the improvements were significant. The most important reform was that families with children were no longer to be detained in detention centres while their applications for refugee status were considered. Instead, families with children would be permitted to live in the Australian community and conditions would be set to meet their individual circumstances. Where they were found to be refugees, they would be given protection visas in Australia. Our monitoring and supervision systems were strengthened. Those improvements which required legislation were promptly enacted by parliament in a spirit of bipartisan consensus. The reforms have generally been successful and, I believe, welcomed by the community at large. Asylum seekers in Australia are now treated more humanely and efficiently than has been the case for years. This was exemplified in the fair and timely processing of the West Papuans who arrived in Australia in January. It is a matter of sadness that, within months of the most recent piece of reform legislation being enacted, parliament is now being asked to approve a new and severely regressive measure. Barely having overcome our fears and introduced a more decent system, we are asked to turn back. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill is the most profoundly disturbing piece of legislation I have encountered since becoming a member of parliament. The bill proposes a radical change to the broad framework that the government committed to a year ago. If parliament agrees, the consequences will be draconic. The whole of Australia—and, in deference to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, Tasmania—would be excised from the refugee protection regime afforded by the Migration Act for people seeking asylum who arrive on our mainland by boat. These asylum seekers will be sent to Nauru. In a number of key respects the treatment of asylum seekers who come to Australia by boat will be unacceptably worse than at present. This remains the case despite a number of improvements the government has agreed to regarding the bill as initially introduced. I will focus on three issues. First, families with children will not live in ordinary community settings either while their claims are being processed or after they are found to be refugees. If Nauru agrees, the government will establish what it calls a village where women, children and families can live so that they are not in the processing centre. The village will have a fence around it. The government says that the fence will be a non-intrusive one to ensure the security of the refugees or the asylum seekers. In the evening, again for their safety we are told, the residents will be required to stay in their accommodation and the village will be patrolled by private security personnel. The residents may be confined to their homes for as many hours a day or days of the week as the Nauruan government determines at various times. The Australian government insists that this is not detention. A second major difference between the current situation and that proposed under this bill is that asylum seekers on Nauru will not have available the protections that exist in Australia. For example, they will not have a right of appeal to an independent statutory body against decisions by departmental officers on the merit of their applications. To understand the importance of this, one has to look at how many departmental decisions the Refugee Review Tribunal has overturned. In 2004-05, for example, the statutory Refugee Review Tribunal set aside 90 per cent of decisions on application from Afghanis, over 90 per cent relating to Iraqis and 33 per cent of all decisions. To dampen concerns about the absence of an independent review, the government says it will consider establishing a panel of non-departmental decision makers to review failed applications. But there is to be no statutory basis for this critical function. Panel members will be making decisions that could mean life or death for applicants without a legislated framework of accountability. The third and most disquieting thing is that people found to be refugees may remain on Nauru indefinitely. This is not a fanciful prospect; look at the historical record. The excision of islands around Australia was introduced in order to deny protection in Australia to asylum seekers who landed on the islands. These asylum seekers were sent to places like Nauru. In the event, even though the refugees’ claims for asylum were sustained, few countries were willing to take them off Nauru, and we ended up resettling around 60 per cent in Australia. We resettled some of those after a number of years when we could no longer ignore a situation in which their health, their mental health and their ability to subsist and exist on Nauru were seriously being put at risk. Today there seems to be even less possibility of finding other countries prepared to take refugees whom Australia refuses to accept. In evidence to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the bill, the representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said: I do not see any likely candidates. I think the countries who do accept resettlement of refugees ... would see this legislation in its current form as being a deflection of Australia’s responsibilities to provide solutions on its mainland, therefore adding to the resettlement burden of the other countries in the world. The Australian government has said that it would consider taking people who would not be resettled otherwise, but even this vague, non-binding offer comes without a timetable. Would consideration start after a year, three years, 10 years? The majority report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee recommended that the bill should provide an obligation on Australia to resettle refugees who could not be resettled elsewhere. But the government’s amendments provide only that the minister have a non-compellable, non-reviewable power to grant a visa if this would be in the public interest, a term which is not defined. According to the Indonesian foreign minister, the Australian government has assured him that West Papuan refugees will not be allowed to settle here. So far as we members of parliament are concerned, the only certainty is uncertainty. If we approve the bill, we do so knowing that it will result in refugees who are transferred from Australia to Nauru remaining there for an indefinite period. This will apply to children as well as to women and men. It has been suggested that the government is simply asking parliament to rectify an incongruous situation which came to light when a group of unauthorised people landed on the mainland in January this year. The incongruity was that people landing on the mainland were being treated differently from people arriving on excised islands. In fact, the difference between the mainland and the islands is well known. The decision to have different asylum regimes applying to the mainland and to largely uninhabited islands was quite deliberate. The government’s primary concern, which was shared by others, was that people smugglers who might take the risk of landing their passengers on the islands would be reluctant to venture to the mainland where the risk of detection was greater. The possibility of unauthorised arrivals coming to the mainland was noted and discussed in the parliament, and the government rejected any proposition about excising the Australian mainland. So why has this heretofore rejected policy become an important strengthening of Australia’s border control measures? There is no new threat from a criminal gang of people smugglers trying to penetrate our defences. Earlier this year, 43 West Papuans came directly, not through other countries, and they have been determined to be refugees fleeing persecution. They were only the second group of boat arrivals on the mainland since July 2003. One vessel with seven West Timorese arrived in November 2005, and that event did not cause the government to change its views about what was needed to protect us. The Indonesian government has protested at Australia’s granting of refugee status to the Papuan asylum seekers. The Indonesian government’s complaint is understandable. Of course, it does not like being accused of persecuting its own citizens and, of course, Australia should be sensitive to the feelings of its neighbour. But we should not sacrifice Australian law. When Australians criticised Indonesian laws, our governments reminded us that we must respect Indonesia’s right to determine and apply its own system. That was right—as was the decision made on the 43 Papuans. The decisions were made properly by Australian officials acting properly in accordance with our law and policy and appropriately reviewed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. From what we know of the situation in West Papua, the decision was not perverse. There is substantial evidence to support claims of persecution which, under the Migration Act, entitle people to receive protection in Australia—for example, the US State Department’s report on the human rights situation in Indonesia. The general human rights situation in Indonesia has improved in recent years, and I think we all welcome that. I am pleased that Australia is providing assistance to further that process, but, clearly, the problems have not all been resolved. As a supportive neighbour, we should make clear to the Indonesian government that we support its territorial integrity, that we do not support separatist movements and that if victims of persecution come to our door and ask for asylum we should not turn them away. The act of taking in a stranger in need is an ancient and universal virtue. It was well captured in the acceptance speech of the UNHCR, when it was honoured with a Nobel Peace Prize in 1981. Throughout the history of mankind, people have been uprooted against their will. Time and time again, lives and values built from generation to generation have been shattered without warning. But throughout history mankind has also reacted to such upheavals and brought succour to the uprooted. Be it through individual gestures or concerted action and solidarity, those people have been offered help and shelter, and a chance to become dignified, free citizens again. Through the ages, the giving of sanctuary has become one of the noblest traditions of human nature. Communities, institutions, cities and nations have generously opened their doors to refugees. The ancient and universal tradition of providing sanctuary to those in danger is part of our refugee regime in Australia today, and it is demonstrated by the community at large when Australians respond generously to the suffering of others, both at home and abroad. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 does not reflect this tradition. It does not uphold the deeply held Australian values of giving people a fair go, and of decency and compassion. I regret that I cannot commend this bill to the House and I will be voting against it. 44 12:16:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —I applaud the member for Kooyong for that contribution, and say to other members and senators that no preselection and no perceived populist position will ever justify immoral and unconscionable policy like this. The member for Kooyong’s electorate seems to have acknowledged that, and so, too, eventually—if not right now—will most Australians if they get the leadership the member for Kooyong and some of his colleagues have shown. As with ‘work choices’, ‘mutual obligation’, ‘fair dismissal’, and ‘electoral integrity’, here we have another use of Orwellian doublespeak in a bill from his government: ‘designated unauthorised arrivals’. Let us cut the nonsense; it is the ‘appease Jakarta bill’. The minister said so, on the 7.30 Report in June, when she admitted she was taking into account the concerns of the Indonesian government. The bill again turns people who are running in fear for their lives into unwelcome ‘illegals’—a familiar catchcry from the Howard government—with just a few of the more compassionate members of the coalition backbenches speaking out against this policy. Recommendation 1 of the government majority Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee’s report says it all: the bill should not proceed. I support the overwhelming number of submissions to the Senate inquiry which detail how this bill is fatally flawed. People who have a fear of persecution have a right to seek asylum and should never be punished for the way they arrive in Australia. That obligation remains true for those who sought our help in the years up to and after 2001, and for those asylum seekers who arrived here from West Papua in recent months. This obligation cannot be outsourced to a third nation, as this legislation intends doing. It is no good to say that we will be paying for the infrastructure and processing; it will clearly be breaking our international obligations to receive and process those who seek our protection. Under this legislation, asylum seekers and confirmed refugees will face the possibility of being indefinitely detained in a remote and isolated island camp. The reason for this is documented in the minister’s press release of 13 April: that the government’s priority in this policy is not to grant those found to be genuine refugees protection in Australia but to transfer them to any third country that will take them. This would require an attempt to bind a third country in a solid agreement to take over our responsibilities. This process could be as drawn out as you like, with no guarantee that any agreement will be reached. And what countries do we have ready to take these people? None. We only have countries which have said that they do not want a bar of this policy: New Zealand, Fiji, even Papua New Guinea and Nauru. They may process our asylum seekers but are not prepared to take on our responsibilities. You cannot get a more indefinite situation than this, and it will only mean uncertain futures, complete with psychological damage on top of trauma, for those we remove offshore. They will be without ready access to support, especially legal advice. Children will again be detained—however this detention is dressed up—in breach of our international obligations. It makes a mockery of the Palmer inquiry’s recommendations. The government’s minor concessions—a 90-day time limit on processing a review and having the Ombudsman oversee actions of DIMA officers—might look reasonable to some at first sight; however, the minister is not bound by the Ombudsman’s recommendations. In supposedly reinforcing the universal obligation that children be detained only as a measure of last resort, the government will seek to provide hostel type accommodation on Nauru. Yet such accommodation is still, at the end of today, on a remote Pacific island thousands of miles from proper access and scrutiny by legal representatives and other support and advocacy services. This legislation is a complete buckling to the wishes of the Indonesian government. It is an immoral caving-in to the agenda of a country that has, sadly, a record of systematic human rights abuses over many years. By default we are endorsing those abuses through legislation like this. President Yudhoyono may indeed be showing positive signs of cracking down on the excesses of the Indonesian military. The outcome in Aceh, tragically precipitated by the tsunami disaster, gives room for hope of a more responsible and caring administration, but we have not yet reached anywhere near that situation in West Papua, despite an apparent willingness of independence activists to lay down their arms in the hope of genuine negotiation. The tragedy of East Timor was a tragedy the world, particularly Australia, turned its back on until we could not ignore it. We have not been prepared to properly supervise the transition to true stability and democracy and we have been party to exploiting the fledgling nation’s fair share of natural resources in the Timor Gap. Such indifference must never be allowed to happen again in West Papua where already, since the sham vote of self-determination in 1969, there have been, on some estimates, a further 200,000 deaths under Indonesian control. Only the escape of 43 asylum seekers to our shores has heightened world and local awareness of the West Papua situation and perhaps prompted a recognition by Jakarta that changes are demanded in its West Papua approach. But such awareness will be stifled if refugees are shipped out of sight, out of mind, outside our zone of conscience. Instead of buckling to Indonesia’s demands that we sign a treaty forever recognising their formal sovereignty, we should make the genuine and lasting reform of Indonesian military practice in the province a precondition for any acceptance of Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua. That rule should be conditional upon an internationally sanctioned process to deliver real autonomy within the wider Indonesian republic to the people of West Papua and a guarantee of a proper share of the resources of the province. To stand up now and announce that he has no trouble with the demands of Indonesia does the Minister for Foreign Affairs no credit and belittles this nation in the eyes of the world and, I would suggest, the eyes of the majority of Australians. We should ask the US and other nations to call on the Indonesian government to genuinely engage in talks leading to a resolution of the legitimate grievances of the West Papuans and we should, along with other countries, insist on open access to West Papua for the world media. It is one thing for the foreign minister to say: ... the last thing we want to see is the disintegration of the Republic of Indonesia. It is quite another thing to hide behind that concern and to conveniently ignore human rights abuses in any country, let alone one just 250 kilometres from our shores from which many Papuans would flee and indeed should flee if the cruel and oppressive behaviour of the Indonesian military and Indonesian authorities continues. A majority of Australians were not, at the time, behind those who argued that the refugees and asylum seekers on board the Tampa should be processed in this country. A large part of that reaction was because of the obscene hysteria created around those people by the likes of former minister Peter Reith and others. Indeed, they were demonised as potential terrorists arriving by leaky boat, one of which, the SIEVX, sank with the loss of 350 lives as we did nothing. Another part of the Australian community’s animosity towards the Middle Eastern refugees was the fact they were coming from countries of first, second or even third refuge—Malaysia, Thailand, but usually Indonesia. None of that applies with the West Papuans and yet here we have this government prepared not only to send primary movement refugees who have reached Australia, the country of first asylum, to another country for processing but to then seek another country to take them once their genuine asylum status has inevitably been ascertained. What does our Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs say? She says, ‘We can’t allow these people to come here to conduct political campaigns.’ Is a call for an end to abuse and persecution, wherever it occurs on the planet, a political campaign? How about a cry for help? What’s next? Is the government considering reviving the Pacific Islands Labourers Act 1901, which deported any of our South Pacific neighbours already in the country? Our immigration laws over the years have at times been shamefully racist. In this case, we are debating a bill that deliberately is designed to do everything possible to hamper those who might try and flee oppression from our nearest offshore neighbour and others who will still and justifiably flee oppression in other countries—the Middle East, Asia and Africa. A European Commission asylum policy officer, Sandra Pratt, has criticised this bill thus: We could not and would not do that in Europe ... we take very seriously the international conventions ... I think we have an experience of persecution in Europe still ... I repeat: asylum seekers should be housed on the mainland with access to appropriate medical, legal and other support services. They should retain their right to timely review by the Refugee Review Tribunal and judicial review in the courts here, not on someone else’s territory 4,000 kilometres away in the mid-Pacific. The position paper of the Refugee Council of Australia bears out the importance of access to the merits review process. It said: Since February 2003 the number of judgments setting aside RRT decisions or involving orders remitting matters by consent is somewhere in the range of 500 to 750 cases. The risk of wrong decisions being made with fatal consequences of refoulement will be magnified in the proposed system which has no checks and balances. In other words, with proceedings conducted 4,000 kilometres from our shores and without access to proper merits review, what hope will a genuine asylum seeker have with one shot at an offshore and potentially underresourced process, when the fully resourced departmental and RRT processes have such a track record for error here? Article 33 of the refugee convention contains the non-refoulement protection obliging countries not to return people to their country of alleged persecution. Shipping asylum seekers to Nauru, which is not a signatory to the 1951 convention, does not uphold this obligation and neither does transferring refugees to a third country or, worse, turning them back at sea. Any use of our Navy to turn back boats that have made it into Australia’s territorial waters would definitely breach our obligations under article 33. I do not want to see a repeat of the notorious ‘children overboard’ affair, leading up to the 2001 election, when our armed forces were used for blatantly political purposes and which placed our defence personnel in an unconscionable moral dilemma. Indeed, these proposed amendments breach not only article 33 but article 32, that a state should not expel a refugee, save on grounds of national security; article 31, that states should not impose penalties on account of illegal entry on refugees coming from a state where their life or freedom is threatened; and article 3, that a country should not impose penalties on the basis of race, religion or country of origin. This is indication enough that this bill is aimed squarely at what the government would no doubt call its ‘West Papua problem.’ For our closest West Papuan neighbours Australia will accept no obligations towards any refugees under this bill other than to see whether a third country will take them. This will inevitably lead to indefinite and protracted detention, out of sight, out of mind of government perhaps, but more and more Australians are appalled at such a policy, especially now it impacts on West Papuans who might seek our help as a country of first refuge. In effect, all of the Australian territory is excised in this bill, and all claims by people such as the West Papuan asylum seekers will have to be made outside the Australian legal and immigration systems. Add to this the cost, $195,000 per asylum seeker, for those refugees who have been detailed on Nauru alone since Pacific solution mark 1—a massive cost used to bribe a cash-strapped Pacific country, with outsourced security and detention contracts further hidden from public scrutiny. No-one objects to internment until the asylum claims of these people are investigated and their status confirmed, but it should occur on our shores, on our territory. To adopt this offshore policy—or, more appropriately, the ‘buy-off of a poor island’ policy—for immoral foreign policy purposes is to trash our international obligations. I call on those members and senators who are no doubt appalled by this piece of inhumane Realpolitik to stay firm behind the findings of the Senate inquiry’s No. 1 recommendation and fight for the position won from the Prime Minister a few short months ago in the wake of Palmer. This bill is about discouraging dissent and the seeking of legitimate asylum. This is not about border protection; it is about supporting oppression. It is about discouraging, even denying, the most basic of human rights—the right to live without fear for your life—and the duty we as members of the world family have to honour our international obligations to the powerless in the face of the powerful. This bill is aimed fairly and squarely at disadvantaging people who are fleeing well-documented persecution—persecution that will be encouraged by these very changes. Under the bill, refugees will be shipped to Nauru under the surveillance of Nauruan law. Nauru is not a signatory to the international human rights conventions. In the event that the DIMA people make a mistake—remember there have been 500 to 700 cases overturned in Australia after DIMA has got it wrong—there is nothing under Nauruan law that allows a review. The people are effectively isolated from appeal and could remain incarcerated even if they are legitimate refugees. The government admits in the prime ministerial statement of 21 June that Australia cannot legislate offshore detention access for the Ombudsman because of sovereignty issues. Persons in offshore detention centres are not detained under Australian law. In fact, anyone allowed out of a camp on Nauru will only be out on a Nauruan visa. Such are the legal complexities the government says can be blithely dealt with by a memorandum of understanding. There are huge legal contradictions between Nauruan law and Australian law. For instance, in April 2004 the uncle of Nauru’s justice minister was nominated to represent asylum seekers the day after the Nauruan justice minister barred an Australian legal team from entering Nauru. Such an incident could, of course, happen again, especially if Australian lawyers again attempt to question the validity of legal processes in Nauru. In fact, our High Court has confirmed the validity of the Nauruan visa process whereby visas are issued to each and every detainee, lawyer, visitor and indeed ombudsman who enters Nauru. There are millions of dollars worth of income for cash-strapped Nauru at stake in this. Both the Nauruan and Australian governments have a huge interest in sustaining this legal limbo, which, unlike Guantanamo Bay, will not allow even military lawyers. The refugee victims of this legislation are being thrown into a legal vacuum. You cannot confer jurisdiction over another sovereign nation, whatever the bribe. The promises on processing in Nauru are technically unenforceable and outside any law. Finally, we have the Edmund Rice Centre’s disturbing report on the apparent disappearance and suspected death of 12 Afghan detainees who returned to Afghanistan, assured the country was safe. We hear of Yolanda and Rona, aged nine and six, killed by a bomb planted under their home because of their returned father’s former political connections. Their father’s own mother and granddaughter were also killed. When I dared suggest at Christmas 2003 that, on my reliable advice, several returnees from Nauru to Afghanistan had been killed, I was threatened with legal action by the Afghan diplomatic representatives here in Canberra, as were any others who made what the Afghan authorities claimed were ‘reckless and unwarranted’ allegations. It was claimed by the embassy that returnees were monitored after their arrival back in Afghanistan—but only, according to the Afghan embassy website, while they were in Kabul. Then the returnees left for various provinces in different parts of Afghanistan and the monitoring ceased. It took the Edmund Rice Centre to go there, have a look and find the facts about some of those disturbing cases, which happen because, I would argue, of a policy that is akin to refoulement. Whatever the compensation or the resettlement money offered, these people were under duress in most cases when they accepted that compensation. They were in effect, de facto, forced back to Afghanistan, and I firmly believe that we have responsibility under all of those circumstances, when they have arrived as genuine asylum seekers, whatever the circumstances of the outcome, given the state of affairs in Afghanistan and elsewhere where these people are coming from. It is our responsibility, if we turn them away, even with a cheque for a couple of thousand bucks, to ensure their safety—and that includes the responsibility of the Kabul administration and the new Afghan government. Finally, I say: all power and all courage to those members and senators who are considering their position on this bill. Theirs is a position that I believe Australians will support more and more, and they certainly have turned around since that day in August 2001 when I said my electorate perhaps did not support me but that I did not care at that point because I knew and felt in my heart of hearts that I was correct. I think circumstances have proved exactly that. If Family First means that—family first—then how could its senator not join other fair-minded members and senators in rejecting this bill too? 49 12:36:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 0 Mr BROADBENT —The path I take today I did not choose. This path chose me. I cannot simply walk away from the agreement reached and legislated nearly 12 months ago. The founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, built the party on a foundation of the plural traditions of free thought and individual conscience. Free thought and individual conscience are not things to be used frivolously, nor taken lightly, but are freedoms that are embodied in the traditions of our party. The decision I have taken to oppose this legislation, the decision to follow my conscience and vote for the first time, and I hope the last time, against the government of which I was elected as a member, is made because it is in the long-term national interest of this the great south land to continue to be a compassionate protector of the rights of refugees irrespective of the importance of a close relationship between Australia and one of our neighbours. There is no doubt that the changes introduced in the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 are being made as a reaction by the Australian government to Indonesian concerns about the correct and honourable decision by Australia to grant asylum to 43 refugees from West Papua. In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs offered no reason for the changes the legislation seeks to make beyond an assertion that: It seems incongruous that an unauthorised boat arrival at an excised offshore place is subject to offshore processing arrangements, while an unauthorised boat arrival travelling, in some cases, only a few kilometres further to the Australian mainland is able to access the onshore protection arrangements ... Yet the only actual example of this so-called incongruity he could find was ‘the landing on mainland Australia of a group of unauthorised boat arrivals from Indonesia in January 2006’. The parliamentary secretary’s speech highlighted not the incongruous outcome he spoke of but the sacrifice of what is right and what is in Australia’s national interest. I recognise the Indonesian government’s concerns. I assure them that as a partner in our region we honour and respect our neighbours. We support our neighbours in times of trouble. We may not always agree with their laws, but we do respect their right to enact their laws. We desire good relations. We do not question their sovereignty in any province or region. The Howard government has demonstrated a proactive and decisive approach to the challenge of border protection and national security. Since the tragic episodes in 2001 that changed the way we look at the world, the government has implemented more than 100 measures and injected funding in excess of $6.7 billion to fight terrorism and to improve national security. The 2006 budget builds further in this direction by providing over $1.2 billion to fund additional national security related measures. In total, the Howard government has now committed $8.1 billion in new spending on national security since 2001-02. Included in these important budget measures is $20.2 million over the next four years to support the delivery, management and administration of the changes made last year to the Migration Act 1958 following the detention arrangements agreement. This comes on top of the $9.3 million provided in 2005-06 to enable the detention of families with children to take place in the community and the introduction of processing time limits on the determination of primary protection visas. I cannot fathom why we would spend over $30 million implementing these measures only to turn around and abrogate them. We cannot let our high regard for Indonesia override our obligations under the Refugee Convention. As a signatory to that convention, we are charged with determining whether people who arrive on our shores have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion and, among other things, are not war criminals or people who have committed serious, non-political crimes. That is the independent process we followed with a group of a unauthorised boat arrivals from Indonesia in January 2006. It was determined that they did have a well-founded fear of being persecuted and were thus treated as refugees and given visas to stay in Australia. That was as it should be. Australia should not bow to influences that would fundamentally change our laws or the way we process asylum seekers. Perhaps if there was any incongruity in Australia’s position, it comes from the decision in 2001 to create an excised offshore place subject to offshore processing arrangements. That decision was made as part of the government’s complete and determined approach to border protection to stop trafficking by criminal people-smugglers, which was reaching considerable proportions. It has been an effective deterrent. In 1998-99 there were 921 onshore boat arrivals and the number jumped to 4,175 in 1999-2000. In the following year there were 4,137 arrivals before a decline became evident in 2001-02 with 1,277 arrivals. In 2002-03 there were no arrivals whatsoever. In 2003-04 there were 53 arrivals, which was still lower than all the recorded numbers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In 2005 four men, one woman and two children arrived by boat in Australian waters on the Kimberley coast. It is therefore wrong to say that the current legislative and cooperative measures in place have not been effective in protecting our borders. The measures have worked, and for that this government can take great credit. The Howard government should be further praised for the flexibility it showed in amending the Migration Act to deal more compassionately with asylum seekers in the light of the fact that the system was working. The Prime Minister said of the changes of that time: The broad framework of the government’s approach is unaltered. There can, however, be significant improvement, which will mean that current policy is administered with greater flexibility, fairness and above all, in a timely manner. This legislation of last year came out of protracted and difficult negotiations. The agreement was then put in writing, announced by the Prime Minister, cleared and accepted by the party room, confirmed in two pieces of legislation before the parliament and then widely embraced by the Australian community. The package included four key elements. It provided for new arrangements to move families with children out of detention into the community. It set a time limit of three months for primary protection visa decision making, it allowed for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal and it provided for oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Importantly, the legislation required the minister to table in the parliament any assessments or recommendations from the Ombudsman. These reforms have been highly successful and the system is more flexible, fair and timely. Not only did they work, but they did so whilst ensuring we met our humanitarian obligations as a signatory to international conventions and as a compassionate nation. How could you possibly consider that the same outcome could be achieved by sending asylum seekers to Nauru? Australia has proved that strong border protection and human rights are not incompatible. In essence, they seek to assure the same values: that the innocent will be defended and that those who seek to do harm will be deterred. It is the very success of the existing measures that makes this proposed legislation so disappointing. This bill excises the whole of Australia from the migration zone. In doing so, it also excises the safeguards and rule of law our judicial system provides under our statutes and regulations. Under this bill, the agreement reached last year would be made redundant. The bill amends the current act to allow a DIMA officer to take a designated unauthorised arrival to a ‘declared country’. Because Nauru and Papua New Guinea are not bound by the Migration Act 1958, the rule requiring that a determination of protection visa applications for detained asylum seekers occur within 90 days would not apply. Even an in principle attempt to construct a non-enforceable time limit would not be legally binding, as is the case in Australia. Provision for judicial oversight and transparent scrutiny by requiring reports from DIMA to the Commonwealth Ombudsman on persons being held in detention for more than two years would be irrelevant in Nauru. A private contracting firm would organise the accommodation on Nauru and PNG. But would the Nauruan government, which is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, oversee asylum seekers’ welfare, or would that responsibility fall to Australian officers operating under UNHCR guidelines and outside the reach of our legal system? If the bill is passed, asylum seekers processed offshore will not have access to independent review by the Refugee Review Tribunal, or judicial review under Australian law. This bill has been roundly criticised by two agencies that deal with human rights and refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission both made submissions opposing the legislation to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry. That committee, in its report tabled in June this year, made the primary recommendation that the bill should not proceed. In the event the bill did proceed, the committee recommended a long list of qualifications that would have the same effect. The former senator, vice president and President of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, once said: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. I believe there is a potential for this bill to cause serious harm to the progress we have made on this issue as a nation and to the vulnerable people it would affect. I will be voting against these amendments knowing that there are some in my party who do not agree with the ‘plural tradition’ of the Liberal Party and its principles of free thought and individual conscience. Some warn that any dissent is a form of political death. I am no stranger to defeat. I have suffered defeat four times, but I have also been elected to this House three times. It is not the office of the federal member that is important; it is what you do when in office. I take comfort in the words of Dr Martin Luther King: The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. This bill is an issue of challenge and controversy. I had a letter recently from, Di Potter, a constituent in McMillan, expressing her anguish at this bill. She said: I thought my letter writing days were over— I, too, thought her letter-writing days on this issue were over; finished. I note her broken-hearted response to the form of words used to describe asylum seekers in the legislation. I note her concern that this means Australia is no longer a place of refuge. The Australia I know is a place where dreams come true, where the impossible becomes the possible and the probable becomes the inevitable. It is where people find a sense of belonging and it is a place of hope for generations of new immigrants. If I am to die politically because of my stance on this bill, it is better to die on my feet than to live on my knees. Honourable members—Hear, hear! MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —We are suffering a drought in this nation and it is my fervent prayer that the rains would fall to fill our rivers and streams, our lakes and our dams so that each raindrop would form a mighty flood that is so full of compassion and justice that it would not only soften the parched earth but also soften the nation’s heart. It is with regret that I cannot support this bill, and I will vote against it. 52 12:53:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —I want to acknowledge the contributions made and positions taken by the member for Kooyong and the member for McMillan and the comments made by the member for Calare in this very important debate in the parliament. On 23 March of this year the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs granted protection visas to 42 out of 43 West Papuans who had arrived by sea on 18 January. The next day, the Indonesian government withdrew its ambassador to Australia. Within a month, the National Security Committee of Cabinet had determined that all future so-called unauthorised arrivals to the Australian mainland would be transferred to an offshore processing centre, namely Nauru. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Vanstone, was not a member of this committee. On 11 May the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, this bill, was introduced into the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs defended the changes, saying that sound border management requires flexibility and that the changes contemplated the preservation of Australia’s sovereignty. That is the view of the government: that excising our borders to accommodate the wishes of another country is an act of preserving our own sovereignty. That is toxic word spinning that has been a feature of this government. Its conduct of this portfolio is of the very worst kind. Four days later, when the Indonesian foreign minister stated that he had been assured Australia would not accept individuals processed on Nauru, even if found to be refugees, and the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs reported that Indonesia was pleased by these changes, the about-face was complete. This debate is not about the Indonesian government or its people, who are one of our nearest and clearly most important neighbours; it is a debate about the way in which the Howard government manages that relationship and manages immigration. It is a debate about our role as a regional state and about Australia’s fidelity to the international principles of human rights as enumerated and contained within our own laws and regulations. The crux of this debate is moral integrity and national purpose as weighed against political expediency. Additionally, as we are hearing, it is a debate about the true convictions of members of the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Howard. The government has now got itself into a situation where it is compounding the already serious flaws that are a recognised feature of its conduct of immigration and the policy it has introduced. This is a policy whose dismal execution has been the subject of two special reports, both highly critical of DIMIA—now DIMA. This is a policy that costs Australian taxpayers dearly and which in its first instance, when it first came into the public and political domain, was driven by fear and hysteria and by the Prime Minister’s expert manipulation of the emotions of Australians. We need to be crystal clear that the government does not have the support of the Australian public or many in the parliament, including a number of members on its own side, for these changes. Nor does it have the support of senators who considered this matter in some detail and who recommended that the bill not proceed in the form that it came to them. It says volumes that the only submission in favour of the changes came from the discredited department itself. The Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke earlier, reflected on how important our relationship with Indonesia is and the way in which the debate on this bill touches that relationship. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Howard staked his reputation in his early term as Prime Minister on a point of differentiation in foreign affairs with the claim that under previous Labor governments Australia had been too close to Indonesia, yet now he is willing to change the laws of Australia—the very legislative framework within which our immigration system operates—to accommodate that same country. This sends conflicting and confusing messages to the region. They imply that there can be dictates that emanate from the top and that these dictates can alter—at will, it seems—existing Australian institutions. We deeply wish that were not the case. It is a matter of public record that there are West Papuans already facing extreme abuse and threat of persecution, and this bill would see them removed from Australia. This legislation is at odds with the philosophy and decent instincts of a number of members of the government. It is contrary to the principles embedded in our own law that people should not be detained without the opportunity to be charged before a court. It seeks to avoid our international obligations and it renders the government’s earlier promise not to detain children in detention a hollow sham. In the words of former Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser—and there will be hear, hears from this side of the House at least—‘Compassion is not an attribute of the Howard government.’ Regrettably, neither is accountability to its own decisions and statements nor to the humane exercise of its laws. In fact this bill is the latest instalment in the long-running saga of a government that drenches us in talks of values but has long given up holding any values of real worth itself. Just as in 2001 people fleeing persecution in other countries were exposed and left to drown, now people coming across the sea to Australia will be diverted to a remote island and left, where they will not be subject to the laws of Australia and where they will be isolated from the range of legal and social services that are a basic requirement of those seeking asylum. But this government always says one thing and does another. And on values, which are the bedrock of democracy, the government is the great masquerader. It puts material into the schools, the government’s own ‘Values for schooling’ material. I want to read to the House and to the public what these values are. These are values the government wants Australians to live by, and they include: ‘Care and compassion, doing your best, respect, freedom, integrity, where character is destiny.’ What exquisite hypocrisy! The government espouses and calls on young Australians to live by these values but is itself unwilling to follow them. In this case it is young people in particular who will bear the brunt of the government’s response to refugees. In fact the values embedded in this bill are the values that have been on clear display in the past 10 sorry years of this government’s conduct of immigration policy: appalling treatment of refugees; well-documented policy failures; a culture of compliance; intimidation and manipulation; values of expediency and of taking political advantage at the expense of human rights; values of demonising the less powerful; and, now, the value of failing to stand and defend Australia’s sovereign capacity to make soundly based decisions on matters that come before it. These are the values on offer in the bill that is before the House. What an extraordinary action: to try to please the government of another country, instead of taking the time and effort to engage in moderated diplomacy and engage in serious and fruitful dialogue, to simply bend the legal framework of this country into a contorted shape. This bill exposes the government on two fronts: nervousness in that Mr Howard and Mr Downer lacked the confidence to defend the Australian decision-making process or to engage in fruitful discussion with our Indonesian neighbours; callousness in that the government was prepared to abandon the existing laws and frameworks and to abandon asylum seekers and the integrity of our own legal system along the way simply because it was panicked by the Indonesian reaction. It is little wonder that the government’s decision and this bill in the parliament have attracted so much attention and caused so much angst amongst decent people of all political persuasions, including many from my electorate of Kingsford Smith. There has been a gathering in the parliament over the past couple of days to talk about the Christian faith; there are many in this House who hold a Christian faith and I include myself as one of them. I note that the churches have been speaking out. I note that Newcastle Christians for Peace have released correspondence to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, urging her to remember Australia’s obligation to assist those fleeing persecution. At the beginning of this debate, the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney addressed the content of the bill. I think it is fair to say that this is a diocese whose politics are measured; we might even say they are conservative. But the diocesan Social Issues Executive have given thought to the proposed amendments under this bill and found it wanting. They urged Anglicans to contact their MPs and urged them to oppose the bill, and their reasoning was sound. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ‘Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.’ The UNHCR in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry said: UNHCR is concerned that the proposed off-shore processing measures will detract from Australia’s responsibilities, as a State party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the 1951 Convention”), to put in place a system which reliably identifies refugee status and protection requirements, as well as offers timely opportunities for proper and appropriate solutions. It is a principle of international law that everyone has a right to seek asylum in a safe country so as to escape persecution, and Australia is a signatory to the refugee convention which sets out the necessary measures that should apply. If someone makes a claim on the soil of a convention signatory, such as Australia, then the convention applies. Australia is a signatory; Nauru is not. It is the case that following the Tampa incident in 2001, which saw the refusal of the government to allow into Australia over 400 asylum seekers, mainly Iraqi and Afghan, Australia provided an aid package to Nauru in return for its taking the refugees. We traded aid for proper process and compassion. The Howard government then decided to process asylum seeker claims offshore if people were intercepted and not carrying valid documents, but people who arrived on the mainland would be processed under Australian migration law. Come by ship, out; come by plane, in—very poor policy. Nauru and Papua New Guinea, through Manus Island, its designated site, agreed to detain asylum seekers in centres run by IOM, International Organisation for Migration; hence, the Pacific solution was born. And it is expensive: the 2001 MOU with PNG for Manus Island costs us about $700,000 a month but, up until May 2004, very few—I think only one detainee—had been held there. Then we get to November 2003 when the government excised 4,000 islands from Australia’s migration zone. Any so-called unauthorised person arriving by boat and landing on any of these places would also not be able to apply for an Australian visa. Fast forward to last year and, following intense public anxiety, significant criticism from Labor and unease by some government members about the impact of the policy, there was some change, including the release of all children from mainland detention centres and the Ombudsman to review cases of those held in detention for more than two years. But in early 2006, after nearly all the Papuans and subsequently one other Papuan, were rightly judged to be genuine asylum seekers and following the Indonesian government’s response, an announcement was made to extend the Pacific solution. Many speakers will point out that features of the Pacific solution are undesirable. Importantly, the centres are not governed by Australian migration law. They are places where Australian government policy sort of operates but it sort of does not as well. The extraordinary lengths that the government has gone to to hide the deficiencies in the Pacific solution have not prevented members from its own side recognising that it is no solution at all. Significantly, asylum seekers will be denied access to a fair and impartial review process via the Refugee Review Tribunal. We must note that, between 1993 and the start of 2006, the Refugee Review Tribunal had overturned 7,885 decisions of DIMA to refuse asylum seekers refugee status. In other words, without the appeal process, all of those people, including families, may have been removed from Australia to situations where they could have been at grave risk. That is something we now know to be the case with the news this week of the fate of people who returned to Afghanistan. Mary Crock, associate professor at the law faculty at Sydney university points out that the Pacific solution produces fewer successful refugee claims. That is one of its effects. Notwithstanding the appalling conditions that many children faced in detention centres in Australia, at least they got to stay. But of those who were detained on Nauru, around half were sent back. There is a long history of investigation into the number of Australians who have been illegally detained. There are the cases of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez Solon, and we have the Comrie report. We have an extraordinary history of the conduct of Immigration in this country, which speaks very poorly to the government and to its ministers—in particular, the former immigration minister and now Attorney-General, and the current immigration minister. In fact, the only action of any worth that I can identify by the current minister is when she admitted on the 7.30 Report some months back that it was an indisputable fact that the government was responding to Indonesian pressure on the decision to grant refugee status to 42 of the 43 Papuans who had arrived in Australia on 18 January. I think one or two days before that, the Prime Minister said that the bill had nothing to do with listening to Indonesian politicians. Who are we to believe? But what of those people who are genuine refugees, who experience persecution, violence or intimidation and who come by sea? Are they to be denied the same rights and opportunities to be consistently and properly processed that would otherwise be the case and, in this instance, simply because they hail from Papua. This is a callous and contradictory policy. It was framed on the run, as represented in this bill, by a government unsure of how to prudently manage a critical relationship but willing to add to its already disgraceful track record in immigration and to escape, for the time being, the consequences of its actions. But I have some confidence that Australians will not tolerate for much longer a government for whom principles and compassion have no meaning. It is a government that lacks the confidence in its institutions, in its own laws and in its own officials to allow events to take their course, as they ought. It is a government that lacks confidence in what its proper place in the region is. It is a government that has no idea of what Australia’s primary values are—a commitment to equality before the law, a commitment to respect human rights and a commitment to give those who seek sanctuary a fair go within the accepted, identified and legally consistent instruments, laws and regulations that exist in this country and that have served us well. A government that so betrays its own values is a government that is no longer worthy of representing the people of Australia. This bill must be opposed. 57 13:12:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I begin by paying a compliment in particular to my colleagues the member for Kooyong and the member for McMillan for their contributions to outstanding debate in this parliament today. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, amending the Migration Act, is not a matter between conscience and patriotism, for surely each one is worthless without the other and ethical principles should inform them both. The stranger that stumbles upon our shores has a claim on both our conscience and our patriotism and, when he or she arrives with credentials uncontaminated by smugglers and pleading a case that, at the very least, is worthy of a fair hearing, the qualities that constitute fairness are not those that visit unmitigated sequestration and inhumanity upon the stranger. This is complex legislation because it places people seeking refuge on our shores out of reach of Australian domestic law and, by our hand, places them within the borders of a country that is not a signatory to international conventions protecting asylum seekers. It is incongruous that unauthorised boat arrivals are treated any differently from unauthorised plane arrivals. People coming by boat, unlike those arriving by plane, will be forcibly removed to Nauru and denied access to a properly constituted statutory Refugee Review Tribunal and to Australian courts for judicial review—this in a system that unlawfully detained Ms Rau and Ms Solon. Further, asylum seekers arriving by boat will be denied those standards of public scrutiny that have been recommended and implemented in Australian detention centres since the release of the Comrie and the Palmer reports that arose from the Solon and Rau cases. Church leaders, non-government organisation representatives and others, including the fourth estate, have been refused visas to visit refugees held in offshore processing centres. The memorandum of understanding between Australia and Nauru in relation to this bill is not publicly available, so we cannot access details about the future care of asylum seekers on Nauru or take any comfort that visas will be accessible in the future. The government has admitted that it has no control over the sovereign state of Nauru and its laws. How will we know what is or is not being done in our name? We must therefore search our consciences and ask if these unduly harsh measures are warranted. These amendments seek to broaden the scope of offshore processing, which means that families with children will once again be placed in fenced compounds, under guard and out of the range of Australian public scrutiny and support and the law. I may not have shared many of Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon’s personal views, but he was known for his strict adherence to legal principles and a view that the rule of law is the assumption on which the Australian Constitution rests. The rule of law is a conservative principle. It is the foundation of democracy. It requires, as a minimum, access to judicial review of administrative action, the right to a fair trial, the right to private communications with a lawyer and access to the courts. This bill removes or diminishes each of those rights. Who or what is to protect these people from processing errors, of which there have sadly been so many in recent times? Future asylum seekers arriving by sea could be held offshore for indefinite periods of time. Despite the first memorandum of understanding with the Nauru government aiming to remove people from the island within six months and despite earlier assurances by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to that effect, many people remained on Nauru for long periods, some spending four years on that island. Detention without hope of release has been identified as the prime cause of the mental health problems in asylum seekers, including self-harm and suicide. These long periods of uncertainty have clearly exacted an unacceptably high human cost. Less than 200 unauthorised boat arrivals have reached Australian shores in recent times, amongst them 43 West Papuans fleeing from political oppression and human rights abuses. They arrived in small canoes, were not organised by smugglers and were unarmed. They did not proceed through interim countries but came directly to Australian shores. The majority of fair-minded Australians were relieved when 42 of the 43 West Papuans were given asylum. Since that time, the 43rd West Papuan, originally refused asylum, has had that decision overturned by the Refugee Review Tribunal. Such an appeal to a properly constituted statutory refugee review tribunal will be denied others under this legislation. Following the successful claims of the West Papuans for asylum and complaints by the Indonesian government, including the withdrawal of their ambassador, the government announced the introduction of this amendment bill, to take effect retrospectively at the time of the cabinet decision. Following the decision to grant asylum to the West Papuans, the minister for immigration said: Australia has always made decisions in relation to protection claims on the basis of the merit of the claim and this has to be the case whether we’ll upset one or other of Australia’s friends and allies. It stands to reason then that Australia should not fashion its refugee policy to assuage the Indonesian government. Indonesia and its president may not have received nearly enough credit for the achievement of democratic institutions in a country so populous, so geographically complex and so variegated in its cultural affinities. But, given all that and given all the respect that these aspirations and achievements rightfully engender, that is the point beyond which our self-respect must give us pause. One can understand concerns by the Indonesian government about the possibility of civil unrest generated by an independence movement in West Papua. But our government has been crystal clear in stating that it does not support an independence movement. Yet, cleaving as we do to basic freedoms of worship, speech and political association, it is axiomatic that we cannot condone explicitly or tacitly the persecution of people because they express dissenting political views. In such cases where asylum is sought, we have obligations to hear the claims and make a dispassionate decision free from political interference. Our relationship with Indonesia must proceed on the basis of mutual accommodation and consistency in our argument of the paramountcy of the sovereign rights and laws of each nation. Most Australians are appalled at the release of Abu Bakar Bashir but understand that, regardless of how repugnant that decision is, Indonesian law will almost certainly prevail. Pressure that Indonesia has brought to bear over the West Papuan asylum matter is offensive to our style of democratic government and to the rule of law which underpins it. If we allow interference in the proper legal processing of asylum seekers, no matter where they come from, then where is the end point? We must ask the question: will there be further backdowns and compromises in the face of future threats by Indonesia? Indonesia and Australia have worked cooperatively in building constructive dialogue and strong people-to-people links in trade, regional security and border protection. The goodwill we have built up between our two countries is beneficial to the people of both nations and to the region. Exercising our domestic and international legal obligations is insufficient reason for fracturing a mature relationship. It is hoped that the Indonesian government recognises and addresses the issues underlying the current unrest referred to by Indonesia’s Minister of Defense, Dr Sudarsono, in February this year when he said: I grant that there have been incidents of some brutality and torture and rape involving some of our troops, but there has been a tendency to blanket all of this into a notion that all of these efforts are systematic and institutional. When these brutalities cease, then the desperation that drives people to risk their lives to cross the open sea in canoes will cease to exist, and there will be no reason for Indonesia to ask Australia to choose between its good relations with Indonesia and the legal and just applications of its own laws. It is surely safe to assume that West Papuans share the same aspirations as people everywhere: for food, shelter, health, education and access to the common pool of prosperity—40 per cent of West Papuans survive on less than $6 a week. Given that Freeport is said to be the biggest earner of foreign currency in the country, that aim should not be too difficult to achieve. Speaking in international forums, our Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, has observed that the focus of Western democratic states should be on helping to prevent refugee situations at source so as to ease the burden on countries of first asylum. Thus the primary hope is that West Papua should be a comfortable home for its citizens so that they have no reason to seek refuge elsewhere. The achievement of that goal remains solely within the prerogative of the Indonesian government, but I would venture to say that there are many in this country—indeed, in this House—willing, in the spirit of friendship and common humanity, to lend a hand, just as they have been all too willing in the recent past to lend a hand when our neighbour was beset on tragic occasions by natural disaster. However much history and arduous exertion have given Indonesia the right to insist on its own standards and laws, we in Australia are no more or less entitled to do precisely the same. Last year this parliament unanimously endorsed important changes to the Migration Act. For me there was no more important change than to release families with children from behind the barbed wire and to place them in community housing, and that policy and process have gone smoothly. There have been no complaints. There have been no problems. So why, I ask, did we ever place children in prisons behind barbed wire fences? Australia is a big country. The Australian people have big hearts. I cannot believe that they would condone a bill that is so regressive, a bill that sends asylum seekers to a place that puts them outside the reach of community support and outside the reach of domestic and international law. In considering this legislation we need to ask these questions in this place: what value do we place on the rule of law? How can we in all conscience legislate to consign people to a place where they are out of sight and ostensibly out of mind? Do we assume that nothing culpable by way of mistakes and misdemeanours can possibly befall them? Why is this legislation before the House today, when a majority government member Senate committee recommended that the legislation be scrapped or, at the very least, amended? This is virtually a declaration of infallibility, which is absurd, not to say dangerous. It flies in the face of that essential principle of democratic governance that there should be visible, credible checks and balances. I cannot believe that the citizens of this sovereign country would ever cease to wonder, nor would they ever forgive, were we in this House to acquiesce in silence to pressure from a neighbour on a matter so much at the heart of our principles of justice. I for one cannot remain silent. 60 13:28:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I rise to support the sentiments that have just been put so eloquently by the previous speaker, the member for Pearce, and to voice my own opposition and indeed my disgust at the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. As I will outline, I oppose these harsh and unfair measures on a number of levels. I am opposed to their motivations, I am opposed to the sheer lunacy of the proposals, I am opposed to their violation of international law and I am opposed to their disregard for human rights. I would like to first make one point very clear: if the government think that this legislation only affects asylum seekers who arrive on our shores by boat, they are sorely mistaken. This legislation affects all Australians. This legislation affects who we are as a nation. It is being done in our name. I had an encounter recently at one of my regular street corner meetings. I was approached by a young man who stated that he did not have one particular issue to raise with me. He did not come to raise a Centrelink or immigration case or to seek assistance on any other individual matter. He came to the meeting just to tell me of his disillusionment. He told me how he did not feel that this government was representing his views. He did not believe that the core beliefs at the heart of this country were being represented or indeed promoted by government policy. I believe that this bill is a classic example of this. This appears to be a common sentiment within the Australian electorate and certainly within my local community. Let me be clear: I do not think that we should all vote against this legislation just to make us all feel better about ourselves; I think that we should vote against it because it will permanently scar vulnerable human beings, because it is both unjust and illogical and because it is cruel and inhumane and out of step with Australian values. I will also say this: the great privilege of being in government—the reason why we all aspire to sit over there—is that you have the wonderful opportunity to improve our country. You have the opportunity to make Australia a fairer and more decent place. You have the chance to make us all feel prouder to be Australian. Yet sadly this legislation, like so many other government proposals, does the precise opposite. On Wednesday, 14 June this year, 32,000 signatures were tabled in the Senate opposing this migration legislation. I have checked the website of the Getup campaign, and the current number of signatures received in opposition to this legislation is 87,347. I am afraid that the government is not representing public sentiment on this issue. A recent Newspoll found that 74 per cent of respondents disagreed with this bill, especially its motivation of appeasement. Males, females, singles, marrieds, young and old, low-income earners and the unemployed all opposed this bill overwhelmingly. Many Australians do not want to see children in detention centres. They do not want to see ridiculous laws that abolish Australia’s borders. And most importantly, they do not want to see the important changes to Australia’s migration legislation achieved last year dispended in the name of flawed and confused ‘diplomacy’, if we can even call it that at all. This proposal highlights a government which has no respect for Australia’s sovereignty, no respect for international law, no respect for the protection of human rights and no respect for any notion of fairness or decency. I would like to talk about the sheer lunacy of this legislation. As of 13 April 2006, all Australians arriving by boat will be treated as though they arrived in an excised place. This will effectively excise the whole of Australia from our immigration zone. The government’s approach is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd. We cannot approach border protection by pretending that we have absolutely no borders at all. So let us be perfectly honest about this: this legislation is stupid. This is not just my view. It is the view of many who have looked at this legislation. Let us study the words of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report on this bill. Their first recommendation stated: … the committee recommends that the Bill should not proceed. This legislation is absolutely extreme. How do you possibly justify that locking children up is not okay in Australia but is okay in Nauru? The basic truth is that you cannot. This was the sentiment overwhelmingly conveyed to the Senate committee, which found: Overwhelmingly, the view among those who provided evidence to the committee was that the Bill should be opposed in its entirety. Indeed, the committee notes that every submission and witness, besides the Department, expressed opposition in absolute terms to the Bill and its broader policy objectives. However, it was not just the valuable committee process that highlighted the lunacy of this legislation. The Prime Minister himself did so. Let me take you back to Monday, 17 June 2002, when he stated: I want to make it clear that there is no intention to excise—and never has been—any part of the Australian mainland. That is an absolutely ludicrous proposition. Although it is unusual, on this occasion I agree with the Prime Minister wholeheartedly: this is indeed an absolutely ludicrous proposition. By now we are all aware that this government does not much care for international law, but I would like to speak on the human rights conventions that this bill could violate if it passes through this parliament. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a press release on 19 April which expressed this opinion: If this were to happen, it would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state. This is even more worrying in the absence of any clear indications as to what might be the nature of the envisaged off-shore processing arrangement. If it is not one that meets the same high standards Australia sets for its own processes, this could be tantamount to penalising for illegal entry. This legislation could breach many different examples of international law. It could breach the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the obligation to act in the interests of the child and the principle that children should only be detained as a last resort. It could contravene the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as it fails to act in accordance with the principle of nondiscrimination, breaches the rights of the covenant and exposes asylum seekers in offshore processing centres to the risk of arbitrary detention. It may violate the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, in particular article 31 of the refugee convention, which provides that asylum seekers should not be penalised for arriving illegally. Offshore processing disrespects the cornerstone of this convention, even if it is not found to be illegal. This legislation could undermine the fundamental human rights principle of nonrefoulement by not allowing for any form of independent merits review. As I mentioned earlier, the bill is likely to breach Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(b) of this convention states: No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Furthermore, it may undermine other obligations relating to the rights of the child including, to name but a few, article 3—in all actions concerning children ‘the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’—and article 20—unaccompanied asylum seeker children are to be given special protection and assistance by the government—and article 22, which says children seeking refugee status are to receive ‘appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment’ of their applicable rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is an example of even more international conventions being ridiculed by the Howard government. Yet it is already clear that this is not something that overly troubles this government. Sadly we now live in an era of government complacency where issues affecting international law and even the basic principles of humanity seemingly cease to matter to those sitting opposite me. The government’s readiness to violate these principles is absolutely appalling. What makes it appalling are the consequences. Let us all be clear: people will suffer as a result of this legislation, people’s lives will be shattered, they will be permanently scarred and many will pay with their sanity. This is what is at risk. I would like to read some excerpts from correspondence I have received from various constituents on the issue of human rights. I think that their words express Australia’s outrage more eloquently than mine ever could. One wrote: I would like to see Australia become a global leader and promoter of human rights and I am concerned that these proposed changes may do just the opposite ... Sadly, with the Liberal Government in power it seems human rights are under constant attack. Another wrote: Please, on my behalf as my elected spokesperson in Parliament, do not let these new changes pass without fighting for justice, compassion and humanity. Yet another said: As a nurse and a parent I find this proposal cruel, draconian and in contravention of our human rights obligations. As an Australian I also find it embarrassing to belong to a country which manages such important issues in such a petty, narrow minded and ignorant manner. And yet another said: Accepting human rights abuses in order to improve our regional relationships goes against the values that the Howard Government wants new migrants, school children and the general community to live by—respect, decency, compassion and the strength to stand up and defend our values. I want to turn now to an issue that this parliament deliberated on just last year. I have spoken on many occasions in this parliament about my beliefs that children do not belong in detention and that Australia should not tolerate a system inclusive of indefinite detention. What this bill effectively says is that it is not okay to hold children indefinitely in detention on Australian soil but it is okay to be responsible for their detainment offshore in places like Nauru. I would like to express my own belief, and the belief of many within my electorate, that children should not be detained. The important changes to the government’s immigration policy won last year will be lost. Labor was so pleased to see that children would not be placed in detention again, but now these amendments are on the line. Children can be held in detention again, indefinite detention will return and case-managed mental health care is over. These changes are all appalling. The soon to be moved amendments mean that the bill will now state: (1A)   The Parliament affirms as a principle that a minor ... will only be detained as a measure of last resort. and also that: Note: The Minister has the power to direct officers of the Department to take all reasonable steps to work with any country ... with a view to having this principle upheld. The sad truth is, though, that this amendment does not actually mean anything in practice. Australian law is not enforceable in a foreign country. Australian principles do not actually equate to anything at all in Nauru. The minister already has the power to direct her officers and department, but she and her department have no power on Nauru. The only way to ensure that this is carried out in practice is to process asylum seekers under Australian law in Australia. We here who will vote on this bill are making a very important decision. Each individual in this House must decide whether or not we abandon the principles that we upheld 12 months ago. This House decided 12 months ago that Australia values mental health and that people in detention should not be made to forsake their sanity because of poor mental health conditions. We decided that people should not be detained indefinitely and we decided that children should not be locked up. The members who vote in favour of this bill are saying that those values do not matter anymore. The members prepared to vote in favour of this bill are therefore prepared to compromise some of the core values of our nation, and I certainly will not be joining them. One could be baffled as to why the government is willing to set such a harsh precedent when so few asylum seekers enter Australia by boat. Unauthorised boat arrivals attract more attention than any other form of migration, but individuals seeking asylum within Australia in 2003-04 who arrived by boat were approximately 1.5 per cent of total unauthorised arrivals. In 2004-05 no individuals seeking asylum arrived by boat. Yet the government is prepared to risk Australia’s human rights record and sovereignty, and all for what? I would like to turn to the real reasons why the government is introducing this bill. The government is gutlessly attempting to appease Indonesia at the expense of asylum seekers and Australia’s broader human rights record. When Australia has objected to Indonesian criminal law in the past, Indonesia indicated that it was their legal system and so Australia respected their sovereignty. But when Indonesia objects to Australian laws, this government just changes them. We modify our legal approach to asylum seekers to appease just one nation. Australia should not change its laws just to please Indonesia or any other country. The Prime Minister has shown a weakness the Australian people find deeply upsetting. Many of my constituents have written to me on this particular issue. I would like to share what one of them had to say. They wrote: This proposal sends a clear signal to foreign powers that Australia is willing to change the laws governing its refugee protection system when pressure is applied to it by a foreign nation. The Australian Government causes us to hang our heads in shame at the very thought that our country could be so gutless and ingratiating. I could quote many pieces of correspondence carrying the same sentiment. Australia must respect our neighbour to the north, but it is about time we encouraged respect for our own nation and our own laws. The introduction of this bill just shows that our immigration policy is not being run from Canberra; it is being run from Jakarta. Labor believes that immigration is an especially important portfolio of the federal government. Conversely, the government seems happy to outsource the formation of these policies to Indonesia. I for one can never vote in support of that. I absolutely believe that Australia must encourage a strong relationship with Indonesia and that it is in all of our best interests to do so. But this relationship must be strong, honest and based on a mutual respect. Australia does not have to be an inferior partner in that relationship. As sovereign and strong independent states, Australia and Indonesia should be able to maintain a relationship that encourages respect and allows for differences in opinion. I believe respect must be the foremost foundation of our relationship, but such respect requires a certain degree of autonomy and the willingness of Australia’s government to stand up and fight for what is inherently right. I would like to briefly turn to the issues of scrutiny raised by this bill. Over the past few months we have heard claims of sexual abuse, mismanagement and drug abuse taking place within Australia’s detention centres. Now is surely not the time to be abolishing an important overseer and scrutineer of Australia’s immigration. The minister’s department has been embroiled in one bungle after another. Sadly, this legislation represents what is one of the largest bungles of all. There is not a single change that can be made to Australian law that will allow the government to change the way a policy is implemented in another country. That is, once you start with the proposition that you are going to put people in another country, it is all over. Australian law stops. Although the Immigration Ombudsman will be able, theoretically, to investigate an action regarding an immigration matter regardless of the location of the action, the ombudsman will first need a visa to enter Nauru. This is a significant limiting factor that can prevent the scrutiny that we require. I would also add that a huge number of my own constituents regularly visit detention centres and offer another form of scrutiny. They hear when there are cases which are alarming and bring them to each other’s attention. I do not think many of them will be able to undertake that role in Nauru though. The whole idea of offshore processing is that you put people beyond the reach of Australian law. The only conceivable reason this bill is being introduced is to appease Indonesia. This is not how any good government should run foreign affairs. It will cast asylum seekers beyond the reach of Australian law and reinstall children’s detention and indefinite detention. The safeguards that have been installed to try and make the government’s policy more humane—most importantly, case-managed mental health care and a Commonwealth Immigration Ombudsman, as well as safeguards regarding children in detention and indefinite detention—will sadly be completely stripped away. I must strongly reaffirm that I for one absolutely cannot support these changes. I was recently at a forum of high school students, where somebody explained leadership in a way that was so articulate that I would like to repeat it here today. She stated that leadership was about standing up and being the voice that you long to hear, standing up and being the voice that you and your community long to hear. The community have made their views on this bill very clear. The academics and the experts have all made their views very clear. Now every member of this House has a stark choice: do they stand up and vote against a proposal which has the wrong motivations, which is indecent and inhumane by its very nature and which is clearly absurd, or do they instead vote for legislation which most people cannot even bring themselves to argue in favour of? Will members choose to be true leaders of their local communities or instead blindly follow the Prime Minister down this ridiculous path? I am clear that I will continue to absolutely oppose this legislation and I encourage all members to do likewise. 65 13:48:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —I rise to support the sensible amendments to our migration system. Protecting our borders is one of the most successful policy initiatives of the Howard government. It was a policy I strongly supported during my 2001 campaign to gain election to the seat of Stirling. It is a policy that has the overwhelming support of people in my electorate. They recognise that by taking a strong stand Australia was able to send an appropriate signal that we are not a soft touch for illegal immigrants, and consequently the flow of illegal arrivals ceased. Not everybody agrees, of course. I have had several people contact me urging me to oppose these amendments. I have had quite a few more who have expressed to me the view that we need to do more. I want to start today by addressing some of the broader issues that arise when this parliament discusses border protection. I think there is a lot of woolly thinking associated with this debate, and there is also a fair bit of moral vanity—a pretension that sees you believe that you are far more compassionate and caring than people who oppose your point of view, that you somehow have a mortgage over what is good and right, and that your opponents do not care about human rights, do not care about the suffering of others, do not care about women and do not care about children. I strongly support the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 and I completely and utterly reject the idea that that somehow makes me less caring or less sensitive to the suffering of the world’s refugees. If a generous program of allowing humanitarian arrivals is coupled with a weak regime that encourages illegal arrivals to take those places, that is completely against the interests of the most desperate people in the world. I say this as a representative of an electorate that accommodates more of these humanitarian arrivals than any other electorate bar one in Australia. In the north metropolitan region of Perth, which I represent, from January 2001 to December 2005, close to 3,000 African migrants have resettled. I am in regular contact with them and with representatives from their communities. They are people who have come here from the Sudan, Somalia, the Congo and Sierra Leone. They are people who in many cases have suffered, and suffered enormously, and who have now been granted refuge under one of the most generous programs operated anywhere in the world. They are enthusiastic new Australians and they are eager to grab all the benefits that this country has to offer and to create a better life for themselves and their families. I wonder how anyone could say to them that their claim of refuge in Australia is less valid than that of someone who has the money and the wherewithal to make it to Australia via a people smuggler or via some other means. If you are growing up in a refugee camp on the Sudanese border, you will never be able to make it illegally to Australia. You will have to wait in the queue and hope that the UNHCR will judge you desperate enough to qualify for a visa to Australia, one of the few nations that offers places for refugees. So if you agree with the proposition that Australia can only take a limited number of refugees—and, obviously, it would be impossible for Australia to accommodate the millions of people who sadly find themselves with this status—then it follows that you have to make a judgment on where these refugees will come from. You have to prioritise need, however hard that is. Currently, Australia does this by following the guidance of the UNHCR as to where the greatest areas of need are at any given time. For the last few years the UNHCR has identified the Horn of Africa and other parts of that difficult continent, particularly the areas that are involved in vicious civil wars which have displaced large amounts of their populations. Citizens of these countries will never make it to Australia by boat. They do not have the resources and they obviously do not have the geography working in their favour. I do not believe that that makes them less worthy candidates for asylum. If Australia is to maintain control over who is allocated places under Australia’s refugee program then we require effective control of our borders. That requires continued vigilance. We need to respond to new challenges as they arise if we are to continue to effectively control who immigrates to Australia. Having listened to earlier contributions to this debate, it is obvious that not all of my colleagues agree with all the amendments in this bill. But, contrary to some of the speculation and commentary from the opposition, I do not consider this to be such a terrible thing. The idea that we in a political party agree on everything all the time is plainly ridiculous. In the Liberal Party we are free to think for ourselves. Liberal members of parliament are allowed to exercise their vote according to their own conscience, and members in this chamber have done so on many occasions. This is in stark contrast to opposition members who are required by their party to vote along party lines. In fact, any Labor member of parliament who votes against their party will be automatically expelled from the Labor Party. They are not allowed a voice of dissent within Labor. Stalin would have been proud of the rules that govern the ALP. Labor members who have made so much of the fact that some Liberal MPs may vote against these amendments should remember that they have the option to do so. That is a poor reflection on people who do not and a poor reflection on the allegiances of the members of the ALP in this chamber when their party insists that loyalty to the ALP takes precedence over every other loyalty. I would never subject myself to that insistence and Liberal members of this parliament are not required to do so. So, if members on this side of the House vote against the bill, I hope it reminds the Australian people that only one political party in this country allows its members the latitude to do so. I hope this does not happen, because this bill is an important piece of the architecture that protects our orderly migration system. The bill will amend the Migration Act to expand the offshore processing regime, successfully introduced by the Howard government in October 2001, to all people who arrive illegally in our waters. It will end this ridiculous distinction: if you can make it to mainland Australia then you will be treated differently from someone who has only managed to make it to the outlying islands. Strong decisions made now on this legislation will further strengthen the control over our borders, as well as preserve Australia’s obligations to refugees. This bill will stop people who arrive illegally in Australian waters from accessing the visa application process. They will be subject to resettlement in another country, provided that country meets the strict standards that have been set out by the Australian government. It will mean that all persons arriving on mainland Australia unlawfully by sea, retrospective to 13 April this year, will be treated in the same way as though they had landed in an excised place. This legislation will not affect the visa status of any persons who arrived in Australia before 13 April this year, and any visa applications lodged in Australia by such persons will continue to be processed in the normal manner. In many respects, this is a logical progression of the offshore processing arrangements that have been in place since October 2001 which, I remind the House, have been extremely successful in ensuring the integrity of our borders. It makes absolutely no sense that an unauthorised boat arriving at an offshore place is subject to the offshore processing arrangements, while an unauthorised arrival arriving only a few kilometres closer on the mainland can access Australia’s onshore protection arrangements. This bill will eliminate that ridiculous distinction between unauthorised boat arrivals at an excised offshore place and those who reach the mainland. The changes will apply to all unauthorised boat arrivals, regardless of nationality. The changes will not only correct these inconsistencies but send a clear message to people who may risk their lives by travelling to Australia illegally. It is important to remember that our strong stance on border protection has already stemmed the flow of illegal and unauthorised arrivals. I do not want to see a return of unsafe boats attempting the dangerous journey to Australia, filled to breaking point with people who are little more than easy money to people smugglers, who have managed to put a price on human lives. We do not know how many people have lost their lives attempting this voyage but we must not pretend that, by encouraging them to do so, this is a compassionate approach. Australia has maintained two offshore processing centres on Nauru and on Manus Island in PNG since late 2001. Since that time, 1,547 people have been processed offshore at these centres. Every one of those persons has had access to the refugee assessment process through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or by trained Australian officials. Not one person found to be a refugee in the offshore process was forced to return to their home country. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 67 Questions to the Speaker 67 67 14:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Yesterday the member for Melbourne asked me about the withdrawal of unparliamentary expressions. I repeat that it is for the chair to determine whether words used are disorderly or offensive, and whether they should be withdrawn. Where the chair considers that words are of this nature, the chair has a duty to intervene. Where a member requests withdrawal of an expression, the chair determines whether it was in fact unparliamentary. Where withdrawal is sought of an interjection or other comment not heard by the chair, the chair relies on information provided by members involved in such incidents. Subsequent action by the chair depends on any determination the chair feels in a position to make about the expression. Finally, members do appreciate another member withdrawing words objected to, even if the chair has not determined that the words are unparliamentary. 68 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 68 14:01:00 68 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 assertion yesterday in question time that the record proportion of a household’s income consumed by interest payments is irrelevant because the value of their assets is greater. Can the Prime Minister explain how households can actually pay their monthly mortgage interest repayments using equity in their homes? Is the Prime Minister suggesting households could borrow even more just to pay their mortgage? 68 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am not suggesting that. What I am saying—and let me repeat it again—is that, because of the increase in the cost and value of housing, mortgages have risen very sharply in this country. For example, I am informed that the average mortgage in 1989 was $65,000. That figure is now $220,000 a year. I put it to the Leader of the Opposition that the relevant comparison that ought to be made for the purposes of today’s debate is to look at the interest payment today on the average loan and compare it with what it would have been if the interest rates of earlier years had obtained. The interest rate today on the average loan— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hotham! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —is $1,430 a month. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hotham is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —If you applied the average interest rate of the Labor years—that is, 12¾ per cent—it would be over $2,300 a month. That is being charitable, because it so happens that, in 1989, interest rates hit the notorious level of 17 per cent, and if you applied that to today’s loan it would be $3,100 a month. So it is now $1,430. Using the opposition’s logic, charitably speaking, if their average interest rate had obtained, it would be $2,300; but, if the interest rate of 1989 had obtained, it would in fact be $3,100 a month. 68 68 14:04:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on progress in the reform of superannuation law? How will the implementation of these laws help secure the retirement of Australians? Honourable members interjecting— 68 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for La Trobe— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The level of interjections is far too high. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —for his question and for his interest in superannuation policy. In this year’s budget the government brought down the biggest plan to reform superannuation in Australia’s political history. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The level of interjections is far too high—and that object will be removed immediately. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Oxley is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —In this year’s budget the coalition government announced the biggest reform of Australian superannuation policy in Australia’s history. That plan is to take effect on 1 July next year. It will sweep away the raft of taxes on benefits at the end of a person’s superannuation plan when they come up to retirement. Even former ACTU member and industry fund advocate Garry Weaven wrote recently in Investor Weekly: The government’s recent budget initiatives have proved the Liberal Party is now the official party for superannuation. Let me say that this plan will make a 25-year-old earning $1,000 a week and receiving super guarantee $136 a week better off in retirement. A 45-year-old earning $1,500 a week and receiving the nine per cent super guarantee will be $92 a week better off as a consequence of this plan. The budget was brought down in May this year and the ALP is yet to announce a position in relation to this reform. We are waiting for the Labor Party to actually say whether or not it will support— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Corio will remove himself under standing order 94(a). An incident having occurred in the chamber— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I name the member for Corio! Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 14:07:00 —I move: That the member for Corio be suspended from the service of the House. Question put. 14:12:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 87 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. 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. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Howard, J.W. 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. Mirabella, S. 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. Southcott, A.J. 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. 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.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. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. 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. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Corio is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b). The member for Corio then left the chamber. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Oxley was warned for bringing out that object. He will now remove himself from the chamber, under standing order 94(a). The member for Oxley then left the chamber. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —As I said earlier, the government has laid down the greatest plan in the history of Australia to reform superannuation. The Australian Labor Party has yet to announce a position on this plan, but I am pleased to say that the consultation period in relation to the plan has now been completed. The government has received 1,562 items of correspondence. We have received 3,500 calls to the superannuation hotline. The Treasury officials have met with representatives of the superannuation industry and related bodies across Australia. The feedback on the plan has been overwhelmingly positive. The plan has been applauded by Susan Ryan, a former ALP minister, by IFSA, by APSA, by the Institute of Actuaries, by AMP and even by the ACTU’s own Garry Weaven. This is a plan for all Australians. It is bold. It reduces tax. We say to the ALP: ‘Get your act in order—support the government. This is important for Australia’s future.’ 70 Distinguished Visitors 70 14:21:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Federated States of Micronesia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 70 Questions Without Notice 70 70 14:21:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that official Reserve Bank figures show that an average of seven per cent of household income was consumed by interest repayments under the life of the Hawke-Keating government? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the same figures show that an average of 7.9 per cent of household income is consumed by interest payments under the current life of the Howard government? Prime Minister, is it the case that a greater proportion of household income is consumed by interest repayments under your government than under the Hawke-Keating government? 71 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am aware of a lot of Reserve Bank figures and I am also aware of figures that show that unemployment is at a 30-year low. I am also aware of the fact that, if the average borrower in Australia today were paying the average interest rates of the Hawke-Keating years, instead of paying $1,430 a month they would be paying at least $2,300 a month. If they were paying the notorious 17 per cent interest rate, they would be paying over $4,000 a month. I hope the member for Lilley continues to ask these questions. 71 71 14:22:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 Mr TOLLNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on recent developments in East Timor? What is the government doing to help the country following its recent problems? 71 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question and his interest. As he comes from Darwin, he has a very great interest in the welfare of Australians serving in East Timor. I think the House would be aware that the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police, with the assistance of the Malaysians, the New Zealanders and the Portuguese, have been extraordinarily successful in bringing stability back to East Timor. We are very proud of the job that they have done. I have always made the point that the East Timorese ultimately have to solve their political problems, not the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Federal Police or the Australian government. Where there was a breakdown of security in East Timor caused by political arguments and differences, it had to be resolved by the East Timorese. The point I would make is that they have made good progress in addressing their concerns. A new government was sworn in by President Xanana Gusmao on 14 July. At the time, the Prime Minister, the defence minister and I welcomed the appointment of Jose Ramos Horta. Of course, we continue to wish him well in his new and very difficult role. In Kuala Lumpur the week before last, I was also pleased to spend some time with the new foreign minister, Jose Luis Guterres, who is well known to a number of members of this House from the time when he was the permanent representative of East Timor at the United Nations in New York. The next stage in all of this is going to be the United Nations Security Council’s consideration of a further resolution to extend the UN mission beyond 21 August. We expect there to be open discussions in the Security Council on 15 August—that is, next week. I think it is more or less agreed that the successor mission to the existing UN mission will strengthen the capacity of the local police. There will be a significant international police presence. It could be very significant, with over 1,000 international police coming under the auspices of the United Nations. The United Nations mission is likely to be charged with the task of encouraging political reconciliation and assisting with the improvement of overall governance in East Timor. The one issue that is still being worked through by the permanent members and with countries such as Australia and Portugal is the role of the military. There clearly will need to be some military presence in East Timor for some time beyond 21 August—some sort of rapid reaction force. There will need to be military liaison officers and so on. But the question is going to be whether it will be a blue-helmeted or, as they say, a ‘green-helmeted’ operation, which comes under the UN, or whether it will come under a national command with the approval of the UN. That is still to be worked out and is still being discussed in New York. But I think there is a real mood in New York to ensure that there is an effective successor mission to the existing UN mission so that the UN can play a more active role in trying to help the East Timorese overcome their differences and to improve the quality of governance. We are committed to East Timor for the long haul. We will continue to do our best to help them but, in saying that, never detract from the simple point that as an independent country they are responsible for their own decisions. They are responsible for their own destiny. We can help them but we cannot take on that burden of responsibility. That is their job. 72 Distinguished Visitors 72 14:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Dr John Herron, a former minister and ambassador. On behalf of all members I wish him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 72 Questions Without Notice 72 72 14:27:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his assertion that the record proportion of household incomes consumed by interest repayments today is irrelevant because the value of their assets is greater. Is the Prime Minister aware that official RBA figures show that household debt has consistently outpaced growth in housing assets? Is the Prime Minister aware that housing debt-to-asset ratios have increased from 10 per cent in 1989 to more than 25 per cent today? 72 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not regard household debt as ‘irrelevant’; I have never said that at all. What I have said is that what is highly relevant in the current debate is a comparison of the interest rate burdens of two periods. If you take the average mortgage now, the truth is that, whereas the average mortgage now attracts an interest payment of $1,430 a month, if you applied the average of the Hawke-Keating years, that figure would climb to $2,300 a month. If you climbed the dizzy heights of 17 per cent, which people in this country still bitterly remember, it would be $3,100 a month. I think those figures are highly relevant. 72 72 14:28:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 Mr HENRY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the settlement of a longstanding dispute between a union and a major construction company? Would the minister also update the House on the government’s reform agenda for the building industry? 72 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 Hasluck for his question and acknowledge his expertise in relation to the building and construction industry, particularly in his home state of Western Australia. The government has made significant progress in bringing about much-needed reform in the $50 billion building and construction industry in Australia. The Cole royal commission presented compelling evidence of an industry replete with unlawful activity, and corruption in some cases, resulting in extensive inefficiencies and increased building costs in the industry. Following the Cole royal commission, the government put in place a comprehensive reform package to address many of the problems identified by Mr Justice Cole in his report. As the member for Hasluck intimated in his question, today the John Holland Group announced the settlement of a longstanding industrial dispute with the CFMEU. This dispute commenced before the government’s reforms were in place, and indeed the John Holland group said today that they ‘can’t see any need for us in our capacity as an employer to take that sort of action again, because there is now a comprehensive legislative regime in place that effectively prevents this sort of unlawful action’. As I said, there has been perhaps no other industry in Australia, such as the building and construction industry, that was in need of a comprehensive clean-up of activities which were taking place. The John Holland Group also reaffirmed its support for the government’s legislation, saying, ‘We welcome these new laws and are confident that they will assist in securing more productive workplaces.’ An important point about this is that the John Holland Group identified that, because of the reforms put in place, efficiencies are being generated in the order of 20 per cent on major building and construction projects in Australia. We know that industrial action in the past has cost up to $200,000 per day on major construction projects in Australia. Of course, that ultimately flows through to the consumers in Australia. For another piece of data about the impact of these reforms put in place by the government one only has to look at the working days lost per 1,000 employees. In the March 2005 quarter, 43.5 working days were lost per 1,000 employees. In March 2006, which was the first period in which data has been recorded since the building and construction industry reforms were put in place, that figure of 43.5 working days lost per 1,000 employees had fallen to just 5.7 working days lost. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —That’s terrific! That is good news. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —As the Prime Minister says, that is great news, and not just for the building construction companies. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —For the workers. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —It is great news for the workers themselves and for all Australians, because they bear these costs ultimately. So this industry is a clear example of where this government has been prepared to meet challenges and put in place major reforms and we see the economic dividends for all Australians occurring as a result of those changes. What stands in the way of these changes? Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Labor Party, who have promised to rip up these reforms and to turn back this sort of efficiency which ordinary Australians are benefiting from as a result of these changes. They would rip up these reforms. They would take us back to the past. This proves once again that the Australian Labor Party under Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, is not interested in Australia’s prosperity. The only parties in this place that are interested in continuing to grow the prosperity of this country are the Liberal and National parties. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that he should refer to members by their seat or by their title. 73 73 14:33:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Sydney Morning Herald has reported Debbie Bridgman’s response to his attempt yesterday to explain why he had broken his promise to keep interest rates at record lows? The report in the Sydney Morning Herald said: Mrs Bridgman said yesterday she would not be changing her vote in response to the Prime Minister’s plea. Instead, she said, her trust in the Prime Minister had been ‘destroyed’ Would the Prime Minister like to have another go at explaining to Debbie Bridgman and families all round Australia why he has destroyed their trust? 74 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —All members of this House when the time comes will face the judgement of the Australian people about all manner of things, including trust. As always, I will both await and accept the judgement of my fellow Australians on those matters. Let me simply say again, respectfully, to all Australians and to members of this House that I did not guarantee that interest rates would never rise. I simply said, and I know it to be true, and most Australians know it to be true, that interest rates under a coalition government would always be lower than they would be under a Labor government. Let me repeat again, in case the Leader of the Opposition did not hear: the average loan repayment today on a monthly basis is $1,430 a month. If the average of the Labor years, the Hawke-Keating years applied, it would climb to $2,300 a month. If we were to reach the bitterly remembered heights of 17 per cent, which generations of Australians who did not pay 17 per cent nonetheless know about, it would be $3,100 a month. I am happy for the Australian people to make a judgement at any time on that comparison. 74 Distinguished Visitors 74 14:36:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the 11th delegation from Japan who are visiting under the auspices of the Australian Political Exchange Council. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 74 Questions Without Notice 74 74 14:36:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 Mr SECKER —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House of the recent export performance of the wine industry and what the benefits are to my electorate of Barker and to other regional areas? 74 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Barker for his question. Obviously wine export is very important to his electorate as a major contributor to the export effort of Australian agricultural industries. For the information of members, particularly the member for Barker, there has been strong growth in the last 12 months. In the 12 months to July, we exported a record 743 million litres of wine from Australia. If you hark back about a decade, nowhere near that amount of export was going out of Australia. It is a great tribute to the great Australian wine industry that this has been achieved. Australia now exports $2.8 billion worth of wine each year. There has been an increase in value as well as volume, as far as wine exports are concerned, going out of the electorates of the member for Barker, the member for Riverina, the member for Mallee and the member for Forrest in Western Australia. Exports continue to grow. We understand that, in the agricultural industry, there is pressure on some of the wine grape growers across Australia. I am aware that the member for Barker and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry visited some of the growers in the member for Barker’s electorate recently to talk about this issue. One of the things that we can do to relieve the pressure on wine grape growers is to increase our exports, to increase the pull-through of the product internationally to markets across the world. We are doing that in multilateral and bilateral negotiations. Wine tariff reductions across the world have been a very important target in our government’s negotiations. Of course, in the current WTO round there is the opportunity to eliminate all export subsidies in our competition in the international marketplace. That will make Australian wine more competitive in the international marketplace. We are also arguing to cut tariffs, on a multilateral basis, on our wine going into many markets across the world. We have already achieved that in a number of our free trade agreements that have concluded; for example, under the Australia-Thailand free trade agreement, we have seen significant and ongoing reductions in the tariffs on Australian wine going into that market. All importantly, one of the great supporters of the Australia-United States free trade agreement is the great Australian wine industry, because it has seen significant improvements in market access to that growing market in the United States. Australia almost dominates as an exporter into that US market. One of our objectives in negotiations with China in the Australia-China free trade agreement is to further reduce tariffs on imported wine into China. We achieved a certain amount there. After China’s accession to the WTO, it came right down to about 16 per cent. Our target is to get that down even lower bilaterally in the interests of the great Australian wine industry. All those efforts—as well as the broader suite of reforms that the government is introducing, particularly workplace relations reforms—are helping to strengthen the ability of the Australian wine industry not only to grow at home but also to compete better in the international marketplace. 75 75 14:40:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his response to my question yesterday about the basis of his comment that petrol prices would fall to $1.15 a litre, to which he responded: I entertain the hope rather than making an educated projection. Is the Prime Minister aware that the NRMA has now made an educated projection that petrol prices could hit $1.80 in the next few months? Prime Minister, is there any reason at all to expect that petrol prices will fall to $1.15? 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I stand by everything I said on the Channel 10 program. As for the projections made by the NRMA, my recall is that that was based upon the most recent spike in world oil prices produced by the mishap at the BP installation in Alaska. It is easy for people in the situation of the NRMA and, indeed, of many other organisations to alarm people with projections. We are all painfully aware that world oil prices are pushing up the cost of petrol at the bowser. Those in the community who peddle simplistic solutions—and, incidentally, I do not include the NRMA in that description, but there are others—are only serving to make a difficult situation for our fellow Australians more difficult. 75 75 14:42:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 Mr WAKELIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a uranium exporter, what steps does the government take to contribute to the international non-proliferation regime? Is the minister aware of any concerns about Australia’s approach, and what is the government’s response? 75 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. After all, I think he has the world’s second largest uranium mine in his electorate. With the expansion of that mine, it will eventually overtake in size the Canadian mine, which is currently the largest. I know that the honourable member has been a great supporter of the Roxby Downs project. Next year will be the 30th anniversary of the Australian nuclear safeguards policy. This policy, introduced by the Fraser government in 1977, has been a great success. Under this policy, Australian uranium can be used only for peaceful purposes. It must be subject to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australian uranium must be protected under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. In 2005 we made an amendment to the policy under which IAEA additional protocols allowing access at short notice at any location would be a condition of the new supply of uranium to non-nuclear weapons states. Australia has a very solid nuclear safeguards policy. As an IAEA board member, we have been one of the main advocates of IAEA activities, including most recently in relation to Iran. I was asked whether I was aware of any concerns about Australia’s policy. I had not been aware until the Leader of the Opposition announced that he was doing a backflip on Labor’s so-called three mines policy—a policy that he did not think was in need of change a few weeks ago and suddenly he decided, for reasons of his own, that it had to be changed. What is interesting about the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made was that he was going to introduce three specific strict new measures to Australian exports of uranium. What this revealed was that the Leader of the Opposition simply had not done any homework and did not know what the existing policy was. He said that we should only export to NPT states. Well, we do only export to NPT states. That is a longstanding Australian government policy. He said that he promised the strictest safeguards in the world. We already have the strictest safeguards, and I think it holds Australia in very good stead that we do. Thirdly and most interestingly, he said he wanted a diplomatic initiative which would bring together— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Prospect is warned! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —countries involved in the uranium fuel cycle. Since 1978 Australia has been a leading member of precisely such an organisation—the Nuclear Suppliers Group. What is interesting about the Leader of the Opposition is that this is once more a revelation of the character of the man. He makes a backflip because, of course, he is weak and he has not done his homework; he does not know what the existing policy is. For those people in the Labor Party caucus who are well-known champions of the three mines policy and run the old uranium scare campaigns, which are very much out of the 1960s and the 1970s, the Leader of the Opposition, in wanting to change the three mines policy, offers them his three point sop, which is to embrace the government’s existing policies. I am afraid that exposes the Leader of the Opposition for the weak and lazy opposition leader that he is. 76 76 14:46:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is to the Treasurer. Given predictions that petrol prices will rise to $1.80 per litre some time soon, does he agree with the Prime Minister that there are no quick fixes which offer relief to Australian families and Australian businesses, or will he now sign this letter to Graeme Samuel, which I have written for him, which would provide the ACCC with the power it requires to ensure that the situation with the price of world oil— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for O’Connor is warned! 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —is not exacerbated by excessive profiteering in the petroleum market? 77 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —Do I agree that there are no quick fixes to petrol prices, which are rising because of world oil prices? Yes, I do agree. Do I believe that a stunt like signing a letter would bring petrol prices down? No, I do not. It reminds me of the last federal election. What needed to be done by the Labor Party for interest rates? Sign a blank cheque. Why don’t you write a letter ‘To whom it may concern’—the President of Iran, the President of Iraq or the President of Russia—‘Please bring the world oil price down.’ Can I say—and Australians know it and the Leader of the Opposition just implied it with his previous questions—that petrol prices at the bowser in Australia are principally determined by the world oil price. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —The second significant factor in petrol prices is the taxation regime. The reason why Australia has the third lowest petrol prices in the OECD is that we have the third lowest taxation regime in the OECD. Let me repeat, as I did yesterday: the ACCC, on a daily basis, monitor 3,500 retail sites across all the metropolitan capitals and 110 in country towns. When they find any evidence of price fixing, they bring proceedings, including in relation to Ballarat recently, where a case in respect of price fixing has gone to the full Federal Court and fines of $20 million were imposed. Petrol prices are of concern to Australian families, and they are of so much concern to Australian families that they will not be helped by stunts like the member for Hunter’s. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek leave to table the letter I have written for the Treasurer, which will allow the ACCC to look behind the prices not just at them. Leave granted. 77 77 14:50:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House what the government has done to improve facilities for older Australians moving from hospital to other forms of care? Is the minister aware of claims of cost shifting and what is the government’s response? 77 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. As I have often heard the member for Mackellar say, people who help build our country in their prime deserve to be looked after in their declining years. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —The Howard government has massively increased spending on aged care facilities, from just $3 billion in 1996 to almost $8 billion in the current year. Since 1996 there are some 31,000 more residential aged care places, and since 1996 there are some 32,000 more community aged care places. That is a 40 per cent plus increase, and there will be a further 26,000 additional places over the next three years. The government is working with the states to avoid having nursing home patients filling public hospital beds. The Transition Care Program will help 13,000 older people a year to leave hospitals for more appropriate care, and the Pathways Home Program gives the states $254 million for rehabilitation and step-down services. In hailing some of these new programs, the Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, said after COAG: ... we’ve made significant progress on tackling some of the blockages in our health system. The Prime Minister’s mentioned the elderly awaiting placement in nursing home ... These are significant agreements that will ... provide for sustained improvement in the quality of services in our hospitals ... That is what Premier Iemma said. But the member for Lalor must have been out for lunch when these announcements were being made, because she is now claiming some deficiencies as an excuse to revive, yet again, our old friend Medicare Gold, the policy she will not let die. It is the Labor policy that won an election—for the coalition! The Leader of the Opposition keeps killing it, and the member for Lalor keeps reviving it. It is a bit like the three mines policy: the Leader of the Opposition keeps killing it, and the member for Grayndler keeps reviving it. But he is a very strong leader! Let me say this to the member for Lalor: 1,000 complaints do not constitute a policy, and 100 opinions do not constitute a principle. On the evidence so far, at least in health, Labor has no policies, no principles and absolutely no hope of winning an election. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my left are holding up their own question. 78 78 14:54:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an AWA offered by Lufthansa airline’s Australian subsidiary Global Tele Sales to its call centre employees, and to confidential internal documents associated with the AWA. Isn’t it the case that the AWA reduces penalty rates for Sunday and public holiday work, abolishes early morning and evening penalty rates and reduces base rates of pay? Isn’t it also the case that, on Global’s own calculations, a general reservations agent earning the base rate pay under Global’s AWA would be $49.86 a week worse off, $2,593 a year worse off or $5,186 worse off over the two-year life of the agreement when compared with the current collective agreement? 78 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 Perth for his question, because— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Whatever you do, don’t have a reshuffle, John! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —I am aware of a report which the member for Perth referred to this morning by the Workplace Rights Advocate about this particular AWA. An interesting part of this report is that the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate, appointed by the Victorian Labor government, says in his report that, for reasons that he sets out, he is referring this complaint to the Office of Workplace Services— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —So what? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth has asked his question. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —which the Leader of the Opposition described in this place yesterday as ‘snivelling liars’. The Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate is referring this matter to that very same Office of Workplace Services. This is an indictment on the Leader of the Opposition and the ALP for his disgraceful, cowardly and slanderous comments that he made yesterday. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question was about an AWA, where people are $2,593 a year worse off. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister is answering the substance of the question. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —This report reveals two things. One is that, yes, there is a reduction in the base rate of pay of up to four per cent. But what the member for Perth failed to reveal in his question—as we have heard from him in the past—is that there is also a bonus system introduced under this arrangement, a bonus system that returns up to 16 per cent per annum. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will be heard! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —If the member for Perth was prepared to come in here and tell the whole truth about this matter, he would have also revealed that there is up to a net 12 per cent increase for workers under this particular arrangement. The member for Perth has form. He came in here earlier in the year in relation to an agreement with Esselte and failed to disclose the full terms of that agreement, which, when investigated, revealed something else. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Not true. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Perth is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —We have the ACTU running misleading and deceptive advertisements which, when investigated by the Office of Workplace Services, are shown to be wrong, are shown to be misleading and deceptive. And he is up to the same old tricks once again here in the House today. I say to members of the House and I say to the Australian public: whenever you hear an allegation, whether it is from the member for Perth or the Leader of the Opposition or the ACTU, you cannot take it on face value because, even on what he said today, he has failed to tell the whole truth. 79 79 14:59:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 Mr FAWCETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on the progress of Australia’s air warfare destroyers and, particularly, outline the benefits of this project for Australia’s defence industry? 79 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Wakefield for his question about the construction of three air warfare destroyers in South Australia—a $6 billion investment which is important to the economic development of South Australia and essential to the defence and future protection of Australia. Last week I opened the Air Warfare Destroyer System Centre in Adelaide, along with the Minister for Finance and Administration. This centre now houses 200 Australians who are employed across naval architecture, maritime engineering, and major project and financial management. It houses not only the Defence Materiel Organisation but also the Australian Submarine Corporation, which has been chosen to build the air warfare destroyers. Raytheon is going to install the Aegis combat system into these ships which, amongst other things, will be able to detect, track and intercept missiles and other objects at a distance of up to 150 kilometres. It is very important also for the people of Wakefield and right across South Australia to appreciate that another 1,000 South Australians will be employed in this project—everything from boilermakers to high-end engineering. Another 1,000 Australians will be employed in other parts of Australia in not only shipbuilding yards but other places of manufacturing, design and development. The government mid-year next year will make a decision between one of two designs. The two that we are looking at are the Spanish Navantia F100 or the evolved Gibbs and Cox design, as they are called. These ships will carry missiles and helicopters and will be able to cruise significant distances from Australia—indeed, up to 6,000 nautical miles. It is also important to appreciate that these air warfare destroyers will play an important role in protecting the two amphibious ships that the government has also commissioned—another $2 billion investment. They will provide close protection of those ships and surface and air defence for our soldiers on those ships, once they go to land. It is also important that Australians appreciate—and Australians recently had significant reason to pause at the Taepodong 2 missile launched by the North Koreans—that these air warfare destroyers will give us the capability, if we choose to go down this path, of having an antiballistic missile capability. This project is nation protecting and nation building. It is about making sure that we have a good, strong maritime capability in our region and throughout the world and also, at the same time, about investing Australian resources in seeing that Australians build Australian warfare destroyers of which they will be justifiably very proud. 80 80 15:02:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 Mr BYRNE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I again refer to the AWA of Lufthansa subsidiary Global and to confidential internal documents associated with the AWA. Isn’t it the case that, on Global’s own calculation, Global employees face reductions in their base salary of between three per cent and 10 per cent when they sign the AWA? Isn’t it also the case that, again on Global’s calculation, the change to penalty rates means employees face, on average, a reduction in their take-home pay of 4.9 per cent when they sign this AWA? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —Prime Minister, isn’t this just another example of your wages race to the bottom? 80 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 short answer to the honourable member’s question is no. If the honourable member had cared to even look, for example, at the report of the Victorian government official into this he would have seen what they stand to gain. The official, I again remind the House, saw fit to refer it to what the Leader of the Opposition referred to yesterday as ‘snivelling liars’—namely, the Office of Workplace Services—in his cowardly defamation of them yesterday. That is what it was: cowardly defamation. If the honourable member opposite had cared to look at the full details of the report, he would have seen, as a result of this agreement, that those workers stand to achieve a net gain of 12 per cent under these agreements. The other thing which was not revealed by either of the gentlemen asking these questions is that, on my advice, there are some 500 collective agreements—half of which have been negotiated by unions in Australia and contain clauses in relation to bonus payments such as are contained in this particular agreement. It has been good enough for union officials in Australia to negotiate collective agreements in the past which contain bonus clauses but apparently it is not good enough in relation to this particular agreement. What hypocrisy! PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— 80 80 15:05:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 Mr BARTLETT —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House how the government is fulfilling— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has again made a comment which demeans the dignity of the parliament, and I think he should withdraw it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The chair did not hear it, but I call the Leader of the Opposition. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I will let you judge it because of the remarks you made earlier today. Recollect the description of me that he has been using and, of course, I described him as an ‘ignorant twit’. That has generally been accepted as parliamentary, but we will see. I will accept your verdict. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The comments may not be very edifying, but I do not rule them as unparliamentary. 0K6 Bartlett, Kerry, MP Mr BARTLETT —My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General inform the House how the government is fulfilling its election commitment to support local governments and volunteer organisations involved in emergency services, including those in my electorate of Macquarie? 81 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr RUDDOCK —I am pleased to be able to confirm that the government has delivered on its promise to fund new projects under the Working Together to Manage Emergencies initiative. In relation to the assiduous work of the member for Macquarie, who is very much aware of the significant risks that bushfire in particular poses to a community close to our urban centres, the Hawkesbury City Council received more than $25,000 to replace the bulk water storage facility used by its Rural Fire Service, and that I think is a very important initiative for the electorate of Macquarie. I might also note that the electorate of Macquarie received about $150,000 in the previous funding round for local councils and rural fire services. I was pleased to see amongst those a grant for Mount Wilson, a place I had the pleasure of visiting in my youth and know well. This initiative involves a collaborative approach with communities— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I am pleased to see how interested the opposition is in these matters that might impact upon their electorates! We have funded in the order of 365 new projects valued at $13.1 million under this program. They cover rural, remote and urban electorates across Australia. They help communities with emergency water storage, developing emergency response plans, flood mitigation, training equipment for rural fire brigades and the installation of emergency lighting at regional airstrips as well as the purchase of satellite phones. Volunteers in all of our electorates play a vital role in assisting in emergencies and disasters. This is the second full year of funding under this initiative. There has been overwhelming support from the emergency services area. I might remind members—particularly members of the opposition, who do not seem very concerned about these matters—that applications for the next funding round will open in December, and members who are assiduous in representing the interests of their electorates may well be able to follow up on those. 81 81 15:08:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to the appearance on Lateline of Gregory Andrews, an assistant secretary in the minister’s department, on 21 June this year. When did the minister approve Mr Andrews’s appearance? When did the minister become aware that Mr Andrews’s identity would be masked and he would be inaccurately described as a former youth worker? When Mr Andrews’s bogus appearance was exposed, why did the minister fail to correct the public record, as required by the ministerial code of conduct? 82 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 —I was informed that Mr Andrews had decided to do an interview for the Lateline program on the afternoon before the interview took place on 2 June. The ABC approached Mr Andrews directly, before it knew of his appearance before the coronial inquest into the deaths of three young petrol sniffers. As is made clear in Mr Andrews’s own public statement, the decision to appear was made by him alone. It is simply not true to suggest that Mr Andrews appeared at my request. Mr Andrews was speaking about these issues while he was still working at Mutitjulu, most particularly during the Northern Territory coronial inquest into the petrol-sniffing deaths in August last year. I was informed that Mr Andrews had decided that he would only appear anonymously as he had already experienced a number of threats, particularly at one time when his wife was pregnant, and, as a result, he had previously withdrawn testimony that he had given to the coronial inquest because he felt fearful. The reason he undertook to appear on Lateline is that he is concerned for the community of Mutitjulu. He had important evidence to provide. He was not the only person to provide that evidence. I would say to many of those that sit opposite that, rather than attempting to attack a person who is trying to uncover very serious issues, they should— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this question sought three simple facts. There was no attack on anyone in it— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume her seat. The minister is responding to the substance of the question and he is in order. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr BROUGH —I am advised that he consulted with the departmental executive to ensure that his appearance on Lateline would not contravene the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. Mr Speaker, I suggest that people read Mr Andrews’s own statement about his reasons for appearing. I especially commend to you his suggestion that those attacking the Lateline program should channel their energy into protecting the women and the children who have been subject to the vilifying claims that Aboriginal women, doctors and health workers all made independently on the Lateline program. Unfortunately, these are disgraceful circumstances to have occurred in Australia’s community. It would do us all well to try to protect those who are trying to protect the most vulnerable in our society—not to throw stones at those who would put their own families at risk, as they believe, but to protect them and not damage whistleblowers. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 82 Personal Explanations 82 15:12:00 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 Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I was misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his remarks as to what I have allegedly suggested in relation to improving the international climate and structure of enforcement organisations on nuclear power matters. As he would be well aware, the NPT, the non-proliferation treaty, is now fraying. He suggested in the course of his remarks that my proposition was for a nuclear suppliers group, such as has existed since 1978. It was not. It was for a suppliers and users group in order to— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Which is very different. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —It is not. It is for users as well and is devoted to the specific purpose of upholding and advancing the non-proliferation treaty. Secondly, he says we now only supply to signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, when all of us know that he is working very hard on getting around that in one specific case. 83 15:13:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the parliamentary secretary claim to have been misrepresented? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I was misrepresented in a number of media outlets, including AAP, the Telegraph, the Australian and the Financial Review. It was attributed to me that I had said that petrol was not an issue in my electorate or that people were not complaining about petrol in my electorate. The precise transcript of my remarks is as follows: Well, petrol is a concern everywhere. To be fair, my electorate is one of the smallest in Australia with the largest percentage of public transport commuters in Australia because it is an inner city electorate. So the impact of petrol prices would be less in Wentworth than it would be in larger outer-suburban or indeed rural or regional electorates. But petrol feeds into the cost of everything and it is a concern everywhere. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will not debate the issue. He will only explain where he has been misrepresented. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I have just read what I actually said. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind all members that the warnings that have been given today still stand. 83 Questions to the Speaker 83 83 15:15:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b) to secure answers from the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Family and Community Services to the following questions: question No. 1272 on 11 May 2005 to the Treasurer; question No. 2225 on 5 September 2005 to the Assistant Treasurer; question No. 2940 on 7 February to the Treasurer; question No. 2942 again on 7 February to the Assistant Treasurer; question No. 3009 on 9 February to the Minister for Family and Community Services; question Nos 3108, 3111, 3114, 3115, 3117, 3118 and 3121 on 27 February 2006 to either the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer; question No. 3250 on 27 March 2006 to the Treasurer; and question No. 3251 from 28 March 2006 to the Assistant Treasurer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Hunter and I will follow up his request. 83 Ministerial Statements 83 83 15:16:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —by leave—The purpose of this statement is to inform the House of the government’s decision to send to Afghanistan an additional 150 troops of the ADF to reinforce the reconstruction task force and to provide enhanced force protection. The statement will also provide the parliament with the government’s latest assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan and the challenges facing the Karzai government and the coalition. The Afghan people are working to achieve stability, peace and democracy after many years of violence and extremism. For Afghanistan, the path to security will be long and hard, with many challenges lying ahead. But Afghanistan will not have to face these challenges alone. Australia, along with many others in the international community, is there to assist the Afghan people. We have already witnessed what happens when the global community turns its back on extremism. Afghanistan was neglected for too long, condemning the Afghan people to decades of war and poverty. But the world is now much more aware of the dangers of ignoring extremism and fundamentalism. The stability of Afghanistan has wider implications for global security, and it is for this reason the Australian government is committed to ensuring that Afghanistan achieves long-term peace. Afghanistan’s social indicators remain sobering. At 46 years, Afghan life expectancy is one of the world’s lowest, and at least 20 years lower than that of all of Afghanistan’s neighbours. One in five children still die before the age of five, and the country has some of the world’s lowest literacy rates. In addition, 3.4 million Afghans remain outside their country and there is much room for improvement in the country’s human rights situation. Afghanistan is still one of the world’s poorest countries. Decades of war destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and severely disrupted economic activity, including in agriculture. Criminal and terrorist activity continues to hamper economic growth, and the expansion of the drug trade remains of very deep concern. Sustained economic growth will be required to make a significant dent in the country’s chronic poverty. These problems are complex and will not be solved quickly. But Australia cannot and will not abandon Afghanistan. We need to remain committed to supporting this fledgling democracy. Through our aid program we are working with Afghans, international organisations including the United Nations, and our other international partners to support Afghanistan’s transition from conflict to stability, peace and democracy. At the London conference in January 2006 the government committed $55 million in development assistance to Afghanistan through to June 2007. This is part of a commitment of up to $150 million over the next five years. These funds will go towards improving security, rebuilding institutions, protecting human rights, especially for women and girls, and improving the delivery of essential services to ordinary Afghans. It builds on the $110 million we have disbursed since 2001 to assist in reconstruction and development. Our efforts, and those of our coalition partners, are bearing fruit. Afghans have embraced democracy and open, democratic institutions are developing. Afghanistan now has a democratic constitution and a democratically elected president and parliament. The country’s first parliamentary elections in 30 years were held in September 2005. Some 6.4 million Afghans, representing over 50 per cent of registered voters, turned out to elect representatives to the lower house and the 34 provincial councils. In an encouraging sign for the inclusiveness of Afghanistan’s burgeoning civil society, women featured prominently in these elections: 68 women were elected to the lower house, taking 27 per cent of available seats; and 121 women were elected to provincial councils, representing almost 30 per cent of available seats at this level. The Afghan government has made education of women and girls a priority in an effort to overcome the legacy of the Taliban. With the entry of women into Afghanistan’s parliament and provincial councils, Afghans now have an additional opportunity to address the injustices of the past. Just as democracy is becoming more deeply rooted in Afghanistan, economic recovery is providing new economic opportunities. Real GDP is expected to grow by almost 12 per cent in 2006. This builds on strong growth rates over the past few years, even if from a low base. The ordinary people of Afghanistan are benefiting directly from these developments. Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, a UNICEF immunisation program has vaccinated more than 2.3 million children under the age of five against polio—almost eradicating that disease. Security challenge The indicators of progress in Afghanistan are promising, but significant challenges remain. Afghan society is still predominantly rural in character, and the country’s democratic institutions, though developing, remain fragile and the struggle against extremists continues. The level of violence has increased in Afghanistan in recent months as the Taliban and other terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, seek to chip away at the credibility of the Afghan government and prevent reconstruction taking place. Security beyond Kabul, particularly in the east and the south, is the worst since the Taliban fell. Suicide bombings have increased. Australia, as the House will know, made a significant contribution to coalition operations in Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001. With the completion of that particular task, our forces returned home with the thanks of all Australians. It is worth noting, in light of the negative and opportunistic comments now being made by some in the opposition, that at the time that decision was made, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Why didn’t you tell us the truth about what the Afghan government told you? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —warmly welcomed the government’s decision— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Why didn’t you tell us? ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —arguing that— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —You are disgraceful! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Griffith is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —it was a vindication of his call for Australia to fight terrorism closer to home, in our region, in Australia. They were the words of the then Leader of the Opposition welcoming the government’s decision to bring home our forces then, and it gives the lie to the opportunistic comments emanating, as is apparent from his interjection, from the member for Griffith at this time. Following a reassessment of the security situation in Afghanistan by the coalition in 2005, the government decided to again send troops to Afghanistan. We now have about 200 personnel serving in the special forces task group in Afghanistan. This task group is providing reconnaissance, surveillance and other specialised capabilities to the coalition’s operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who continue to threaten Afghanistan’s fragile stability. In dangerous circumstances, the special forces have, as always, done a magnificent job. Two ADF Chinook helicopters and about 110 personnel are also currently operating in Afghanistan. This capability provides aeromedical evacuation, air mobility and logistic support to Australian troops and coalition partners. As I announced in May, the Chinooks will continue to operate in Afghanistan until April 2007 providing vital airlift support. But the struggle against the Taliban and its fundamentalist allies is far from over. The international community, including Australia, continues to have a crucial role to play in assisting the Afghan government meet its security challenges. The security challenge is twofold: firstly, to provide a secure environment to allow Afghans to rebuild their society free from violence and extremism and, secondly, to strengthen Afghanistan’s institutions so that they can provide a stronger framework for democratisation, religious tolerance and economic growth. Of course, the two elements are linked. Removal of the immediate dangers facing the Afghan people is essential, but so too is ensuring that Afghanistan has the infrastructure and institutions to support its democratically elected government and dealing with those who may attempt to threaten Afghanistan’s democracy and security in the future. It is because of this that the Australian government has committed an ADF reconstruction task force to support the Netherlands led provincial reconstruction team. The ADF will work with the Netherlands as part of phase III of the NATO led International Security Assistance Force expansion into southern Afghanistan. This reconstruction task force will work in Oruzgan province, in southern Afghanistan, on reconstruction and community based projects with the aim of building the long-term viability of Afghan communities. The task force will undertake construction projects, provide project management skills and deliver trade training for the local population. These activities will ensure that the benefits of the deployment continue long after our personnel have returned. The reconstruction task force will be in Afghanistan at the invitation of the government of Afghanistan. It will work in Oruzgan for a period of two years. The reconstruction task force will perform a vital role in what is a dangerous environment. The government is aware of the risks faced by the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan and is committed to ensuring that the reconstruction task force is fully equipped and resourced to conduct this highly important task. After careful consideration, the government has decided to increase the size of the reconstruction task force from 240 personnel to 270. This will enhance the security, robustness and flexibility of the task force. The government has also decided that the reconstruction task force deployment will include an infantry company group of about 120 personnel to provide enhanced force protection. After six months, the security situation in Oruzgan will be reviewed and the task force structure will be reconsidered in the light of that review. The additional deployments will therefore bring the total reconstruction task force strength to approximately 400. The task force will be made up of a number of elements—command, security and protection, engineering, administrative support and tactical intelligence services. The force will be equipped with a number of Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles and a number of Australian Light Armoured Vehicles or ASLAVs. The reconstruction task force will be drawn primarily from the 1st Brigade in Darwin and will be under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Mick Ryan. The Australian task force will have its own headquarters and will operate under the national command of Australia’s joint task force in the Middle East area of operations. ADF units and personnel deployed in Afghanistan remain under Australian national command. The reconstruction task force will work closely with the Netherlands and other NATO partners. The government is very pleased with Dutch planning and preparations and very impressed with the military capability of the Dutch forces that are being deployed to Afghanistan. We are very confident that we will be able to work closely with them. Advance elements of the reconstruction task force will start to deploy into Afghanistan during this August to commence preparation of base facilities and logistic support infrastructure. These elements will be followed by the majority of the reconstruction task force deploying in September with the final elements expected to deploy in November of this year. Afghanistan remains a dangerous place, and any military operation conducted there carries significant risks. The possibility of ADF casualties cannot be discounted. I ask all Australians to support the members of the Australian Defence Force who are serving their country by helping to create an environment of security and stability in Afghanistan. I understand, and I know all members of this House will understand, that this is a difficult time for them and their families and I ask all of you to keep these brave and dedicated men and women in your thoughts and prayers. I present the following document: Australian Defence Force commitment to Afghanistan—Ministerial Statement, 9 August 2006 Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:33:00 —I move: That the House take note of the document. Question agreed to. 84 15:33:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —I seek leave to move a motion to enable the Leader of the Opposition to speak for 17 minutes. Leave granted. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Beazley speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes. Question agreed to. 84 15:34:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Labor supports this decision and Labor supports our troops. This will be the most dangerous Australian mission to date in the war on terror. The danger our troops face now cannot be overstated. We know they will perform their duties professionally and courageously. They always make us proud and this will be no exception. As they prepare to leave, our thoughts and best wishes are with them and with their families who watch as they go to fight for us. And they will remain in our thoughts and prayers until they are home safe again. This should not be understated in any shape or form: this is a very dangerous task indeed. The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and the area in which our troops are deployed is one of the most threatening areas. The troops that are there now, based around the SAS and other elements of special forces, are constantly engaged, and we have been blessed so far by the fact that in this particular phase of the operation we have lost no lives. This has not been the experience of other nations engaged and fighting alongside us. I suspect that the augmentation in the size of this force, which is slightly bigger than that which was anticipated from previous government announcements, probably reflects the fact that the Minister for Defence and/or his advisers have made a calculation in relation to the types of dangers that would be involved for those doing civil reconstruction alongside their brothers and sisters more actively engaged in combat and have come to the conclusion that they will need a deal more protection than might originally have been assumed. That seems to me to be the case on the increased numbers. It is a deployment which has bipartisan support and we would say to the government: ‘As you make your calculations of what is required for the troops in the field, if they require additional support from other elements of their military forces then they ought to get it.’ This is a very difficult task, and a dangerous task, on which they are engaged. As I said, the deployment has bipartisan support, so therefore I was disappointed, but not surprised, that the Prime Minister used part of his statement to attack the Labor Party and attack the opposition. Unfortunately, as is now his wont, the Prime Minister did not tell the whole truth. Labor has long supported the deployment of Australian troops to Afghanistan, but, rather than stay until the job was done in Afghanistan, the government withdrew our troops during 2002. Labor supported this move at the time in good faith, based on the Howard government’s statements that the security situation in Afghanistan was under control. But what the Howard government did not say publicly then and what the Prime Minister did not say in his remarks to this House just a few moments ago was this: we now know that he withdrew our troops from Afghanistan in the face of private diplomatic protests from the government of that country. The Afghans pleaded with the Australian government in a letter dated November 2002 to continue Australian military assistance because, as they said, ‘Terrorism is still alive and well.’ Of course, we now know that this plea was ignored, and now we are going back to fight terrorism in Afghanistan again. John Howard should not have cut and run from Afghanistan at that time. It was the wrong decision, and I am glad that he has reversed it. It meant that Australian forces were absent during a critical period in the breakdown of security, stability and central control in Afghanistan. It was a time when al-Qaeda and the Taliban were able to hang on and regroup, and now they are once again able to attack. Labor saw this and, following my shadow minister Kevin Rudd’s visit to Afghanistan in April 2004, took the serious step of calling for an expansion of Australian troop involvement there, and some time later this occurred to the Howard government. We cannot underestimate the consequence for Afghanistan of this nation and our allies taking their eye off the ball at that crucial period of time. We of course, in good faith, backed the decision by the government of the day because we are overwhelmingly of the view that the primary fight for Australia in the war on terror is in the region around us. There are many assisting us in Afghanistan. In this region, there are few to play the sorts of roles that we are capable of playing. This is why our focus must be in this area. We have not said that that should be exclusively the position but, nevertheless, we should move with very great reluctance away from that point. The Leader of the Opposition then believed what the Prime Minister had to say to him, but the Prime Minister concealed from the Australian people the exact state of affairs there, and the consequence of the failure to keep an eye on the ball has been the comeback of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and a vastly more difficult situation for our troops to now handle on the ground. Serious errors were made. They were of course made for a reason. As we now know, the ground was being prepared for the redeployment of troops in the direction of Iraq, and not the least casualty of that massive error has been an appropriate, continuous engagement with the people who started this whole business by acquiescing in and launching that attack on the United States on 11 September 2001. So our troops are in the front line of taking on board the penalties which have accrued to those who would defend the interests of the Afghanistan government that have been a product of the mistaken policy in which this government has been closely engaged. I have said before that, even though this area is outside of Australia’s immediate zone of interest, when it comes to dealing with terrorism we have supported that deployment, and we have done it for two reasons. The first is this: Australian troops are fighting in Afghanistan because we are signatories to the ANZUS alliance. We invoked the ANZUS alliance in the aftermath of September 11. No-one should ever forget that Australia entered the war on terror in Afghanistan under our ANZUS obligations. Our ally had been attacked. It was attacked within the meaning of the terms of the ANZUS treaty, and as a result of that we committed ourselves to action. It is in fact the only time the ANZUS treaty has been invoked, and our troops still operate in Afghanistan under that cover, because the forces that were removed after an appropriate ultimatum had been sent to them in the aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September are still the forces that we are fighting in Afghanistan. As I said, our errors have permitted those forces to make a comeback and expand their influence in the region. When the United States acted in 2001, it built up and led one of the great global military coalitions of history. I think there are still some 30 countries engaged in supporting the Afghanistan government now, and I think at different points of time in different ways up to 60 countries have assisted in that process. The US then acted with the support of all its European allies and, I might say, all its Cold War enemies—notably the Chinese and the Russians. It had the support of an overwhelming number of countries in the Middle East, and we were part of the international force that removed the regime in Afghanistan. But the job was not done; it was not properly completed. It has to be said that that marvellous coalition and that empathy that the United States enjoyed around the globe—the sense of horror of the excesses of fundamentalist terror that was so pristine at the time that we engaged in Afghanistan—has become infinitely more complicated since then and our position in the West a great deal more undermined, in no small measure as a result of our own errors and poor understanding of the things that we are dealing with in this region. The second reason why we need to be in Afghanistan is this: Afghanistan is al-Qaeda central, it is Taliban central and it is terror central. The threat in Afghanistan comes from remnant Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, many of them based across the border in Pakistan. I do say this: if we do not win this war over the next couple of years, we will lose in Afghanistan and we will certainly find ourselves in Afghanistan placed in a position not dissimilar from that in which we now find ourselves in Iraq. The tactics, the strategies, the propaganda—all those things which have been clearly developed by those of our enemies as experienced in their operations in Iraq are now gradually being transited to Taliban and al-Qaeda operations in Afghanistan. Not only did we take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan but the mistaken involvement in Iraq has educated tactically, and enhanced enormously in terms of self-confidence, those who were our initial enemies in Afghanistan. We have got to be realistic about these things and understand them. We correctly ask young Australians to place their lives on the line. There is an obligation on the politicians who send young men and women into battle to have a clear-eyed view of what it is that they are dealing with and to make sound judgments as to what the priorities should be. It is not simply enough to gloss over these things and to dismiss, with the glib phrase here and there, objection—or to simply state, as though there were some sort of obvious truth behind it, that these things are simplistically settled. Thirdly we should be there for the reasons outlined by the Prime Minister in the remarks that he made in relation to the economic conditions inside Afghanistan. That poor country has bled for decades. For years it has not been given an opportunity to develop a coherent polity. The bitternesses and differences that exist between different ethnic groups and the different religious orientations have meant that stable central government has been virtually impossible to achieve. It has also been at one point in time one of the Cold War’s cockpits in which the United States, by proxy, struggled with the Soviet Union directly in the affairs of the politics and military activities within that nation. It has never been given a chance. There are in current aspects of Afghanistani politics some little lights of hope. What the Prime Minister referred to in relation to the involvement of women in the democratic electoral processes in Afghanistan is one of those lights of hope. That they are able to conduct democratic elections at all is one of those little lights of hope in Afghanistan. But a look at the social statistics of Afghanistan—be they in the area of education or be they in the area of normal support for health, power or a decent industrial base—shows they are just not there at all. And the conflict continues and makes it harder to put all that infrastructure in place. The conflict is also complicated because, at the time when we first engaged, we took on board allies because at that point in time we were unwilling to commit a substantial number of troops—and when I say ‘we’ I mean all those forces engaged, not just Australian ones. Because we did that, we set up and signed deals with other forces in Afghanistan who were not necessarily devoted to the idea of a central democracy emerging in that country—and indeed had a vested interest in some of that drug trade which has become so ubiquitous again in Afghanistan and so deeply undermining of the prospects of economic development, and so deeply undermining of the prospects of a proper and decent outcome to the political circumstances which we are now trying to see created by the actions of our armed forces. The Afghanistani government and the Afghan people are indirect victims of that error, as I said earlier on, about our engagements in Iraq. We are in a quagmire in Iraq, dragged deeper and deeper into civil and sectarian conflict. That is not just the Labor Party’s view; that is the view now, increasingly, of the American military. Iraq has diminished and distracted the United States. It has sucked the oxygen out of US foreign policy all over the world. The war in Iraq has made Iran stronger, reduced the US capability to deal with Iran and Syria, boosted the status of the arch-criminal Osama bin Laden and made the fight against international terrorist networks far more complex. Far from the heroics of the democracy domino theory—that there would be a democratic revolution across the Middle East—Iraq is now a nation engulfed by violence, not embraced by democracy. So we made serious errors there, and in doing what we are now trying to do in Afghanistan we are trying to correct one of the consequences of those. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Dr Nelson) adjourned. 84 Miscellaneous 84 84 Dr NELSON (Bradfield —Minister for Defence) 15:51:00 —by leave—I move: That the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Australian Defence Force commitment to Afghanistan—Ministerial statement—Motion to take note of document: Resumption of debate Question agreed to. 84 Matters of Public Importance 84 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received letters from the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Hunter proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d) I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for member for New England, namely: The worsening impact of increasing petrol prices and the Government’s reluctance to act. 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— 84 15:52:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I think all members of parliament and the general public have expressed concern in recent weeks and days, particularly since the return of members to the parliament, about the price of petrol. We have seen the escalation of problems in the Middle East and leakage problems in Alaska and we know the flow-on effects that that could have in terms of the price of petrol. The matter of public importance that I have introduced today relates to the worsening impact of increasing petrol prices and the government’s reluctance to act. Some may think that that is being a little critical of the government. This MPI is really about looking at things that can be done to alleviate the short-term problems of the impact of petrol prices on our community, the impacts in the medium and longer terms, and the things that can be done into the future. I am sure that the speakers who come forward today will elaborate on some of the suggestions that are out there on how to alleviate the problem of petrol prices not only within Australia but also globally. I took advantage of the winter break to spend a fortnight in the United States and Canada looking at ethanol plants and biodiesel plants. I was interested in the attitude of the farm sector, the government sector, the fuel company sector and the motor vehicle sector towards the acceptance or otherwise of renewable fuels. I do thank those people in all those sectors who took the time to visit with us. I would have to say that the overall impression that I obtained—and I think it can have an impact in Australia—was one of a very positive attitude to the future sustainability of fuel resources within those nations, particularly the United States. There was a very positive attitude in the farm sector and in the farm lobby sector. There was a high degree of leadership in the political sector as well. I think that stands in stark contrast to the dithering that has been going on in Australia since 2001 in terms of addressing renewable energy, particularly biofuels. That is not to say that the government has not done anything; obviously it has put in place some renewable energy targets and it has put in place some assistance to proponents who are looking at building plants. The one thing that came through very clearly, talking to the Americans and to the Canadians, was that the industry would not have taken off had there not been the political leadership to actually mandate some degree of usage of the product so that the oil companies would be forced to access the product into their distribution network. I think we all realise the strong influence that the oil companies have over the distribution network within Australia. If they are not going to voluntarily accept a product—for a whole range of reasons; they might be health, environmental or economic—we may need government leadership. Under current circumstances with very high US barrel prices, accepting this product may be the most economic thing for them to do. It seems that, even though the Prime Minister had a cup of coffee with a few of them about 12 months ago and talked about achieving some voluntary targets, those targets are not being achieved. The target that was set for 2006 has not been achieved at all and it is very unlikely that future targets will be. One of the things that came out of my American visit very strongly was that there is a need for the government to play a leadership role. I congratulate the United States state and federal governments, and the Republicans and Democrats, who have looked at this issue from a very clear perspective: one of trying to reduce the dependence of their country on other countries for the supply of oil and the obvious manipulation that can go on in relation to that particular marketplace. We have seen at home in Australia the debate about the Iraqi wheat debacle and corrupt markets in terms of the wheat trade and the oil market and the various things that are happening at present. Overall I received a very positive message. I saw a stark contrast between the United States farm lobby groups and the Australian lobby groups. I was a member of the Grains Council of Australia before entering parliament. I was a great supporter of the Grains Council of Australia. But they seem more interested in the right of the motorist to have some sort of choice rather than the right of the grain grower—whom they are supposed to represent—to earn a viable living and have their domestic grain production underpinned in some sense by another competitive process: that of accessing the international ethanol market. The National Farmers Federation have not been much better. I saw a stark contrast between those groups. I saw a stark contrast in terms of government leadership. One of the things that I was very impressed with—and I think this should happen in Australia and could happen in Australia if there was more positive leadership in the farming sector—was that most of the plants had some degree of farmer ownership. I visited 10 out of the 106 plants that have been constructed in America and a number in Canada as well. One particular plant in a community of about 3,500 to 4,000 people, with many farmers in the surrounding area, of course, had 2,300 farmer shareholders—and some community members who were not farmers were also shareholders. They formed a limited liability company. They were also financed for some of their debt portion by their local bank, so it was very much a community business activity. Obviously the farm sector in that sense has been able to lock in another outlet for its grain and make a degree of profit in terms of value-adding to that grain to turn it into ethanol. The debate in Australia at the moment is: ‘What about the price? Does it make any difference?’ In one case a farmer-owned cooperative had moved into buying some of its own fuel stations—I know that is on a limited level. The price was US60c a gallon cheaper for E85—that is, 85 per cent ethanol—than it was for unleaded petrol. I was driving a Ford Explorer, a vehicle that is readily available in Australia, and it was being fuelled by E85 for quite some time. That equates to US16c per litre, which converts to the equivalent of A82c per litre at the bowser. That is in stark contrast to prices in some parts of rural Australia, where prices are nearly double that at the moment. Discussions in the feedlot industry in Australia have raised the point that, if the ethanol industry were established or encouraged, it would have a positive impact on the price of grain, which would make it more difficult for the feedlot industry to exist. The feedlotters that I met with in the US see the ethanol industry as being positive, because the dried or wet distillers grain, as they call it, the by-product of the process—which is about a third of the tonnage that goes into the fermentation process to create ethanol or alcohol—comes out as a flake or a rolled grain which is high in protein and readily used by the feedlot market. So, in contrast to it being seen as a negative in Australia—there have been so many negatives peddled by people of all sorts of political persuasions and industry groups—it is being seen as a positive in the United States. In fact, one of the large feedlotters that I met with, who has 35,000 head of cattle near Denver, is using a 25 per cent ration of wet distillers grain, a by-product of the ethanol plant, and is achieving about a 20 per cent increase in weight gain from the use of that product. So there is a positive happening there as well. In Australia there has been talk from time to time about the car companies. The car companies do not particularly want ethanol. You cannot get the car companies to do anything. I have here a copy of the Wall Street Journal from Friday, 4 August, which contains a full page ad stating: ‘General Motors and ethanol—putting together the pieces to make it whole’. I will not read the whole ad, but it is congratulating the government and the fuel companies. You have very good eyes, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins; you will probably read it from where you are sitting. Right down the bottom, it says ‘Live-green-go-yellow.com’. I would advise people in the media to have a good look at that. This ad shows that the car companies are embracing ethanol. It states: With more than 2 million General Motors flex-fuel vehicles on the road today, we want to make E85, a fuel blend of 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent gasoline, available to more people in the United States. That is the sort of thing that needs to happen here. General Motors Holden in Australia is actually making flex-fuel vehicles in Australia to accept E24 fuel, with 24 per cent ethanol in the mix. Those cars are not available in Australia. They are being exported to Brazil. Brazil is an interesting example: it has gone from being 80 per cent dependent on foreign fuel sources to being 100 per cent self-sufficient, and that is what is happening at a political level in terms of policy. Countries are looking at renewable energy not only for a whole range of health and environmental reasons but also for ways of achieving some degree of self-reliance with respect to their energy needs. I think the Treasurer and others really need to have a good look at the way in which we have, in a sense, falsified the tax system so that we see energy as a source of tax revenue rather than as something that should give us a competitive advantage in international activities. My suggestion to address the fuel problems in the immediate term would be to reduce part of the excise, the 51c a litre that is removed today, and in the medium and longer term to mandate and phase in at least 10 per cent ethanol in our fuel. It can be done at one per cent a year over 10 years or two per cent a year over five years. It is nonsense that you cannot mandate ethanol in this country because there would not be enough ethanol to put into the marketplace as of tomorrow. No fool in the world has ever attempted to do that. I hear fools in this country suggesting that. One of those, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, has been making the statement quite readily that we could not suddenly put 10 per cent ethanol into the marketplace. How foolish is that statement? Obviously it would be phased in. If he would like to travel to Minnesota, he can talk to the legislators there about how they did it over a four-year period. They are moving to 20 per cent ethanol as we speak. So let us break this dependence on others for our energy needs. Let us look at biodiesel, ethanol, wind and water. There are a whole range of alternatives out there that could be embraced. In Canada, for instance, I visited a large plant that was going to use wheat as the basic ingredient—poor quality wheat, feed wheat, the wheat that is ruined by rain that we hear about so often in Australia, the wheat that does not have the protein and cannot access high prices in the international market. These are the wheats that produce more starch, and they are the grain that ethanol plants would be looking at. The over-reliance of wheat growers on high levels of nitrogen to achieve high protein levels is the sort of thing that could be broken. If we start to look at the advantages of this approach, we will see that it is about not only renewable energy, health and the environment but also about investment; jobs; the domestic security of our energy needs; country towns growing, progressing and doing something beneficial; and recognising that even agricultural products that are considered essentially worthless on the world market, for a whole range of corrupt reasons, can be a valuable resource. Those products may be sugar, wheat, corn or sorghum. In conclusion, I would suggest that there are things that we can do. One is to mandate the use of ethanol to develop a medium- and long-term approach to renewable fuels. In the immediate term, we should look at reducing some of the excise so that motorists and Australian families, whom we all represent, are not persecuted in the way in which they are being persecuted at the moment. (Time expired) 84 16:07:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —I am delighted to participate in this matter of public importance today. I think that we would all like to see lower fuel prices in Australia, but I dare say our good friend the member for Rankin, in an article he wrote for the Age on 22 July, summed up the position, where he said, ‘There is no doubt that the price of fuel in Australia is directly related to the price of oil on the world market.’ I think that sums it up absolutely correctly. To hang out a promise to someone in the electorate that by embracing ethanol—as much as it might be of benefit to the environment and certainly a benefit to fuel and the additives in fuel because of the high octane that it supplies—we are in some way going to reduce the price of fuel I think is a wrong premise, quite frankly. I cannot see how hanging out this offer that somehow ethanol will reduce the price of fuel in Australia would in any way deliver that particular objective. At present, if you look closely at some of the incentives that the government has put in place, the only reason that fuel with an ethanol additive is cheaper is that the excise has been taken off the ethanol in that particular fuel. We can go into that argument a little later. Having said that people would like cheaper fuel in Australia, I think it is important to say that in fact Australia has the third cheapest fuel in the world. Interestingly, a graph was put out in 2006 of the OECD countries. If you look closely at it, you will see that the base price of fuel in all those countries is very close to being the same. But it is the taxes that are added to that base price that change the price of fuel. If you look closely at the OECD countries you will see that only the United States and Canada are below Australia and that is because of the added taxes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table that graph because I think it is instructive to people to see how the taxes do affect them. Leave granted. 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —Also, I think we need to take into account that the member for New England suggested that somehow ethanol will be a greater advantage to the rural industries of Australia. I doubt that very much, quite frankly. One of the important things about ethanol is that, if it is going to be competitive, you have to have cheap feedstock to produce the ethanol. My immediate question would be: what is the price that will be paid to the farmers for the feedstock that will be used in the ethanol industry? That is the first thing that has to be established. Quite frankly, just to talk glibly about the fact that we can produce ethanol from grain—and we can—or we can produce ethanol from sugar—and we can—I would say that the main question from the farmers’ point of view is: what are you going to pay us? If you look at the sugar industry at present— 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —The member for New England had his say, but he does not like it when someone starts to put another point of view. If you look at the sugar industry at present, where the price of sugar on the market today has escalated—now at $443 a ton—I suggest to you that no sugar grower will sell sugar to an ethanol industry at that price. The first thing you have to establish is whether you are credible in putting forward an argument in this debate. To say that the government has not in any way encouraged these industries is quite wrong. There is plenty of evidence to show that the government has encouraged these industries in recent years. Yes, you can talk about mandating if you want to. I do not know whether that is absolutely necessary. One of the greatest things is to try to get through to the public, after a debacle we had here in Australia a few years ago, that in fact ethanol is not dangerous to engines. That is one of the greatest problems we have. There is an underlying fear amongst the community—and if you have a look at the research that has been done on this, it is very clear—that somehow ethanol damages motors. Why? Because we had the member for Fraser, I believe, stand up in this parliament. He asked a series of questions. He clearly put into the minds of people that the problems that were occurring with certain additives in fuel emanating from, I think, Victoria related to ethanol. Ethanol was causing the damage to engines to the extent that in my area the fuel companies had signs up in bold letters, saying: ‘This fuel does not contain ethanol.’ That underlying fear is still there and it is one of the greatest things that we have to overcome to ensure that people do know that in fact a 10 per cent blend would not be detrimental to any of the engines in their motor cars in Australia. Another argument that is put forward very regularly as to why we have to do something about fuel prices is that fuel companies are a cartel. I have heard this from my days in the state parliament and from my days here and I suppose we all suspect because they are big that they could be involved in a cartel-like arrangement. But if you have a close look at what has happened over the years, you will see that reports from the ACCC have found that the petrol retailing industry in Australia is competitive and that heavy-handed regulation could lead to higher petrol prices. An argument has been put forward that the reason why people can in fact buy fuel at a lower price mid-week is that consumption at that particular time is not great and that the service stations are trying to encourage people to buy. An argument has also been put forward—which I suppose could be tested—that if you did regulate in some way, consumers would not get the benefit of cheaper prices with shopper dockets. So we have to be very careful about some of this. You would have to have a lot more information to categorically say you could overcome this. Let me go back to the biofuels debate. There is keen debate across the world. It is interesting that the member for New England went to the United States, because that is one area where you will not get a true market in any fuel—maybe you will get a true market in the petroleum industry, but certainly not in biofuels, because they are up to their ears in subsidisation in the United States. From my experience, I can tell you that Brazil is badgering the United States to take off some of the tariffs on ethanol that is imported into the US. Brazil can produce ethanol more cheaply than the United States, but the United States will not let them sell it in their market. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —That is true. If you do not believe it, you had better check it up. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —If the member for New England wants to seek the call again, he can try. We can have a look at what the government has done in this particular area. The government has given $37 million in biofuels capital grants and $56 million in ethanol production grants. It has made a commitment to ensure that ethanol remains effectively excise-free until 2011. It has introduced an E10 blend that is suitable for Australian vehicles so that it is clear to people that these vehicles are safe to use E10. Production of ethanol in Australia has not been stagnant. We know of new plants that are coming on-stream. In the last 12 months there has been a 75 per cent increase in production from 23 million litres to 41 million litres. Last June there were 70 service stations selling ethanol; today there are 290. The use of ethanol in Commonwealth vehicles has increased by 2,000 litres, and ethanol and biodiesel fuels are now available at 400 outlets across Australia. As I said earlier, we would all like to see cheaper fuel prices. We would all like to think there was a magic wand that could be waved and that, if only we produced ethanol, methanol or some other biodiesel—maybe from canola or soy—then all of a sudden our fuel problems would be overcome. In fact, that is just not the case, and you are holding out false hope if you go out and make those claims. During the break, I had a close look at the industry in Europe. I went to a large ethanol plant in France at which ethanol is produced from wheat and sugar. They are being subsidised by France to do that. I asked the managing director of the company at what point ethanol becomes competitive. Without hesitation, he said he thought ethanol becomes competitive when oil is at $US60 a barrel. That is good. It shows that there can be a competitive industry and that oil is not going to reach a high peak if you can establish an industry that will be competitive against oil. Australia has to look very closely at what it can produce. I put it very strongly to the member for New England that there is no way in the wide world that Australia can produce enough ethanol for a 10 per cent mix in Australia. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Rubbish! 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —Anyone who holds out anything different is talking pie in the sky. The member for New England has been peddling this as an election issue. I put it to him that, if he wanted to have a real input into the debate, he should be part of the government. You are certainly not part of the debate when you are sitting on the outside looking in. You need to look at this very closely. The government has set targets and they are being reached. There are incentives in place for the production of ethanol or other production that might be necessary. To simply put forward the glib suggestion that you can mandate and all our problems will be over, that you can set up an ethanol industry and it will solve all the problems of the farming community and that you can add ethanol or methanol to fuel and it will reduce the price of fuel is absolute bunkum—and we need to get that very clearly established. Undoubtedly, alternative energies have a role to play. I agree very clearly with Wilson Tuckey, who says hydrogen is the future of the fuel industry. There is no doubt about that, and there are some breakthroughs we need to get in that area. I would be very keen to see some extra money put aside for research to help the CSIRO in this area. As far as alternative energies coming from ethanol, methanol or biodiesel are concerned, that is just not going to happen. It will put pressure on other areas. The member for New England skated over the fact that industries in Australia, particularly the feedlot industry, are concerned about the price of grain—and they should be concerned about the price of grain if most of it is diverted to methanol. You only have to look at the price of sugar. Everyone in this House has been saying that the sugar industry in Australia would be dead in two years if the price of sugar is down at 5.5c and 6c. As a long-term member of the sugar industry, I can tell you that the Australian sugar industry might be efficient but it cannot produce at that price. The only reason that can be seen for a sudden change in 12 months is the escalating price of oil. Why? Because there has been more sugar converted to ethanol in countries like Brazil, India and Thailand, where they have different structures and different production subsidies in place. That has taken sugar off the market, and the price has gone up. Exactly the same thing will happen to grain. So this is not the panacea that is going to solve all our problems. We have to look very closely at these industries, but we also have to look closely at what we are going to do in the long term. In recent times the Americans have made the bold statement that they think they will have developed a hydrogen cell within 10 years. We can only hope that they are right because it is about the only possible way you could claim to have an alternative energy source. It is certainly not going to come from methanol, ethanol or biodiesel. They may augment other industries—that is yet to be seen—but they certainly will not overcome the problems with pricing or the problems in rural Australia. 84 16:22:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I should say at the outset that I do not resent the Speaker’s decision to grant today’s MPI to the member for New England. I am sure it was a very difficult choice, but in any case the themes of the MPIs submitted by both the member for New England and me were very similar. However, I did think the member for New England was a little generous in talking about the government’s ‘reluctance’ to act on high petrol prices. I would have gone in a bit harder and claimed they were absolutely refusing to act on high petrol prices. It is interesting that the member for New England’s MPI talks about high petrol prices but both he and the member for Page spent all of their time talking about ethanol, which, of course, has only a minor contribution to make to dealing with the challenges facing Australia. Given the time they dedicated to ethanol, it is probably appropriate for me to respond to that at the outset. The opposition absolutely support the ethanol industry—we always have. In fact, we proudly commenced the process of growing an ethanol industry in this country right back in about 1992, when we first established capital grants for that industry. Let me discuss a few benefits of the ethanol industry. To a limited extent it can assist our agricultural sector. It is good for regional jobs. It is good for the environment. It does or can very slightly reduce our import dependence on oil. And, of course, it does help independent service stations compete with the major companies because they are less reluctant than the majors to use and market ethanol and its tax-free status gives them an important competitive edge over the major oil companies, which have so much market power. We also have to understand that, while ethanol is and should be an important part of our energy mix, it is limited in its capacity. In Australia today we produce about 37 million litres of ethanol a year, and we hope to increase that rapidly. But to mandate it to the extent of 10 per cent, for example, we would need to produce about two billion litres of ethanol a year, so we are a long way short. Also, to mandate ethanol would force us to import much of that product, which would be counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve. So we certainly do support ethanol, but we have to have a sensible approach and acknowledge the limitations we have in pushing for market take-up of ethanol in the fuel mix generally. During question time today, the Prime Minister again tried to portray the opposition as saying that the current rise in petrol prices is due to something other than the rise in crude oil prices. Of course we accept that. We would be fools to argue that the current hike in petrol prices is not largely caused by rises in the international price of oil—of course we accept that. But the Prime Minister misses two very broad points. First of all, when the international price of oil is high, it is more important than ever that governments become even more diligent in ensuring that we reduce the impact of those high prices on the consumer. The second point is that the ever-increasing rise in international oil prices should be a wake-up call to every import-dependent country around the globe that we have to do something about our import dependency. The Prime Minister is missing the point. When oil prices are high he has to do more, not less. When oil prices are high it is a signal to us that we have to wake up and start doing something about our import dependency, because in this country we are now importing almost 60 per cent of our crude oil and, hard as it is to believe, something like 22 per cent of our refined product. Let me go to those two broad themes. The first is about doing something to reduce the impact of high oil prices. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister says there is nothing he can do, let me tell him at least three things he could do immediately to mitigate the impact of high oil prices on Australian families, who now face having to pay up to $40 a week more for their petrol. On top of higher interest rates, that is causing considerable pain. The first thing the Prime Minister could do is direct the Treasurer to write a simple letter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission referring to it the power to formally monitor and investigate the retail petrol market, the wholesale petrol market and terminal gate pricing; none of this looking at retail prices and putting them up on a website—that proves nothing. Motorists want to know what is generating what is posted on that website. They want to look behind the prices, not just at them. This is not a difficult job for the Treasurer. As I indicated during question time today, I have written the letter for him. It is worth reading because people have to understand the technicalities of this. The Treasurer writes: ‘Dear Chairman, In this letter I give the commission a written direction to monitor prices, costs and profits relating to the supply of goods and services by refiners, wholesalers and major retailers of transport fuels, pursuant to section 95ZE(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.’ It is clear that this is what the act requires the Treasurer to do. Graeme Samuel does not have the power to investigate petrol prices or to demand information from the oil companies about wholesale pricing, for example, without this letter from the Treasurer. I do not know why the Treasurer will not do this. I do not know whether he just refuses to do it because it is our idea— 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —He’s chicken! 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —or whether it is just that he is chicken, as my colleagues say, or whether he is protecting someone. The Australian people are entitled to know why he will not take this simple step. We are not saying that it is going to reduce the price of petrol by 20c a litre, but we are saying that, in the face of high oil prices, he needs to do everything humanly possible to mitigate the effects of those high oil prices. The second thing that the Treasurer could do is to finally get into this place amendments to strengthen the Trade Practices Act. It is well known by all and sundry on both sides of politics that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act no longer reflects the original intention of the parliament. This is as a result of a number of High Court cases—in particular, the Boral case and the Safeway case—which have significantly undermined the ACCC’s ability to secure a prosecution for misuse of market power. We need those amendments in this place. The opposition will move these amendments if we get to debate the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill tomorrow—if the Treasurer has the courage to bring that bill on tomorrow, as was the plan when we received the House routine of business earlier in the week. That is the second thing the government could do immediately. The third thing the government could do is to get on with reforming the retail market in this country. We are working under a 26-year-old regulatory regime—a regime that has been circumvented by the major oil companies by way of multisite franchising and circumvented by the fact that Woolies and Coles are not covered by the act. We have been talking about this reform for years. The Labor Party stands ready to support this reform, but the government has been unable to show the leadership required to get agreement in the industry to bring forward a package that is broadly supported in the industry. That is the first point. The second point is import dependence. This government has no energy plan. It does not know what our future needs are going to be. It has no plan to ensure we have resources to meet those needs. It is pretty good at shipping off LPG to other countries, which we support, but it has no plan for our own use of it. The Leader of the Opposition put out a fuels blueprint earlier in the year. I would like to refer the Prime Minister to it. Indeed, he must have read it because just this morning there were reports that already the government is pinching part of it in its announcement that it intends to do something about LPG. What hypocrisy for the government to be talking about giving a lift up to LPG, when it was this government that opposed a tax on LPG for the first time. We need an energy plan in this country. We need to reduce oil import dependency. We need to diversify our fuel mix to biofuels, LPG and CNG and, in doing so, reduce the downward pressure—(Time expired) 84 16:32:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance moved by the member for New England—although one could be forgiven for being confused. It sounded more like an oral report of a study trip or perhaps an adjournment debate on why the government should mandate the inclusion of ethanol. His choice of topic was quite strange, as he was talking about the government’s reluctance to act, when he admitted that it is not to say that the government has done nothing. He is confused in himself and is perhaps confused about the appropriate forum in which to push his hobbyhorse and his version of the magic solution—the silver bullet—to the current petrol problem that we are facing right across the nation. He also mentioned that the second part of his solution was to reduce some of the excise. Everyone in this House should know that there is only one government that has credibility with regard to the reduction and freezing of fuel excise—that is, this coalition government. The member for New England would know that the further cutting of excise would have very little impact on individuals and families at the petrol pump. A one cent cut in excise would cost revenue $380 million, and what practical effect would that have on Australian families? Absolutely none. It is so cheap and it is so easy for the magic little Independent dwarfs to come up and say: ‘We have a magic solution. We can fix it overnight.’ Well, they cannot, but they have the freedom to be able to say anything, promise anything and be extremely confident that they will never have the burden or responsibility of delivering. Let us look at the cut in excise. It was the Howard government that reduced excise by 6.7c per litre so that the price of petrol need not rise with the introduction of the GST. It was the Howard government that again cut fuel excise by 1½ per cent in early 2001 and it was the Howard government that actually abolished the half-yearly automatic indexation of fuel excise. What would have happened if the Labor Party had stayed in power and these measures had not been introduced? There would not have been any cut to excise and there would not have been any freezing of indexation. What would have happened? The excise on petrol would not be 38c per litre, as it is today; rather, it would be 54.9c, some 44 per cent higher than the current fuel excise. The member for Hunter stood there shamelessly claiming that the government needed to wake up to import dependency. I have a message for the member for Hunter: it is the Labor Party that needs to wake up from the policy-free zone it has been living in for such a long time. It is time for the Labor Party to look at the mistakes that marked its 13 years in government. It was the Labor Party that introduced indexation of the excise in the 1980s and it was the Howard government that abolished it. The Labor Party did not just introduce indexation; on occasions they actually raised petrol excise beyond the automatic indexation. During its last term in office, the Labor Party raised petrol and diesel excise by 5c per litre through additional indexation. That is absolutely shameful. It is no wonder that there are very few of them here—only one member of the opposition, with her head bowed. These are very hard facts to swallow. This government not only took measures to freeze and cut excise back then but also, in the intervening period, took a considerable number of measures—and is currently looking at other measures—to ease the pain on motorists. There is no easy fix. The member for Hunter and others on the other side have said that in black and white: there is no quick fix. We live in a world where we all know that the high price of petrol is set by world supply and demand. In reality, dealing with this very complex issue is not as simple as the purported silver bullet. If it were that simple to fix, it would have been fixed already. I have just completed a very lengthy electorate tour traversing the more than 28,000 square kilometres of my electorate of Indi. Yes, the price of petrol is certainly an issue. But people in the electorate, particularly country people, are smart enough to know why the price of petrol is that high. They know there is no easy fix. Yes, there is a desire to accelerate research and the possible use of alternative fuels, but people are not going to be fooled by the purported easy answers put forward by the member for New England and others. Interestingly, it was only yesterday that the Labor Party, through the member for Hunter, acknowledged that the price of petrol is inextricably linked to the world price of crude oil, as has previously been acknowledged by the member for Rankin. The member for Rankin has also said: Nor is it true that an oil cartel is artificially spiking petrol prices ... the petrol retail market is highly competitive. The Labor Party make a lot of noise about petrol, but they have absolutely no solutions. The Leader of the Opposition is not going to touch the excise system. As recently as April, he stated: If you ask me for what my priority is in taxation reform it’s not in that area of excise. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition spoke about monitoring. This is a very interesting point as petrol stations throughout Australia are monitored daily. Let us look at the ACCC. What did the people entrusted with monitoring the price of fuel say at the current petrol inquiry, which is the 53rd inquiry into petroleum products across all jurisdictions since 1976? They have not come up with a silver bullet, but the member for New England certainly has. The fact is that Graeme Samuel did say the following: We have, in accordance with the general provisions, our normal investigative powers to investigate any suggestion or evidence of anticompetitive behaviour in the petroleum industry and, insofar as it is raised with us or we detect it, then we have all the investigative powers, including powers to demand documents and to call witnesses before us under section 155, and our other investigative powers to deal with anticompetitive behaviour. It was only the other day that the Treasurer announced that the ACCC will have its powers extended to also monitor ethanol blended fuel prices. Mr Samuel was asked by Senator Joyce whether it was correct that the ACCC can investigate, conduct raids, call witnesses and get documents without ministerial or government intervention. He replied: Absolutely, yes. We can see some of the results of the ACCC’s action from 2005, not that long ago, when it investigated companies in Ballarat for price fixing and fined them over $20 million. All these magic solutions and all these empty cries in the policy vacuum that is the Labor Party have never produced a solution to high petrol prices, and still those opposite offer no particular solutions. All we really have from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party is nothing—no solutions, just the usual Beazley blunder: a big air balloon floating into the policy void and losing hot air as it floats along. As a Victorian I have a particular interest in looking at what has happened in Queensland. Unlike Queensland, Victorians do not get any relief from the GST revenue from petrol. Everyone knows that all the GST goes to the states, but yesterday Premier Bracks was not showing any signs of forgoing his revenue to assist motorists when he said: We accept that the current arrangements for the GST are universal. They apply across the board ... We’ve backed and supported it. There are no solutions from the state Labor Party either. This government has contributed significant funds to research and development in alternative fuels. It has contributed $37 million in biofuel capital grants and $56 million in ethanol production grants. It has given a commitment that ethanol will remain excise free until 2011. It introduced the important ‘E10 suitable’ label. Ethanol and biodiesel blended fuels are now available at over 400 outlets around Australia. And the government has been extremely active in creating the right environment to develop an Australian gas to liquid— (Time expired) 84 16:42:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —The previous speaker, the member for Indi, is a lovely lady and we all like her immensely, but I have not heard one substantive thing. If you come into this place, you want to come in after having done a bit of research and homework. On our opponents’ side, this debate on the matter of public importance has been characterised by the homework not having been done. People say that we cannot produce fuel. Have you ever heard of a country called Brazil? Have you ever heard of a country called the United States? You are saying that we cannot produce it. Brazil is doing it and the United States is doing it. Do not tell me we cannot do it. As for capacity, we have five million tonnes of sugar. In Far North Queensland alone we are a million tonnes below capacity in the production of sugar, never mind cane. We are probably a million tonnes below production, so we could go to six million. But, even at five million tonnes, we are looking at 600 litres to the tonne. I emphasise to the House that I am not talking about airy-fairy figures; I am giving you the statistics. We produce five million tonnes of raw sugar per year in Australia. It converts at 600 litres per tonne. Everybody knows that. I should not have to explain it to the House or quote my sources on that. That is 3,000 megalitres. Australia used about 20,000 megalitres, last time I looked. My honourable colleague the member for New England has informed the House that there is 30 million tonnes of grain production. You get 450 litres per tonne from grain. That would be of the order of 13,000 litres. That is 16,000 litres on current sugar and grain production. Almost half of my electorate—about two or three per cent of Australia—has the water and flat irrigation land, the mid-west plains of Queensland, to turn into sugar production. Queensland is a magnificent, natural sugar producing area. We have the water, we have the land, but we have a problem: the state government in Queensland is not letting us take any water out of the rivers to irrigate this land. It has no trees on it, except for seven million hectares of an introduced species which has run amok and destroyed an area the size of Tasmania. One of the leading Natural Heritage Trust people said that it is the worst environmental holocaust in Australian history. If we were growing product on it, we could control the immense destruction taking place. I cannot talk about the expansion of the grain industry but, as the sugar industry stands, the mid-west plains could put one million hectares of land under irrigation tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you of all people know how much sugar that would grow. It could produce double Australia’s current production. We could put in two or three million hectares of sugar if we wanted to. The water is there. The flat land is there. It is being used to run a few moo-cows around in a year in which it rains. We cannot run many moo-cows on it because it does not rain a lot, so the land is not doing much as is except growing introduced species that are wrecking the flora and fauna in that environment. We are talking about one million hectares in an area of 20 to 30 million hectares. We can produce sugar right at this very moment. People ask, ‘Will you do it?’ The opposition spokesman quite rightly asked us, ‘Are you going to put all of your sugar across to ethanol production?’ Too damn right we will, because all we are getting is $269 a tonne. We watch our Brazilian competitors enjoying a relative figure of about $470 a tonne, because that is the price of petrol reflected back to the farm gate. If they are getting the petrol price reflected back to the farm gate at $470 a tonne, our producers could also get $470 a tonne. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that we have been limping along on $269 a tonne for the last five years. It would be Christmas time big time if we converted our sugar into ethanol production. Why is that not happening? Let us be very technical about price. I hear criticisms, but there are no figures being produced on this anywhere. If we were getting a decent price for sugar at, say, $360 a tonne—which is $100 a tonne more than we have been getting for the last five years—that would translate to 60c a litre. In the documents that I am holding up—which is work done by the Queensland state government and Brazil—both state 600 litres per tonne. If we were to add 9c a litre to 60c for processing costs, that would be 69c a litre. We could give you petrol at the bowser for 69c a litre. If we were to add, say, 6c for transport and storage and 5c for retail, that would come to 80c a litre. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to get too technical here, but you and I both know that one-fifth of our sugar is actually molasses, for which we get paid virtually nothing. If we were to put molasses into the mix, we would be talking about 80c a litre. I know from the figures produced for the grains industry that it can also produce for around 80c a litre. Why are we paying $1.20? Why will the oil companies not put that petrol into the bowsers if it is so cheap? 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —And 38 cents tax. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —No, Treasury would make more money. One on one now, ethanol is cheaper than petrol. Forget about the tax for now—I will come back to it in a moment. You can deliver to the motorist, at the moment that I am speaking, at 80c a litre. Even if you add 20c for reduced distance, you would still come in at 100c a litre compared with what we are paying for petrol at the present moment. Why is that not happening? I have been in politics long enough to remember—when I was a very young man—when they lifted the price at the well head in Australia. BHP was producing oil and being paid $3 a barrel, but the world’s spot price was $7 a barrel. If the world price today is $75 a barrel, I will bet London to a brick that the oil companies are producing it—as they were back then in Australia—for less than half that figure. Mostly they own the oil wells. I do not deny that the marketplace—I am a great advocate of the marketplace—should determine the price. That is fair enough. But we can deliver cheaper fuel to the Australian motorist. This country is different from other countries because it has about 12 million people who do not have any commuter systems to get to work on. If you live in the city, you get subsidised transportation. But we poor beggars in the bush do not. There are also no commuter transportation systems servicing people who live in the outer suburbs of Australia. I have a map here of the United States, which I will hold up briefly for the House. The blacked-out areas, which cover California, New York and almost all of the mid-west states, including big states like Illinois, are using 10 per cent ethanol. The reason the Americans have moved to this fuel is that they are running out of petrol, and they do not want to be at the mercy of the Middle East and Indonesia. I also have here an ABARE map which will show members of the House that, over the next five years, Australia will virtually run out of petrol. We will move from 90 per cent self-sufficiency down to about 25 per cent self-sufficiency. The Americans are moving with huge aggression. This map and the map that my worthy colleague the member for New England held up show you clearly that the Americans are moving in this direction with great determination. They are not going to be left to the mercy of other countries, but our nation will be well and truly at their mercy. Dr Tom Beer says that more people are dying from motor vehicles fumes than from motor vehicle accidents. We should be talking seriously about 50, 60 and 70 per cent ethanol—or about 85 per cent ethanol, as the Brazilians are doing and the Americans intend to do. The United States President has said that 75 per cent of their imports will be converted over to electrical vehicles and to ethanol vehicles. In his State of the Union address, he said that America would not be dependent upon those countries, and they are moving forward with a determination. I conclude by saying that it is revenue neutral. The amount of money the government gets from this industry created in Australia is much greater than the amount of money the country gets at the present moment by sacrificing the excise. (Time expired) 84 16:53:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —After that rather moving and colourful speech from the member for Kennedy, I thought I might return to the topic of this matter of public importance, which is ‘The worsening impact of increasing petrol prices and the Government’s reluctance to act’. I was very interested at the outset to see that this was an amalgam of Independents and the Labor Party, with the member for Hunter saying that he was disappointed that he was pipped at the post for his matter of public importance because he would have been much tougher than the Independent proposer of the matter of public importance has been. I found that a fascinating statement. In this debate we have certainly heard a lot about ethanol and the importance of ethanol as a future source of fuel for motor vehicles, yet one of the things that is a strong disincentive to individual car drivers utilizing ethanol is a really malicious and wicked campaign that was prosecuted by the Labor Party against ethanol saying that it would destroy your engine. In fact there was hardly a single thing that went wrong with your car that ethanol did not cause! That was a deliberate policy of the Labor Party to try to put suspicion into the minds of motorists, and it was very successful. It was successful to the extent that you had service stations around Australia putting up signs saying ‘No ethanol here’. That was in contradistinction to the situation in the United States, which has been pointed out by the member for Kennedy. If we are really being honest in this debate, we have to look at the parameters that the government has set, in which it acts against the simple rhetoric of the opposition, which has gone from a position of saying, ‘Ethanol is wicked and bad, and we’re here to tell you so,’ to a position where it gets into bed with the Independents and says, ‘Actually, we like ethanol and we really think we are on the same side.’ So the degree of hypocrisy in this debate coming from the opposition is just mammoth. If we look at the situation of the allegation in the MPI—that is, the government’s reluctance to act—I think it is important that we perhaps look at some factual bases of the way in which the escalating world price of crude is impacting on all of the OECD countries. You do not have to be a super sleuth to realise that the impact of China and India wanting added resources and added oil is adding to the price—plus, of course, the conflict that exists in the Middle East. There is a very interesting graph that has been put together by Treasury based on estimates from the International Energy Agency—and it has been the practice to hold up graphs in this chamber today—and it shows that the cost of unleaded petrol in all of the OECD countries does not vary much. You can draw a straight line down and see that it is a constant price right across the developed countries. To that basic price is then added a selection of taxes. Of the countries on that list, Turkey has the most expensive petrol in the OECD by virtue of the taxes it puts on its unleaded petrol, and Norway comes in next. Then there is a whole clutch of European countries and then, right down the bottom, the last three countries are Australia, Canada and the United States. In other words, the action that the government has taken to reduce the incidence of tax so that individual motorists are not bearing an untenable burden has been quite responsible. The first thing we did in 2000 with A New Tax System, when the GST was put on petrol, was to lower the petrol excise by 6.7c per litre so that there would not be a great increase in the cost of a litre of petrol. Of course, as was pointed out by the member for Indi, all the GST money is paid to the state governments. The Queensland government elected to use part of its GST to subsidise the cost of petrol in Queensland, which is consistent with the position it took prior to A New Tax System coming in and prior to the decision of the High Court, which said it was illegal for state governments to put so-called franchise fees—or whatever other name they chose to call them—on petrol because it was an excise and the Constitution said only the Commonwealth government may charge an excise. So, suddenly, all the states except Queensland had a great deficit in their budget. They asked the Commonwealth government if we would apply that tax on their behalf and then rebate it to them, and that is precisely what we did. But the premiers were sufficiently dishonest to then say that they did not have any petrol taxes in their states, and that the federal government was putting on the tax, when in fact it was at their request that we made up the deficiency when their own taxes were declared to be invalid. So Queensland has elected to use part of its GST to reduce the cost of petrol in that state by about 9c a litre. That option is open to every other state and territory in the Commonwealth, but Mr Bracks has said he will not do it. I have not seen one single state premier or head of the territories say that they will follow the Queensland example and subsidise petrol in their state or territory. The fact of the matter is that the amount of money guaranteed to the states until the full impact of the GST was felt has been far exceeded by a very considerable sum from the collections of GST. This means that the states and territories are far better off than they would have been under the old arrangement. So they are perfectly at liberty, by good management if they choose, to use that GST money to subsidise the cost at the bowser for individual drivers and other consumers of petrol. The second thing that the federal government did was in 2001, when we got rid of the automatic indexation of excise on petrol. That was something introduced by the Hawke government as a revenue measure, and it was in 2001 that this government said we would not allow that to continue and that we would abolish it. In fact we have reduced the impost of excise to 38c per litre. It is not a percentage figure and it is not a moveable feast; it is a fixed sum. So there is no additional benefit to the Commonwealth that accrues with the increase in petrol price. So the 38c per litre is fixed and does not depend on the price at which petrol is sold. The net result of the actions we have taken is a saving of around $13 billion for petroleum users. If we had not taken that action, petrol would probably be around 17c per litre more than it is now. So to simply say, as this MPI does, that there is a reluctance by the government to act is not true. And it is not true also because the government is prepared to listen to suggestions that people are making, whether that is helping people convert their cars to using gas as a source of fuel, as distinct from petrol, or some other thing. Of course the use of ethanol is supported by this government. It is not mandated, but it is thoroughly supported, advocated and indeed proselytised in trying to remedy the damage done by the Labor Party when it went out to maliciously damage the reputation of ethanol. So, in replying to those who have spoken on this MPI, I can say that I believe there is an acceptance and an understanding in the electorate that the cost of crude oil has gone up due to factors beyond the control of any of the governments of the OECD or of any government that may be elected in this country. The fact of the matter is that it is an international price that flows through here, but we have been sensible in the way that we have dealt with tax on fuel so that we have reduced the impact on consumers, and we are listening further for ways in which this can be done. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 84 Committees 84 84 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 14 August 2006. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 14 August 2006 Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 14 August 2006.  The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows: COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1       AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION VISIT TO THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS AND BILATERAL VISIT TO NORWAY Report of the Official Parliamentary Delegation visit to the European Institutions and Bilateral Visit to Norway April—May 2006 The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:40pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 2       AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION WORKING GROUP ON REFORM MEETING IN GENEVA Report on the Meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Working Group on Reform, Geneva (17 and 18 July 2006) The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:45pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 3       JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Australia’s response to the Indian ocean Tsunami The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:55pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 4       STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia & Payments System Board Annual Reports 2005 (First Report) The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 1:05pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 5       STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Report 75: Treaties tabled on 11 October 2005 (2), 28 February and 28 March 2006 (2) The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 1:15pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 6       PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Review of Administration and Expenditure: Australian Intelligence Community, Number 4 —Recruitment and Training The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 1:25pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 7       JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE Australia’s relationship with the Republic of Korea; and developments on the Korean peninsula The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 1:35pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Order of precedence Notices 1       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.) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes —pursuant to standing order 41. 2       Mr Crean to move: That this House: notes that: the Kokoda Track in Papua New Guinea is a place of great historical significance to Australia as the site of one of the great battles in the greater battle for Australia in the Second World War where many young Australians fought and died in the defence of their country against foreign invasion; there are serious concerns that mining activities along the Track will damage and deface the landscape and deter visitors wishing to pay their respects to those who fought and died, supported by loyal Papuans and New Guineans; and calls on the Australian Government and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to: work with the Government of Papua New Guinea to protect the natural environment and the historical integrity of the Kokoda Track; ensure the safety and enhance the significance of the Track for visitors and walkers by improving the amenities and interpretive materials, and protecting the memorials along the Track; and report back to this House within 12 months on progress in implementing these actions. (Notice given 8 August 2006.) Time allotted —10 minutes. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Government Member speaking —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3       Mr Beazley to move: That this House: notes that there have been three interest rate rises since the Prime Minister promised the Australian people in 2004 that, if re-elected, he would “keep interest rates at record lows”; notes that there have been seven consecutive interest rate rises since 2002; notes that the Howard Government has spent a billion dollars advertising itself, a billion dollars on the wrong war in Iraq, hundreds of millions of dollars on regional rorts and half a billion dollars on lawyers and consultants to implement its extreme industrial relations laws; notes that, despite spending billions of dollars on itself, the Howard Government has failed to invest in the drivers of national productivity including skills, infrastructure and innovation; and calls on the Prime Minister to immediately bring down a mini budget to redirect wasteful spending to invest in these productivity drivers necessary to build the economy’s productive capacity and put downward pressure on interest rates. (Notice given 8 August 2006.) Time allotted —20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Government Member speaking —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4       Mr Hartsuyker to move: That this House: notes the importance of rail in meeting the nation’s transport task into the future; and is of the view that: as a nation we remain focused on transferring more freight off road and onto rail—particularly on Australia’s east coast corridor; we continue to develop an efficient, integrated system, which reflects the necessity for inter-model links; and strong competition on the freight rail network is encouraged and that competition between different transport industries is maintained. (Notice given 13 June 2006.) Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 84 Bills R2556 84 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 84 Ms GAMBARO (Petrie —Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs)) 17:04:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 84 Bills R2559 84 Debate resumed. 84 17:04:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —Before my contribution to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 was interrupted by question time, I was discussing Australia’s offshore processing arrangements. These arrangements guarantee proper care and protection for asylum seekers as well as access to the refugee assessment process, and the changes contained in the amendments in this bill today will in no way erode those guarantees. The offshore location of Nauru will be given additional government support in order to continue to meet human rights standards in providing protection and care to people while their claims are being assessed. This protection will also extend to those people found to be genuine refugees who are awaiting resettlement. Anyone found to be a genuine refugee will be able to remain in the location to which they have been processed until resettlement is arranged for them. Protection will also be offered to those who are planning an eventual return to their homeland. The Australian government will ensure that there is continued access to a reliable refugee assessment process for all groups who claim refugee protection. This process was developed by Australian officers in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and mirrors that used by the UNHCR itself. There are existing provisions that will continue to protect people being processed offshore, including the commitment that if anyone needs urgent medical attention they will be brought to Australia and looked after. For people brought temporarily to the mainland for periods extending to more than six months, the right to request an assessment of their refugee claim by the Refugee Review Tribunal will also continue. Obviously people who are not meant to be caught by these new arrangements will not be defined as designated unauthorised arrivals. These include New Zealand citizens, permanent residents of Norfolk Island and anyone brought to Australia for the purposes of the Customs Act. The bill will also allow the minister to declare that specified persons or classes of persons are exempt from being classed as unauthorised arrivals, which will allow important flexibility within the range of the complex circumstances that can arise when we are dealing with controlling our borders. This bill will also introduce a requirement for the Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to report annually to this parliament on the offshore processing arrangements and refugee assessment outcomes. These reports will be tabled in both this place and the other place. Processes are already in place that will put us in a state of readiness with regard to the processing arrangements for any unauthorised arrivals. However, let us remember that this is a measure designed to operate as a deterrent. It continues the existing arrangements that we put in place in October 2001, which have successfully deterred further arrivals. These changes will undoubtedly go even further in reducing the incentive for people to arrive illegally in Australia, and they are an important measure in strengthening the control that the government has over our borders. These amendments are simple, sensible, and flexible. They are a reasonable approach to dealing with the continued protection of our borders. They will ensure that there are appropriate and effective measures in place so that Australia can continue to provide for an orderly and fair process to allocate the generous number of places that we do for refugee arrivals into the future. 84 17:09:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I just want to reassure my colleague the member for Stirling that there is nothing simple about the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. It quite simply is a very unfair and extreme bill that seeks to radically change the way we process refugees and asylum seekers in this country. It is for this reason that I join my colleagues on this side of the House and members in his party who, thankfully, are on the side of the member for Stirling and who have become very vocal and active in their own opposition to their government’s proposal of this bill. I join with them to oppose this migration bill, which effectively excises the Australian mainland from Australia’s migration zone for people arriving by sea without a visa. There is much hope from our side, and from all other Australians who are also opposed to this bill, that government senators who are fundamentally opposed to this bill will vote against it in the Senate. But, if this bill is passed, it will see all asylum seekers who arrive by boat removed to a designated third country for processing. Nauru is obviously the country that is particularly favoured by this government. It is quite obvious that the government very much favours the continuation of Nauru as a centre for consolidating its offshore processing regime. People who are found to be refugees will remain offshore until resettlement in a third country is arranged. An interesting aspect of this bill’s intention is that the government intends to exclude Australia as one of those third countries for resettlement. That introduces an unprecedented aspect to our refugee policy. That aspect potentially condemns refugees or people who are seeking asylum to a state of existence akin to a twilight zone. This bill is an extreme measure. There really is no other way to describe it than as an extreme measure taken by this government at a time when it was thought by many people—by many Australians and indeed by many members—that the government was prepared to restore some common decency to the processing of our unauthorised arrivals. We all remember that last year the government made some significant changes to its immigration policy. Indeed, the Prime Minister hailed those changes as an indication that he was prepared to listen not only to members of his government but also to public opinion. He indicated that he was prepared to listen and to make changes. A lot of those changes were driven by the very good work done by the member for Kooyong, the member for McMillan, the member for Pearce and others in this House and in the Senate. Those changes effectively forced the Prime Minister to make changes to the method and the manner in which the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs dealt with asylum seekers. The amendments that were introduced last year meant that children in particular would not be placed in detention, that indefinite detention would cease and that case managed mental health would be introduced. More importantly, the Commonwealth Ombudsman became the Immigration Ombudsman and gained independent oversight of people in detention. This was particularly important given the litany of horror stories that were coming to light about the treatment of people in detention. The bill before us will reverse these important steps taken to restore humanity and decency to detainees and their families, and it will most certainly destroy whatever is left of our reputation in the international community as a welcoming and compassionate country. The government’s harsh, punitive and expensive detention policies have inflicted tremendous human misery and despair on many vulnerable people. As a result of these government policies, we have subjected many vulnerable people to incarceration in prison-like accommodation for long periods of time and in some cases years. These vulnerable people include children and people who have been suffering mental illness. Also, let us not forget that suffering has been inflicted on some of our own citizens. Let us not forget the experiences of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon. It appeared that this inhumane, punitive and even paranoid treatment by immigration officials, who were of course responding to the requests of government policy, was to be a thing of the past, until the government pulled this latest stunt—and it is a stunt. The excision of the Australian mainland from its own migration zone and the intended removal of Australia as a settlement country are measures that have no precedent. They are so ridiculous and so extreme that you have to wonder just how far this government is prepared to go in the treatment of asylum seekers. According to the parliamentary secretary who tabled the bill in this place, the government’s intention in presenting this bill is to remove lingering incongruities in the former legislation under which asylum seekers arriving by boat at excised places were subject to offshore processing while those whose boat arrived on the mainland were able to access onshore protection arrangements. The parliamentary secretary identified the arrival of the Papuan refugees as the reason for picking up these incongruities, and I quote him: The landing on mainland Australia of a group of unauthorised boat arrivals from Indonesia in January 2006 highlighted this incongruous outcome. We are therefore expected to believe that these amendments serve as some kind of finetuning to improve our immigration policies. That is not the case. This is a serious and reckless change to our immigration policy that will have serious consequences for Australia’s international reputation, so reasonable people would have to ask themselves: what drives this bill? I think the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs herself stated the real motives behind the proposed changes when she said: Should there be people who would, were this change not made, seek to use the Australian mainland as a means of voicing protests about other countries— they— will not be able to do that. We will not allow that to happen. I believe this is the real intention behind this bill. This government does not want people coming here and voicing concerns about human rights violations, especially when doing so might cause irritations and tensions of a foreign policy nature between Australia and our neighbours. Refugees tend to flee homelands and regimes usually because there are issues of political or religious persecution, serious human rights violations and oppression in countries where there is no freedom of speech and there is plenty of censorship. Therefore it is not uncommon for refugees to seek refuge and asylum and to also take the opportunity, when they are in a democratic country like Australia, to express themselves, to voice their concerns and to basically tell their story. They do this in the hope that stronger democratic countries like Australia can use their influence to help remedy the situation back home. If we no longer want refugees to do that when they get to this country, because it may not suit our current foreign policy agendas, then what kind of a democracy do we uphold here and what kind of free speech are we as a democratic country advocating? The government also tells us that this bill—and the member for Stirling made this point—is about border protection. My response to that is that I think it is a bit of a joke. Under this bill, Australia does not really have a border. What is really going on is that the government is trying to cover up for the fact that it was spooked—and we must not forget this, although it did happen some time ago—by the ferocity of Indonesia’s response to the granting of visas to the 43 Papuans and decided that it needed to take action to placate our neighbour. The fact that the government is prepared to sacrifice what few gains were made last year, vis-a-vis the humanitarian changes to our processing of refugees and asylum seekers, shows just how little it valued those changes in the first place. It is important that Indonesia’s concerns be taken into consideration and, where possible, addressed—no-one would disagree with that. But the government’s response to Indonesia’s reaction, which has resulted in changing our laws, abrogating our responsibilities and sullying our reputation, is fundamentally wrong. I understand, like everybody else does, that we need to have good relations with Indonesia. Those good relations are essential to our overall national interests. But I do not believe, nor do my colleagues believe and nor do many other Australians believe, that we should sacrifice our principles and obligations on human rights in order to pursue so-called Realpolitik policies that in the long run further strip us of our international credibility and indicate our weakness in diplomacy. It is imperative that asylum seeker claims from any country be processed fairly, independently and free from any political or diplomatic interference. Under this proposed law—and I know this has been said before, but it will be said again and I shall say it again in this House—Indonesia decides who comes to this country and the manner in which they come. This is quite a change from the Prime Minister’s assertions over the past few years that he—or Australia—decides who comes here and on which terms they come. There was no demand from Australians, the Australian public, for this legislation to be introduced—and that is the reality. The only demand for change came from Indonesia. History has taught us that policies of appeasement do not work—and this apparent acquiescence will be no different. We should not be trying to deal with diplomatic tensions by essentially fiddling with and abdicating responsibility for the formulation of Australian law. Once you open this can of worms, there is no telling where it will end. A number of people and organisations have spoken out quite strongly against this bill. I want to refer to some of the comments that were made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In fact, I think good guidance on the appropriateness of this bill can be taken from the UNHCR’s commentaries on this bill. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper —Why? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Fisher will have an opportunity in just a second to reply to that. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to listening to the member for Fisher’s response to that in his speech to this House following immediately after mine. I think we could take very good guidance from the UNHCR because, after all, they are the body charged with overseeing the processing of refugees on a global level. In a statement released after the announcement of this bill, the UNHCR spokesperson Jennifer Pagonis expressed concerns that this offshore processing proposal was ‘dramatic’, ‘penalises refugees’ and is tantamount to contravening the refugee convention. Her specific concerns include the issue of reintroducing indefinite detention, which is undeniably a penalty for people who are seeking refugee status; the fact that Nauru, which is the government’s favoured place for establishing its ongoing offshore processing, is not a signatory to the Geneva convention on refugees; that this bill introduces diplomatic discrimination against refugees; and the fact that refugees processed offshore would be denied access to courts of law. All of this neglects our own responsibilities as a democratic, law-abiding country under the refugee convention. Finally Ms Pagonis was emphatic that asylum seekers should be able to live in humane conditions which respect not only the basic human rights of individuals but also the importance of the family unit. I am sure there is no disagreement that this bill will not accommodate the importance of maintaining a family unit. The UNHCR has indicated that this bill is so fundamentally flawed that it will try and block its passage. Other organisations have also indicated their strong opposition to this bill. Amnesty International has condemned this bill, stating that the law skirts our international obligations to refugees and human rights. In addition, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee basically unanimously canned the bill. The government has totally ignored a report from the Senate committee, which included its own members. As I mentioned earlier, by kowtowing to Indonesia this government is sweeping away all the positive changes that it introduced last year in regard to the treatment of asylum seekers. We have a responsibility to treat all asylum seekers with fairness and to uphold our humanitarian obligations. This bill does not reflect these responsibilities, and nor is there any real, serious justification for it. Surely, at the end of the day, the minister cannot expect us to accept the incongruence argument, especially not when the fallout from this legislation will result in further damage to our international reputation in the long term—and be assured that our international reputation will be damaged further. If we pursue this legislation, Australia runs the risk of being seen as a selfish country bereft of any moral conscience. If we abrogate our moral duties, as we do with this bill, then how can we speak out and advance the cause of human rights in other parts of the world? If we shirk our responsibilities to those fleeing oppression or violence, how can we claim to speak for the persecuted and oppressed in other nations? How can we encourage other countries to get their house in order when our approach to human rights is based on convenience and spin? It is the ultimate irony that, by the government’s actions of forcing this bill through the parliament, we will simply reinforce the negative perceptions of Australia by the very people we want to build better relations with in order to secure our national security and foreign policy interests. It reinforces the perception that we are a discriminatory, compassionless, unwelcoming nation—one that is dismissive of our moral and legal obligations and weak when it comes to defending our principles. If we want to improve our relations with our neighbours, we should draw on the strength of our multicultural community and our migrant history, confident in the knowledge that we have a cohesive, caring society based on a fair go and equal opportunity. We should base our foreign policy strategies on this resource, on winning the confidence of our neighbours by showing that we truly respect the dignity of human beings. We should aspire to being a moral power that leads by example. Historically, Australia has rightly enjoyed a reputation as a peaceful, welcoming democracy. We have had the good fortune to have developed our nationhood in relative peace, without the civil and political unrest that has so marked other nations and so plagues, sadly, our smaller neighbours. Australians enjoy freedom of speech, political democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights. We also enjoy a political system built on accountability and transparency. We have built this nation with, and as, migrants and refugees from around the world, seeking peace and a new and better life. So why are we compromising this reputation by adopting a practice of censorship and disregard for human rights? That is certainly what this bill threatens to do. I am disappointed and sad to say that under Prime Minister Howard we are no longer a welcoming country. Despite what the minister says about the level of refugee intake, we do what we do out of sheer obligation—and even that we do with reluctance and resentment. The fact that this government is prepared to renounce our responsibilities is proof of the lack of respect and disregard this government has for refugees in need. In conclusion, Labor do not support this extreme and unjust change in immigration policy and will oppose this bill. We believe it creates an unnecessary, expensive and inhumane way for Australia to administer its refugee policy. We believe it is wrong to shirk our international responsibilities and change our laws to placate another country. Governments are increasingly judged by their stand on human rights, and more than ever the world needs those countries with power and international influence to behave in a responsible way, one that values respect for human rights above all else. Instead our country is playing political games with human rights. All commentators agree that successive waves of immigrants and refugees have made Australia richer and stronger. Some of our greatest achievers were refugees. We should be welcoming these people who seek out our country because they share and aspire to our democratic ideals. We should be welcoming them, not incarcerating them and their children. Certainly we should not be ignoring our responsibilities to them. We should have confidence in our country and in our hard-earned reputation as an honest broker and an honest player. This will serve our national interest better in the long run. (Time expired) 84 17:29:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —As I rise in the House today, I want to say at the outset that I have not crossed the floor in relation to any item of legislation since I was elected as a member of this place. However, that is not to say that, were circumstances to occur in which I felt so strongly opposed to the position taken by the government of the day or by the opposition—if I happened to be part of an opposition—I would not take the very strong stand of crossing the floor to publicly witness the values and principles that I strongly support. I will not be crossing the floor on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, for a good reason—that is, I support it totally. But I would like to make a plea to those colleagues in the government parties who are considering taking that very strong course of action. Having said that, I very much respect the decision-making processes that each of them will come to and I also respect the decision that they will make. But, in relation to this bill, I would ask them—particularly any senators who might be looking at crossing the floor—to recognise that the government collectively has made a decision and that, having made that decision, it ought to have the right, as it is the elected government of Australia, to have that decision implemented into legislation. If one were to take on board the comments made by various honourable members opposite, one would think that this is an uncaring government, entirely disrespectful of our international obligations and entirely disregarding of the rights of refugees and those people who seek a better life in this country. When one looks at the facts, one appreciates that that is in fact a long way from the truth. I am particularly proud to be associated with a government that is committed to making this nation the most comfortable place to live for all of our citizens and residents. We are a relatively large country by area, with a relatively small population. We have finite funding resources that must be divided sensibly to meet as many needs as possible of as many groups in the Australian community as possible. This is not an easy job for the government. It is a challenging job, it is an interesting job and it is certainly a responsibility that the government does not take lightly. With that comes the responsibility to manage immigration in a manner that reflects the reality that Australia is a multicultural nation and a democracy that believes in fair treatment for all. We are also, however, a sovereign nation with specific legislation to determine who is allowed to come into our country, who goes and who stays. The speeches made by opposition members indicate how out of touch with community sentiment the current Labor opposition is. I would challenge members of the opposition to walk down the main street of any city, town or suburb in Australia and talk to constituents about how they feel on this important issue. I have done exactly that. On the Sunshine Coast I have walked down the street, spoken to residents and taken soundings on what local community people are saying. I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House that people on the Sunshine Coast and, in my view, in other parts of the country say very strongly that they recognise Australia’s excellent reputation as a country which does accept a high proportion of genuine refugees, but equally they do not want Australia to be a soft touch. They want in place very strong laws that respect the integrity of Australia’s migration system. The reason we do not have the problems that certain other countries have is that we have sent a very strong message to the world that Australia has laws which must be respected by those who seek to join our Australian society. The honourable member for Calwell, in her speech, suggested that we ought to have almost open slather, that we ought to accept anybody who wants to come to Australia. Clearly that is not economically or socially desirable. A community can only absorb a certain level of migration, and I think that is recognised on both sides of the House. The way to guarantee that our migration system has integrity is to have rules and to have those rules strongly enforced. The member for Calwell should appreciate that only Australian citizens have the unrestricted right to travel freely to and from Australia and to remain in the country and that all other people, with a small number of exceptions, must have the authority, in the form of a visa, to travel to, enter or stay in this nation. We are proud to be a nation that respects human life and that respects all those of various cultural backgrounds. The member for Calwell, in her speech, spoke about the UNHCR and their view of this legislation. I am supremely unconcerned by any partisan comment made by a spokesperson for the UNHCR. Further, if you talk to the ordinary, average Australian who goes about his or her life working hard to make a future for his or her family, you will find that that ordinary, decent Australian will tell the UNHCR: ‘Butt out. We are not remotely interested in the way that you endeavour to dictate to the sovereign parliament of this country or, indeed, to the government of this country on what ought to be the laws which allow people to enter or not enter Australia.’ Australia’s processing of unauthorised arrivals is of the highest integrity. The process is modelled closely on the process used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is amazing that the spokesperson for the UNHCR criticises Australia, when Australia as a democratic Western country, respectful of human rights, dots our i’s and crosses our t’s and, along with Canada and the United States of America, is consistently ranked in the top three nations for offering refugee resettlement. In fact, as I go around my electorate I am told over and over again that Australia is excessively generous, that we ought not to accept the proportion of refugees that we do in Australia. Honourable members would be interested to know that our refugee program costs $2,000 million every four years. That is a cost borne by the Australian taxpayer. I am one of those who believe that we as a nation do have to accept a proportion of refugees, and I think it is always necessary in such situations to get the balance right. Even though the government is probably leading public opinion in this area by accepting more refugees than the community at large would want, I think it is the right thing to do. We work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to determine the priority for those seeking resettlement. The opposition appear to be supporting those people who want to jump the queue. They seem to think that somehow, if a boat is able to arrive on mainland Australia, those people ought to have rights above and beyond those people who are intercepted before they reach the mainland of Australia. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I know the honourable member for Denison will speak after me. I know he will strongly disagree with what I say. I strongly respect his integrity in that he has come to a different point of view. But this is an issue where nobody has a monopoly on humanity, nobody has a monopoly on good ideas, but the government is endeavouring in a practical way to solve a major problem confronting the country. We can be proud that our nation provides one of the most generous refugee resettlement programs in the world. I mentioned before that we accept a large number of refugees and we are consistently up there with the United States and Canada in accepting refugees, when many other countries in the world simply do not. Our past record reflects our commitment to fair and just processing of those who have arrived without authorisation. The provisions of the bill before the House will mean that people who arrive on mainland Australia by sea, without authorisation, may be moved to offshore processing facilities in another country for the assessment of any asylum claims. That does not mean that those claims will not be considered carefully and compassionately. But, under this process, those seeking asylum will be taken to offshore processing centres that are safe. They will be cared for and they will have access to a trustworthy process, whereby their refugee status will be determined. It must be noted that the facilities in these countries are assessed and must meet the criteria set out by the Australian government. Those persons who are taken to the processing centre in Nauru will be accommodated under a visa from that country. Those who, after processing, are found to have legitimate cause for refugee status will be provided with protection while they are prepared for settlement in a third country, and some of those who are processed and found to be genuine refugees may be resettled in Australia. Others may be assisted to plan voluntary return to their homeland. This bill is all about a balance. It is not extreme legislation. There is an absolute anomaly or incongruity between people who are intercepted before they reach mainland Australia being treated in one way and those who manage to evade that net and land—as recently happened with some Indonesians—in Northern Australia being treated in another. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 will not affect Australia’s strong commitment to helping those in need, but it reinforces the fact that while Australia is a large country it has a relatively small population and it has finite resources. We need to establish a principle so that everyone throughout the world knows that the only people allowed to cross our borders will be people who cross the borders with our consent. We will accept a proportion of refugees, as the government has outlined, but we simply cannot subject ourselves to a situation where anybody who happens to get here can stay here. I support the bill and I commend it to the House. 84 17:41:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —When the government proposed the excision of offshore islands, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs responded to claims that the next thing the government will think of doing is excising parts of mainland Australia. It was said that that was a ridiculous red herring and it was dismissed as unthinkable. Now not only is there an excision of parts of mainland Australia but the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 proposes the excision of the whole of Australia so that persons who land onshore, in any place within this country, are treated as though they did not. That is a gross violation of the fundamental tenets of the refugee convention, which states: ‘Those who come to any country will not be treated with any less degree of concern by reason of the manner in which they arrive.’ I think it is very important to squash at the outset the idea that this is an exercise of the sovereignty of this parliament. The sovereignty of this parliament was exercised some 12 months ago when, as a response to concerns from within his own party, the Prime Minister brought forward a package of legislation which was significant in ameliorating and reducing some of the adverse harsh consequences that had flowed from previous legislation. It meant that families with children would be able to live ordinary lives in society, that any person who was the subject of a refugee claim would be entitled to have an independent review as to the merit of their application and that no person would be detained indefinitely. Those were important steps forward, which were recognised as such—albeit, they did not go as far as many in this House would have wished but, across the whole of this House, they were recognised as significant, important and welcome. That was the will of this parliament. That was expressed as a result of the measures that we passed. The measures we are presented with today are not the act of a sovereign parliament; they are the act of a coward government overreacting to the foreign policy concerns expressed by a near neighbour. Let me go back and try to address the principal issues that go to the whole area of our responsibility for the protection of refugees. It is not true, as the Prime Minister has said, that the refugee convention is a product of the Cold War. Indeed, it is not. The refugee convention is a product of that violent struggle that consumed all nations in World War II and the experience of those who sought to flee repressive and totalitarian regimes. One of the terrible things that anybody who has followed what happened during World War II will know is the plight of those who sought refuge from Nazi Germany in its neighbouring countries: Jews, communists, homosexuals—whoever they were—fleeing from that regime. If they went to, for example, Switzerland, there are heartbreaking stories of the way in which the Swiss, because of the fear that their neighbour would regard them as acting in a manner hostile to their interests, closed their borders and refused to allow those persons sanctuary or refuge in that country. The refugee convention came about so that countries would be able to say, ‘This is not an act of hostility towards our neighbour but a recognition of an obligation’—largely, an obligation that is universally undertaken, although there are a number of countries which are not signatories to the convention—‘to extend protection on an objective basis to those seeking refuge and claiming to be the subject of persecution.’ The refugee convention came about so that, when a circumstance arises and people flee, it would not be necessary to make political judgments about the sentiment of the other country. Rather, a country would be able to say: ‘We are acting in accordance with international law and extending protection. We are not making judgments about your sovereignty. We are not making judgments about your status as a national partner. We are not condemning you. But we have a commitment under international law, which we have adopted as an act of our sovereignty, to apply the convention universally—not just to you, but to everyone.’ This act of the Australian parliament—if passed—is a complete reversal of those fundamental premises. It would mean that, when people seek refuge in this country as a first point of asylum—not people who may have had some comfortable place to stay and who have then been smuggled to Australia as boat people through second and third countries—we will change our laws because our neighbour has interpreted our act as a hostile judgment about its sovereignty. It never was that—and nor should it be perceived to be. But we did not explain that. We did not respond in that sensible way. Instead, we permitted ourselves a knee-jerk reaction. We said we would suspend our sovereignty and overlook 50 years of commitment to human rights law because our near neighbour, with whom we have always sought to have a good relationship, has said that the acceptance of a handful of persons from West Irian seeking refuge in this country would be an undermining of its sovereignty. What nonsense! Let me give you some history on the people and circumstances of West Irian. Across this parliament we accept that West Irian is part of the sovereign territory of Indonesia, but there would hardly be a person in this chamber who would say that the act of free choice that was carried out in West Irian, before it was joined to Indonesia, can justifiably be called a fair act of democratic choice. A handful of persons, headmen, were taken from various parts of West Irian under Indonesian control and placed under enormous pressure. That choice was made on the basis of some thousands of persons who were not representative of the whole country. From day one, there was an indigenous resistance movement, later calling itself the OPM. At various times Indonesia has sought to crack down on that movement. It has had a large transmigration program displacing the indigenous people and there has been conflict on the ground. This is not the first time there has been a significant refugee exodus from Indonesia. In fact, the handful of people who are the subject of this legislation are only the most recent who have sought to flee from that troubled province of Indonesia. Some four years ago I travelled to Papua New Guinea as part of a delegation from the International Commission of Jurists that included former Chief Justice Elizabeth Evatt and a number of other significant lawyers, including judges. We went to see what was happening with the forgotten refugees along the Fly River—people who had fled from West Papua into Papua New Guinea some decades ago and still trickle across the border from time to time. It has been said that Australia is a relatively small country with relatively limited resources. But what of Papua New Guinea? In the order of 20,000 people displaced from West Irian still live along the Fly River and in other parts of Papua New Guinea as a result of the earlier displacements. It is true that, at the moment, they have an uncertain status in Papua New Guinea. Some have been accepted for citizenship, but the majority cannot be accepted because of the technicalities that are in their way. But when they fled in various waves—and there have been a number of waves of refugees into Papua New Guinea—the Australian government said to the government of Papua New Guinea: ‘We expect you to protect them as refugees even though you are not a signatory to the refugee convention. We expect you, a country with the most limited of resources, to provide a support network for them and incorporate them into your strained social infrastructure.’ And I have to say that there are real difficulties. Largely, it is the Catholic Church that looks after these people in Kiunga and various parts of Papua New Guinea. There is a degree of goodwill which has meant that those people are able to continue some form of agriculture on land which is the traditional land of the people of the Western Province. But might I say I suspect that those circumstances are limited in time and that Australia has forgotten those people. The circumstances are limited in time because, when Western Province was first opened up, the life expectancy of people there was in the low 20s. It was the poorest, hardest place to live in the world. Life expectancy has expanded—I think it is in the low 40s now—largely because of the money and the better diet as the community has been able to reap the benefit that has come largely from the mining operations that have occurred. But the population has also exploded as a consequence. The majority of the population is aged below 20. There are huge numbers of young people in Western Province. When the money that comes to Western Province from those mining operations runs out, as it must in the mid-term because the trust fund will cease to be able to provide the backing that it has in the past, we will have a densely overpopulated, immensely poor community trying to support some 20,000 refugees. So this is not the first time that people have found themselves in these circumstances. It is perhaps surprising that fewer have fled from West Irian or West Papua into Australia directly, but the reason is largely simple. There are cultural reasons why people in the main would prefer, if they could, to travel to an environment where they could be more easily integrated and become part of a society. But you will never stop people needing to leave countries which are in turmoil. An argument that has been addressed to us is that through these measures we can stop people coming to seek refuge. The reason people stop coming to seek refuge is that the circumstances which cause them to flee are removed. The Indonesian government has done much over the years that have passed to improve the human rights record in West Papua, but nobody, least of all the Indonesian authorities themselves, claims that it is perfect. It is no judgement that I make in relation to these matters; it is simply a statement of fact. People who are the subject of persecution will flee. Some will flee, if they are close to the border, across that border to Papua New Guinea. Others with the means to do so will flee to Australia. We will not stop it. But what this legislation does is say that those who flee here will be treated badly; those who flee here will be treated in a manner inconsistent with the obligations we as a sovereign parliament said we would extend to all those seeking refuge as a part of our act of sovereignty only a year ago. We will not make certain that families with children will be able to live ordinary lives in the community. That will be removed. We will not make available to them the protections of a right of appeal as to the merits of their application to an independent body under the Australian Constitution. Remember that the Refugee Review Tribunal has set aside 33 per cent of all decisions—and, in the case of Afghanis, over 90 per cent. Of course, in the case of West Irian, in the one instance where the original decision maker refused the refugee status, that was also overturned. Wrong decisions are endemic when they are first made in the hasty process of assessment by departmental officials. But if refugees go to Nauru there will not even be departmental officials. I doubt that the UNHCR will provide that processing. Who is going to do it? Presumably, the government will seek to contract some other body without international status to perform this task, but we do not have the memorandum of understanding. We do not know who will be tasked with doing that. We do not know the care or the standard of decision making that they will apply. It will not be subject to merits review and it will not be subject to the capacity for scrutiny. The last point is that we will give no guarantees that, even if they are ultimately assessed as refugees, they will be given substantive protection. They may have to wait for years. There are two persons on Nauru who are still waiting, five years after their removal there. There is no undertaking that even those who are assessed as refugees will ultimately be accepted. We have a situation which is completely foreign to the obligations that this parliament said were the minimum standards for humanitarian processing of those who seek refuge in Australia. I am anxious that this legislation be defeated. It will grieve me if it is not. I draw the attention of members to the platform statements of the Family First Party, made and issued before they contested the last matter regarding asylum seekers. Family First commits itself to the right of asylum seekers to seek judicial review but wants greater efficiency in the appeal system. There will be no judicial review. Family First talks about the relocation of facilities to locations with freely available legal and medical consultations and other community contacts. That will not be available. Family First talks of management of facilities to ensure that conditions are humane and appropriate to asylum seekers who may have suffered traumatic experiences in their home country or in the process of fleeing. That will not be available. The statement talks about full accountability and transparency. Nothing can be less transparent than what we are provided with now. We are told that the assessment of and dealings with refugees in the future will be the responsibility of the ‘sovereign government of Nauru’. What nonsense! The sovereign government of Nauru is made up of a handful of second-rate incompetents who were the beneficiaries of huge largesse from the Australian government and pissed it up against the wall. They live on an island incapable of being sustained otherwise than through these kinds of malevolent arrangements and are subject to no outside scrutiny through this process. It is a disgrace. The immigration arrangements for Nauru are effectively conducted through Australia, although notionally undertaken by the Nauruan authorities. It defrauds the Australian public to say that this is an act of our sovereignty. It is an act of surrendering our sovereignty. Family First says: ...once refugee status has been ascertained every effort ... must be given to those applicants who have had their application approved to ensure their transition into the Australian community is managed with sensitivity and compassion. In this instance it may not happen at all. They may languish for years and years in a detention centre on Nauru. The rights of men, women and children will be grossly abused. It is contrary to our sovereignty, contrary to the parliament’s statement of will through previous legislation, contrary to the Prime Minister’s undertaking to his own party and contrary to his undertakings to the Australian public. It is a disgrace. It should be voted down, and my heart will bleed if it is not. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Before the member for Denison sits down, I ask him to remove an unparliamentary remark in the description of Nauru in relation to how that money was spent. I believe it was unparliamentary and it would be better if the member withdrew those comments. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr KERR —I have no hesitation about removing any unparliamentary remark I made, but I simply indicate that the government of Nauru is not fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as the government of our sovereign nation. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I did not interrupt at the time, but I ask that you withdraw the remark now. Thank you. 84 18:01:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I am not the first to say that the measure of a society is the way it treats the weak and vulnerable. In fact, what we are dealing with in the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is how this country treats the dispossessed that come to our shores from various parts of the world. It is a measure of this society. This society is often called the lucky country. We have been blessed with incredible resources and economic growth. We have seen a 16.7 per cent increase in the income of Australians over the past 10 years. We have had an average growth of GDP of something like three per cent per year. At the same time that our affluence has been growing and people have been building their houses and buying their plasma screens, we are asked to look at those who are less fortunate than us: the vulnerable in our society. In this House there are many things that we could address, such as the management of the economy and our customs regimes. But the bottom line is that we need to use our power for those who have no power, and use our influence for those who have no influence. The reality is that this involves families. It involves children. Nelson Mandela said: There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way it treats its children. If that is the case, why would we want to continue to have children in detention centres? We went through this process before, and other colleagues who are here today were involved in that process. I had no interest in the question of the processing of asylum seekers until I went onto the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Human Rights Subcommittee’s review of detention centres around Australia. What I saw of modern Australia shocked me: many people who were severely depressed; children behind barbed wire around Australia; people who were woken up in the middle of the night by having torches shone in their eyes; people called by numbers instead of names; and people left in detention centres for years upon years, thereby affecting their psychological stability. That was not something I was proud of. It is something that we as a society should be looking at and saying: ‘This was not a good period in terms of the way we treated the most vulnerable.’ Whether or not we use a Christian analogy, certainly we know that we are encouraged to look at the weak and vulnerable as a starting point. While we build our riches as a nation, the danger for us is that, in this process of collecting a glittering prize of materialism, we lose our soul. If this is the result of the bill we have before us, then I think there is a real challenge for us. Clearly, this is a challenge for all of us, including my colleagues here. When you are in here and vote as a group, there is a question of mateship, which is a great Australian tradition, but there is also another tradition we have in Australia: a fair go. It is a tradition of giving a fair go to those who are less well off, giving them a helping hand and saying: ‘It’s okay, mate. I understand that that is the problem.’ Clearly, there are people who rort the system. I spoke to the head of a processing centre in one of the most generous of the processing countries I saw when I went on a study tour to look at how other countries treated their asylum seekers. I asked him, ‘What is the biggest challenge that you have in this job?’ He said, ‘Losing your sensitivity to people who are in trouble.’ And so it is for us. We want to stereotype them as queue jumpers, as the rich who throw away their passports or as people who decide that they are going to get in this country by one means or another. They will pay off the people-smugglers, they will get onto leaky boats to get here—they are economic refugees and not genuine. If that is the case—and I have heard some people talk about such people—then they do not know the refugees that I have met. They do not know the people I was involved in getting out of the refugee centres, like the young man who was part of a church in Iran, where the militia came and shot up half the congregation. They fled to various parts of the world. He was knocked back by both the principal review process and the RRT, which did not believe that he belonged to an underground church. This man has now become an Australian citizen. I handed him his certificate, and I was very proud of the fact that I did so. What is this young man doing now? He is doing engineering at university during the day. At night he works in a factory to pay for himself. And at the weekend he works as a translator at a church in the western suburbs so that his Iranian friends can have knowledge about Christian life. This is the man who was knocked back. This is the type of person who comes here and whom I have seen. It is why I feel so passionately that we should continue to process them in the right way. We should continue to look after the vulnerable in our community and not simply ignore them as some untidy piece of work. Are we to just excise the whole of Australia and not worry about what happens to them—just think that they are in some other place, some other country? Let me review what was achieved in this House just a short time ago: women and children were not to be processed behind barbed wire. I would go and see a family that I dealt with. It was a family of three. I visited them in school holidays, at Christmas time. They were all behind barbed wire. They could not get out and play like other people there. They were behind barbed wire. We said that was wrong. We said that we were going to have all women and children out of detention centres, that we would not have it any more—and appropriately so. Those people were put into alternative accommodation. They had to check in once a week. What happened? Did we find these people tearing off to the ends of the world? The answer is no. Not one person disappeared. Why? It was their best chance of getting into Australia. Secondly, we on that human rights subcommittee decided that we would put time limits on how long it took to process people in detention. People could be in detention for years. People had forgotten about their case. When they went to see the case officer, they were rude to them. Some of them did not speak English. They did not know. When people have that uncertainty, what happens is that it affects them psychologically. If you have people who have been there for four, five or six years, the result is clear: great uncertainty and psychological unbalancing of these people. We decided we would put time limits on—three months for the primary decision and a further three months for review—so that we would not have this situation any more. Finally, we said that, for any case over two years, we would call in the Ombudsman, who would do an automatic review to decide whether it was appropriate to keep the person in the detention centre. There are some cases when that is the situation—when people should be kept in for security reasons, health reasons or whatever. Usually there is not much justification, but it should be an independent person who reviews it. We achieved that. The heat was taken out of the community. My view is that most people out there in the community supported it. We made changes for the benefit of this country and, particularly, for the dispossessed people who came by boat to this country. People say that we are letting in terrorists. We asked Graham Richardson—not Graham Richardson; I mean the former head of ASIO. QK6 Sercombe, Bob, MP Mr Sercombe —Dennis Richardson. MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr BAIRD —Dennis Richardson, now our ambassador to the US. Graham Richardson would be somebody else to ask. We asked him how many problems, in terms of security for Australia, were presented by the 3,000 people who came by boat into this country during this period. The answer was zero. The reality is that people who present as terrorists are not going to find their way on a leaky boat and be processed for several years in a detention centre. With the support they would have from wealthy terrorist organisations, they are more likely to come in a private jet, with fake passports or whatever. It is the vulnerable and the dispossessed we should be looking after. Instead we want to excise the country. We want them out of sight. What are we proposing in this legislation? What are the problems? There is no doubt that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has attempted to address some of our concerns about the children and families in detention—having a separate centre but still in the general area of the detention centre. Time limits will be provided; the minister has given a commitment to that. The Ombudsman will have an oversight, but the situation is not clear because the people will be in Nauru and not under Australian law. I am not quite sure how the Ombudsman is going to supervise this arrangement. What about all the people to provide legal and medical advice, the people from the churches and the people from the various social and charitable organisations? How are they going to get there? The other day a group went up to Nauru trying to get in. They did not have visas, so back they came. They went up and back twice to just get in. What does that mean to the people who are going to support the people there? Finally, the worst feature of the legislation is the last part. What happens to people who are found to be genuine refugees? The answer is: we do not know what is going to happen to them. They could be sent to New Zealand. But there is a problem there. I was with a delegation over in New Zealand just two weeks ago. The minister there said, ‘I have a message to give to Canberra: if you continue to excise the whole of Australia, we will not take any of the people you process.’ I am not sure of the number of people who were taken by New Zealand before; I have been given one figure of 35 and another of 128 out of the 1,500 people who were on Nauru. I think New Zealand is basically the only country that took other people. New Zealand is saying, ‘Sorry, we are not going to take them.’ Is Europe going to take them, with all the hordes of people knocking on their door? The answer is no. There are no time limits, so my concern is that we are going to have a repeat—that people are going to be there for an endless period of time. I think the total circumference of the island is about 32 kilometres. People can walk freely around Nauru, we are told. That sounds like a very big deal to me. But where does this whole process go? We had a system that people generally agreed was an appropriate one. A large number of people are saying to us, ‘This is not the appropriate way to go.’ The Catholic bishops said that they opposed it. They said: We believe that all asylum seekers are entitled to protection under the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees, to equal access to Australian legal processes and to humane treatment while their claims are being assessed. We also believe that Australia should take the lead in observing international humanitarian law and protecting all people, especially children and families. At the other end of the spectrum, the Baptist Union of Victoria—normally a conservative organisation—said: Our primary concerns are as follows. The action is inconsistent with the compassionate decision you made last year about the removal of children from detention which received popular support from the Australian people. We would urge a return to a more compassionate stance. Bishop Joseph Grech, of the Australian Catholic Bishops and Chairman of the Bishops Committee for Migrants and Refugees, said that Australians would be shocked and disappointed if the government’s new policy saw children especially being sent to detention centres again. The National Council of Churches in Australia wrote: Dear Prime Minister, We write with deep concern to express our opposition to the proposed legislation which would see all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat being processed offshore. You would be aware of the longstanding concern of many Australian churches to the so-called Pacific solution. The Uniting Church said that ‘moral courage was absent in the decision’. In terms of churches, it is normally known as being at the more trendy end of the spectrum, but it still represents the whole spectrum of people who are part of it. Amnesty International said: Australia would be in breach of its international legal obligations. Genuine asylum seekers, including children, face a lifetime of detention depending on the settlement arrangements made. A Just Australia published an open letter to the Prime Minister from prominent Australians and community leaders. It stated: We the undersigned are alarmed at the prospect of asylum seekers being removed from Australia, sent to offshore centres and being held there until third countries provide refuge. The Refugee Council of Australia expressed concerns that the ‘current review will result in breaches of article 33 of the Geneva Convention’. Conference leaders of religious institutes in New South Wales wrote: I ask that the Australian government abandon the Pacific solution and the use of Christmas Island. All asylum seekers should be housed in the mainland with access to appropriate medical, legal and other support. We were told at first that it was not about problems with Indonesia. But, as time went by, it became more apparent that that was on the agenda. Let us look at some of the editorials in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Weekend Australian when the legislation was announced. In the Weekend Australian of 15 April, the editorial stated: Just as Indonesians rightfully asked Australians to respect their law with regard to the Schapelle Corby verdict, Indonesians must understand that Australia has its own laws as well, and those laws may well see Papuans granted asylum. The sooner Jakarta understands that it cannot drive policy in Canberra, the sooner the two nations can get relations back on the right track. In the Sydney Morning Herald, under the heading ‘The export of refugees: time to drop a bad idea’, the editorial stated: However, in its concern for the sensitivities of Indonesia, the Australian Government has been too ready to disregard the rights of asylum seekers. These editorials highlight the fact that we have, across the spectrum, individuals who are telling us that this is not appropriate behaviour. This is not the way we should be treating the weakest and most vulnerable in our community. This is not the Australia that we know and respect. Australia is a generous nation. It is one that has shown enormous compassion to people in need on an ongoing basis. If we look at the aid given by Australians, its generosity has been outstanding. The level of assistance and aid that has been given by this nation has been quite incredible. We have to address the issue of the bill before us. For most of us, it is a challenging situation. This is government legislation, and people who sit on this side of the House are challenged by it. I have been in public life for some 19 years. I have never crossed the floor during that time. I have never abstained from a vote. But I have trouble in supporting this legislation for the reasons I have outlined. Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 2005, said: While every refugee’s story is different and their anguish personal, they all share a common thread of uncommon courage—the courage not only to survive, but to persevere and rebuild their shattered lives. Our responsibility is about enabling those people who have been dispossessed, who have had their lives shattered, who, in some cases, have been tortured and who are fleeing from the situation in their country of origin to start again. Our responsibility as a country is not to say to these people: ‘We don’t want to know you. We want you to go up to another island, which is not part of Australia, because we don’t want you being touched by Australian law.’ There is no doubt that there is a real problem with people who are serial appealers on every case, who do not deserve to be recognised and who should be expedited out the door. There is no doubt about that. I think, on the whole, our migration people do a pretty good job. But this legislation is about changing the situation, taking away our responsibility and putting it on another country. I do not believe that we can support this bill. It is very disappointing after the changes we achieved to the migration law. It is up to all Australians who believe in compassion, who believe in fairness, who believe in equity and who believe in looking after the vulnerable to decide that we cannot go ahead and simply ignore their claims and say it is for somebody else to look after them. The people in this House, in the year 2006, have this moral responsibility. We have had conscience votes on RU486 and other things. This is a conscience vote. I am not in a position to support this bill. 84 18:21:00 Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP XS4 Fremantle ALP 0 0 Dr LAWRENCE —May I first of all express my admiration for the members opposite who are taking what I know for them will be a very difficult step but on the basis of principles that they hold dear. Like them, I believe that the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is truly bizarre legislation. It effectively deletes Australia from our own legal coverage and abandons our responsibilities as an international citizen while attempting to foist these responsibilities onto our impoverished neighbours in the region, most of whom are not even signatories to the necessary international conventions for protecting refugees. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, as I am sure many other speakers have already pointed out, represents a massive retreat from the very first steps we saw from the government so recently in the direction of the more humane treatment of asylum seekers. It is a complete about-face. The Prime Minister and the responsible minister have effected a spectacularly craven and abjectly humiliating retreat from what was a recently negotiated policy position—and I can understand why members opposite feel betrayed. Clearly, as I have said before, it is not the result of some careful reanalysis of the policy position or of strong pressure from the Australian people—indeed, generally speaking, the Australian people have shown they are not supportive of these moves—and nor is it the result of a sustained campaign from MPs in this place. It is basically to accommodate another government, and that makes the measures even harder to stomach. It is designed to shut up the critics of that other government—Indonesia—and to move them from the public gaze and from access to the media to the now infamous camps of Nauru and Manus Island. The minister repeatedly told the West Papuans who were given asylum that they could not expect to come here and use Australia as a platform for criticising the regime that they had fled—not on Nauru they won’t, when they are sent there. Any further refugees from West Papua will be effectively silenced. There is no doubt about it. There will be no more embarrassing images of independence flags and songs on the tarmac, and no exposure of the reasons they sought asylum and the reasons why their asylum was accepted. As we now know, the about-face followed protests from Indonesia about the group of West Papuans who were quite properly granted protection visas. As a result of that pressure, the Prime Minister announced that the government will no longer process asylum seekers who arrive on the Australian mainland under Australia’s migration system. That is effectively what this legislation does. In an attempt to appease the Indonesian government, the Howard government bizarrely excised the Australian mainland from Australia’s migration zone and announced that any future asylum seekers would have to be processed in countries other than Australia. In other words, at the first whiff of disapproval of the proper administration of Australian law, the Prime Minister, our so-called man of steel, folded in what was a pretty humiliating acquiescence. We have seen the same pattern in other areas of foreign policy, particularly in his relationship with the US President, George Bush. He was not prepared to defend our own laws and to explain to Indonesia the quite proper processes which led to the refugees from West Papua being granted asylum here in the first place. That was our law in operation—laws passed by this parliament and accepted by the wider community. Disappointingly, the Prime Minister was not even prepared to mount an argument about the importance of our own sovereignty or to advance the reasons why we, as a nation, are committed to the proper protection of genuine refugees, why we are signed up to those conventions, let alone to insist to Indonesia that they should desist from treating the West Papuans so brutally that they actually do have to flee for their lives and seek asylum in a country like Australia. Instead, we saw the Prime Minister set aside what I am sure all of us thought were once universally agreed standards of human decency so as not to offend a neighbouring country. Not for the first time, sadly, he trashed our values to accommodate other nations. He took us to war in Iraq, for example, with the grotesque consequences that we see every night in the news. That can hardly be considered a success. Certainly, the poor Iraqi people know that it is not, as they sacrifice their lives and their livelihoods. Despite the monstrous destruction of Lebanon, the most recent example, and the mounting death toll in that conflict, the Prime Minister has so far failed to do the right thing and add his voice to the many who are calling for an immediate ceasefire—in other words, to speak from the pulpit that he has as Prime Minister for an immediate end to the killing, the violence and the hatred. Instead, again, he and his foreign minister mimic the Bush administration in both their analysis and the spin they place on the events that are going on there now. In the Prime Minister’s eyes, it would appear, people in all of these examples are disposable for political advantage; yet he should know just from observation that violence breeds violence and that it is madness to try to build our future on the misfortunes of others, whether it is the West Papuans, the Iraqis or the Lebanese people. But I guess I was not surprised by any of this. Why? Because this government’s treatment of asylum seekers is the inhumane template which governs their behaviour in so many areas of foreign policy. This is not novel. They continue to trample on what I regard as those core Australian values and to repudiate international norms while all the while, I must say, hypocritically lecturing the rest of us about such values. Live by them, I say. If you are Christians, live by those values. How can you treat other human beings in this way? How can you stand up in this parliament in the morning and say the prayers that bring down the blessings of the Christian God upon your heads and then treat your fellow human beings like so much rubbish? Australia’s interests in the region are not served by showing that we can be bullied into abandoning these cherished values of freedom, independence and decency and into abandoning the idea that we should respect the human rights of all comers by setting them aside so lightly. The clear message the government is sending to anyone who will listen, and to the community as well, is that these values of care, compassion, freedom, integrity, responsibility, honesty and trustworthiness—the ones the government would have students plaster on the wall alongside images of Simpson’s donkey—are no more than words and that the government does not really mean a word of it. I think by now Australians understand this duplicity. On the 10th anniversary of the election of the Howard government, an opinion polling taken at that time showed that the majority of Australians now believe that, under Howard, we are a meaner and less fair society than we once were. They can see what has happened to those values. What is amazing about all of this and why some of the government’s MPs are so disaffected—and I do not blame them—is that just last year there was a unanimous vote in this parliament to amend the Migration Act to effect what was a much needed overhaul of Australia’s detention and asylum-seeking regime. These much needed changes followed very extensive and protracted discussion and negotiation with colleagues on the opposite side. I think what the Prime Minister has shown, as he did when he made a deal with Mr Costello, the Treasurer, to transfer leadership at an appropriate time, is that direct negotiation with him is not worth a lot and that he is actually not to be trusted at all. This backflip certainly shows that. To me it looks as though the Prime Minister was waiting for the first opportunity to throw off the cloak of decency which he had assumed, to throw off at the first opportunity the facade he had conveniently put on, reluctantly it appears. Even more incomprehensible is that, in all of these proposed changes, the government’s decision effectively repudiates the lessons which I think everyone thought they had learnt from the Palmer and Comrie reports, not to mention all the others, which so comprehensively documented the destructive effects of prolonged detention. We should not really have to go over this again. It is extraordinary that in this parliament we still need to point out what happens when you keep children in detention for extended periods and what happens when you put people on an island like Nauru, or on Manus Island, for year after year. It is quite simple, and the Prime Minister should understand this: it simply destroys them. These are human lives that are being destroyed. That is not overdramatising it. It is what has happened. I have met with some of these people, and many of them will never recover their lives. What a lot of people cannot understand, me included, is how this government, with what I regard as its degraded human rights standards, can so shamelessly revert to a system that they know will keep innocent children in detention, even if they are allowed to roam around Nauru. Go and have a look at the place: most of it is blighted by the mining that has taken place there. The people of Nauru have a tough enough time. We know they will be kept in circumstances that will cause them serious harm and uncertainty and that they will be away from the normal community and away from the supports that could assist them to assimilate and begin their new lives. It is truly unbelievable, although we are contemplating it in this legislation, that the government, knowing all these things and with all this evidence, can reintroduce the disgraceful regime of indefinite detention, for which so many people are already paying right now with their sanity. Not satisfied, in my view, with having trashed Australian standards of compassion and decency, the Prime Minister has shown himself willing to barter our independence as well. By asking the country of origin of asylum seekers, in the case of the West Papuans, to actually comment on the legitimacy of their refugee claim, Australia is placing its own short-term domestic interests ahead of proper determination of refugee status—and, by the way, is breaching all the relevant conventions in the process. They actually suggested that the Indonesian military—for God’s sake!—be allowed to assess the refugee claims of West Papuans. As one commentator put it: that is like asking Saddam Hussein’s regime to review Iraqi asylum claims, or the Taliban to check the Afghan Hazara claims or the Nazis to look at the 1940s Jewish claims for assistance. As another commentator put it: ‘This is an idea which is either short-sighted or wilfully cruel.’ I will leave you to reach your own conclusions. It is bad enough that these proposed changes to our immigration policy were dictated by another nation, as they clearly were, but their representatives then made sure it was done by coming here to this parliament. If we were truly a friend of Indonesia, as the government clearly wants to suggest we are, we would not be afraid to stand by our own standards and our commitments to treat asylum seekers with at least residual decency, and we would speak the truth to the Indonesian people instead of capitulating to their unreasonable demands. If we were true friends we would tell them what we know about what is going on in West Papua. I have said it in this place before but it bears repeating: we should tell the Indonesians that, yes, we have read the reports and heard the witnesses who attest to the fact that Indonesian police and military have engaged at various times in violence and killings in West Papua. I am sure many of the members here have seen the photographs and images. We should tell them that we know they have been responsible as governments over time for torture killings of detained prisoners and that political, cultural and village leaders have been killed. We should tell them that we know that some detained people have suffered electric shocks, beatings, pistol whipping, water torture and so on. We should tell them that we know these things and that we have seen the evidence. We should tell them that we are aware of systematic resource exploitation, the destruction of some Papuan resources and the forced relocation and use of unpaid labour. We would tell them these things if we were truly friends to Indonesia. We should tell them that we condemn such actions and that we will protect anyone who flees in terror and we will give them appropriate asylum. If we were true friends we would argue, importantly, that there are other ways to govern the territory. We would support those members of the Indonesian government who are trying to proceed in other ways and to do better. We would tell them that we understand but cannot defend their reluctance to face the facts of what has gone on in West Papua. But the tragedy is that we cannot talk like that to Indonesia. What moral authority do we have when the government actually refuses to respect the human rights of refugees appealing for our help? Why would they listen to us in these circumstances? As many people have pointed out, this legislation will now be worse than it was before those last hard-won changes were made. I want to consider a number of the deficiencies: now, all unauthorised boat arrivals will be transferred to the offshore centres to have their claims for refugee status assessed; Australia is no longer Australia; and, in what is a truly ‘Alice in Wonderland’ extension of the act, ‘A person is taken to have entered Australia by sea if the person has entered the migration zone by air.’ Figure that one out; talk about the Mad Hatter’s tea party. Secondly, by deciding only to take asylum seekers as a last resort, and under severely circumscribed conditions, Australia has clearly reneged on its obligations and responsibilities under international law. So many people have commented on that, but it bears repeating: the policy breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the refugees convention and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—all of these are arguably breached. Although I know the government really does not give a toss about such conventions—it has shown that over a decade—perhaps some of the MPs on the other side, as well as those who have indicated their unwillingness to support this legislation, should pause for a moment and remember that those conventions were drafted as a reaction to the horror of the Holocaust and the conviction of the international community that it should never be allowed to happen again. The Australian government is, in this legislation, sending another clear message, a sad one, that we do not attach much importance to these obligations. In doing so I think it is opening the door for other countries to disregard them as well. It is a very bad example from a wealthy, mature democracy. Thirdly, in these remote locations, which are not Australian territory, there can be no guarantees about the quality of care. The government cannot give us any guarantees about the quality of care, which we know has been seriously deficient in the past. I think the Dutch psychiatrist Maarten Dormaar, who worked for IOM on Nauru for a period, hit the nail on the head when he described the experience as taking him ‘to the heart of darkness’. Tragically, children will again be detained, as I have mentioned, with the well-documented and adverse mental health effects which I know the government has tried to consistently deny. But—and I want to underline this—the only documented incidents of pre-adolescent suicide attempts in Australia have occurred in immigration detention. And there have been many. Previously healthy children as young as five have deeply cut themselves, starved themselves, hanged themselves with bedsheets and drunk cleaning fluids to try to end their own lives in detention. That is what happens when you put children in these circumstances. The HREOC report of the inquiry into children in immigration stated: Children in immigration detention for long periods of time are at high risk of serious mental harm. The Commonwealth’s failure to implement the repeated recommendations by mental health professionals that certain children be removed from the detention environment with their parents amounted to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of those children in detention ... That is a very damning report from HREOC—from anyone, for that matter. But, in order to send its strong message, the government has decided that the suffering and permanent damage of children is a legitimate means to achieving a policy objective. That human beings are political objects has to be unacceptable and must not be allowed back into Australian law. In addition, in this legislation, despite some of the government’s advertised concessions, there is effectively no review of indefinite detention. What is going to happen to these people if no-one takes them? We know what happened in Australia already with stateless people. Some of them were in detention for five or six years. Some of them remain in limbo right now, effectively under house arrest on very unsatisfactory visas. The government really have not dealt with the problem at all. And, although the government finally saw some sense and removed all but two of those who were remaining on Nauru—those damaged people from Nauru—since the Tampa scandal, they are now preparing to do it all over again. They appear not to have learned a thing. Of course, under the new regime, even if people’s claims succeed, they can stay locked up with no remedy. The new system offers no guarantees anymore that people found not to be refugees will be returned to a safe country. That, by the way, is something that the government has failed to do already with the refugees who were on Nauru, who ‘volunteered’ to go back to Afghanistan, with the results that we now see documented by the Edmund Rice Centre. Nine of the Hazara people there sent back to Afghanistan have died as a result. At least two of them, children, were almost certainly killed because of the political stance that their father had taken. They were killed on their return, in clear breach of our international obligation not to return people to places where their lives might be endangered—and I put in brackets here: with the cooperation of the International Organisation for Migration. The International Organisation for Migration is a body that deserves very close scrutiny. It acts as the arm of governments in returning people to places that are not safe. It acts as the arm of government in holding people in these detention centres. It is not an organisation that enjoys the respect these days of Amnesty International, for example. It is not an arm of the United Nations, as some people wrongly suppose. It is a mercenary organisation, paid for these services. In this legislation there will not—indeed, cannot—be any access to the Australian legal system. Asylum seekers are going to be denied access to any fair and impartial reviews via the process of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which has, as we know, reversed thousands of the government’s decisions in recent years. They are not error free. The recent concessions the minister announced, which might allow for retired RRT members to adjudicate, as far as I understand it have no legal force. There are a range of other deficiencies which I am sure other members will mention. This is appalling legislation, costly in both monetary and human terms. It represents another retreat from our obligations as decent international citizens. If every country behaved in this way, there would be literally nowhere for people to flee persecution and to find some peace, safety and security. If everyone behaved like the Australian government, the world would be a much more appalling place. This legislation is a travesty. (Time expired) 84 18:41:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise to speak today on a range of amendments in the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, which reflects the government’s strong commitment to effective border control while ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. This bill is important to achieving that goal. This is about ensuring that it is Australians and the government of Australia who decide who comes to Australia and who does not. This is about ensuring that Australia’s immigration program is managed in a manner that is in the best interests of all Australians, including new migrants, many of whom are refugees. It is about ensuring that we have a well-managed, coordinated immigration program covering skilled migrants, family migration and also those requiring refugee protection. We cannot assume that all people coming by boat will arrive safely. Indeed, many will lose their lives and have done so. We also cannot assume that people arranging their transportation are not benefiting at the cost of the people seeking asylum, whether that be financial cost or even the loss of their lives or the loss of their families. While there may be genuine refugees, and many people are seeking to come to the nation of Australia because they are suffering hardship, we cannot assume that everybody who might or will seek to arrive by boat will be a genuine refugee. Some will be; others may have other motives for seeking to be in Australia. The bill seeks to be inclusive. A key principle is to eliminate the distinction between unauthorised boat arrivals at an excised offshore place and those who reach the mainland, regardless of their nationality. That inclusivity is, for example, reflected in the proposed new arrangements for housing families, women and children during the processing and resettlement phase. The changes offer improved conditions for people in offshore processing centres. It is the government’s intention that women, children and families be housed in residential-style accommodation on Nauru and in other host countries. The government is committed to negotiating with host countries to establish similar arrangements. Other inclusive changes will see the minister having a discretionary power to issue visas to people taken to offshore processing centres, where the minister is satisfied that it is in the public’s best interest to do so. In essence, the changes are saying that the people in offshore processing centres have an equal right to the same levels of consideration, access to services and protection as people arriving on the mainland. The proposed changes also improve the timeliness, accountability and protection measures of the offshore processing program. A three-month time frame will be implemented, where possible, for the processing of applications for refugee visas. In addition, there is a commitment that no asylum seeker will be left on Nauru indefinitely. Resettlement will be completed as quickly as possible without compromising security and other relevant factors. The Australian community is looking to the government to ensure that the security of this nation and the lives of those already living here are indeed protected. In the cases of greater complexity where all other options have been reasonably exhausted and the processing time has been prolonged, there is now an opportunity for the government to exercise its discretion to bring genuine refugees to Australia. Asylum seekers that are refused will be provided with a written explanation of the reasons. Let us talk briefly about protection. What people in my community want to know, and what I want to ensure, is that people in vulnerable situations—people who have for whatever reason fled their own country and sought a better life elsewhere—have the right to a proper, fair and humanitarian resettlement system. One of the reasons that I support the changes is that a key principle in Australia’s refugee program, that children should only be detained as a measure of last resort, will also apply to offshore processing. A far-reaching aspect of this change is the government’s commitment to working with host countries to seek to uphold that principle wherever possible. One of the ways of ensuring that people in offshore processing centres are treated fairly by the system is to ensure that all the essential principles of processing of people in detention centres in Australia are extended to all people arriving in boats regardless of their nationality. The provision of publicly funded migration agent assistance will be available to protection visa applicants in offshore processing centres. There will be discretionary power for the minister to issue a visa to people taken to offshore protection centres where the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, taking into account health and security issues. The government has responded particularly well to the challenge of families in offshore protection centres. The special health, welfare and education needs of children remain foremost in the government’s considerations. A priority is to establish appropriate accommodation for these groups. With the changes in the bill, the minister will have the power to direct that Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs staff work with host governments to seek to put in place similar accommodation arrangements. Staff will be trained in child protection issues and the education needs of children will be appropriately addressed, including through their attendance at local schools. Staff with suitable child education skills will be employed. School-aged education within the offshore protection centres will be in both English and the children’s national language. These changes will make arrangements for managing the needs of families and children consistent with those that now apply in Australia. One of the most effective strategies for best practice is to implement a reporting time line to ensure that the system is working well. I am very pleased to see that the bill’s amendments include reporting on a number of critical actions. An independent merits review panel will be established to report to the minister and subsequently the parliament. A time frame of three months for completion of the review will be implemented. The review will report on arrangements for review of refugee status determinations, including the qualifications of the reviewer, the number of claims for refugee status not determined within 90 days and the reasons for this, and the number of reviews not completed within 90 days of their commencement and the reasons for this. An independent review will be commissioned, two years after the commencement of the legislation, to report to the minister, who will table the report in both houses of parliament. The report will include alternative approaches or mechanisms in relation to the operation and effectiveness of the bill. A significant initiative is the expansion of the powers of the Ombudsman to both investigate the actions of DIMA officers overseas in relation to refugee assessment processes in offshore processing centres and review the cases of people in the centres who have been residents of them for more than two years. Importantly, the government is committed to negotiating appropriate access arrangements with host countries to allow the Ombudsman to fulfil his role. Once the Ombudsman’s report has been received by the minister, the minister will report to parliament. Such an action provides oversight of the system and will address many of the concerns raised by the community. I understand the bill will include a sunset clause that has the effect of reverting the legislation to its current position. This clause will activate after five years. In supporting the amendments, I note that there are other outcomes that the amendments achieve. Firstly, there is certainty. People in offshore detention centres will be cared for appropriately. Their visa assessment process will be dealt with quickly. They will be found a place to go. They will be assisted to resettle. They will receive all the help that other people who have made it to Australia receive. Their host country will be encouraged to adopt the same care and administrative principles and benchmarks that reflect the Australian program. Secondly, there is fairness. Changes to the bill put our refugee laws in context. An article by Adrienne Millbank states: Australia however, also provides a model—possibly world’s best practice—of generosity and inclusiveness to refugees, through its highly developed humanitarian migration and settlement assistance programs. Australia’s refugee policy is based on four principles: recognition of Australia’s humanitarian commitment and responsibility to admit refugees for resettlement; acceptance that decisions regarding refugees will always remain with the government of Australia; that special assistance will often need to be provided for the movement of refugees in designated situations or for their resettlement in Australia; and that it may not be in the best interests of some refugees to settle here in Australia and their interests may be better served by resettlement elsewhere. The Australian government makes an annual contribution to the UNHCR, which is the main body associated with the settlement of refugees. Australia has a generous humanitarian refugee program, settling between 12,000 and 13,000 refugees per year. These refugees—women, children and adolescents who have lost both parents—face many challenges. Many of them come from the Horn of Africa. Many from countries such as Sierra Leone and Sudan have viewed atrocities that it would be almost impossible for us to imagine. I have heard many of these stories personally. A significant number of refugees have settled in my electorate in Blacktown. I have been working with many of them for several years now and talking to them about the challenges they face—the challenges of settling into Australia. They have to adapt to and learn about a new culture and a new education system that is different. Many of them have been in refugee camps in Africa for up to 20 years. Some children have only known life in camps. Many of these families, individuals and adolescents have waited for more than a decade to come to Australia. They come here and they are so keen to integrate and to become strong contributors to Australia. They are so grateful that Australia has opened its doors and welcomed them. The federal government has delivered and continues to deliver significant assistance to help them settle. For every person who arrives in an unauthorised way there is a genuine refugee who remains in a refugee camp waiting, with no alternative route to come to Australia except to go through the proper channels. I would like to add that, having over 100 different nationalities represented in my electorate, on a daily basis my staff and I deal with people from all over the world who are seeking to come to Australia. They come in and say that they have family, spouses, uncles or fathers who are waiting in refugee camps or in difficult situations in other countries or are seeking family reunion. They are waiting in queues. They say to me that they want people who are seeking refuge and seeking to migrate to this country to go through the proper channels. The bill and amendments to the bill mirror the principles of Australia’s refugee policy. While the bill addresses the needs of unauthorised arrivals, the bill also makes it very clear that Australia is a country of last resort. We as a government need to consider all those people who do the right thing and are prepared to go through the correct channels. We also need to consider that it does take resources, time and effort—which we are more than willing to contribute—to ensure that these people settle. The balance of having them settle and the broader community adjust is something that we need to consider. Through a best practice model such as this bill and the amendments, Australia does ensure fairness to refugees and to other prospective migrants who apply through the migration pathway. This solution serves the national interest and would have the support of many in the Australian community. This bill is a measured approach with the right balance of protection, accountability and administrative process applied to a complex issue. It strengthens Australia’s effective border controls while ensuring we continue to meet our international obligations. The bill marks an important milestone in the development of effective migration policy. It delivers for the Australian people in terms of genuine refugees, accountability in getting the system right and a strong position against people smugglers. It delivers for unauthorised arrivals by giving a transparent, reviewable process and clear outcomes. People in offshore processing centres will have access to resources and be treated as if they were being processed onshore, and there will be an ombudsman with the power to investigate any breaches of that process. Ultimately, this system is accountable to the Australian community through the parliament. I commend this bill to the House. 84 18:57:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. At the very outset I want to put on the record my absolute opposition to this legislation. This legislation is illogical and it is inhumane. It is illogical because it actually removes Australia from Australia’s migration zone. It is inhumane because it actually puts children back into detention centres 12 months after this parliament voted to get them out. It is also inhumane because it says that Australia does not have any human rights obligations other than the remote processing of people seeking asylum. This is such a lack of compassion from a government that has its fingerprints on the human fallout from the escalating Middle East crisis, the continuing hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever-present war on terrorism. This is the legacy for all of us of being a member of the coalition of the willing—willing to be an aggressor and add to the ethnic and territorial tensions that rack the Middle East and threaten the relationship between two great cultural civilisations: Islam and Christianity. This is appallingly bad policy that turns its back on our global responsibility to show integrity and leadership in a troubled world. No amount of amendment can fix this fundamentally flawed legislation, which in fact is a source of great shame to many of us here on both sides of the House. It is worth pointing out that only 11 of the 87 members on the other side will even stand to speak on this legislation. Perhaps they do not want their words on the public record for their constituents to read. The limited changes proposed by the Prime Minister to try to win over his backbench are not nearly enough, because the bill’s intentions and outcomes remain the same. It excises the Australian mainland and Tasmania from Australia’s migration zone for people arriving by sea without a visa. So people arriving by sea without a visa on the Australian mainland will be designated unauthorised arrivals. These people may then be removed to a declared country outside Australia for processing of their refugee claims, where of course they can be detained indefinitely. We will pay the bills, but we do not wish to come face to face with any asylum seekers, apparently. These people will also be prohibited from instigating any legal or appeal proceedings in Australia following any determination of their protection claims. In fact, they will not be able to appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal from Nauru either. In short, anyone arriving in Australia by boat without a visa will be shipped off to Nauru to have their asylum claim heard and they will not have any recourse to any kind of appeal in this country. They will be someone else’s problem. And because they are someone else’s problem they will be beyond the reach or protection of Australian law. This will be the undoing of the significant changes the government was forced into last year, when its immigration policy was brought closer to Labor’s. The government’s backflip means that children will now go back into detention centres, but technically not on our soil. It means an end to proper mental health care for asylum seekers and a continuation of the despair of indefinite detention. This would be a terrible outcome for people seeking asylum and for good people in this country as well. It fails the test of fairness and in all probability fails to meet our obligations under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in April this year: It would be an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, to our knowledge, that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state. No other country in the world has tried to shirk its responsibilities in this way. Recently I had the great privilege of joining the Speaker’s delegation to Malaysia. Whilst there we visited the UNHCR in Kuala Lumpur and there we met very dedicated people who attempt to process and assist up to 300 asylum seekers every day. Those people are fleeing places like Burma and other countries in our region where oppression or ethnic persecution is the norm. The Malaysian government accept these people into their community and allow them to work as long as they cause no trouble. Although they have few rights and limited access to government services, at least they are not placed into detention centres and they are not turned away. It certainly makes us look absolutely miserable, mean and very much out of touch with the needs of our region. Over the past four years, arrivals here by boat accounted for only about three to four per cent of all unauthorised arrivals in Australia. The hysteria whipped up by the Howard government about these arrivals during and after the ‘Tampa election’ has been out of all proportion to the problem. Consider that almost 50,000 people were in Australia illegally in the 2004-05 calendar year. Most of these were people who were overstaying their visitor visas for up to a year. Where is the hysteria from the Howard government about those 50,000 people? There is very little. Instead it is being directed at the 400-odd people on board the Tampa and the 43 West Papuan asylum seekers in their canoe. This legislation is just a continuation of that same inflammatory hysteria. It is a rerun of Tampa and a rerun of the discredited Pacific solution, which has cost the Australian taxpayer between $3 million and $4 million a month since its inception in 2001. That is $240 million the government has spent to keep asylum seekers out of sight and out of mind. The cost of maintaining our facilities on Nauru is now about $1 million a month, even though only two people remain on the island at present, sadly forgotten. Let us be clear about this offshore processing. It completely takes people outside of our nation’s legal system. It gives them no recourse under our laws and we cannot check on any complaints or appeals about the detention process in these foreign places. So basically anything can happen. Any human right can be breached. Any abuse of people, of children, can happen, and we just look the other way. What a great nation! This is just what the US has done with its Guantanamo Bay prison camp. It is run by the US, but those who are imprisoned there do not have the rights or protections of US law. That was the intent, of course, but now the American court system has tried to drag the government back to the proper operation of the rule of law and its judicial system, finding that the inmates are entitled to a proper trial, not some military kangaroo court style commission. Sadly, this country has been quite complicit in that subversion of the law by the US government by leaving an Australian citizen, David Hicks, in that prison camp. An Australian citizen is being held in a legal limbo outside of the US legal system, outside of the Australian system, and his government has not lifted a finger to get him out. The British government has taken all its citizens back to face trial in their own country. But in June three prisoners at Guantanamo Bay committed suicide out of desperation at being held in detention indefinitely without charge. I do not think many media actually attend at Nauru, but certainly they do keep an eye on Guantanamo Bay. The response to those suicides, you will recall, by the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State almost defies belief. Ms Graffy declared that the suicides were ‘a good PR move for the jihadi cause’. Unfortunately, that sort of completely insensitive and inhumane comment is one that we would never expect to hear from leaders of any country, but it is one that succeeds when you detain people outside your own country, outside your own legal system, when you dehumanise them, when they are not people but just a part of a process. Of course, you hope the public will forget them too. That is just what this Howard government has tried to do by dehumanising asylum seekers in this country, first by locking them up in the desert and now by locking them up offshore. When the 43 West Papuan asylum seekers landed, the Howard government desperately tried to prevent them from being photographed. It wants asylum seekers to remain faceless and forgotten—not normal people; not real people; not people with the same emotions, the same fears, the same fears for their loved ones, the same aspirations for the people they care about, the same aspirations we all share as human beings. Even before those suicides in Guantanamo Bay, Britain’s Attorney-General had been calling for it to be shut down completely. If only we had a government that perhaps had the same courage. But, instead, our Prime Minister goes off to Washington certainly to tell George Bush that everything is fine: ‘Despite $A2 billion spent, five years there and thousands of casualties, everything is going well in Iraq and it certainly is not escalating the desire of people to flee these very unstable places.’ That sort of disregard for legal rights and processes may get our Prime Minister invited to cocktail parties in Washington, but it does nothing for our reputation and it does nothing for our human rights reputation around the world. This so-called border protection legislation before us today also does nothing for our reputation. The Prime Minister has kowtowed to the United States on Guantanamo Bay and now he kowtows to Indonesia on asylum seekers. The impetus for this legislation is not border protection. The impetus for this legislation is appeasing Indonesia over the West Papuan asylum seekers who landed in this country earlier this year claiming asylum from human rights infringements by the Indonesian government. According to the law, the 43 Papuan asylum seekers who landed on Cape York in February were processed on Australian soil and under Australian law on Christmas Island. After an independent process, free from political interference, 42 of those asylum seekers were granted temporary protection visas, allowing them to stay in Australia for up to three years. Last week, the final asylum seeker was granted a TPV after the Refugee Review Tribunal looked into his case. That is how the system is supposed to work. Australia has a responsibility to examine the claims of people who arrive here and, if they are found to be genuine refugees, Australia has a responsibility to provide them with asylum. But of course Indonesia was not happy, because Australian law found that these people were genuine refugees fleeing genuine persecution in their homeland. You will recall that Indonesia withdrew its ambassador to Australia and pulled out of joint military exercises. That was on 25 March. Less than a month later, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone, announced this new policy. This is a new low, even for this government, which has outsourced its foreign policy to the United States, its trade policy to Saddam Hussein and its health policy to the religious right. I suppose it used to outsource its immigration policy to Pauline Hanson; now it outsources it to Indonesia. Instead of rolling over on this, Australia should have stood up and been counted as a good citizen in our region. It should have looked beyond the political pressure it was under from Indonesia. It should have looked at the conditions in West Papua that caused these people to seek asylum and it should have entered into concerted diplomacy to be a part of the regional solutions. We should be working with our regional neighbours, particularly Indonesia, to improve the conditions of life for the West Papuan people so that they do not feel that they have to seek asylum. We should encourage Indonesia to address the reasons why people are fleeing in the first place. This legislation before the House today is a rather cynical political solution to a terrible humanitarian situation and the Australian people are completely opposed to the way the Howard government has handled it. A poll in June found that three-quarters of Australians do not believe we should change our immigration policy to improve relations with Indonesia. In fact, I think the GetUp website has 87,000 signatures, and I hope those 60 or 70 members opposite who were not game to speak on this legislation remember that. The Australian people do not want this legislation. They are awake to the fact that it is heartless and it is going too far, just as they realise the extreme Howard government is going too far with Work Choices and their lives. Like the Australian people, I completely oppose the shipping of asylum seekers to other countries for detention and I completely oppose the Howard government’s weak-kneed decision to take this course of action. But some might argue that sending asylum seekers to languish on Nauru would actually be more humane than having them fall into the clutches of the Australian immigration department. After all, DIMA is the department which wrongfully locked up Cornelia Rau, Vivian Solon and possibly 200 others. The government tried to hide these people behind a bureaucratic curtain until exposed by public advocates, journalists and opposition members of parliament. Let us not forget that, after public outcry, the Palmer inquiry investigated DIMA and found it to be: … overly self-protective and defensive, a culture largely unwilling to challenge organisational norms or to engage in self-criticism or analysis. Clearly, things have not got much better. In June it was revealed that a further 26 Australian citizens had been unlawfully detained. Allegations of rape in detention centres have also been made since that time. Last year, the Australian National Audit Office also released its damning report into the management of detention centre contracts, finding that DIMA had no idea whether the Australian taxpayer was receiving value for money for contracts, worth around $120 million per year, with Global Solutions. Worse, it found that, under the contracts, DIMA have no way of knowing whether the basic needs of detainees are being met or their human rights are being respected. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is currently conducting its review of that report and will report its findings to the parliament. Recently, DIMA has spent a lot of money trying to change its self-protective and defensive culture, but nothing of substance will change unless there is a change of attitude from its ministerial masters. As the saying goes: ‘The fish rots from the head.’ The culture that permeates Australia’s immigration department springs from the Prime Minister’s infamous statement: ‘We will decide who comes into this country and under what conditions.’ It perhaps comes from the Treasurer’s statement: ‘Before becoming an Australian, you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values, don’t come to Australia.’ You have to ask two big questions out of those two statements. Who is the ‘we’ that the Prime Minister is referring to? Is it his government, is it the parliament, is it DIMA and their officers or is it, as it seems now, the President of Indonesia, when it should always be the Australian people? What are the ‘certain values’ that the Treasurer refers to? Who decides those?  I certainly would not want this government to decide when talking about moral values and moral autonomy. Political expediency has no part in that and this government has always demonstrated that it will put political expediency before moral values. Any definition of our values would need to acknowledge that we are a wonderfully pluralistic, multicultural society and that our values of nationhood would see us committing as a global and regional neighbour to fulfilling our humanitarian and legal duties. But this government is rarely true to those values. Last week the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Howard government’s immigration detention regime breaches one of the most fundamental of all human rights obligations: the right to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment. This is the fifth adverse finding against Australia’s detention regime in less than 10 years. Also last week, the government floated—pardon the pun—another one of its punitive schemes: to purchase some kind of armed detention boat to serve as a prison for illegal fishermen. We used to think the Prime Minister was taking us back to the fifties; this would take us all the way back to the prison hulks of the convict era. While John Howard’s floating prison might be odious—even ludicrous—there was another report this week that was deadly serious. The Edmund Rice Centre found that nine rejected asylum seekers are believed to have been killed after being forcibly removed to Afghanistan. It seems to me that, in these trouble spots, there should be a moratorium for people who are held in Australia at the moment and seeking to have their claims for asylum resolved. One wonders how you can send them back to places where we are deploying more troops. The minister needs to investigate these reports immediately, because, if the government is determined to pass this legislation, we are going to see even more asylum seekers sent away—possibly into dangerous conditions in their country of origin. We must not pass these laws. We do not want kids back in detention, we do not want indefinite detention, we do not want asylum seekers missing out on mental health care and basic human kindness, and we do not want legal oversight to disappear over the horizon as asylum seekers are shipped off to Nauru. The government backbenchers who were brave enough to stand up to the Prime Minister last year went through a lot of pain to provide some semblance of humanity in our detention system, and the Australian people have followed that lead. I hope it can be assured that this dreadful legislation fails in the House. I congratulate the member for Pearce, the member for Cook, the member for McMillan and the member for Kooyong, who have led the way in standing courageously for what is morally right. I hope we no longer go down the inhumane and uncivilised path of putting asylum seekers out of sight, out of mind and out of the responsibility of the prosperous, democratic nation that we belong to—a nation that is capable of generosity, compassion, integrity and international leadership. I oppose this legislation and I am absolutely ashamed that it has been put before the Australian parliament and the Australian people. 84 19:17:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which has been quite an emotional one. A lot of heavy rhetoric has been thrown about, and people have taken very strong positions. I want to come back to the core question of what the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is supposed to be about and what our immigration policies are supposed to be about—in relation to the refugee program and our humanitarian program, which seek to assist people who might be fleeing for their lives. Given that the problems worldwide are much greater than we could hope to deal with ourselves and that the world community struggles to get anywhere near dealing with the problem, the most important thing has to be that we assist the most needy people first. We must always seek to do that. We must also make sure that our program values the lives of refugees and puts them first. We must also make sure that, in giving consideration, we do not create false expectations and we endeavour to deal straight with the refugees—the people we are seeking to assist—and not mislead them as to our intentions. I am rather disturbed that in Australia at the moment we have what amounts to a two-speed process of dealing with refugees. We have two groups. Across the world there are refugees in horrible places like Sudan and other parts of Africa—and a little later I am going to read a story from someone in that circumstance. The other group, who are travelling at a different speed, arrive in Australia and seek to make their application for refugee status onshore. What I think is significant about that is that, if you make an application onshore in Australia, with the Refugee Review Tribunal and all the appeal mechanisms that apply in our country, the odds of successfully negotiating and proving a genuine case are a lot better than practically everywhere else in the world, where the processes recommended and approved by the UNHCR are in place but where the mechanisms for appeal may not be as good and other things may apply. So, if you want to maximise your chance under this two-speed system, you do not apply offshore; you apply onshore. Under the legislation that applies today, we have created a lure for people to come to Australia and make their claims here—and the best and most proven way of people undertaking that path is to throw themselves into an unseaworthy vessel, go onto the high seas with their children, risk their lives and come to this country to get a leg-up to give themselves a better chance of getting refugee status and bring forward the case. Later on I will talk about people who apply for refugee status from war-torn countries in Africa—they can be waiting for four years or a lot longer to get their chance. So, to bring things forward, people hop on boats and take that risk. It really disturbs me that, in this House, the entire Labor Party and people on my own side say this is a good thing. There was an article in the Canberra Times on 8 April on the arrival of those Papuans about whom we have talked so much in this debate. It describes how they basically built their own canoe in the backyard—a longboat with an outrigger. Over six weeks the boat stealthily navigated almost the entire coast of Papua from Jayapura in the north. They ended up spending five days on the high seas, rather than two. The article states: They ran out of food and one of the two motors on the big canoe broke down as they hit stormy weather and high seas. “We just cried, ‘Oh God, help us bring to the mainland. We don’t want to die in the sea,’” Wainggai says. I think it is illustrative that they say, ‘Oh, God, help us bring to the mainland.’ There is the lure: if you make it to the mainland you get the opportunity to bring forward your case. As it stands under the legislation, if you have children with you—and that group did; they had two children as young as three—you are able to bring forward your application and be released into the community. That is a hell of a better prospect, for example, than the same group would have had if they had done as many other Papuans have done and simply walked across the border into Papua New Guinea and made an application for refugee status from there. Because of laws that stand today, which I believe are flawed and dangerous in their logic, we have a position where we create a lure for them to go onto the high seas and risk the lives of their children. I do not know if it has been widely reported but, in the very same month that those Papuans set to sea, another group of Papuans set to sea from the same area, Jayapura. Here is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald headed ‘Papuans missing at sea as crisis talks start’: A boat carrying 21 Papuans suspected of being asylum seekers has sunk with one confirmed dead and 18 more missing, Indonesian police say. The article goes on to say that the boat had departed from Jayapura and rolled over in the sea. One dead body was sighted. People seeking asylum in our country are being asked to put their lives at risk. I think that is a terrible situation to have, because there is no doubt that there are people in refugee camps in serious danger of their lives who need assistance and who are pushed to the back of the bus to make way for people who have taken that risk, spurred on by what I think is a very false and fundamentally corrupt existing policy. I think it is a dangerous policy and a policy that has to change. We need to have all refugees put on an equal footing: to make all their applications at exactly the same level and to make sure that they are properly assessed. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —Except if they come by aeroplane. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —I want to go back to the hundreds of people who died at sea—the member opposite who is interjecting should think about this. They were not people who were perhaps upset by their experience of a detention centre but people, including children, who died at sea. An article from the Sunday Age of 23 July 2000 reads: Hundreds of terrified refugee men, women and children on three Indonesian fishing boats that disappeared in storms off Western Australia may have been tethered to railings or locked away below decks when the vessels sank. …            …            … The biggest of the three boats presumed to have sunk turned back for repairs after hitting a reef on the west coast of Java about March 24. This was in 2000. The article continues: It was carrying about 200 people, and witnesses said it was still in very poor condition when it sailed again for Christmas Island in rough weather on March 25. The boat vanished, and there has been no word of survivors. Here is another article: ‘Shipwrecked in Indonesia’. It quotes one of the survivors: ‘The smugglers fulfilled every promise until the time we stepped onto the boat,’ Matin says. …            …            … But they were to find out later the boat’s hull was rotting, there were no working pumps or lifejackets as promised, and it would have been overcrowded with only a dozen aboard—let alone 138. Later it says: When water started to fill the hull, the asylum seekers tried to bail with their hands. Said Sakhi, 20, fell into the sea as waves washed over them. ‘For God’s sake, help me,’ he screamed before slipping away and drowning. Fatima, 20, clutched her baby ... who had been born in Indonesia two-and-a-half months earlier. But as the boat split into pieces she lost her grip and the baby fell into the water. ‘We could see him. But nobody could reach him’ ... That is the reality of policies that give priority to ships on the high seas. There are many other stories. I want to talk now about the reality for people who are denied access to our system to make way for people who are being urged into the system in this way. And remember that those people are not departing from a war zone; they are departing from Indonesia. For the Papuans who I spoke about before, there is the opportunity to move into Papua New Guinea and make an application from there. It is not necessary to take a canoe on the high seas, but if you want to follow the lure unfortunately that is what happens. The member for Cowper provided me with the account of Abraham Telar Nickanora from the Sudan. He says that when he was an infant his father was away fighting as a soldier and his mother had gone to another town. He said: The enemy forces attacked the town I was in before dawn, killing thousands of people. My aunt grabbed me and ran off into the bush where we hid for many days ... The bush was a dangerous place, with lions roaming about and little water or food available to eat ... I got sick with malaria and so did my aunt, so she was unable to carry me. After some time in the bush we decided to head for Ethiopia. But before we could reach the country we had to cross rivers with crocodiles and go through a desert. There was even less food or water to be found in the desert. Some people survived by drinking urine ... After three weeks in the desert we entered a rain forest ... Just before we entered Ethiopia a local tribe attacked our party and killed many of us ... Finally after four months we reached a refugee camp in Ethiopia. After being in the refugee camp for four years, the Ethiopian government told all refugees that they had 14 days to leave the country. When the time was up the army arrived with tanks, jeeps and helicopters, shooting at the people. I lost my aunt but was able to escape. I joined up with many other boys who had no parents with them. There were 17,000 boys in the group. He continued: We were able to cross back into Sudan, this time a journey of two months. When the Sudanese government discovered that many refugees had come back and were settled in their country, they sent in jets with bombs. The next week the village I was in was attacked ... From there we journeyed to Kenya, to a refugee camp there. Of the 17,000 boys who began there were only 7,000 left. Abraham writes: I was one of the lucky ones and I was six at the time. I thought life would be safe in the refugee camp, but the local people were not happy that we were there. Killings and women being raped were common. …            …            … However at the camp I was able to go to school. I worked as hard as I could and was a good student. …            …            … I applied for a visa and was accepted to come to Australia, but still there was little hope this would happen because I had no way of paying for air fares and the other costs. But God was answering my prayers. One day while I was walking on the main road in the refugee camp I found a paper belonging to someone else, blown by the wind. On it was the address of a group of Australians who sponsored refugees and helped them with their expenses. I contacted them right away. After much correspondence, I was accepted and found myself on a plane heading for Australia in July 2003. That is what I call an incredible tale. It is just atrocious that we provide encouragement to people who are otherwise safe in Indonesia to come to Australia in rickety boats, risking their lives and the lives of their children, while people like Abraham Telar Nickanora are left living in those appalling conditions, their lives under immediate threat in places like Sudan. Debate interrupted. 84 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 84 84 19:30:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —Tonight I wish to raise a vital issue of importance in my electorate and across the country: interest rates, of course. This week we have seen some extraordinary outbursts from members opposite. First we had the member for Wentworth, who believes the reaction to the recent increase was ‘overblown’. Then, amazingly, the member for Greenway said that she did not see interest rates as a major issue and had not been contacted about interest rates by people in her electorate. Should the member for Greenway claim to have been misrepresented, let me share her exact words with the House. I quote: ‘Look, I really have not had people raise interest rates as a major issue for them.’ The member for Greenway was very happy to campaign on interest rates before the election, as though it were a very serious and major issue before the election. The member was happy to put out pamphlets with slide rules showing what extra you would pay with an increase in interest rates. She was very happy to take out advertisements in Blacktown newspapers, promising to keep interest rates at record lows. But, after the election, suddenly it was no longer a major issue. If people had kept those calculators they could have seen that, on an average mortgage in the seat of Greenway, their repayments would have gone up $108 a month since the last election. Small businesses could use the pamphlet to determine the increase in their repayments on their major loans to keep their businesses afloat. The members opposite would say, ‘Yes, of course, but interest rates were 17 per cent under Labor.’ Of course there is the disingenuous sophistry of the Prime Minister, who says interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government than a Labor government—a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove in real terms. This claim has been taken to a ridiculous level by the honourable member for Flinders. I was recently reading one of my favourite publications: a magazine called the conservative. The member for Flinders wrote in a recent edition: Post-election analysis reveals that the question of interest rates was perhaps the most significant issue in determining people’s votes. We agree on that much. He goes on to cite an alleged Parliamentary Library paper, which he claims finds that interest rates have been historically higher under Labor governments than coalition governments. I will not comment on whether the paper had written across it: ‘Prepared at client request. Not for attribution to the Parliamentary Library.’ More disturbingly, the member for Flinders makes no mention of the international economic circumstances faced by each government. It is impossible for any government to keep interest rates very low when they are very high in the rest of the world. That would lead to substantial imbalances in the economy. Currently Australia has the second highest interest rates in the OECD. When interest rates were high under Labor in Australia in 1990, at 14.5 per cent, they were, for example, 14.8 per cent in the United States. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —When they were 16.8 per cent under Treasurer Howard in 1982, they were 12.3 per cent in the United States and 13.1 per cent in the United Kingdom. The other side has gone very quiet at the reminder of Treasurer Howard’s record with interest rates in 1982. Perhaps that is why the respected economic commentator Saul Eslake described the member for Flinders’s contribution as ‘fatuous’. I would add to that the descriptor ‘juvenile’. More credible is a paper by Raja Junankar of the School of Economics and Finance at the University of Western Sydney and the German based Institute for the Future of Work. This paper compares the economic records of Labor and coalition governments, taking into account international factors over the 1980s and nineties. This paper finds that Labor was more successful than the coalition at keeping interest rates in Australia lower than in countries overseas. Honourable members opposite would hate to hear it, but they are going to hear it—and they are going to hear it more and more between now and the next election. They will not be allowed again to get away with the sophistry and the disingenuous lies that they told at the last election, because Labor has a proud record of keeping interest rates lower than countries elsewhere in the world. Household debt levels under this government are so high that people are now paying more in interest than they were— (Time expired) 0L6 Draper, Trish, MP Mrs Draper —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the member for Prospect to withdraw the unparliamentary accusation that he made in that speech. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I was listening closely to the member for Prospect. He did not make an accusation against any particular individual, as I heard it. I therefore believe he is in order. However, the time has expired. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Indi is not in her seat, and she is interjecting. That is highly disorderly. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I hear the Chief Opposition Whip. 84 84 19:35:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —Queensland’s Department of Child Safety has again hit the headlines this week, with more disturbing reports that the service is in crisis. I felt so strongly about the issue, I too spoke out in an article in the Townsville Bulletin last Saturday and called for an investigation into the practices of the department. From the numerous stories I have since heard from my constituents, I believe the department is using Gestapo type tactics and removing children from their families and foster families without proper cause. Even one of Townsville’s solicitors spoke out in the article. He confirmed that he had begun to see a disturbing pattern of children being removed from their parents and foster carers without adequate investigations. He also went on to say that children are often taken on a Friday and held on a weekend when the parent or carer cannot do anything or talk to anyone. Just how insensitive and unprofessional is that? However, what disturbs me even more is that, despite these ongoing complaints about the Department of Child Safety not just from the community but also from professionals, Mike Reynolds, the Minister for Child Safety, still denies that his department has a problem. What will it take for him to sit up, take notice and act? Mr Reynolds criticised me for speaking out in the Townsville Bulletin article and claimed he takes all complaints seriously. Is that so, Mr Reynolds? Then why do I have constituents calling my office and saying that you have been of no help and that your office tells them that you are too busy to meet with them in person? Since the article was printed in the Bulletin I have received numerous calls from Townsville residents with similar stories, and a number of people have called into my office to tell of their experiences with the Department of Child Safety. These people are at the end of their tether, with nowhere to turn. I must say that the people who have contacted my office have shown great courage and strength in being able to talk about their cases. They have come forward in the desperate hope that somehow it will force the Queensland government to launch an investigation into the department. Several people have been brought to tears in recounting their stories and telling how the department turned their lives upside down and tore their families apart. One constituent told of how she and her husband were called into a police station with Child Safety officers present and told of an allegation against her husband. There and then she was given two options by the department’s officers: she and her two children should leave their house or the husband should leave the house. She was told that the officers would take their children away if she did not choose an option. The woman’s husband left the house. Just two weeks later the police dropped the case, but the Department of Child Safety did not. In the meantime, the wife continued to try to contact the department for answers—to no avail. On one occasion she rang the Department of Child Safety complaints line and was met not by a person but by an answering machine message that said, ‘We’re all busy; we’ll get back to you in five working days.’ While I am astounded that she got a recorded message when she rang the complaints hotline, I am even more astounded that two weeks later no-one from the department had called her back. She said it was only when she complained to Mike Reynolds’s office that—the same day—she received a phone call from the department. This is not good enough. In the end, the Department of Child Safety closed the case due to insufficient evidence. However, a father was forced to spend six months away from his family. On talking to a local solicitor and psychologist, I found that this is certainly not an isolated case. Another constituent contacted my office about problems that she encountered with the department while being a foster carer. This woman and her husband have been foster carers for over 15 years. The family was fostering a baby for about four months. The department removed the baby. The woman was told by the department that investigations take a maximum of six weeks. However, it is now more than three months, and still this woman has heard nothing from the department. Again this is not an isolated case. I believe that the Department of Child Safety not only is taking a heavy-handed approach but also has become uncaring. There are allegations of the department bullying parents and forcing them to engage in lengthy court proceedings when the existence of a risk of harm has not been established. Meanwhile, families are torn apart and children have no contact with their families. This cannot go on any longer. I call on the Townsville based child safety minister, Mike Reynolds, to stop burying his head in the sand and launch an investigation into his department immediately. 84 84 19:39:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —Like my colleague the member for Ballarat in last night’s adjournment, I have noted the Prime Minister’s comments about behaviour on Channel 10’s Big Brother program. I too watched the Lateline program. I have noted the deafening silence from the Prime Minister on claims of serious misconduct inside the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party. I very much empathised with Betty Mihic and her family, who ran the Petersham-Lewisham branch. It reminded me of the late Mrs Luke. For years the late Mrs Luke and I were at the Mount Druitt primary school manning the booths from eight o’clock in the morning to eight o’clock at night. She was a stalwart of the Liberal Party and a true believer. I much admired her although I disagreed with her politics. The misconduct I referred to was highlighted over the winter recess by party insider John Hyde Page. He has written a book with a rather gentle title—The Education of a Young Liberal—but there is nothing gentle about its content, for it exposes the rotten heart of the New South Wales Liberals. It is a story of ethnic branch stacking, fraud, violence, deception and intimidation. Hyde Page describes factional slush funds that pay multiple memberships, payments to induce stacked members to attend branch meetings, recruitment of members under false pretences, and impersonation of branch members to cast fraudulent votes. In an unfortunate echo of some of the Liberal Party student activity my colleague described last night, Hyde Page also reveals latent racism in sections of the New South Wales branch. He describes an activity known as a ‘run’ which involves Young Liberals from the right-wing faction charging up and down streets affixing racist stickers to the hoods of cars. Hyde Page describes violence as a feature of everyday life in the Young Liberal Movement. He says: I counted two instances of assault at a Young Liberal Council, one of them involving a young woman who was pregnant ... And he attributes to the right wing ‘the deliberate use of physical violence and intimidation as political tactics’. Hyde Page describes the relationship between the dominant groups in the New South Wales Liberal Party like this: Both factions did undertake covert surveillance of each other. There were factional slush funds—MPs and ministers aligned with each faction would raise funds, the proceeds of which went to pay for the hundreds of stacks that had to be signed each year. A number of members of this House feature in the book, including the members for Warringah, Mackellar, North Sydney and Wentworth. But it is the member for Wentworth that has the starring role. Hyde Page provides an eye-watering account of the branch stacking that preceded the 2004 Liberal preselection in Wentworth. He describes the member for Wentworth’s victory over the hapless Peter King as ‘a textbook example of the ugly way in which money and power can be used to crush a weaker opponent’. It is an analysis borne out by the author’s detailed account of the contest. It is clear that the internal struggle inside the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party has nothing to do with the contest of ideas. It is about the pursuit of power at all costs. Even now, the right wing is dominant, but that is not enough. According to Hyde Page, the right-wing faction wants to ‘wipe out everything else’. As the right wing has tightened its grip on the New South Wales branch, basic standards of behaviour have fallen by the wayside. Hyde Page says that violence is part of everyday life. He has provided evidence of fraud and deception. It is clear that ordinary members are being driven out of the party by factional power plays. I guess that includes Mrs Mihic and her sister. Yet the Prime Minister has remained mute on the right-wing takeover, content to benefit from the rise of the faction while distancing himself from its excesses. It is well past time that the Prime Minister turned his mind from moralising about Big Brother and reality television to the task of cleaning up his own party and his own New South Wales branch. 84 84 19:44:00 Kelly, De-Anne, MP FK6 Dawson NATS Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) 1 0 Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY —Dr Khalifallah became a staff specialist at Mackay Base Hospital in 2004. Dr Raad Almehdi is the Director of Surgery. In July 2005 the credentials committee of the hospital determined that Dr Khalifallah must be supervised during major surgery. Within four weeks he undertook three major surgical cases without supervision, with complications arising. One case, which was to remove a bowel tumour, resulted in faecal matter entering the intestinal cavity. This operation was carried out in direct contravention of the decision of the credentials committee. In July 2005, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons expressed serious concern. In September 2005, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons indicated that it wanted to visit Mackay Base Hospital. Hospital administrators said that this was not necessary, they were carrying out their own internal investigation. This investigation was done by Dr John Hack, the senior surgeon from Townsville Base Hospital. The report has never been sighted. I was shown a copy of a letter from Mackay Base Hospital in November 2005, written to Dr Khalifallah, which directed him to ‘perform no elective abdominal surgery; perform no emergency abdominal surgery without consulting his surgical superiors; not to book or confirm any such cases’. Subsequently, the hospital reversed their position and told the credentials committee that Dr Khalifallah deserved a second chance on the basis that he could lose his job. Duty of care to patients was overlooked. In early 2006, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons wrote to the hospital with reference to Dr Khalifallah. The letter read: Admitting post-operative complications following surgery. Dr Khalifallah claimed that a post-operation haematoma from a hydrocele was due to a cow kicking the patient in the stomach, when it was noted within two hours of surgery. His rate of normal appendicectomies in children was greater than some teaching hospitals. The letter continues: Motorbike accident, acute abdominal pain, with patient deteriorating. Dr Khalifallah wanted a CT scan. Had to be talked into operating, where a ruptured spleen was removed. Seat belt injury. Observed in ICU for 24 hours, and not improving. Dr Khalifallah ordered no further imaging. ICU staff— who defied the order— ordered a CT scan and perforation was revealed. Patient required five to six operations. Patient had a definite bile lead post-operatively as demonstrated by CT scan and liver function test. A blind supra pubic drain was installed in the ward. It should have been done in an operating theatre. The patient had to be transferred to the gastro intestinal unit at Townsville Base Hospital. The latter case is of great concern. I was shown two cases of the surgical notes. One showed that Dr Khalifallah operated alone. The second had added to it ‘the supervising surgeon was called and attended’. This is false, as a report from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons states. It is a cover-up by Dr Khalifallah. The letter from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons also noted that Dr Khalifallah would ‘shout’ and ‘bully’ other staff and that, in the hospital, Dr Khalifallah and Dr Almehdi communicated with each other in Arabic. Despite all of this, the Director of Surgery, Dr Almehdi, sought to have all of Dr Khalifallah’s rights and privileges restored. On 2 July, he wrote that a ‘broader spectrum of general surgery procedures was to be undertaken in the hospital by Dr Khalifallah’ and that he ‘can start again doing abdominal procedures in the form of elective and emergency cases’. On 19 July this year, Dr Chris Perry, from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, wrote to the hospital: Dr John Hack has raised serious concerns regarding Khalifallah’s surgical competence ... it would be unwise to alter Khalifallah’s current work restriction. This report was swept under the table. We now know that the opposite happened. This surgeon was allowed to keep operating, unsupervised and with serious consequences which were covered up by the falsification of surgical records. On 30 July, the only surgeon on call at Mackay Base Hospital was Dr Khalifallah. There was a life-threatening situation. I have been told that a patient has been in ICU for four to six weeks as a result of a botched laparoscopy. Mr Beattie claims to have fixed Queensland Health. Nothing has changed. We see bullied and frightened whistleblowers still coming forward to warn of the potential for another Bundaberg Hospital crisis. Surgeons work unsupervised and beyond their level of competence, and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons is ignored. There is a toxic system in Queensland Health. Budgets are ruthlessly enforced by the Beattie government, which demands that surgery targets be met. Staff are stretched. There needs to be a full inquiry. As my whistleblowers have said: Patients are suffering. It’s life-threatening. If it was my brother, father or sister, I would not send them there. There needs to be an investigation. Mr Beattie has not fixed Queensland Health. The people of Mackay and the rest of Queensland deserve far better. 84 84 19:49:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —It is now official that this government has abandoned Western Sydney. The residents of Western Sydney, who once may have thought that they had a special place in the heart of this government, have now woken up to the way that they have been treated. It is clear that Western Sydney Liberal MPs have not been standing up for them. The member for Lindsay cannot be bothered turning up to party room meetings to present the views of her constituents. While she might be the mouthpiece for the Prime Minister in leadership stoushes, she is certainly not the mouthpiece for Western Sydney in this place. When was the last time that you heard the member for Lindsay, the member for Macarthur or the member for Greenway spout anything other than the government line on issues such as petrol pricing, interest rates or industrial relations? My Western Sydney Labor colleagues have known for some time that the duplicity of Liberal members for Western Sydney would be exposed sooner or later. We knew that they could not keep up this carefully crafted facade forever. We know that Liberal members prefer to look down on the people of Western Sydney. They might like their votes but they do not like the people. The contempt that has been shown to the people of Western Sydney, which lies at the soul of the Liberal Party, was laid bare this week. The member for Lindsay, before she  was silenced by her boss, belled the cat when she said that the Treasurer lacked empathy for the battlers of Western Sydney. But the member for Wentworth took lack of empathy to new heights. On Monday he took it to a new level altogether when he said that interest rate rises were overdramatised. I still hear that he is wondering why people were so shocked by his comments. His glib comment came from the very soul of the Liberal Party. It showed just how uncaring this government is. Interest rate rises certainly hurt the people of Western Sydney. They hurt families in Western Sydney. They hurt families with mortgages, they hurt families with credit card debt and they hurt families whose budgets are strained by high petrol prices and increased private health insurance premiums. They hurt every single person who believed in the government’s false promises and half-truths about interest rates during the last election. Interest rates will certainly hurt families who lose their overtime payments and penalty rates as a result of the government’s extreme and unfair industrial relations laws. And how do these Western Sydney Liberal MPs respond? The member for Macarthur told his constituents that he has no problem with jobs that do not pay overtime, do not allow for meal breaks and do not pay penalty rates. You can read that for yourselves in the paper. He went on to say that if they do not like it then they do not have to take the job. He said that they can always start their own small business. I was stunned when I read his ignorant comments on industrial relations as a whole. The letters page in the Macarthur Advertiser bears out that I was not alone, as these comments have generated a huge response from the people of Campbelltown. The arrogance and the unfeeling, uncaring and uncharitable nature of the Liberal Party and its members were on display once again. Major cracks are appearing in this government. It is struggling to keep the true feelings of its members from the voters of Western Sydney. It is struggling to come to terms with the fact that the people of Western Sydney and the suburban areas throughout the country feel betrayed by this government. Residents of Western Sydney, workers of Western Sydney, know that they are not sharing in the prosperity that this government crows about. They know that their families, their friends and their neighbours are not well off to the point that the government claims, and they know that they are at the sharp end of the government’s extreme industrial relations changes. They also know that they are going to be the ones who will lose their overtime payments and their penalty rates and who will be forced to sign unfair AWAs. They know that Work Choices for them means no choices. They are scared and they have every right to be. The people of Western Sydney also know that this is the direct result of failed representation by Western Sydney Liberal MPs. Western Sydney coalition MPs have not stood up for them or for their families. If the member for Lindsay thought she was skating on thin ice and doing some fancy footwork on the Channel 9 program, wait to see what she has to do at the next election. (Time expired) 84 84 19:54:00 Draper, Trish, MP 0L6 Makin LP 1 0 Mrs DRAPER —I would like to share with the House a very sad incident that happened to me and my family and no doubt to many others in my electorate of Makin around lunchtime last Saturday. I happened to be in the car with my sons at the intersection of North East Road and Smart Road, Modbury, waiting for the traffic lights to change, when I noticed a young man swaying and staggering near one of the traffic lights and wandering in and out of the traffic on North East Road. At first I was worried that he may have been intoxicated with alcohol, although it was only just after midday. However, he then put a small bag to his mouth and appeared to be sniffing some sort of substance. It then became obvious what was happening. He was completely off his face and oblivious to the traffic dangers around him. I immediately called the police and informed them that there was a young man who was in need of assistance. While my first instinct as a mother and a concerned citizen was to approach him and attempt to encourage him to sit down and rest and to get him out of danger, I was counselled against doing so for my own safety. This poor man managed to stumble his way through traffic and across a busy road, at one stage walking head-on into traffic on Smart Road in the direction of Modbury Hospital. He finally managed to get onto the footpath, walking in the same direction. By the time I managed to get the courage up to look for him, ignoring all other advice, I was unable to locate him. When I checked with the Tea Tree Gully police, they were able to inform me that two patrol cars and a foot patrol had been dispatched in an attempt to locate him. Unfortunately, they were also unable to locate him. What I was able to ascertain was that this man had been found in a state of near unconsciousness earlier in the day at the Tea Tree Plaza interchange, where he had been dispatched by ambulance to Modbury Hospital. After he had been treated there, he was discharged that same morning, which is why my children and I were confronted with this tragedy unfolding before us. The question that comes to mind is: what has happened to our once beautiful quiet city and community of Adelaide when ordinary people are frightened to assist people in obvious distress and danger because of the fear of drug induced violence against those trying to help them? The police have no facilities and no legislative framework to deal with these matters and with people who obviously and desperately need help. The system needs to change and we need to be able to help these people—after all, this man is someone’s son. Where is the state government in all of this? Where is the health minister and where are all of the services that were promised at the last election? How dare they leave our most vulnerable to fend for themselves and leave the police to pick up the pieces again and again? What has happened to the so-called memorandum of understanding that was supposed to be implemented between the state government, mental health services in South Australia and the police? The system does not seem to be working very well—or they are once again taking a very long time to implement a promise to look after South Australians in need. The subject of commitments from the state government brings to mind a whole raft of proposals that are yet to be delivered after more than four years of the Rann government. They were published in the Advertiser on 24 July and include $100 million for the Supreme Court redevelopment; $32 million for a women’s prison; $46 million for a youth detention centre; $50 million for outer harbour channel deepening; $70 million for the Port River Expressway, including bridges; $21 million for the Glenelg tram extension, a project that nobody wants anyway; $30 million for police stations and courthouses; $50 million for the Adelaide Entertainment Centre replacement; and affordable housing. Following this, we have had recently reported details of the cost blow-outs of current projects, including an $11 million blow-out for the Bakewell Bridge on Henley Beach Road; a $250 million blow-out for the Northern Expressway—and now we have the state government expecting the federal government to bail them out again—and an estimated $35 million blow-out for the Anzac Highway and the South Road underpass. I think South Australians are starting to realise that they made a mistake at the last state election by re-electing a Labor government, as here we have more proof that Labor has no credibility when it comes to finances and management. I call upon the South Australian Labor government, led by Mike Rann, to do something. I also call upon the mental health minister, Gail Gago, who sits on the comfortable, plush benches of the upper house, to get off her hands and do something. Lives are in the balance and these lives are in her hands. 84 19:59:00 House adjourned at 7.59 pm 84 Notices The following notice was 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 Thursday 10 August 2006: in relation to proceedings on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 — at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 12.30 p.m., whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 15 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. 2006-08-09 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. 84 Statements by Members 84 84 09:30:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I take the opportunity this morning to indicate my wholehearted support for the local community campaign in opposition to the sale of land at Hill 60 in Port Kembla and urge the government to withdraw this significant site from private sale. The Minister for Defence has determined to dispose of this land on the grounds that it has been identified as surplus to defence requirements. The particular parcel of land adjoins Hill 60, which has been granted heritage listing by the New South Wales government. Hill 60 has particular significance for our local Indigenous community, who want the land returned to its rightful owners. At the ‘save our hill’ rally on Sunday, 6 August, Uncle Reuben Brown, an esteemed local elder, referred to their longstanding connection with this land when he said: On this land here is where my wife’s mother and my great grandmother’s little sister lived in a tin shed. This is where they lived until about 1942 when the army moved them out, but that doesn’t change the fact that over there is where our ancestors have been buried. They want to sell the land from under us. We’ve got to do something to make sure that it doesn’t happen. The ball is now in the government’s court. I have pursued the case with a range of ministers, including the Minister for Defence and the ministers for the environment and Indigenous affairs, but I have as yet received no response. I am aware that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has also urged that the decision to dispose of this land be reviewed. I am at a loss to understand the department’s view that ‘there are no significant heritage or environmental issues involved’. Surely the Indigenous connection to this land—the historical and the cultural ties—must indicate that there are strong grounds to reverse this decision. The rally on Sunday was well attended by a cross-section of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants and many local residents of Port Kembla who are determined to preserve this important site. The Department of Defence claims it has to recoup the purchase price of the land for the public. In response one might ask, ‘What purchase price?’ The land was taken from the Aboriginal people who lived on it and who were forced off it during World War II. The government should not proceed with the sale. I have urged the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to intervene in terms of his authority under federal legislation. I have also called on the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to, in a genuine act of practical reconciliation, have the Defence land incorporated into the current Hill 60 heritage listing by the New South Wales government. The rally asked me to pass on the following message to the government: ‘You’re not taking our land; it’s not for sale.’ 84 84 09:32:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —On 2 August I had the great honour of hosting a community morning tea with the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard. The event was a great success, and over 400 local community members gathered at the Gateway Baptist Church in Mackenzie to meet and mingle with the Prime Minister. Representatives from a wide range of community organisations and schools throughout the electorate of Bonner were present, and I take this opportunity to commend each and every guest for helping to make the morning tea such a memorable occasion. I also thank the Prime Minister on yet another display of his commitment to the people of Bonner and those in the community who work so tirelessly to make our local area an even better place to live. I can assure the Prime Minister that he will always be welcome in Bonner, and I know that for many at the morning tea the opportunity to personally meet their Prime Minister was a great honour and an enjoyable experience. It was with particular interest that I read a local school newsletter after the event in which a year 7 student, Danny Kelly, of St John Vianney’s Primary School in Manly, reflected on his experience when he wrote: I went to see Mr John Howard on Wednesday at a morning tea. It was a cool experience. He did a speech about all the stuff that is going on and there were a lot of people there. The morning tea was great, I loved it! The Prime Minister is a nice guy and we took photos with him. We all sang Advance Australia Fair and we all talked a lot, we loved it. And I felt very special. I believe Danny Kelly captured the sentiments of all students when he wrote those words, and I am delighted that the event proved such a special experience not only for school representatives but for community members. Of course, I acknowledge that the event would not have been made possible without the dedicated efforts of the staff and volunteers of the Gateway Baptist Church. Pastor Paul Cavanagh led a team of fine men and women who worked extremely hard to facilitate an outstanding morning tea, and I congratulate the church again. It is through interaction with the grassroots community that all government leaders gain a better understanding of and respect for those local Australians who contribute so significantly, yet often so quietly, to the community. I remain committed to bringing the leaders here in Canberra to Bonner so they can personally see the good work of the community that is alive in the electorate. 84 84 09:35:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —One area that might not receive the Prime Minister so enthusiastically is the area of Cranbourne, which I represent. The residents of Cranbourne have three issues that cause them great concern and which they have raised with me. Cranbourne is an area which is particularly sensitive to interest rate rises and petrol price rises. It is part of a growth-belt corridor in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Interestingly, even though it is in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, the Cranbourne exchange is excluded from the metropolitan untimed local call zone. So, due to historical anomaly, Cranbourne residents and businesses pay an STD rate when calling central Melbourne. It is historical anomaly, as 70 per cent of the residents covered by the Cranbourne exchange live within a 50 kilometre radius of central Melbourne. This creates a situation where Cranbourne residents pay an STD rate when calling central Melbourne, but residents in neighbouring Berwick and Frankston, who live equidistant or further from central Melbourne, pay an untimed local call rate. This historical anomaly was created in the 1960s and never changed, in spite of massive population growth. I guess the residents of Cranbourne would be asking why they have to pay this exorbitant rate—an STD rate—when an area like Berwick does not. This has been a campaign waged by the residents of Cranbourne for a great number of years now and yet the residents of Cranbourne continue to be told, ‘It’s going to be okay; it’s eventually going to be fixed.’ But a community as interest rate and petrol price sensitive as this one, a community that is doing it fairly tough as a consequence of interest rate and petrol price rises, really deserves some relief. I believe that, the last time I checked, the federal government was a majority owner of Telstra—although who knows these days, when you have Sol Trujillo or whoever else running the show—but one of these days the government should take responsibility for rectifying this anomaly and stop punishing the residents of Cranbourne, because they have just had enough of being discriminated against. We have a Medicare office that the government opened last year—after 10 years of hard campaigning by the residents of Cranbourne to establish a Medicare office, in an area with a population of about 35,000 people. But they now find that it is the only Medicare office in the region that is not open on a Thursday night or a Saturday morning. They pay their taxes; they work very hard; why is it that the residents of Cranbourne have the only Medicare office in the region that does not open on a Thursday night or a Saturday morning? They rightly feel they are being discriminated against. If Mr Howard does want to come down and do something constructive, rather than doing a morning tea, how about fixing up those messes there? 84 84 09:38:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise today to talk about a very valuable project that I am working on in my electorate. It is in a suburb called Riverstone. There is a Girl Guide hall that has not been used in recent years and needs serious work. So I have pulled together Work for the Dole, the local Guides, Wesley Mission and a number of different local businesses, and we are working on the project. We have been meeting for several months now. The scope of works has been completed by a local builder, and I want to thank him for all his free contributions and donations to this project. This is a result of Families Connect, which are a part of Wesley Mission, coming to me. They do a lot of great work with some of the new families in the area, working to ensure that young mums are connected with each other and that they get together. Riverstone is still developing—it is an area that has been called by the locals ‘the first country town outside of Sydney’. While there are many residents who have lived there for decades, there are also young families moving in. Because of that, there is some pressure on the local community halls, which are already used to capacity. This hall was not being used and was vacant, and there was a growing need for places where organisations like Wesley Mission and Families Connect could meet. This was an opportunity for businesses, volunteer organisations such as Lions, me and a federal government initiative like Work for the Dole to come together and achieve some great outcomes. The local Girl Guides are very excited about this. This is an opportunity for them to connect with some new families. The project is expected to take approximately six months. The works will be completed also by many local families. A number of people who have trades have put up their hands to help. Other project partners will supply volunteer labour as well. Once completed, the building will be suitable not just for Families Connect but also for many other community organisations and local groups. The coordinators of the project Families Connect also help many young mothers to connect into the workforce. They are bringing in training, connecting them with TAFE and so on. This is also going to be an opportunity to provide more work and connection and pathways for young mums who have had some challenges achieving that. I am very excited about this project. I would like to congratulate and thank everybody who has come together and worked so cooperatively. I look forward to being able to launch and open it. (Time expired) 84 84 09:41:00 Wilkie, Kim, MP 84G Swan ALP 0 0 Mr WILKIE —I wish to put on record the contents of a letter I have sent to the Hon. Sharman Stone, the Minister for Workforce Participation, concerning the plight of one of my constituents regarding problems he is experiencing following recently implemented coalition government policies: Mr Pearce is 16 years old, and has acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. He applied to Centrelink for a disability support pension on 8 June, 2006. I have been advised of the following. Mrs Pearce, Matthew’s mother, has permission on Matthew’s file to act on his behalf concerning any Centrelink issues. Mrs Pearce was informed by Centrelink staff that they would have to wait eight weeks for an appointment for a work capacity assessment for Matthew. On Wednesday, 26 July Matthew was discharged from hospital in a wheelchair and with a gastro-nasal feeding tube. On the same day, the 26th of July, Matthew received a letter from Advance Personnel Management, of 58 Ord St, West Perth, stating that he had to attend a work capacity assessment appointment on Thursday the 27th of July at 10 am. The letter from APM was dated 25 July and stated that their office had been unable to contact Mr Pearce by phone or to arrange an appointment. On Thursday, 27 July Matthew and his mother arrived at APM for his appointment, only to find that there was no wheelchair access to the building. Matthew and Mrs Pearce only gained access after two policemen exiting the building came to their assistance and lifted Matthew’s wheelchair up the stairs. Mrs Pearce states that the APM staff were very apologetic and had not realised that Matthew was so ill. Apparently, they had not received all of Matthew’s files from Centrelink. They informed Mrs Pearce that if they had had all the information on Matthew’s case they could have done a work capacity assessment over the phone. I find the treatment of Matthew and his mother incompetent and callous. I have no doubt that it is a result of ill-conceived government policy and policy implementation. The letter’s arrival date is more than just clerical error—it is a disgrace. Matthew had just left hospital and was given less than 24 hours to contact Centrelink if he could not make the appointment. Mrs Pearce felt she had no choice but to take Matthew to the appointment as she was concerned that failure to do so would further delay the process of Matthew’s DSP application. The letter also stated that Matthew’s application could be rejected if he did not attend the appointment. The day of the appointment was also very cold, wet and windy. It is of extreme concern that Matthew was forced to endure the elements with a significantly reduced immune system. The letter also states that ‘APM cannot contact the client’. As Matthew was in hospital, Mrs Pearce gave her contact details to Centrelink. She states that her mobile phone is always with her and is always switched on, so there is no reason why she could not be contacted to change the appointment. I have included a copy of the letter to Matthew under the dual letterhead of APM and Centrelink. There needs to be an urgent investigation into Matthew’s case and I would appreciate a response as soon as possible. Finally, I am certain there will be more Centrelink clients with disabilities who will need to attend a work capacity assessment at APM. Can you please explain to me how they will gain access to a building that does not have disabled access? I received a response from the minister that said that it is not her problem; it is Joe Hockey’s problem. It is absolutely unacceptable, and it is time the government dealt with this extremely poor— (Time expired) 84 84 09:44:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I would like to draw the House’s attention to the hectic media schedule yesterday of the Premier of New South Wales, during which he visited a school in my electorate, Grays Point Public School. He also brought with him the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, Carmel Tebbutt, and the state member for Miranda, Barry Collier. Flanked by news cameras, the trio fawned over students as they sat in the school library at their brand-new laptop computers. Channel 7 News captured the spectacle last night and showed the Premier crouched down and admiring the new equipment, as the adulation of all and sundry was plainly evident. What a great job he is doing for the students, the parents and the teachers of Grays Point Public School! What a great job he is doing for the people of the Sutherland Shire! How kind of him and the minister to stop in and check out the new laptops! What Premier Iemma’s permanent cycle of spin does not tell you is that it seems those computers he seemed to admire so much on television were actually paid for by the federal education department’s latest round of funding under the Investing in Our Schools program. We gave Grays Point Public School $40,000 for new laptops. The gall of Morris Iemma and his New South Wales government is well known, and this case is no exception. The state member for Miranda, Barry Collier, who is not afraid to accept my frequent invitations regarding Commonwealth initiatives and to launches in my electorate, has also acted with unapologetic underhandedness by allowing this deception to take place. The Investing in Our Schools program is highlighting the chronic neglect of state schools by the state Labor government in New South Wales. I point out that the paper today says that in fact the state government will spend more money on buying new cars for public servants than on upgrading schools this financial year. It just shows where they are at. Yesterday’s event really epitomises this. They went to Grays Point Public School yesterday and tried to find something they had done. Of course, they could find nothing so they found something that this government has done. The Investing in Our Schools program has handed out 2,359 projects in New South Wales in the first two rounds, worth $107 billion. In my electorate of Cook, schools have received $1.5 million in funding. This is real funding for real projects, not the make-believe spin that Premier Iemma and his minister invested in yesterday. It was total spin without substance. Put some real money into the development of schools in my electorate next time, instead of spin. 84 84 09:47:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —Last Thursday, 3 August, I visited the remaining workers of Tristar Steering and Suspension during a stop-work meeting in my electorate. Due to the Howard government’s extreme Work Choices legislation, these workers are facing the loss of their entitlements. Tristar is likely to shut down in the next 12 months or so, following the loss of all its contracts. Most of its workers have already been retrenched. A once 300-strong workforce is down to fewer than 60. The workers who remain are the longest-serving employees. Thirty of those remaining have given an average of 25 years service, and I met workers who had worked there for more than 40 years. Like the AMWU and the AWU, which represent these workers, I am concerned about their entitlements. Other workers who have taken redundancy have received four weeks payment per year of service. These workers are being kept at the factory, even though there is no work to do. The EBA is due to expire on 30 September, and it allows for redundancy of four weeks per year of service. If Tristar were to terminate the current agreement after 30 September, the remaining workers would lose their entitlements. They may revert to the Work Choices fair pay and conditions standard, which has no redundancy provisions. The company is essentially stalling for time to take advantage of the new Work Choices legislation. These workers are being treated like a disposable commodity, with no respect or dignity, where bosses can stall, remove all certainty and security for workers and seek to take away their entitlements. Under the changes that the Howard government has made to GEERS, if the company goes into voluntary administration rather than liquidation, the only limited entitlements that the workers would receive could be reduced even further. GEERS may not even apply. Like many of my constituents, these workers have come from all parts of the world. They have come to make this place their home and to raise a family. They have been a part of building a great nation. But that nation falls apart when you have a government that is prepared to treat people like they are disposable and to throw them onto the scrap heap. On Friday, I wrote to the management of Tristar, and yesterday I received a response from Vincent Kong to my request for a meeting to discuss these issues. He wrote: Dear Mr Albanese, I refer to your letter dated 4 August 2006. The company feels that a meeting with yourself at this time is not necessary and respectfully decline your request for such a meeting. Yours sincerely, Vincent Kong General Manager That is a company that will not even meet with the local federal member to discuss these issues and that in the industrial commission last week refused to give a guarantee of entitlements. This is the brave new world under John Howard’s extreme IR legislation. It is one that Labor will resist, and it is one in which I will continue to represent those workers. (Time expired) 84 84 09:50:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I was particularly pleased recently to be able to announce Australian government grants worth over $5 million for capital works at the Chancellor State College in my electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast. This college will receive $4.779 million towards stage 4C of the performing arts project, as well as $240,000 towards stage 3A—the fit-out of the manual arts block. This is an excellent school. The principal is John Lockhart. Many people seek to go there. In fact, they have had to draw an area around the school to ensure that only people who are in the geographic locality of that school are able to go there. It is located in one of the fastest growing areas of the Sunshine Coast, and parents and students are voting with their feet to go to Chancellor State College. It is vital that facilities keep up with demand to ensure the best possible learning environment for our children. This funding announcement demonstrates the Australian government’s continued commitment to a strong and effective school system, including a state school system, maximising the opportunities for young Australians. There is a lot of misinformation out there about this government’s approach to government education. In 2006, this government is investing over $391 million in capital works in Australian schools through the capital grants program. Of that, over $278 million is provided for major capital projects in state schools. Over $55.4 million is allocated to state schools in Queensland in 2006. That is why I was particularly pleased to get, with respect to the performing arts project and the fit-out of the manual arts block, over $5 million for Chancellor State College. It is really good to see the government allocating funds to schools and institutions which have the capacity to maximise their usage to improve educational outcomes for young Australians. The Chancellor State College is a college that does enjoy very strong community support, and I have to say that it gave me a great deal of pleasure to ring the principal to pass on the excellent news. I think it is unfortunate that there is so much misinformation out there about this government’s approach to education. We are all about excellence in education in both the government and non-government sectors. This government has been increasing its spending in relation to state school education at a much higher rate than the states have been funding their own responsibilities for state education. In a personal sense, I think it would be great if all the states handed the education systems over to the Australian government so that we could have consistency of curricula throughout the nation—and, of course, you would not find the buck-passing which occurs when states try to avoid their funding responsibilities. The states, of course, get every last cent of the GST, and they and, in particular, the Beattie government in Queensland stand condemned for failing to fund state school education. This government has the runs on the board, and I am very pleased to be a member supporting the government. (Time expired) 84 84 09:53:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I rise to speak on an issue of great concern to my electorate, and that is the future of the Point Cook RAAF base, RAAF Base Williams. The future of this air base has been unresolved for more than a decade. My predecessor Barry Jones served on a variety of committees about its future which recommended that RAAF Laverton, which is also in my electorate, be closed and its functions consolidated at Point Cook. Point Cook is no normal site. It is a site of incredible historic significance. It is the birthplace of the Australian Air Force. It is where the first manned flight in Australia took place in 1903. It is the place that is most associated with flying in this country, and it is the oldest airstrip in the world which is still operating as an airstrip. The Howard government, on coming to office, determined to earmark the site for sale, and it was very clear when I was elected as the member for Lalor that the Howard government’s plans were to preserve the smallest possible heritage precinct and then sell the rest of the site to whoever wished to buy it for whatever purpose they wished to use it for. The community reaction to this was swift and huge, with over 10,000 people signing a petition to have the site stay in Commonwealth ownership. I was delighted when this campaigning was rewarded by a backflip by the Howard government when the then parliamentary secretary, Fran Bailey, announced in 2004 that the site would remain in Commonwealth hands and that a trust would be established to manage its day-to-day functions. Unfortunately, whilst the announcement was good, the delivery has not been. The trust is now being disbanded and there is great uncertainty about what is going to happen next. Rumours are now sweeping my electorate that indeed RAAF Laverton is going to be closed down and its functions consolidated at Point Cook—a plan over a decade old—and there are rumours that non-RAAF users of the site will not be able to continue to use the site. I therefore ask the responsible minister to make a public statement about the following matters. A RAAF heritage advisory group has been formed. I would like to know how many times it has met and when it will report to the Chief of Air Force. I would like to know what the plans are for the Laverton air base. I would like to know the outcome of the defence accommodation requirements review which was recently undertaken in Melbourne. I would like to know what consideration there is for infrastructure in the surrounding areas, given the apparent planned changes for the site. I would like to know what the future is for non-RAAF users of the site. I would like to be assured that the RAAF will consult and engage stakeholders and interest groups to ensure an optimum outcome for Point Cook, which is a significant historical landmark in this country and which all Australians should be proud of. (Time expired) 84 84 09:56:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —I recently had the pleasure of attending and speaking at a values forum at the Mirrabooka Primary School in my electorate of Stirling. I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about this wonderful project and the values of pride, respect and responsibility that it is instilling in young people in my electorate. The Mirrabooka shared values project, put together by the Mirrabooka Primary School, the Mirrabooka Senior High School and the Mirrabooka Education Support Centre, is working to ensure that students have a shared value system that permeates through every part of the curriculum. This system will reinforce good and solid values throughout all of their school years, from primary to secondary, and help them become productive and responsible citizens. I am confident that many of the students from these schools will make a lasting contribution to their local community. The Mirrabooka schools’ shared values project has five principles: do your best at everything you do; like yourself; be proud of yourself and what you do; be kind, caring and respectful towards others and act fairly in everything you do; remember you and others have rights and responsibilities; and, finally, respect and treasure the environment. Students are rewarded for displaying these values, whether it is by showing leadership, citizenship or simply kindness towards others. Parents are also encouraged to participate in the program, which means that there is the added bonus of these values permeating through the family home. It is great to see young people in my electorate who are prepared to participate in a project where they learn compassion, tolerance and a sense of fairness. Every school in Australia is invited to take part in the Australian government’s Values Education Good Practice Schools Project. I am very pleased that these three schools in Mirrabooka have taken up the challenge that this program creates. I believe there is a lot of value in children taking the time to think about right and wrong and what their obligations are to other people that they share a community with—in this case, a school community that is made up of three separate schools. These three schools share the same site, and that site has a great spirit. Students and staff are proud of their school, and you can feel this as soon as you visit any one of these three institutions. So congratulations to Mirrabooka Primary School, Mirrabooka Senior High School and the Mirrabooka Education Support Centre for their values forum and for the creation of this important statement of community values. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 84 Bills R2556 84 Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Downer: That this bill be now read a second time. 84 09:59:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —I rise today to speak on the Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006. When we talk about Australia’s relationship with Japan, we are talking about a relationship with our largest trading partner, and that is why it is important that we participate in a debate such as this. Whether we are dealing with cultural, economic or political institutions which affect the Australia-Japan relationship, we are talking about a relationship which deeply shapes our future, as in fact it has shaped so much of our economic past. The current two-way trade is somewhere in the vicinity of $50 billion. Much has been said recently about the impact of the resources boom on Australia. Japan is an integral part of that story. Australia exported $9 billion worth of coal to Japan last year. The revenue gained from the resources boom for Australia has been exceptional. However, this growth has been driven by prices, as the Reserve Bank’s quarterly Statement on monetary policy pointed out last week. The revenue growth has been largely accounted for by higher prices, with volumes increasing only modestly. Growth in the value of resource exports has been strong over the past two years, averaging growth of 26 per cent per year. However, as the RBA points out, this has been almost entirely due to rising international commodity prices. The volume of resource exports has not performed so well. The ABS measurement of export volumes extrapolates from the price impacts to estimate how much the export capacity changes over time. The volume of Australia’s resource exports has averaged growth of just 1.3 per cent over the last five years. In fact, national accounts data shows that the mining industry has actually contracted over the past 12 months by 2.4 per cent. The resources boom is looming, therefore, as a missed opportunity for Australia. Australia has not made enough of the boom itself, with the failure of government to provide the skills and infrastructure to ensure that resource export volumes were able to grow as rapidly as they might have in response to the rise in world demand. A lack of vision has seen this opportunity—possibly a once in a lifetime opportunity—to invest in our productive future, and in the drivers of economic growth, squandered. The general slowing in export growth, the decline in services, the narrowing of our export base and the failure of resource export volumes to respond rapidly to demand all add up to a pretty poor performance on exports during the most recent period. It is no wonder that the Reserve Bank of Australia in its quarterly statement issued on Friday said: Despite the strong conditions prevailing internationally, Australia’s export performance has been disappointing. This statement goes to the essence of the problem, and one which Labor has pointed to for a long, long time: Australia has been very fortunate that international commodity prices have been as strong as they are, but we need to be more than the lucky country. The resources boom, if Australia’s history is any guide, cannot last forever. When it ends—and it will end, hopefully not with a thud—at a certain point in our economic cycle, the impact on the general economy looms as being significant. That is why Australia continues to need to broaden its economic base into manufacturing as well as into the important services export sector. There has been much discussion in the public debate about China as the external driver of the Australian economy. The impact of China, of course, has been significant. However, Japan, as I noted in my earlier remarks, is still Australia’s largest merchandise export destination and the largest bilateral trading partner. Our large resource base and abundance of land make Australia the perfect supplier of inputs to the Japanese industrial economy, with its strong industrial base. In 2005, Australia’s exports to Japan were valued at about $31 billion, comprising $28.4 billion in goods exports and $3.1 billion in services exports. On the flip side, Australia has imported $19 billion of goods and services from Japan. I am pleased to say that Japan is a country with which we have a trade surplus of $12 billion. That is why this economy is of such significance to Australia. This trade has grown considerably over time. Australia’s goods exports to Japan, for which we have a long-time series, have close to tripled since 1988, when they were valued at just $11.5 billion. The relationship between the two countries is a classic example of how two economies endowed with different resources can benefit from trade. The complementarity is clear in this sector when we look at the trade flows between Australia and Japan. Australia’s top five exports to Japan are: coal, $9 billion; iron ore, $3.3 billion; beef $2.4 billion; and aluminium, $1.5 billion. Compare these to our four top merchandise imports: passenger vehicles, $6.7 billion; other vehicles, $1.2 billion; civil engineering equipment, $600 million; and vehicle parts, $500 million. Australia’s trade with Japan is not just in goods; services are also an important part of our trade. Australian services exports to Japan were valued at $3.1 billion in 2005 and I am pleased to say Australia actually has a services trade surplus with Japan of $1.3 billion. However, as with total exports, Australia’s exports to Japan have slowed considerably over the past five years. Goods exports to Japan averaged growth of 7.2 per cent a year during the period of the Labor government. These have slowed to average just 5.2 per cent over the past five years. The same is also true of our services exports to Japan. Between 1991 and 1996 under Labor, exports of services to Japan grew at an annual average rate of 10.5 per cent per annum. Between 1996 and 2000, services exports to Japan declined by 20.2 per cent per annum and over the past five years declined by 0.4 per cent per annum. Since tourism is our largest services export to Japan, the decline may in part reflect the slowing in the Japanese economy over this period. But on the question of the sale of tourism services to Japan, I think the Australian government needs to look far more deeply than that. There are significant problems emerging in terms of Australia as a preferred Japanese tourist destination. These problems have existed for a considerable period of time. We begin to encounter more and more debate about, for example, the adequacy of Sydney airport in dealing with incoming tourist traffic. This is not so much a question of runway capability as it is a question of the adequacy of the on-ground infrastructure of the airport. Satisfaction surveys by customers using Sydney airport and certain other airports in the country begin to reflect a basis for concern on the part of those who have a long-term interest in the sale of Australian tourism services to such an important historical market as Japan. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10.07 am to 10.24 am 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Before the suspension, I was talking about the importance of the Japanese market. I have yet to see evidence of a focused and effective strategy on the part of the government of Australia to restore our previous status in that market. If we fail to do so, I am concerned about the overall impact on Australian tourism over time. It has almost been one of the inbuilt assumptions for the health of the Australian tourism industry that there would continue to be a robust inflow of visitors from Japan. If that cannot be sustained, as some of this data suggests, we have a serious problem on our hands when it comes to the future of the industry in Australia. That is what is at stake when it comes to tourism exports. Looking elsewhere within the services sector, the number of Japanese students studying in Australia has never been great but, regrettably, there has also been some decline. In 1992-93 there were 773 Japanese born students studying in Australia, but by 2003-04 this had fallen to 520. These numbers are quite small compared with other major student inflows from elsewhere in the region, be it Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia or China. Historically, large numbers do not come from Japan, but I am concerned when they start to trend even more negatively. If we look at the numbers from Malaysia alone, we have seen Malaysian student figures—for those taking courses in Australia—rise from 2,160 to 4,800. At the same time, the figures for those coming from Japan have gone in a reverse direction. We know that Japan is one of the wealthiest economies in the world, and therefore the requirement for sending Japanese students abroad is less than for many developing countries of Asia—that is taken as a given. But I am concerned about the trend that is apparent, particularly given that Australia has become a positive and popular student destination for many countries in Europe. If you look across south-east Queensland today, you will see, for example, large and growing numbers of students from Scandinavia and from elsewhere in Europe studying in Australia. We do not see the same when it comes to Japan, despite the fact that the teaching of English is a priority within the Japanese professional development system and despite the fact that we have, uniquely, as an English-speaking country a virtually identical time zone to Japan, as well. These are important factors. The challenge for us is how do we go about developing our services exports to this economy. In the transformation of global trade from commodities to services, from goods to services, the ability of economies to participate effectively in the global services trade will be one of the future critical drivers of economic growth. Australia’s aggregate data on participation in global services trade growth is very thin and declining in relative terms. With Japan, a major developed economy here in our own region, the challenge that lies at our doorstep is how we go about lifting our relatively modest services export numbers to Japan against the base which currently pertains. I have referred to tourism and to education services. I would also like to refer to the potential for growth in the financial services industry. Australia’s financial services exports to Japan were valued at just $38 million in 2005, and Japan was the fifth largest destination for financial services exports from Australia behind the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore and Hong Kong. These are very modest numbers indeed. Export financial services, within the explosion of global services growth, are one of the key drivers of economic and export growth for many developing economies today. That is why the global trade liberalisation round, which has recently come to a grinding halt, has been critical about not just what happens in agriculture and manufacturing but also the liberalisation of global services trade. Our ability to access this increasing global market, and particularly the services market within our region and particularly in sectors like financial services, is important for our future. Recently I spoke at the annual conference of IFSA on the Gold Coast and, with the representatives of the Australian funds management industry, spoke at length on how we go about lifting Australia’s current significant domestic industry—the Australian funds management industry is a $1 trillion industry—into an export industry for the region. This is critical for us. Uniquely, we face, with the funds management industry, a massive base on the back of the Keating government’s superannuation reforms of the early 1990s. Because of that $1 trillion base which exists within the Australian economy, we have a unique opportunity to leverage from that into the sale of financial services, and particularly fund management services, in significant regional markets. Obviously Japan is one such market. The challenge we face is how to properly access the Japanese market. On that question, we need to see direct government action. Australia has a number of significant comparative advantages. I have referred to one already—the relative size of the Australian funds management industry. Our industry, from the most recent data I have seen, is the single largest funds management industry in the region, minus Japan. Take Japan out of the equation and our $1 trillion funds management industry is the largest business of its type anywhere in Asia. According to the global data, it is the fourth or fifth largest funds management industry in the world. This is a significant by-product of important national reforms brought in by the previous Labor government. We now have an opportunity to take that and translate it into a new export business for Australia. So many comparative advantages already exist. Firstly, we have critical mass. Secondly, we have a depth and breadth of industry expertise. The funds management industry in this country employs hundreds of thousands of people. The aggregation of technical and financial services and information technology services associated with the funds management industry is no easy thing to obtain, but we have developed it effectively over the last 15 years. It provides the personnel basis from which to platform into the region, with the object of making Australia the funds management hub for Asia, just as Dublin is becoming the hub for Europe. To a certain extent, Luxembourg has as well. Along with critical mass and depth of expertise, the third thing Australia has going for it in this respect is the regulatory environment. We have a positive record of probity in this industry. If there is one industry, apart from the banking sector, where probity is at an absolute premium, it is the funds management industry. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but Australia’s regulatory environment, including the operation of APRA and the other regulatory agencies, is a sophisticated regulatory environment relative to what exists in many other jurisdictions. Added to that, in Australia we have an independent judiciary. Where matters of dispute involve large quantities of money and the efficacy and probity of fund managers, recourse to an independent judicial system is essential to external investors having confidence in using Australia as a financial services hub. Finally, Australia has the relative advantage of its time zone. Japan’s time zone is similar to Australia’s east coast time zone. Other funds management markets or potential funds management markets across Asia, be it on the Korean peninsula, in China or in the rest of South-East Asia, are broadly within the Australian time zone. Relative to other funds management centres across the world, be they in North America or Western Europe, this presents Australia with a remarkably opportune set of advantages, which we should be promulgating. Across East Asia the population is ageing. This is now critical for Japan and, prospectively, for China. With the ageing of populations, retirement incomes policy pushes policy makers in particular directions. Retirement incomes policy in Japan is critical and prospectively will be for policy decision makers in Beijing. In Beijing the debate today is about retirement incomes policy and the adequacy of aged care services, given the ageing of the population. In China, a product of the one-child family is that the traditional family base as a means of providing support for older people is falling apart at the seams. The fundamental demographic shifts across the region, particularly in the largest economies in North-East Asia, China and Japan, present huge future opportunities for our economy, which has a mature funds management industry which can provide critical financial services to the neighbourhood. Of course, the existence of a market is one thing; whether or not there are barriers to entry is another, and we would be deluding ourselves if we believed at this stage that there was untrammelled entry into the Japanese financial services market—or, for that matter, that of China. That is why, as I noted before in my remarks, it is absolutely critical that we obtain global trade liberalisation of the services sector in order to make sure that it is possible for mature sectors such as exist in Australia to make the most of their trade opportunities around the region and around the world. Japan’s domestic financial services regulations and institutions have so far made it difficult for foreign financial services companies to compete in the local market. However, driven by domestic impulses within Japan, some regulatory change is slowly under way. Japan Post, of course, is the best most recent example of the kind of non-tariff barriers Australian financial services businesses have faced. But, when it comes to Japan Post, or Kampo, this one also is currently the subject of recent regulatory change within Japan itself. Japan Post, Kampo—probably more accurately called a bank—operates a very large insurance business. It is by far the largest player in the Japanese insurance market and is larger than the other four biggest providers in Japan put together. Japan Post has significant regulatory tax and supervisory advantages over private companies. In 2005, Japan’s Diet established a framework to reform Japan Post, which, if achieved, would see significant progress in an opening of restrictions to global insurance providers. We will be waiting keenly to see what outcome is achieved as a result of these reforms to Japan Post and more broadly across the Japanese insurance and financial services industry. This remains a critical priority for Australia’s export future. Unless we boost our export activity across the board but in particular in the services sector, which is such a large engine of global economic growth, we will continue to lag behind. It is for these reasons that last month I announced that a Labor government will create an Australian funds management export task force to look at all the current regulatory impediments and other impediments which exist to transforming our domestic funds management industry into a key export business for the region, with the object of turning Australia in time into the hub of the funds management business in Asia. The comparative advantages are significant. They are substantial. They now need to be realised. This will require active cooperation between both government and the industry in order to bring it about. That is why we need a specific task force to ensure this work happens; otherwise, I fear it will not. Missing from my remarks so far has been the question of the underpinnings of an economic relationship, which is of course cultural relations. The Australia-Japan Foundation has existed for a long time with that purpose, which is to provide a formal framework to govern the cultural relationship between the two countries. It has done many good things over the years. It needs to do many more. There is a fear on the part of many of those associated with the Australia-Japan relationship that it has become not just a mature relationship but an old relationship, to the extent that cultural assumptions between the two communities, between the two countries, between the two cultures, are beginning to be taken for granted. Formal cultural exchanges still have their role because Japan is a rapidly changing and evolving society and our time capsule view of Japan of the 1960s and 1970s does not reflect the Japan of the last decade and the decade which we are embarking upon. Therefore it is important not just that we see institutional change when it comes to the future relationship of the Australia-Japan Foundation and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade resolved with the legislation before the House but that the Australia-Japan Foundation be given a fresh operational mandate to take our cultural relationship to a new platform. I conclude on this: when it comes to Japan, the Australian Labor Party, when it was in government and through bold national reforms under the Keating government, took seriously the whole question of what underpins a cultural relationship. The key to culture is language. When it comes to Japan, it is still surprising, visiting that country, how thinly English is spoken across the Japanese business and political elite. We in this country have prided ourselves for a long time on leading many other Western countries in the teaching of Asian languages, including Japanese. That is why the Keating government brought in in 1995 the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy. That strategy set as its object to have four priority Asian languages taught across the Australian education system through the schools: Japanese, Chinese Mandarin, Korean and Indonesian. The program was implemented in 1995 and, until 2002-03, had complete bipartisan support. It was a visionary program which we had, for a season, complete bipartisan support on. It was visionary because it considered this: how do we create for the future an Asia literate generation of Australians and, in the case of Japan, a Japan literate generation of Australians capable of taking up the new business opportunities of the future with our principal markets in the region? This does not happen automatically. You need to inculcate the teaching of these difficult languages in the education system from an early age. That is why we did it that way. The great tragedy for our nation is that, despite the fact that by 2003 we had three-quarters of a million Australian schoolkids studying one or other of these priority Asian languages, the Howard government, in 2002-03, abolished all federal funding for the program. If you are serious about the long-term underpinnings of a cultural and economic relationship with Japan and any other of the principal economies and societies of our region, language remains the key. You cannot have an outfit like the Australia-Japan Foundation acting out there in isolation from the rest of our cultural and educational policy. The two must come together. Why don’t we have a vision for ourselves as a country to create here the most Asia literate country and society in the collective West? What an enormous badging and branding opportunity for the country in terms of how we market ourselves to those who wish to market into the region from Europe and from North America to be able to say: ‘We know most about this country and most about this region compared with any other Western culture and Western economy. We have the largest number of Japanese speakers, we have the largest number of Chinese speakers, and we have these deeply inculcated programs in our education and schools system.’ That was the vision which was established. Regrettably, that is the vision which was dispensed with and jettisoned by the reckless decision in 2003 by the then education minister to junk federal funding for the program. We support the bill but, when it comes to the cultural underpinnings of what is a critical economic relationship for Australia, I call on the government once again to recommit itself to the proper national funding of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy. 84 10:42:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I rise in this place to speak on the Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006. It is a bill of fairly modest breadth, but I think the relationship between Australia and Japan is a vital one which has been a very strong relationship for many decades now. As a country of only 20 million people we vitally need to export. We must export if we are to prosper. Japan is one of our vital trading partners. Exports provide one in five jobs in Australia and one in four jobs in regional and rural Australia. It is trade that very much underpins our strong economic growth, and trade with Japan is absolutely huge. Our two-way trade topped $50 billion recently and our resources exports to Japan are in the order of $15½ billion. It is clear that Japan is vital to our economic prosperity. That is why our Prime Minister and his Japanese counterpart, Mr Koizumi, agreed in April 2005 to undertake a feasibility study into the establishment of a free trade agreement between the two countries. This feasibility study is in its final stages and, if a free trade agreement is finally enacted, it could unlock huge economic potential for both countries—not only in the export of goods but also in the export of services. I know that agricultural producers around the country would welcome the possibility or the prospect of a free trade agreement with Japan. It would take what is already a very strong relationship to a new level. As I said, two-way trade between the countries is at over $50 billion. To further enhance that would be of great benefit indeed. But, when you look at our relationship with Japan, it is not just done on a nation-to-nation basis. There have been great strides made in achieving a strong relationship at all levels within this country. With regard to my home city of Coffs Harbour, we have a strong sister city relationship with Sasebo, which is near Nagasaki. We signed an agreement in our bicentennial year which created closer links between our countries. In 1990 the Australia-Japan Society of Coffs Harbour was formed, with the aim of making Coffs Harbour the most welcoming city in Australia for Japanese tourists. I would like to compliment Pat Degens and her dedicated group on their work. They have been fostering that strong relationship at a local level, with many visits both from Japan and to Japan. Last year Toormina High School hosted three students and a teacher from Sasebo. In April this year two students and two teachers made a return visit. At the start of last month, John Paul College hosted three students and one teacher from the Atago middle school. So throughout our community there is a strong association with Japan. We receive and welcome tourists, and we focus on that sister city relationship. That city-to-city relationship is providing a strong bond at more than a national level, at a local level, and that is all too vital. The Australia-Japan Foundation bill, as I said, has a fairly modest intent. The Australia-Japan Foundation is in a unique position, however, to cement relationships between the two countries. This is the 30th year of the Australia-Japan Foundation, and it continues to promote better understanding and communications between the two countries. It has a range of functions which require a certain amount of cultural sensitivity, and it has a track record of fostering a closer relationship between Australia and Japan as it carries out those functions. What does the Australia-Japan Foundation do? It does a range of things. It disseminates information for Japanese schools, it operates the Australian Resource Centre at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo, it manages the Australia-Japan Foundation website, it manages scholarships and assists with visits to both countries, it manages tertiary education exchange students through the Sir Neil Currie awards and it develops the Australia-Japan debaters exchange and the Australia-Japan Foundation awards. It has a list of achievements. It has developed the Experience Australia and Discovering Eco Australia education resource kits and the Australian government website in Japanese, and it has established an extensive network of grassroots contacts. I just mentioned the importance of the relationship that has been established at a grassroots level between Coffs Harbour and Sasebo. The wider we can get that strong grassroots contact, the better. Also, it has developed Australia’s interest and expertise in Japanese language and other studies. Why is the bill necessary? It is the belief of the government that the Australia-Japan Foundation would function better if it were a non-statutory body within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This requires the repeal of the enabling legislation, the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976. There are many bodies within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which function along bilateral lines, and we believe the Australia-Japan Foundation should join them. We do not believe the day-to-day work or objectives of the foundation will be altered by this legislation, but the foundation will operate by orders and counsel. The foundation will continue to strengthen the links between Australia and the Japanese people at a range of levels, and this can only work to enhance the very strong relationship we have. When we look at exports—and Japan brings into very clear focus the importance of exports in our economy—we cannot underestimate the role that exports have played in generating prosperity with regard to unemployment. We are seeing now unemployment at 30-year lows, and this is due in no small part to the contribution of exporters. Companies which export tend to be more dynamic and to enjoy greater export growth. We have seen substantial reductions in long-term unemployment and general unemployment as a result of the policies of this government and as a result of the hard work that has been conducted by our exporters. It is essential, if we are going to continue to have economic growth in this country, that we continue to strive to export. A strong and continuing relationship with Japan is important to that, and the Australia-Japan Foundation has a role to play in continuing those links. Like any relationship, we need to work together to continue to ensure that that relationship remains vital. The signing of a free trade agreement with Japan, if that were to occur, would be a major step in further enhancing what is already a very strong relationship. Such a document would substantially improve wealth for Australians and the Japanese people, particularly those in regional and rural areas. I have a range of companies in my electorate which export to Japan, such as Blueberry Farms on the larger scale and at the smaller level Dahlberg Surfboards, which sells a large proportion of its production into the Japanese market. It is a small, local company operating out of Yamba that is able, with the help of Austrade, to get its product into the Japanese market. It is important that we impress upon many of our small firms the wide horizons that are available in the export markets. Austrade does a great job in encouraging firms to be export ready and to facilitate what is an important source of growth for Australia, the export market. I commend the bill to the House. It will assist us in developing a stronger relationship with Japan. I look forward to the prospect of a free trade agreement with Japan and to continuing growth in exports of both physical goods and services in the years to come. 84 10:50:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The fact that the Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006 is before the Main Committee does not reflect in any way on its importance; it merely reflects the fact that it is a non-controversial bill in terms of the proceedings of the House. The bill is important because our relationship with Japan, both culturally and economically, is exceptionally important. We should never forget, given the focus on China and India as the new engine rooms of world economic growth, that in recent historical terms Japan has been central to repositioning Australia in the 20th and 21st centuries for the purposes of where we go economically. The bill abolishes the Australia-Japan Foundation as a statutory authority, but this in no way reflects any diminution of the very special relationship between Australia and Japan. I want to underline the importance of that relationship, not just as a member of the Australian parliament but also as the Labor Party shadow minister with responsibility for resources, energy, forestry and tourism. Just think about those economic sectors and the strategic economic relationship that we as a nation have forged with Japan since the Second World War. Our relationship with Japan is equally as important as our relationship with any other nation in the world. Both sides of the House have worked hard to forge that relationship. Japan has worked equally as hard to forge its relationship with Australia. In historical terms I note the work of Black Jack McEwen. In the face of hostility from many, he led the decision to forge the Australia-Japan Commerce Agreement of 1957. Since that time Japan has become, without doubt, our most important trading partner. I therefore note that this year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Australia and Japan, which was signed in Tokyo on 16 June, 1976 and came into force just one year later, on 21 August 1977. I have a notice of motion in today’s Notice Paper—notice of motion No. 43, seconded by the member for Rankin, Dr Emerson—which we would love to have debated during this sitting fortnight, but unfortunately the Selection Committee has decided that there are other more important and pressing issues, such as interest rates and petrol, to be debated at this point of the parliamentary cycle. The bill’s key provisions express the mutual interest of Japan and Australia in being a stable and reliable supplier to, and market for, the other. Japan and Australia have a mutual interest in wide-ranging areas—political, human rights, legal, scientific, technological and environmental. Whilst there are some 18 specific agreements advancing bilateral relations between the two countries, I believe the basic treaty remains the pre-eminent formal agreement in the bilateral political relationship. Just think of the leadership involved in putting that agreement in place. It might only be 30 years ago, but just think of the tension that existed in both countries because of the Second World War, which surrounded the development of the original treaty. It is interesting to note that the original proposal was initiated by former Prime Minister Whitlam in 1973. In initiating it, he sought to alleviate lingering suspicions in, and a lack of confidence by, Australia with respect to the Australia-Japan relationship. The negotiations were completed by the Fraser government in 1976, clearly reflecting the bipartisan nature of support for the relationship between Australia and Japan across the political spectrum in Australia. The commitment to the basic treaty remains bipartisan today, as reflected by the contributions to this debate to date. In more recent times it is also important to note that the two countries were founding members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group initiated by the Hawke-Keating government in 1989. As we all appreciate, APEC is now the most important focus for dialogue in the region on economic, political and security issues. Australia and Japan were also founding members of the ASEAN regional forum in 1994, which I believe is the leading multilateral cooperative grouping which aims to develop dialogue and confidence-building measures to advance security in East Asia. Each one of these initiatives has been exceptionally important to the security of our region and its economic prosperity. The relationship was further advanced by former Prime Minister Keating in 1995 with the joint declaration of the Australia-Japan partnership, which committed the two countries to advance prosperity, reduce tensions and advance political stability in the region. Under the Howard government, the relationship has expanded to include closer bilateral discussions involving the United States—a further step forward. I also believe it is wonderfully symbolic that Japanese and Australian soldiers have served side by side in Iraq in the endeavour, however flawed in its implementation, to build democracy in that country. The foundation will be re-established, as we appreciate and as is reflected in the bill, as a non-statutory body within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, reflecting the same administrative arrangements as are in place for similar bilateral agreements. That effectively means there is no diminishing of its importance; merely, it is a streamlining of administrative arrangements for the purposes of making sure that this foundation operates in the most efficient and constructive way. Obviously the focus of the foundation’s work to date has been on increasing mutual understanding through the building of cultural and educational links. Those links, as we all appreciate, are exceptionally important in also strengthening our economic ties. I therefore contend that, at this point, it is also important to reflect on the importance of this work, particularly as we remember the horrendous loss of life and massive destruction caused by the use of nuclear weapons against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 61 years ago last Sunday. I am one who has been fortunate enough to visit the peace park in Hiroshima, and a photo of the dome has been in my office, as president of the ACTU and as the member for Batman and as a shadow minister, for many, many years. Having also visited Auschwitz in recent times, I understand the importance of trying to make sure that we do everything we can in this world to remove international tensions, to establish a sense of peace and goodwill and to live in a harmonious way with the various nations of the world. I think it is timely to remember these events as we face today the greatest threats to international security since that time, with continuing war in Iraq and Lebanon, with the threat of nuclear weapons proliferations in rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea and with the threat of terrorism made all the worse by recent events in the Middle East. I think we should remember, in debating the importance of this bill, that there is nothing glorious about war. No-one would understand that more right now than the Lebanese Australians grieving for their country and their countrymen, many of whom—both Christian and Muslim—live in my electorate in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I understand from speaking to them and their extended families their feelings of anguish and upset at the moment as they worry about what is happening in their country of Lebanon. Having said that, I note that, whilst those who fought for Australia in previous wars understand this experience well, my generation and those that have followed are very fortunate in having been relatively sheltered from the impacts of war. But that was not the unfortunate experience of our fathers and our grandfathers. I am sure it is very difficult for those soldiers returning from Iraq to convey their experience to family and friends who, by and large, have known nothing but 61 years of relative peace and safety in our country. Whilst convention has it that the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought peace to the world, let us not forget that it came at a very great price to the people of Japan—a price, I argue today, that should be avoided at all costs, through diplomacy and a global commitment to nuclear non-proliferation now and in the future. It is a current debate; it is not a debate of the 20th century. I note that my brother and colleague, the member for Reid, reminded the House of that price in his commemoration contribution on VP day last year. He said: By August 1946, it was estimated that 118,000 people had already died as a consequence of the bomb, 30,000 had been severely injured and another 48,000 were missing. In the interim, of course, the number of deaths has increased greatly, to almost a quarter of a million people now, of whom 5,000 last year were regarded as victims. Their deaths were consequent upon the destruction at Hiroshima. Just to give one description of it all, it is said: ‘The blast of furnace heat flattened forty-two square miles of Hiroshima, and set what was left on fire. About 78,000 people died immediately, over 40,000 were horribly burned and some 14,000 were missing. Of 76,327 buildings, about 48,000 were completely destroyed and more than 22,000 severely damaged. Some 180,000 survivors were homeless, many of them soon to develop a deadly new illness they called atomic disease.’ I raise these issues because we should always remind ourselves of what occurred and how the foundation upon which we had to work so hard to establish the very sound cultural and economic relationship that now exists between Australia and Japan and Australian allies was set up. Of course, part of the diplomatic effort I referred to earlier includes initiatives like the Australia-Japan Foundation. I am sure that many in the Australian community would believe that Australia is now a mature country and that the building of mutual understanding is really a thing of the past, as it is something that we have already achieved. I remind members of this place that, sadly, this is a long way from the truth. I believe there is much more work to be done not only between Australia and Japan but among and between many other countries and peoples of the world, including the challenges that exist in our own region. The recent Dean Jones incident comes quickly to mind. No-one in public life can afford to take racial vilification lightly. We need to remember that not everyone who wears a hijab is a terrorist or an extreme Muslim, just as not everyone who wears a cross is an extremist Christian. This is a time when Australia needs more than ever to promote a culture of tolerance and inclusion. It is our job in public life to do more to denounce fearmongering and vilification of Muslims and any other minority groups in our communities. It is our job to rebuild a more tolerant society and to break down the barriers of mistrust and division that this government has built in the community over the last nine long years. It is our job to reconnect the nation and its people, to foster acceptance and inclusion, and to ease the fear that today divides people of different faiths and backgrounds. That is why the Australia-Japan Foundation and others like it are so important to Australia and the world at large. I said earlier that, along with diplomacy, never has nuclear nonproliferation been more important. We never want another Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Australia therefore has no greater international obligations and no greater international opportunities than those granted by our position as a nuclear supplier. We are at the centre of a nuclear cycle. We are the second biggest supplier of uranium in the world and, potentially, we are the biggest supplier of uranium in the world with the biggest mine—Olympic Dam in South Australia. It is therefore our responsibility, with likeminded nations such as Japan, to lead the world on non-proliferation efforts, just as we led on APEC and other regional and international initiatives. It is a challenge of today, not a challenge of the future. The world is threatened by the collapse of the existing non-proliferation regime, and we must do everything in our power to prevent that. A Labor government would forge a new diplomatic initiative against nuclear proliferation, led by Australia, including a review to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We believe that Japan would be a trusted ally in those objectives. Under the nuclear non-proliferation regime, there is nothing illegal about any country having processing or reprocessing technology. Yet the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is one of the most difficult and important steps towards making a nuclear weapon. If a country with a full nuclear fuel cycle decided to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon capability would be within its reach within a very short time. That is why the world is frightened of what is going on in Iran at the moment. And, as the UN struggles to hold Iran to account under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime, it has never been clearer that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must be reviewed to make it more relevant to today’s issues and more effective in a modern world. None of us wants rogue nations possessing uranium and enrichment capacity. It is therefore disappointing to note that so few nations supported the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s proposal for a five-year moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and production of plutonium at the last nuclear non-proliferation review conference in May 2005. Unfortunately, Australia was one of the many and not one of the few. That is the difference between John Howard’s Australia and Kim Beazley’s Australia. John Howard’s approach to the nuclear cycle is no holds barred. I think there should actually be some caution. But the Labor Party will stop to think about national security, global security, the safety of workers and the protection of the environment. Our position is clear: there should be no new uranium processing or reprocessing facilities anywhere in the world unless there is a review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in our proper international regulatory framework—and that includes Australia. I commend the bill to the House. It is important that we maintain the strength in our relationship with Japan. It has served both countries well in the past, and there is no doubt it will serve us both culturally and economically well in the future. 84 11:06:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —As the deputy chair of the Australia-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Group, it is a privilege for me to be able to take the opportunity, in debating this legislation, to pay tribute to the relationship between Australia and Japan—a relationship that is very rich both economically and culturally, but one which I believe could well do with some revitalisation in the future. I will elaborate upon that in the remarks I make today. The Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006 abolishes the Australia-Japan Foundation as a statutory authority, but that in no way diminishes the importance of the government’s attitude towards the relationship or the Labor Party’s attitude towards the relationship. Instead, the foundation will be brought under the wing of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That puts it on an equal footing with other foundations or relationships, namely the Australia-China Council, the Australia-India Council, the Australia-Indonesia Institute, the Australia-Korea Foundation, the Australia-Malaysia Institute and the Australia-Thailand Institute. It is very important to acknowledge that this repeal arrangement has no implications for the relationship at all. The relationship is very strong, although I do say it could be revitalised to further build on the good work of both sides of politics since the Second World War. The first formal milestone in cementing that relationship was the establishment of the Australia-Japan Commerce Agreement of 1957. That was done by Mr McEwen, and Labor certainly acknowledges that. This year we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Australia and Japan. That treaty was signed in Tokyo on 16 June 1976 by the coalition government. It was initiated by the Whitlam government in 1973. The key provisions of that treaty expressed the mutual interest of each country in being a stable and reliable supplier to and market for the other and mutual interest in wide-ranging areas, including political, human rights, legal, scientific, technological and environmental issues. There have been further developments in the relationship since 1976. The two countries, Australia and Japan, led the charge in establishing APEC. The institution was established under the Hawke-Keating government in 1989 and this government has carried it on. APEC has become one of the paramount institutions for economic and political cooperation in the world, and we are all very proud of it. In 1994, Australia and Japan were founding members of the ASEAN Regional Forum. That is the leading multilateral cooperative grouping that aims to develop dialogue and confidence-building measures to advance security in East Asia. A third development was the advancing of the relationship by Prime Minister Keating in 1995 with the Joint Declaration on the Australia-Japan Partnership, which committed the two countries to advance prosperity, to reduce tensions and to advance political stability in the region. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful work that has been going on at the Australian National University over all these years, following its foundation after the Second World War. I would not have time to acknowledge all of those who have contributed to that relationship, but I will mention Sir John Crawford, Professor Heinz Arndt, Professor Peter Drysdale and Professor Ross Garnaut. There are many others who have worked very hard to ensure that we have great cooperation across all fronts between Australia and Japan. It is also true that, although Labor opposed and continues to oppose the Australian engagement in Iraq, the Japanese and Australian soldiers have served side by side in an attempt at least to build democracy in that country. So our relationship is very much a rich one both economically and culturally. I want in that context to spend a little bit of time talking about our economic interests and particularly about oil security. When Iran started behaving in what was really an unacceptable way on its nuclear aspirations, I am sure that Japan was concerned. You do not know what could happen to oil supplies from the Middle East. Indeed, Iran is a major supplier of oil to Japan. Japan would be very concerned, given the experience of the 1970s, when there was an embargo by the Middle East on oil supplies to Japan. That is one reason why Japan has been so interested in buying natural gas from Australia. It is also very much the reason that the North West Shelf has been established. That oil price surge following the behaviour of Iran reminds us that there is a terror premium on the world price of oil. Of course, the increased oil price is partly due to very strong growth in China and in the rest of the world, but there is no doubt that there is a terror premium. Australia’s folly in being one of the members of the coalition of the willing and attacking Iraq in the first place has, far from reducing oil prices, dramatically escalated them. Australian motorists are paying the price for that today—just as the Iraqi people have paid a very heavy price in lives lost, which is running into the order of about 1,000 a month, as Iraq descends ever closer to civil war. All this instability has not helped Japan, has not helped Australia and has not helped the people of Iraq who have lost their lives in the process. Notwithstanding that, I am pleased to be able to report that the Japanese economy is growing again. That is terrific for the people of Japan. It is also good for Australia, given the very close trading relationship that has been forged over the years. Japan’s real gross domestic product increased by 3½ per cent over the year to the end of March. That is really quite strong growth, given that for a very long period of time there was virtually no growth in the Japanese economy. The business sector is far more confident. Investment intentions are up and, indeed, are reported to be at their highest level since the early 1990s. So there is good news on the investment front. Also, consumers are getting a lot more confident. Breaking the habit of a lifetime of saving most of their extra income, they are actually spending it. So we have had pretty strong consumer spending growth, and consumer sentiment is way above its long-term average—all of which reminds us of the importance of revitalising the relationship. There are proposals for an Australia-Japan free trade agreement. I have to say, with all candour, that I do not think that is necessarily a good idea—only for this reason: that what would be proposed would not be a bilateral open trading arrangement but a preferential trade deal, a discriminatory trade deal, building on the proliferation of discriminatory trade deals that really began in earnest at the beginning of the 1990s and continues through to this day. Coalition ministers have argued that these discriminatory or preferential trade deals are building blocks for global trade liberalisation rather than stumbling blocks. The Doha Round appears to have collapsed; it has been suspended. I do not recall Australia or the United States saying: ‘We’ve got all these preferential trading deals, so these are the building blocks for Doha. Let’s go ahead with Doha.’ In fact, the United States was really quite intransigent in terms of trade liberalisation as one of the countries that contributed to the suspension of those negotiations. So the folly of preferential trading deals is there for all objectively to see. Australia and Japan have negotiated bilateral trading arrangements in the past. The previous Labor government did that, but it did it on a non-preferential basis. All Australia sought was the opening up of Japanese markets and an opportunity to compete. Australia did not say to Japan that it wanted preferential access to the beef market or to other markets, only that Japan should open up its markets, as Australia was opening up its markets, and give us an opportunity to compete. That, rather than these preferential trade deals, is the correct basis for bilateral trading arrangements. Indeed, during the 1930s, a lot of the tension that contributed to the Second World War was created out of the negotiation of preferential discriminatory trading arrangements, including the establishment of discriminatory trading blocs—discriminating against the country of Japan. A country such as Japan, which is so heavily dependent on resources from other countries, is always going to feel vulnerable when countries get together and come up with trading arrangements that discriminate against it. That is what happened during the 1930s, and that was one of the contributing factors to the Second World War. We do not want anything like a repeat of the Second World War. My colleague the member for Batman has described the horror of the bombing of Japan. Combine that with the horror of so many Australian, American, Chinese and other lives lost during that Second World War—so many lives lost. The folly of preferential trading arrangements is just one of the contributors to the sorts of tensions that can lead to that sort of horror scenario. I will finish on the idea of a preferential trading arrangement with Japan. Australia of course will want access to the Japanese rice market. I find it passing strange that Australia should want to export rice to Japan. I think the chances of the Japanese saying to Australia, ‘Here’s an open market for Australian rice,’ are absolutely stone, motherless, cold zero. So you would not want, if you were a government negotiator, to make a requirement for the negotiation of a preferential trading arrangement with Japan the opening up of Japan’s rice market. Therefore, it would not be a free trade agreement. There would be restrictions. We found in relation to the US-Australia free trade agreement that in many areas it was trade restricting, not trade creating. So let us get on and put all our efforts into revitalising and restarting the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations and move away from this folly of preferential trade deals. There is enormous extra potential in the relationship between Australia and Japan, not only in commodity exports but very much in cultural exchange and services exports between the two countries. Today has been an opportunity to traverse some of that ground, to congratulate Japan on the relationship that it enjoys with Australia and to look at the options for revitalising the relationship so that we can enjoy further growth and prosperity between our two great countries. As deputy chair of the Australia-Japan friendship association, it gives me great pleasure in congratulating Japan on the 30th anniversary of the treaty. 84 11:20:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —I want to thank members who participated in this debate on the Australia-Japan Foundation (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006. This is a very technical bill. It really boils down to bringing the Australia-Japan Foundation in line with much more modern practice, as was recommended by the Uhrig report. I appreciate the support there has been for this amendment. It means the Australia-Japan Foundation will be able to work more effectively in a way which is consistent with the government’s foreign policy and trade objectives. I appreciate that a debate like this is going to be somewhat broad ranging. I have heard members talking about Iran and the NPT and the issue of preferential trade agreements, which the member for Rankin spoke about. It has been interesting sitting here listening to those speeches, and I appreciate what honourable members have said. The Australia-Japan relationship is without any doubt one of our most important but also one of our most successful relationships. To go back to the member for Rankin, he referred to the Australia-Japan Commerce Agreement of 1957. He may be interested to know that the Labor Party opposed that agreement in 1957 in an act of populist expediency, which appears to be one of the Labor Party’s constant companions. But it was the beginning of a modern relationship between Australia and Japan. That relationship has really come to fruition in very recent times. The member for Rankin referred to the Australian troops working with the Japanese troops in Samawah in Al Muthanna province in Iraq. I was in Tokyo last week and held discussions with the Prime Minister, with the Chief Cabinet Secretary, Shinzo Abe, who is expected to become the next Prime Minister—I am not expressing a view about that; it is just that that is likely to happen without it being a certainty—and with the foreign minister, Taro Aso, as well as with other ministers, not least the defence minister. The Japanese expressed enormous appreciation for what Australia had done to provide a secure environment for their engineers and others to operate in in southern Iraq. I would not want honourable members to underestimate the importance of that single act to our relationship with Japan. Japan was in Iraq to support the democracy project, the liberalisation of Iraq, as we have been. Japan was also there because it is a great ally of the United States of America. Yes, we are too. The fact that we were able to work together successfully without the loss of a single Japanese life, which is a very important consideration for them—obviously—and hand Al Muthanna province’s security back to the Iraqis with the withdrawal of foreign forces from that province has been a great achievement and it is recognised in Japan. This has had a cathartic effect on the bilateral relationship with Japan. If we had run the sort of New Zealand-French-German style policy on Iraq, which the Labor Party wanted us to do, this element of our relationship, which has become so symbolic, never would have happened and I do not think we would have ever quite got to the point we are at now in our security relationship with Japan. We are talking about upgrading exercises and joint training in order to prepare to work together in emergency situations, such as we had in Aceh, and perhaps to work together again in a peacekeeping environment. We do not know where at this stage, but perhaps that will occur some time somewhere else in the world, as it has happened in East Timor as well as Iraq. I think the Japanese see Australia now as a truly valued security partner. An illustration of that is the way over the last year we have elevated the trilateral security dialogue from officials level to ministerial level. On 18 March, Condoleezza Rice, Taro Aso and I met in Sydney for the first-ever meeting of the ministerial level trilateral security dialogue. We are planning at this stage to have a second meeting at the end of this year in the margins of the APEC meeting in Vietnam. I think this is very important and not just of practical value. We are three countries that share values, and values are very important in foreign policy. We share the values of democracy and freedom, liberal economics and liberal economies, and we are, if you like, linked to each other through our respective US alliances. So this has been also a very big step forward in our relationship with Japan. When some members from the opposition side say we should be doing more with Japan, they show they are not even reading the newspapers—and that is just the newspapers. A lot more has been happening than would ever appear in a newspaper. This relationship has been catapulted forward over the last few years. The member for Rankin says that preferential trading arrangements cause world wars. I do not think the Pacific war was started because of preferential trading arrangements. We have a preferential trading arrangement with New Zealand, which was negotiated by the Fraser government. But it was one of those things that transcended party politics. The Hawke government finalised the details and signed off on it when they came to power. I do not think the preferential trading agreement between Australia and New Zealand has caused a war. It makes you think, doesn’t it? I think it has had the reverse effect. It has really brought our two countries much closer together. There has been an impressive integration of the Australian and New Zealand economies. It has been great for our GDP and it has probably been even greater for theirs. It has been great for both of us. We have negotiated free trade agreements with a number of countries in Asia. We would see it as a logical extension of our broader diplomacy, a logical extension of our security policy and a logical extension of our long-running campaign for greater trade liberalisation and better market access for Australian businesses, including farmers. We would see it as logical that we should negotiate an FTA with Japan. I think we are reaching a point at which the Japanese will agree. We are doing a feasibility study at the moment and hope it will be completed in October. Once it is complete and, assuming it is positive, I think the Japanese may very well agree next year—which will be the 50th anniversary of that historic commerce agreement—to get into a negotiation over an FTA. There is a lot of support for that in many elements of the Japanese bureaucracy. I spoke last week to the ministers and the Prime Minister, and they are all very well disposed towards that, so I am pretty optimistic about that. I am sorry to hear that the Labor Party are going to oppose that. They opposed the free trade agreement with the United States but they supported the one with Thailand and the one with Singapore. I would have thought that Labor would support free trade agreements with Asia as long as they have nothing to do with America. Of course, America for the Labor Party— WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —We actually voted for it! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is something of a peculiarity in the Labor Party. I would not accuse him of this, by the way. But I think most members of the Labor Party are of the Left, and for the Left the United States is the great Satan. You can imagine what is said about the United States at Labor Party branch meetings—things such as, ‘Anybody associated with the United States is bad,’ or, on noticing that the Japanese have a security treaty with the United States: ‘Whoops! The Japanese are a bit suss. Maybe we will not support a free trade agreement with Japan.’ I do not know. The member for Rankin indicated that he thought that preferential trading agreements started world wars and that it was not a good idea to have a free trade agreement with Japan. I do not agree with that. I think it is a good idea, and we are making good progress in getting that to happen. If Australia took the view that we would not negotiate free trade agreements in Asia, that would lead to a very substantial disengagement of Australia from Asia. The Labor Party have this kind of fetish about saying, ‘We are the party most committed to engagement with Asia,’ but they do not want to negotiate trade agreements. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I have a question for the minister. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Is the member for Mayo willing to give way? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —Fire away. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —Did the Labor Party vote for the free trade agreement with the United States after certain amendments were passed? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The short answer is that, ultimately, they did, knowing that voting against it would have been catastrophic. But, when that agreement was first signed, the then leader of the Labor Party said that Labor would not support it. Eventually they realised, as the then Leader of the Opposition got himself into a maelstrom of difficulty and controversy, that they had better go along with it, and they put up some kind of phoney amendment. But, no, I do not think the Labor Party ever really did support it; I do not think they did. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —We only voted for it. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I think the member for Melbourne Ports did support it. The interesting thing about the member for Melbourne Ports—and this is very relevant to the Australia-Japan Foundation—is that he is not anti-American. But I am afraid the Left dialogue—and not just in Australia, of course—is a rant against America and anything to do with America. It is one of the reasons I never felt attracted to the idea of joining the Left. There are other reasons as well, like I believe in freedom and the Liberal economic model, not socialism. Anyway, that is a far cry from our relations with Japan. The last point I want to make is about cultural relations and people-to-people relations between Australia and Japan. It is very important that we continue the task of building those up. I had a very nice moment at the Australian National Gallery on Monday, when I joined the Japanese ambassador and the Chairman of the Australian National Gallery and the chairman of the gallery’s foundation in ‘launching’—I suppose that is the right word—the acquisition by the gallery of two absolutely superb 16th century Japanese screens. To the very small number of members here, I encourage them and the parliamentary secretary to go and have a look at these screens. They are absolutely superb. I made the point in my speech there that we have got over the pathetic argument that Australia had about whether we should engage with Asia, who engaged with Asia best and all that sort of stuff, which we had to weather through the early to mid-1990s. We have grown out of that as a country. Our engagement with Asia, with our neighbourhood, is the most natural thing in the world, as it should be. We are doing extraordinarily well through free trade agreements, through broader trade and economic relations, through our membership of the East Asia Summit, APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum, and through all manner of different links between Australia and Asia. But I do not think in Australia we have a strong enough understanding of or feeling for Asian cultures, which are diverse. There is no such thing as an Asian culture. I think it is enormously important for us to develop an understanding of Japanese history and Japanese culture. I commend the Australian National Gallery on building up its Asian collection. It is good to see this acquisition that has been made with the financial support of a very generous Adelaide businessman, Andrew Gwinnett, a very good man. This is relevant—and it is a good point to finish on—to the Australia-Japan Foundation because it promotes cultural and people-to-people links, which supplement and enhance the more traditional diplomatic links that we have with Japan. I hope that, as a result of the passage of this bill, we will be able to continue to use the Australia-Japan Foundation to enhance that aspect of our relationship. I thank members for their support of the bill and for the very interesting contributions that they have made to the debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 84 Ministerial Statements 84 Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mr Abbott: That the House take note of the document. 84 11:35:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I want to frame my remarks around the successful transition of Australian forces out of Al Muthanna province in the form of an appeal from very far away to the ranking ayatollah in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to consider the grave situation of his country from the point of view of the Australian parliament that wishes the people of Iraq no ill. The Prime Minister, in an optimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq on 22 June 2006, gave a description of the role that we, this country, played in the successful transition to the Iraqi security forces in the southern province of Al Muthanna. The problem is that anyone who objectively views the situation in Iraq at the moment must be filled with foreboding. Much rests on what Ayatollah Sistani will do, as it did at the beginning of the Iraq conflict. Ayatollah Sistani represents that stream of Iraqi Arab Shiism that is distinct from the brand of Shiism practised in Iran. It is a very important and practical distinction, which people need to understand. The form of Shiism that Sistani represents says that the mosque should be kept in the mosque and that the role of ayatollahs should be spiritual and that holy men like himself are not to be involved in the sometimes sordid, temporal world of politics. This is unlike the guidance council in Iran and unlike the disgraceful antidemocratic decision by the Iranian spiritual rulers in the Supreme Guidance Council to exclude more than 1,000 parliamentarians who wished to stand at the last Iranian election, including many people who were sitting parliamentarians—they were excluded by the mullahs in Iran. This has great relevance to what is happening in Iraq, great relevance to the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was talked about so eloquently by the member for Batman, and great relevance to the situation in Lebanon at the moment, for anyone who looks at the spectre of Iran at the moment—in Iraq, in Lebanon—and the issue of nuclear proliferation must be filled with foreboding, as I am. Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the successor to Ayatollah Khomeini as the real leader in Iran, recently talked of the possibility that his country could engage in a nuclear war, the aim of which would be that he and Iran would wipe out his adversary country, a member of the United Nations. Iran, the misleading mullah argues, in sustaining a second strike from that country, that is a nuclear response from Israel, would be able to sustain millions of casualties but would survive. These are the words of madness of a monster, and that they are actually being said by a major country in the international community must concern us all. As the member for Batman said, we have to be very alive to these issues of nuclear proliferation because of the statements of the Iranian regime. Ayatollah Sistani’s role is extremely important in Iraq, because he alone and the moderate Iraqi Shiites alone are the people, the majority, who can stand against other elements in Iraq that are like the forces of Hezbollah in Lebanon, agents of the Iranian regime. Let us not shillyshally about it—I am talking in particular about Muqtada al-Sadr. Recently in testimony before the US congress, the commander of US Central Command, General Abizaid, canvassed the possibility that Baghdad might actually fall to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army—his murderous militia funded and organised by the Iranian regime, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the SS of the Iranian regime. US commander in Iraq, General Casey, now says the drawdown of US troops will be delayed further. If one had the best intentions with Iraq, if one believed in the war in Iraq and if one took American and Australian intentions at their face value, the prospect that Iraq would fall to the Iranian regime is a frightening prospect. Now it is clear it is an Iranian regime led by this fanatic constellation, led by President Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Guidance Council—a regime which has initiated all of these bloodcurdling incantations about nuclear exchanges. No-one would have supported the war in Iraq if that were the end game, if that were the prospect that we all knew we faced. Of course, many people, including the Leader of the Opposition, feared just that—that Iraq would become virtually a vassal state of Iran, a petrol funded Shia superstate of a very extreme formulation. That is why the fear of Muqtada al-Sadr and his activities on behalf of the Iranian regime in Iraq have led the American government to say two things recently. I saw General Casey, the head of the US forces in Iraq, give two pieces of testimony. One, there will be now an extra 5,000 American troops deployed into Baghdad to stop the sectarian killings between the Sunni extremists led by Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, because the sectarian warfare is getting worse and worse. But of course the thing that Zarqawi and the Sunni fanatics did not consider when they initiated this sectarian bloodbath was the fact that the Shia are the vast majority in Iraq. Their ability to have their way in elections and in the parliament has been seen. It is very worrying that the murderous Mahdi Army, apparently controlled by Iranian agents, are also in control of the Iraqi interior ministry. The interior ministry troops have been held responsible by the US forces themselves, their US ally, for vicious sectarian murders of many innocents, many civilians, in the streets of Baghdad. What a catastrophic situation we have in Iraq’s capital now. It is only the people of Iraq who can prevent this descent into further civil war, into a worsening sectarian bloodbath. It is only the people of Iraq who can stop the ultimate victory by a regime, Iran, that is rejected by the theology of moderate Iraqi Shiism that says the mosque should stay out of politics and not be practised as it is in Iran, where you have the mullahs monopolising these huge export Bonyad foundations, enormous corruption and the whole country being put, as it was in the 1930s in another place in Central Europe, on a war footing. Are any of the benefits of the vast expenditure that Iran is getting now from oil production being enjoyed by the ordinary Iranian? No, it is being focused on war, on military expenditure—focused on building up nuclear weapons and on providing weaponry to its allies and agents all around the world in order to divert world attention from their ultimate atomic nightmare. The current extremist government in Iran make no secret of their crazed strategy. The President of Iran, at the Islamic conference in Kuala Lumpur last Friday, made the most frightening comments calling for the elimination of Israel—and this coming from a country that will soon acquire nuclear technology which will be able to be developed soon after that into nuclear weapons. That is why the decision on 31 August of the United Nations Security Council to enforce the requirements of the Security Council that Iran desist from its involvement in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, from the acquisition of nuclear weapons from its atomic program, must be supported. That is why every person who is opposed to nuclear proliferation will hope that China and Russia will not put their short-term energy interests with Iran above the interests of the world in stopping this monstrous regime, which constantly talks about eliminating countries with atomic weapons, from acquiring those very weapons. As an aside, I am reminded that I was recently in Puckapunyal with the Minister for Defence to see a live fire exercise of the ADF. Standing on the back of one of the ASLAVs was one of our young corporals in the Australian Army. He remarked on what good kit they have and how he had survived sitting in the back of this Australian armoured vehicle, the ASLAV, that had had a black BMW packed with explosives driven into the back of it. He expressed his gratitude that our Australian equipment was better than the American humvees, which in similar circumstances would have seen him killed. Everyone wishes Australian troops who have been in Al Muthanna and other provinces well, but I am afraid our presence there, or elsewhere, will not be crucial to the outcome of any democratic future for Iraq. Indeed, our success in Al Muthanna province has an eerie similarity to our success in Phuc Tuy Province in South Vietnam. Here the Australian troops again entirely cleared the province of NVA and Vietcong, but in the long run of history it was just a little blip in events in Vietnam. Saigon ultimately fell to the North Vietnamese Army some years later after Australia and the United States had withdrawn. If moderate Shias are not able to stand up to extremists, armed, funded and organised by Iran, Australia’s presence will ultimately have little effect on the future democratic prospects of Iraq. There has been some very good analysis made by some of the most unlikely commentators. I want to just take a couple of them. One of them is Professor Fred Halliday. Even he said: ... those in charge in Teheran, especially after 2005, are themselves seeking to raise the tone of strategic and ideological confrontation and retain a set of revolutionary illusions about domestic and foreign policy that may cost the Iranian people dear. The omens are not that good. This is in Chaillot paper No. 89, May 2006, produced by the European Union’s international strategic studies centre. Professor Halliday is a well-known critic of US foreign policy. So, if he is concerned about the regime in Teheran, those concerns should be very widely shared around the world. I will conclude as I began: the whole future of Iraq is important for the rest of the world. Only the Iraqis can save themselves. Ayatollah Sistani is crucial to Iraq not becoming a mere satellite of Iran. What is being played out there is not simply even the endgame of the American, Australian and British intervention in that country. It is not even just the democratisation of Iraq that is at stake. What is at stake is the peace of the world, because if the Iranian surrogates are able to succeed in subduing Iraq they will have added another chess piece to the great game that I believe the current evil regime in Iran is fostering across the Shiite crescent from Beirut to the Saudi oilfields where the Shia are the majority. We have seen what Ahmadinejad’s surrogates are doing in Lebanon by providing for—and, indeed, in my view, initiating—this current conflict. The Hezbollah kidnapping and missile barrage began immediately after Larijani, the Iranian foreign minister, had been told by Javier Solana, ‘The European Union will support the imposition of economic sanctions against Iran if you do not comply with the non-proliferation requests of the UN Security Council.’ Larijani, the Iranian foreign spokesman, flew to Beirut and immediately Hezbollah, which is an Iranian front organisation, started shooting off the 13,000 missiles provided to them by the Iranian regime. I wish the Australian troops there well, but this is a much bigger game than is just happening in Iraq. (Time expired) 84 11:51:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —I follow on from the remarks of my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports. I rise to speak on the prime ministerial statement on Iraq as one of the ‘mob’, which was the expression used by the Prime Minister to describe the hundreds of thousands of Australians who marched against Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq. I rise to say, as a proud member of that ‘mob’, as it was described by the Prime Minister, that the mob was right. The Prime Minister made a ministerial statement to parliament about the relocation of Australian forces within Iraq—a war that has now cost at least $1.3 billion—but in so doing the Prime Minister failed to acknowledge or mention any of the features of this conflict that are of great concern to ordinary Australians, particularly those who marched in the streets. Nor did the Prime Minister admit that the primary foreign policy goal, other than the unconditional backing of every policy posture of the Bush administration, has really been to avoid putting any troops on the front line—if there is such a thing, in the terrible war that Iraq has become. Like all members in the House, we wish only for the safety of our men and women in service overseas. But the clear fact is that the strategic ambition of the Howard government has been, having committed Australian troops to this conflict, to try at the least to keep them out of harm’s way. That is understandable. But, as a strategic approach to an intervention of this kind, it is not acceptable. The prime ministerial statement was short on reflection and rather incomplete about the likely prospects of our troops, now that the Japanese construction forces and engineers have gone. As members would know, it was short on reflection on what the war in Iraq has actually meant to the international legal framework for the conduct of conflict. As members would know, the international rules and norms covering war were strengthened and codified after the two so-named ‘great wars’ of the 20th century, the first and second world wars. These codes and principles were laid out in the Geneva convention and in various other international instruments. They were underpinned by core religious and philosophical tenets that had evolved over time. They included at their heart the principle of a just war. These were the rules, and the rule of a just war in particular provided a framework within which it was fervently hoped that armed conflict could be managed and that the highest priority would be given to the interests of the civilian population—the young, the innocent, the infirm. Additionally, the issue of proportionality was seen as being a guiding principle in the conduct of wars. It is the case that, with each war, the number of civilian casualties continues to rise. This is partly a product of the nature of wars themselves and partly a product of the way in which wars are entered into and the technologies that are used. The figure was around five per cent in World War I and stood at nearly 90 per cent by the time the Vietnam conflict was concluded. I think the House must ask the question: once the figure gets close to 100 per cent, where do we turn? Additionally, there had to be very good reasons for leaders to commit young men and now young women to the battlefield and to the awfulness of war. Primary of those was to defend the national interest and to exercise the right as a sovereign state to defend the state against unprovoked attack—that is, the right of self-defence—and it is enshrined in international law. It is on the basis of the right of self-defence and the exercise of a just war that all other normative rules, regulations and principles that govern the conduct of armed conflict between nations rest. It is a great tragedy that those rules have been made tattered and frayed by the conduct of the Howard government as it entered the war in Iraq as part of the coalition of the willing. The actions of the allied nations in World War II were entirely justified for the same reason that the US invasion, strongly encouraged and supported by the Howard government, is without justification. This Iraq war is an illegal war. Those who still support the war, apart from presiding over a terrible mess, are party to the original wrongful act of acceding to war, notwithstanding the terrible nature of the Hussein regime, without an accepted legally justifiable reason. The Prime Minister’s ministerial statement on the current status of the Iraq war we are debating here did not, of course, address any of these issues. It did not go to the heart of why this war is opposed by the Labor Party and by millions of Australians. But, in addressing the role played by our troops there, as the Prime Minister did, numerous questions are still hanging. Amongst them is: was the normative framework of international law served by our entering into an armed conflict in Iraq? The answer must be no. Indeed, the notion of a pre-emptive strike—a policy that the Prime Minister seems to have embraced—actively destabilises not only the international legal framework that surrounds the conduct of war but, additionally, the geostrategic stability of parts of the world that experience unrest, particularly the Middle East. It is no accident that much of the rhetoric that flies around the Middle East in terms of conflict, claim and counterclaim rests in part on an insecurity that attaches to the notion of a pre-emptive strike. The next question that the Prime Minister should have addressed was: was Australia’s national interest served by committing the nation to war? Again, I say the answer is no. The head of the Australian Federal Police made it crystal clear early on in the war’s carriage that, as a consequence of the government’s decision to enter the war in Iraq, Australians and Australia were more exposed to the risk of terrorism than otherwise would have been the case. The Prime Minister and the foreign minister shouted him down, but it was too late. An honest public servant had belled the cat. The national interest, too, is affected by the significant burden that is placed on the Australian defence forces by war. This is a constant concern raised by military analysts, and it is doubtless on the minds of senior defence personnel as well. The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Houston, said in evidence to a Senate committee earlier this year—I think in February—that the general feeling was that Australian troops should be there as long as the Japanese engineers required protection and that by the middle of the year they should be out. Our reasons for being in this war constantly change and they are still changing, and that is one of the great flaws in the government’s participation in the coalition of the willing. Now the minister, I understand, says that the troops should be out by Christmas. Do we recall the pillorying from the media and from the government that came when a former Leader of the Opposition made that same observation? The Minister for Defence clearly feels that it is okay to raise the ‘out by Christmas’ flag yet again, and I do hope the troops are out by Christmas. But, as Air Chief Marshal Houston and other senior military officers know, there is a national interest that attaches to having troops committed in Iraq—that is, our defence capacities, given the other engagements in Afghanistan and in the region, are simply stretched to the limit. For those of us who have defence facilities and institutions in our electorates—as I do in Kingsford Smith—it is no poor reflection on officers at both senior and serving levels that they are only too well aware of the very great pressure and very great levels of responsibility that have been placed on them by the government by this commitment. Was the original claim of removing weapons of mass destruction sufficient reason for invading Iraq? That was the reason that was given. Again the answer is no. In fact, it was a deliberate falsehood and the Prime Minister knew it and he repeated it subsequent to knowing it, and yet that was the reason championed to the Australian public—a reason without any foundation or fact whatsoever. It is the worst of leaderships to allow a country to enter a war on the back of a falsehood or a lie, and it will be acknowledged and recognised as that as the history of our involvement in this war is written. Was the removal of the regime of Saddam Hussein—in fact, this was one of the original reasons as well—reason enough to enter into war? The difficulty with this reason was that initially the question of Saddam Hussein’s regime was not seen as instrumental to the conduct of the war. In fact, Prime Minister Blair made it very clear that it was not about regime change at all; it was simply about weapons of mass destruction. But very quickly it became one of regime change. The key here is that, other than voices being raised within countries like Australia and the US about the conduct of their leaders as they enter into war, it is the voices that are universally raised outside in other countries and communities who witness the actions and the words of our leaders and make judgements accordingly. Was the revised aim of addressing and hopefully defeating fundamentalist terrorism achieved by going into war in Iraq? Again, the answer is no. In fact, the Iraq adventure has had the opposite effect. Iraq has become a lightning rod for the disaffected, a breeding ground for terrorism and a place of terrible suffering. Was the war then justifiable as policy by any other means, to paraphrase Clausewitz, I think? Again, no. The invasion of Iraq remains a dismal failure, but the Prime Minister did not admit this in his statement to the House. Conservative commentators like Francis Fukuyama are scathing of the US conduct in the war. Owen Harries has called the war ‘a misbegotten adventure, wrongly conceived as well as incompetently implemented’. And yet the Prime Minister’s statement made no allowance for that. Labor believes the Australian troops should be withdrawn now the Japanese reconstruction force has departed, but instead the prime ministerial statement indicated that the troops may be called on by the Iraqi government to provide backup. But that raises serious questions again about whether Australian troops will be used in some kind of call-up capacity—something which has attached to it another set of risks, difficulties and problems. It is nothing short of a miracle that Australian loss of life has been so few and it is due entirely to the high levels of professionalism and service of the ADF. It is also a fact that the lives of the innocent lost in bombing raids in Iraq are not officially counted. But that fact should repulse any civilised person or country reflecting on this war. It is a fact that Australia provided cover for the sale of wheat to Saddam Hussein’s regime while prosecuting war against Iraq and that the government clasps its hands to its chest and proclaims its fealty to the nation and the sacrifice of young lives whilst at the same time acquiescing to trade with those that you are meant to be engaging in war with—an act of monstrous hypocrisy. It is a fact that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had no exit strategy and no articulated rationale for the conduct of this misadventure, and it is a fact that the Howard government, constantly hiding behind the cloak of patriotism, has been with them all the way. It has not exercised the necessary serious correspondence, discussion and serious judgement on these issues with a senior alliance partner that it should have done. It has simply been with them all the way. Notwithstanding the intimate access that Foreign Minister Downer has to senior members of the Bush administration, he has not been paying attention to the commentary of those who watch these matters closely nor of the people who watch with shock and say that this is a war that never should have been entered into. In conclusion, let me say that there are other aspects of our involvement in the war against Iraq that need to be referred to briefly. They include the illegal renditions of terrorist suspects, the drumbeat from the American Attorney-General that the Geneva convention should not impede the US in its campaign on terrorism, and the fate of Australian citizen David Hicks, who has been abandoned by this government. All of these matters, and many others, flow outwards from the conduct of this government in a war that was illegal and that would not serve any of its avowed aims. The access to power and the strong ideology that the Howard government has experienced in its relationships with the United States regrettably have taken us to a place that we should never have been in. They have taken us to the war in Iraq. Australians and Australian troops will be well served if we are out of there as soon as possible. 84 12:06:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —The Prime Minister’s statement on the Australian Defence Force commitment in southern Iraq sets out the arrangements for the Australian Defence Force personnel’s completion of the task that they had been set by the government in Al Muthanna province and also sets out the redeployment of Australian troops to Dhi Qar province, to be based at the coalition air base at Tallil and to be involved in the operational overwatch in south-east Iraq. Yet again, the ADF personnel that have been involved in Al Muthanna province have shown their professionalism in setting out and completing the tasks given to them by government. The people involved have our gratitude and I wish success in the safe completion of the task they have been given to all the forces that are redeployed to south-east Iraq for involvement in this operational overwatch. This is an opportunity for us to reflect upon Australia’s regrettable involvement in the Iraqi conflict. It was wrong from the outset and it is wrong now. In saying that, the opposition is not saying that the people that are being tasked to carry out the decisions of government should be criticised. It is very much the decision makers of executive government who need to be taken to task for their involvement as a so-called coalition of the willing in the disaster that has become the conflict in Iraq. The Prime Minister’s statement was very disappointing in that it lacked balance in the section on what is actually happening in Iraq at the moment. The Prime Minister indicated that he believed, on the basis of the energy production figures, the rehabilitation of schools, the training of teachers and other indicators, that things were resolving in a positive manner. But he did what ministers of the Howard government do on all occasions—fail to talk about the negative side. We do not hear a discussion about the horrendous civilian losses that have occurred over the five years. A website regrettably called ‘Iraq body count’ today gives an estimate of between 40,000 and 44,500 civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq. If we go to other sites that have taken the time to collate these regrettable statistics about fatalities in Iraq, we see that, as of 6 August, military fatalities for the Iraq coalition totalled some 2,822. To get this into perspective, this site averages out the number of fatalities for the days of the conflict. Up to 6 August there had been 1,237 days. That makes 2.2 fatalities a day. In the first six days of this month of August, there were 15. That makes 1.88. This is not something that is waning. The figures indicate that this is not a picnic. There have been 2,592 casualties from the US defence force—what might be considered one of the most well equipped defence forces the globe can produce. When we see this horrific loss—40,000 civilian casualties and nearly 3,000 military casualties—we have to ask why we do not have a fuller discussion of the issues surrounding the Iraq conflict. Today we see members of the opposition taking the opportunity that has been given through the Prime Minister being embarrassed into making a ministerial statement when he has redeployed troops in Iraq, but we see only opposition members taking the opportunity. I do not think that the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Kingsford Smith would mind me characterising them as being in the broad church, under the umbrella that is the Australian Labor Party, coming from different directions about matters to do with foreign policy and our engagement in world affairs. But, as the Main Committee can see from their contributions, there is one thing that the opposition is united on—that this was a conflict that we should not have involved ourselves in and that this is a conflict that we should get out of. That gets us to a consideration of what we believe to be the alternative. The member for Melbourne Ports, with his particular interest in matters to do with the Middle East, talked about a number of political leaders in the region, especially in Iran—political leaders who have a dual role as religious leaders. His expose indicates the complexity of these matters. I am not standing here in the Main Committee suggesting that this is something that is easy. These are complex matters. But Australia should understand that, if it is to have a role in these affairs, it should be strategic about that commitment. The Australian Labor Party have indicated—it has been clearly enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley—that, if we believe that we can have some successful involvement in improving not only aspects of the Middle East and the surrounding region but also global affairs, our involvement in Afghanistan and our pursuit of terrorist organisations that have found their home in that country are the best way that we can use our resources. As I said from the outset, one of the things that we do know is that the Australian defence forces can stand proud and tall about their professionalism and their effectiveness. That goes not only to the way that they carry out their duties in a military sense but also to their understanding of the environment—I include the cultural environment—where they engage and the fact that they do not go in as some superior force that is going to ram an outcome down on the people whom they are involved in protecting. That is unlike an impression I get as to the cultural context that other military forces, ones that we have a coalition with, think that they can go about their business with. But that perhaps is a debate for another day. In the debate on the Australia-Japan legislation just before this present debate about the prime ministerial statement, in conclusion the foreign minister of course came in here and had the cheap shot that foreign policy within the Australian Labor Party has some leftist view that is anti-American. I think that he should be careful and that he should perhaps not only listen to the administration and what comes out of the west wing of the White House but also go up to Capitol Hill and listen to the views put by the US congress. What he has to understand is that, whilst the Howard government has fallen into line with the Bush administration, there are plenty of dissenting voices in the American political scene which are very akin to the Australian Labor Party’s position. To deny that that is happening is to misconstrue the successful relationship that Australia has had with the United States. The assumption that an administration that happens to be in power at the moment is the only singular unitary view of the United States is a great fallacy, and any Australian government that comes to that conclusion is not acting in Australia’s best interests. I stand with many in the United States congress who say: ‘Why is the United States involved in Iraq? What is the exit strategy? What is the endplay? What is the conclusion?’ We have Condoleezza Rice touring around the world. She does not express where they think the goal is. Donald Rumsfeld says everything is peachy because there are 36,000 teachers being trained in Iraq. Of course that is a positive thing. But when the United States defence forces continue to lose something like two soldiers a day dying in action, when 40,000 civilians have lost their lives in Iraq and it continues, certainly there is a need to come to some greater conclusion. So the opportunity that arose at the time that these troops were redeployed, at the time when the Japanese had decided that they could move on, has now been missed by the Australian government to decide that we could move on. Having lost that opportunity, perhaps the Australian government has to reassess what it is they believe they are actually doing in Iraq. Is there an end strategy? Is there an outcome that will satisfy the Howard government? The Prime Minister quoted Tony Blair’s speech in the House earlier. I think it was this year or late last year. I have said, and gone on the record on a number of occasions saying this, that I would have proudly been in the minority of the British Labour caucus against Britain’s involvement in Iraq. But I have to say that I think that at least Tony Blair makes a greater effort and gives a better analysis to justify his reasons for being in Iraq than the present leadership of the Australian government does. Blair said: Here are Iraqi ... Muslims saying clearly: democracy is as much our right as yours ... This struggle is our struggle. We agree. What we really need to decide is: is the involvement of Australia and other coalition forces in Iraq a positive or a negative for the Iraqis to actually self-determine the way forward for themselves? There are plenty of people that say that the coalition forces are a distraction that causes the type of tumult that we see and does not allow for a peaceful settlement to the situation in Iraq. Blair went on when speaking to the House of Reps to say, ‘This is a time for the courage to see it through.’ See it through to where? Where is the end point? Have we really decided what the concluding moment of this conflict is? Earlier on, as a critique of our involvement in Iraq, the Australian opposition—through its spokespersons, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Griffith as the shadow foreign minister—questioned whether there was a risk with the continuing involvement of the coalition of a fully fledged civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. The Australian Labor Party has been on record as posing that question as something that we need to analyse for our continuing involvement. And what do we see? We see the retiring British ambassador to Iraq raising a similar question, having come to a conclusion that yes, it is. It is time that the Australian government understood that it got us into Iraq for spurious reasons and should now decide how it is going to get us out. We believe that we are best placed if we go now. At the conclusion of this speech, I simply say to those in the Australian defence forces serving on behalf of their nation that I wish them well in their endeavours. (Time expired) 84 12:21:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Clearly opposition members feel for those in our armed forces—and their families—who, following government instructions, are in Iraq. However, more importantly at this stage it allows us to debate the reasons for the intervention and the successes of it. On 22 June the Leader of the Opposition stated: We should never have gone to Iraq in the first place, and we should not be there now. This followed a comment two days earlier when he stated: ... the Japanese are now going and the Australians should go as well. The situation is that the intervention in and the occupation of Iraq have clearly undermined US credibility around the world. I refer first to a survey by the reputable US Pew research centre, which looked at the view of the United States around the world. It compared 1999 to the current phase and it showed a similar trend internationally. In France, US popularity was down from 62 to 39 per cent; in Germany, 78 to 37 per cent; and in Spain, despite the Madrid bombings, 50 to 23 per cent. Of course, in the Islamic world the picture is even worse. In traditionally pro-American Turkey in that period there was a drop from 52 to 12 per cent. In the Guardian Weekly of 23 to 29 July, the journalist Ewen MacAskill quoted the Pew research centre as saying: “Despite growing concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the US presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran—and in many cases much more often—as a danger to world peace.” As we witness the murder of 1,000 Lebanese in the last week, the forced relocation of a quarter of the population, a situation where 400 Lebanese civilians have lost limbs and where one-third of the dead are under the age of 12, we see the enhanced power of Hezbollah and the increased support in the Western world for it because of US and Israeli policy in Lebanon and also because of the realities of what is happening in Iraq. What we have seen in Iraq is enhanced power for Iran and its agents and operatives. We might have greeted some parts of the outcome in Iraq. I for one am fully appreciative of the degree of self-government given to the Kurdish people. However, on balance, we must question what the strategic outcomes of this have been. In the last week or two we have seen Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a person who is part of the democratic regime in the country, not only condemning the United States—and in this case they might have done the right thing—for hitting Baghdad militia centres, where there was punishment and torture in evidence, obviously Shia centres, but saying that it angered and pained him. That is the prime minister of a pro-US administration who has also been equally vocal about the situation in Lebanon. We have seen a quiescent government in this country. I was recently directed to comments by a person who is not known to be a strong opponent of the United States, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when she was asked to give support for the US invasion of Grenada. I refer to an article by Jonathon Steele on 13 October 2003. I wish that the administrations of the United Kingdom and Australia had shown the same strength that she showed. It was said of that invasion: A furious British prime minister did not hesitate to tell the United States president he was wrong. In spite of her love-in with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher saw through the threadbare threat assessments which the US put up to justify the war. “I am totally and utterly against communism and terrorism,” she thundered in a BBC interview. “But if you are going to pronounce a new law that wherever communism reigns against the will of their people, the United States shall enter—then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.” In her autobiography, she later described how Reagan rang to get her views a few hours before the invasion. It would be seen, she told him, “as intervention by a western country in the internal affairs of a small independent nation, however unattractive its regime”. No self-delusions about liberation. Unlike Blair, Thatcher knew it would be occupation. She explained that Grenada had not suddenly changed “from a democratic island paradise into a Soviet surrogate overnight in October 1983”. Its socialist regime had taken over four years earlier. The Iraq analogy arises again. What made Saddam Hussein’s Iraq more of a “threat” in March 2003 than it had been during the years of containment? “The new ‘hemispheric’ strategy which President Reagan’s administration was pursuing in our view led the US to exaggerate the threat which a Marxist Grenada posed,” Thatcher wrote. Brave words, especially after Reagan had helped her during the Falklands war 18 months earlier. Reagan spurned the advice and ordered the invasion to go ahead. “I felt dismayed and let down. At best, the British government had been made to look impotent, at worst we looked deceitful,” Thatcher commented. As I say, it is unfortunate that the leadership of this country and that of the United Kingdom have not been as prescient and inquiring as she was at that time. It is interesting to note, when we go back in history, the movement of justifications. It was about weapons of mass destruction. It was about the fact that there were stockpiles of weapons. I look at an article by Robert Fisk, a well-known commentator who in the last few weeks has been critical of both Hezbollah and Israel. He commented of the current US representative at the UN: Mr Bolton, who once ludicrously claimed that Cuba had a biological weapons programme, accused Syria of maintaining a stockpile of sarin and of working on VX and biological weapons. Fisk wrote of Congressman Eliot Engel, who at that time said that the Iraqis had suddenly put WMD on trains to Syria: He went on insisting Iraq had transferred its non-existent WMD to Syria by rail—before being shown a map that proved the only railway line from Iraq to Syria passed through Turkey. In that article, Robert Fisk also commented about the performance of Prime Minister Blair. Fisk wrote that Blair had commented: ... we “should wait until the 1,400 US, British and Australian investigators sent in to search for Iraq’s weapons had finished work”. Fisk went on: But why, for heaven’s sake, couldn’t he have been patient enough to let the extremely competent UN inspectors finish their work before his illegal invasion? As we know, having gone in under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, sometime later it was about democracy around the world. I think we all know, if we look around various regimes on this earth, that there are many other candidates who could be overthrown for lack of democracy. Based on the information of the internationally renowned fraudster Ahmed Chalabi, a US informant, the claims of an Iraqi nuclear capacity—the reasons for our supposed intervention—have been totally destroyed. It is quite interesting. In later exploration of these issues, it was proven that the original documents that the US utilised, which were supposedly Iraqi government nuclear documents, were actually translations from Farsi, the language of Iran, rather than from Arabic, the language of Iraq. So fraudulent documents were utilised by people to persuade the US administration. And quite frankly they did not need much persuasion. If we look at the Security Council resolution, it was deliberately framed so that it would be difficult for Iraq to respond adequately. And, at that time, it was said of Vice President Dick Cheney that he had ‘taken up the most belligerent position, insisting to the President that any omission—no matter how minor—will constitute a material breach’. The Iraqis had been told that they had to supply information not only on the direct nuclear aspect but on all of their chemical programs—that was the direction of resolution 1441. Once they did that, we had complaints from pro-US journalists that the material was too detailed and was a deliberate delaying tactic by the Iraqi administration. That resolution said: ... false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations ... What we had there was a UN resolution, pushed by the United States, which essentially aimed to make sure that any minor technicalities could be used as grounds for US intervention. The Economist at that time pointed out that the US refusal to hand over their information with regard to nuclear capacity was: … violating Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, which requests all countries to hand over ‘any information related prohibited programmes’… In summary, we have a situation where Iran’s power in the region has been significantly enhanced. We have a situation where people known to me in my electorate in the Lebanese population, of a variety of religious denominations, weeks ago would not have had much good to say about Hezbollah. These days, in the aftermath of Israeli activity in Lebanon in recent weeks, they see them as the only resistance to Iraq. The first step down that road was giving Iraq credibility as resisting the United States after the invasion. This country is also seeing daily things like this. We saw it on television last night: the massacre of a girl, after she was raped, and her family and then an attempt to cover it up. This is not an abstract, occasional, spasmodic activity; it is a daily reality. We can cite three US troops charged with murder—they shot three Iraqi prisoners—and threatening to kill a fellow soldier if he spoke of it. We have incidents like this going on daily. The renowned journalist Gary Younge said in the Guardian on 30 June: To treat even these few incidents as isolated chapters is to miss the broader, enduring narrative. For these are not the unfathomable off-shoots of this war but the entirely foreseeable corollaries of it. This is what occupation is; this is what occupation does. There is nothing specifically American about it. Any nation that occupies another by force will meet resistance. For that resistance to be effective, it must have deep roots in local communities where opposition to the occupation is widespread. There is widespread opposition, and we have a situation now where the administration is clearly lacking any control. We have militia, we have police forces, we have parts of the Iraqi army that are essentially controlled by Shiite religious groups. We have a government authority that has no power in the country. We have daily sectarian murders on both sides of the divide. And I have people coming into my electorate office every week—whether they be Chaldeans or Armenians—who are being forced out of their homes at the moment because this government is powerless. The so-called intervention for democracy and to protect minorities is shattered. At the same time, America has lost credibility in the region and enhanced the power of Iran. This government, unfortunately, was a very willing and keen combatant. The attempt by al-Qaeda and Sunni forces to instigate sectarian violence and hostility in the country has been successful. We also know that Iran has been a major ingredient in this. One of the reasons why a leading female journalist was murdered there was that, after the destruction of the major Shiite temple at Samarah, she filmed Iranian agents being detained by Iraqi interior ministry officials and police and then the Iraqi interior minister forcing their release. Essentially what we had there were Iranian operatives trying to provoke sectarian disputes in the country by seeking to blame Sunnis for an attack on a Shiite religious symbol. I certainly agree with the opposition leader and his conclusion that in the first place this was not a credible policy position, unlike in Afghanistan, where large Taliban activity is operating from outside the borders in Pakistan et cetera and it is clearly against public opinion. We see in this country a contrast where that resistance is essentially supported by the people and where another part of the population is so terrified of a Shiite theocratic state that they are also in armed resistance to the Americans. The situation there, as I say—and this has been made amply clear by a variety of opposition members—is that Australian forces are in enhanced danger at the moment as this situation breaks apart. One by one we have seen the other willing combatants, the other cheer chasers in Europe—and in some cases they are not cheer chasers; they were actually pressured into it by the United States—abandon ship and basically decide that there is nothing to be gained both for their national self-interest and in the interest of trying to get a peaceful outcome there. Finally, getting back to Lebanon for a minute, I would like to indicate the manner in which I deplore the comments of Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni in the last 24 hours. When Fouad Siniora, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, understandably cried at the murder of 1,000 Lebanese, she advised him to wipe away his tears. That is a bad indication for the world of the Israeli attitude in these matters. As shown in Iraq, there is a lack of strategic thinking. I refer finally to ex-President Carter’s words overnight that unless Israel is prepared to negotiate a land settlement of this matter the situation will not be solved. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 84 12:36:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.36 pm 84 Questions in Writing 84 84 3198 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 27 March 2006: Are the size of seats and the space between rows of seats in aircraft used for domestic interstate air travel regulated; if not, why not; if so, what are the minimum size and space. What studies have been conducted by the department or agencies in his portfolio on the size of seats and the space between rows of seats and what were the findings. Has the department or any agency in his portfolio identified any medical problems associated with prolonged flight in cramped conditions; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Passenger space or seating room and the maximum number of seats that may be installed on an aircraft is a matter for the airline to determine, in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturer and the regulatory authority of the country of manufacture. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recognises these standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) 1998 Part 25. Minimum seat pitches for seating in particular rows of emergency exits on small to medium sized transport category aircraft, typically used in domestic interstate and intrastate air travel, are defined in Airworthiness Directive AD/General/73. CASA does regulate the design and tested strength of seats used in aircraft to ensure that the seat types, including the seat belts, have been tested to international standards. None. In 2001, the Government commissioned a study into the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT), and its more serious consequence, pulmonary embolism (PE), associated with air travel. The Department of Health and Aged Care (now the Department of Health and Ageing (DOHA) carried out the study with funding from the Department of Transport and Regional Services. The objective of this study was to investigate the time relations between long haul air travel and venous thromboembolism. The report did not consider the size of seats and the space between rows of seats in the analysis. The study was completed in early 2003 and the findings confirmed that the risk of DVT and PE following a long-haul flight, for the average traveller, was small. The British Medical Journal published the outcomes of the study on 8 November 2003. 84 84 3199 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programs and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each program, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 84 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Nil. Not applicable. 84 84 3201 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programs and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each program, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 84 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics Nil Not applicable Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Nil Not applicable Australian Office of Financial Management Nil Not applicable Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Nil Not applicable Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASIC does not have any programs and/or services for Indigenous communities or individuals specifically in the federal electoral district of Chifley. At a national level ASIC has done extensive research and policy work in relation to issues relating to Australia’s Indigenous people. Research ASIC has identified problems associated with ‘book up’ (a form of credit offered by stores and other traders, often in return for some form of security), which is particularly common in regional and remote areas of Australia, and primarily involves Indigenous consumers. ASIC issued a report, Book Up: Some Consumer Problems, in 2002 following widespread research and consultation into these issues. Education Resources Further, ASIC has developed a number of education resources specifically targeted at Indigenous consumers: Moola Talk and No Free Moola are consumer resources covering a range of financial problems common in remote Indigenous communities. These consumer resources are easy to read comics with stories of everyday consumer issues to convey our consumer protection messages. ASIC has also translated radio scripts based on these resources for Indigenous consumers and broadcast them on radio stations in the Northern Territory and Queensland. The budget for this campaign was $100,000. Dealing with Book Up: A Guide is a comprehensive resource for anyone working on developing responses to book up in Aboriginal communities. It includes information about what consumers and communities can do to control or eliminate book up, how to promote good book up, how to find alternatives to book up, legal issues, sources of advice and assistance and how to raise levels of financial literacy. The Guide was launched on 15 December 2005. The budget for this campaign was also $100,000. Super and Us Mob! is a factsheet ASIC produced together with the Australian Taxation Office to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees better understand superannuation. The factsheet explains how superannuation works, when you are entitled to it as an employee, and outlines some of the key benefits of superannuation for working families. The total production cost was paid by the Australian Taxation Office. In addition to these resources, ASIC’s Remote Areas Campaigns Officer and Indigenous graduates conduct community education or information sessions when visiting Indigenous communities. Policy ASIC’s policy work listed below is intended to assist all Indigenous people in Australia. ASIC participated in a number of workshops, together with other federal, state and territory government agencies, to develop the National Indigenous Consumer Strategy, which was released on 1 September 2005. The aim of the Strategy is to improve Indigenous consumers’ knowledge of their rights and obligations under consumer protection laws, improve the behaviour of traders and to promote effective engagement and partnership between consumer protection agencies, Indigenous organisations, business and other government agencies to improve consumer outcomes for Indigenous people. ASIC has also been working cooperatively with other governments and the business community to improve the regulation of book up. On 16-17 November 2005 ASIC and the Northern Territory Government jointly sponsored a forum on book up in Alice Springs for key banking and regulatory agencies and released for public comment the Book Up Discussion Paper. At the November 2005 Book Up Forum consumer protection agencies and the banks and other financial institutions agreed to work cooperatively to develop mechanisms to minimise harm to consumers that use book up. This included a review of standard merchant EFTPOS agreements to consider prohibiting the requesting or retention of PIN numbers of customers (a number of banks have already introduced such a prohibition), the consideration of alternative banking services for Indigenous communities and support for individual initiatives aimed at addressing the disadvantages of book up e.g. the Northern Territory Government’s Book Up Discussion Paper and ASIC’s Dealing with Book Up: A Guide. ASIC has also developed specific initiatives aimed at assisting in the economic independence of Indigenous people. For example, on 11 August 2005 ASIC provided relief from the Corporations Act 2001 under ASIC Class Order [05/844]: Licensing and disclosure relief for certain community representatives in remote communities, for approximately 75 Indigenous local councils in remote areas of the Northern Territory and Queensland communities without bank branches. The ASIC class order relieves certain people in communities in the Northern Territory and Queensland from the need to hold an Australian financial service licence (AFSL), where they arrange for the issue of, and/or provide financial product advice in relation to, certain basic deposit products issued by Westpac Banking Corporation. ASIC has worked closely with the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations and has provided feedback to ORAC on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005. Other Resources ASIC has recently employed a dedicated Remote Areas Campaigns Officer, whose role is to liaise with Indigenous communities in regional and remote areas, to assist in the identification of complaints or problems with financial services providers particularly affecting consumers in those communities. In addition, ASIC also established a dedicated 1300 telephone number for Indigenous complainants to contact ASIC. ASIC also has an Indigenous graduate program and has employed two Indigenous graduates since March 2005 under this program. ASIC has developed links with many Government and private sector organisations that provide services to Indigenous people. For example, ASIC is a member of the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network steering committee and the National Indigenous Consumer Strategy Implementation Reference Group. ASIC has a Consumer Advisory Panel (CAP) which was established in 1998. Its role is to advise ASIC on current consumer protection issues and give feedback on ASIC policies and activities. Australian Taxation Office The ATO has specific national programs targeting indigenous communities. The ATO does not collect information requested at the electorate level. The ATO spends $2,050,500 nationally in delivering the following programs: GST Field Compliance and Advisory Work The Indigenous compliance strategy works towards informing and educating Indigenous taxpayers, so they are able to voluntarily comply with their tax obligations. The strategy incorporates a combination of education, help and enforcement activity. Field staff provide Indigenous non-profit organisations and some businesses with help and education through seminars, workshops and advisory visits, and by conducting field audits and single issue reviews. By the end of the 2005-2006 financial year, it is anticipated the team will have delivered 30 seminars, assisted with 500 business activity statement non-lodger cases and about 800 other cases - a mixture of providing advice and obtaining verification information. The cost of this program is estimated at $1,250,500 per annum. Indigenous Communication The ATO delivers marketing and education activities to special audiences, which includes Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The ATO provides Indigenous media with editorial programs which provide local media with tax features, press releases and targeted editorials addressing needs within specific communities. The ATO places relevant business activity statement advertising in Indigenous press each quarter. The cost of this program is estimated at $184,910 per annum National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Resource Centre The Centre is based in Alice Springs and through its national connections provides a contact point between the ATO and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people throughout Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can call 131030 for the cost of a local call, and have their taxation enquiries answered by tax officers who are culturally trained to assist Indigenous Australians in tax matters. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Infoline has received more than 13,000 phone calls, year-to-date, with an expected volume of 16,500 by 30 June 2006. The cost of this service is estimated at $324,000 per annum. Tax Help Program The Tax Help Program continues to expand the number of Indigenous Tax Help Centres, and the number of volunteers assisting taxpayers to do their tax returns during tax time each year. For the 2005 tax season, there were 38 Regional and Remote Indigenous centres. This is projected to increase to 40 in the 2006 tax season. Costs for the 2005 year for Indigenous centres were approximately $114,000. Indigenous Tax Advisory Group The Indigenous Tax Advisory Group (ITAG) is made up of senior representatives from the ATO and Indigenous communities. The ITAG meets once a year and aims to promote discussion about delivery of ATO information and services to Indigenous communities and their intermediaries. The cost of the ITAG program is estimated at $ 33,590 per annum Seminars and Events For the financial year to date, the ATO has conducted 34 information sessions for Indigenous groups, 23 of these sessions were conducted in NSW. The ATO also participates at: The Yabun Festival, held every Australia Day at Redfern Park, Sydney, where tax officers are available to provide information to the public on a range of tax matters. The “Do It Right” program, a multi-agency initiative conducted by the NSW Office of Industrial Relations, delivering whole of government information to new and intending small business operators from Indigenous communities in Western Sydney and various regions in NSW. This work is costed within the overall ATO taxpayer education program. Indigenous Recruitment Program The ATO has an Indigenous Employment Strategy, which includes funding for an Indigenous Liaison Officer and placements in the ATO for Indigenous students. Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee Nil Not applicable Inspector-General of Taxation Nil Not applicable National Competition Council Nil Not applicable Productivity Commission Nil Not applicable Royal Australian Mint Nil Not applicable Treasury The Treasury administers one programme, the HIH Claims Support Scheme, that Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley 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. The scheme closed to new applicants in February 2004. However late claims may be made in limited circumstances. The claims made against the scheme by organisations and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley cannot readily be determined. 84 84 3204 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programs and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each program, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The Department of Transport and Regional Services administers a number of programs which may be available to Indigenous councils, communities and individuals. Details of these programs are available in the Department’s Portfolio Budget Statements, its Annual Reports and their website http://www.dotars.gov.au. A summary of approved funding for the electorate of Chifley can be found below. Electorate of Chifley – 1996/1997 to 2004/2005 Black Spot Program $785,520 Roads to Recovery $8,514,241 AusLink National Network (incorporating the former National Highway and Roads of National Importance Program) $392,475,000 Transport Programs Subtotal $401,774,761 Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government $153,129,360 Local Government Development Program $46,000 Local Government Incentive Program $100,000 Local Government Programs Subtotal $153,275,360 Regional Assistance Program $712,242 Regional Partnerships Program $33,000 Regional Programs Subtotal $745,242 TOTAL $555,795,363 84 84 3214 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programs and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each program, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 84 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: Indigenous communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley have access to the suite of FaCSIA programs and services available to all eligible individuals within the western Sydney region. Indigenous communities can also negotiate government funding for discretionary benefits over and above essential services or basic entitlements, as part of a Shared Responsibility Agreement. Services with a focus on Indigenous communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley are funded under the following programs: Emergency Relief; Reconnect; YouthLinx; Stronger Families and Communities Strategy – Local Answers; Indigenous Women’s Program; and Public Information Program. The following table answers 2a(ii) and 2b(ii). PROGRAM FUNDING excl. GST PEOPLE ASSISTED Emergency Relief $70,439 – 2005-06 1832 (2004-05) Youth – Reconnect $197,615–2005-06 1353 (2004-05) Youth – Youth Activities Service and Family Liaison Worker $60,262 – 2005-06 1600 (2004-05) Stronger Families and Communities Strategy – Local Answers – Indigenous Young Carers Support Project $129,202–2005-06 $83,201 – 2006-07 Aims to assist 40 Families in Mt Druitt and Kempsey. Stronger Families and Communities Strategy - Local Answers – Junaya Tennis Club for Families Project $12,000 - 2006-07 $11,500 - 2007-08 Aims to assist 10 Indigenous boys and their families Indigenous Women’s Program In the 2005/2006 financial year a total of $15,250. Aims to assist 20 women to enhance leadership, representation, safety, wellbeing and economic status. The Public Information Program In the 2005/2006 financial year a total of $13,000. Provides funding for initiatives that have significant value in raising public awareness in the wider community of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, society and issues, including NAIDOC Week activities. Note 1 – Figures for the number of people assisted in the Emergency Relief Programme, Reconnect and YAS/FLW (now known as YouthLinx) are not available for 2005-06. Note 2 – The figure for the number of people assisted under the Youth programmes is for the number of contacts and therefore individuals may be counted more than once. Note 3 – Information relating to the Emergency Relief Programme refers to services that predominantly assist Indigenous families and individuals. Access to these services is not restricted to Indigenous people. Note 4 – Figures for participation in NAIDOC week activities are not recorded. Please be advised that due to the previous Machinery of Government changes the following information refers to two separate Annual Reports. The answer to 2a(i) and 2b(i) for former FaCS funded programs can be found in the Department of Family and Community Services Annual Report 2004-05. The page references for the 2004-05 Annual Report are as follows: Emergency Relief                                 p 164 (does not include the number of people assisted) Reconnect                                              p 105 YouthLinx                                               p 106 Local Answers                                       p 168 (National figures for the number of people assisted under the Emergency Relief Programme have not been available to date) The answer to 2a(i) and 2b(i) for OIPC funded programs can be found in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Annual Report 2004-05. The page references for the 2004-05 Annual Report are as follows: Indigenous Women’s Program           p 305 (does not include national allocation) (Aboriginal Women and Torres Strait Islander Women) Public Information Program                                 p 307 84 84 3248 84 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Within the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMA’s), or its antecedent organisation’s terms of reference, what ongoing and non-ongoing committees, councils or similar bodies created for the provision of advice to the ACMA are or were (i) delivery or technical in nature and (ii) program or content focussed in nature. Of the committees identified in (1), which have non-government organisations as members or regular contributors and what organisations are represented. Which of the non-government organisations identified in (2) have received funding from the Minister’s department and for what purpose was the funding provided. Within the last five years of the ACMA’s (or it’s antecedents organisation’s) operations, which contributing non-government organisations have (a) contributed towards the development of service standards; (b) monitored television, radio and/or online content and provided advice to consumers regarding content; (c) been used by the Minister’s portfolio agencies as a resource for the provision of consumer advice; (d) received Federal Government financial assistance and when did they receive it; and (e) specialised in the needs of children. 84 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is considering how it can best engage with external stakeholders given its role as a converged regulator. The following committees have been established by ACMA under section 58 of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005. Name of Committee Role of Committee Consumer Consultative Forum (CCF) . The CCF was a forum in which representative consumer and user groups, provided advice to the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and received information from the ACA on a range of telecommunications issues. Discussions in the CCF focussed on the ‘carriage’ of telecommunications services. The CCF membership is currently under review by ACMA. Law Enforcement Advisory Committee (LEAC) The LEAC provides advice and recommendations to the ACMA on law enforcement and national security issues relating to telecommunications. Emergency Services Advisory Committee (ESAC). ESAC is expected to provide advice to ACMA about issues relating to the emergency call service. It is in the process of being established. It has yet to meet. National Relay Service Consultative Committee (NRSCC) The NRSCC provides advice to ACMA in relation to its legislated responsibilities in monitoring the performance of the National Relay Service provider. Numbering Advisory Committee (NAC) The NAC is a formal advisory committee which provides advice and recommendations on issues related to ACMA's telecommunication numbering functions. International Radiocommunications Advisory Committee (IRAC) IRAC provides advice to ACMA on international radiocommunications matters, particularly in relation to international radiocommunications treaty, regulatory and standards activities in international fora. Communications Technical Regulation Advisory Committee (CTRAC) CTRAC was established to provide strategic policy advice and recommendations in respect of the compliance framework for technical regulation of communications in Australia. Committee formed by Australian Communications Authority (ACA) The following committee was established by the ACA and its continued operation is under review. Radiocommunications Consultative Council The RCC was the primary consultative forum for radiocommunications. It focused particularly on proposed changes to policies and procedures to meet the challenges presented by the demand for new services and the introduction of new technologies. The Australian Broadcasting Authority did not establish any formal committees of the nature indicated in the question. Committee Memberships are listed in Attachment A. Funding by ACMA to non-government organisations involved in these committees is limited to providing some support (limited out-of-pocket expenses, but not sitting fees) to consumer representative organisations for attendance at meetings. It would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources for the Department to investigate whether any particular funding payments were made to any of the over 70 non-government organisations listed in response to part (2) over an unlimited period of time and in relation to an unspecified range of matters. If the member has questions regarding specific non-government organisations and funding provided by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts during a specified period a response could be considered. to (c) Within the last five years ACMA and its antecedent organisations have received submissions and representations from non-government advisory committee members to numerous public discussion papers covering a range of issues. unding by ACMA to non-government organisations involved in these committees is limited to providing some support (limited out-of-pocket expenses, but not sitting fees) to consumer representative organisations for attendance at meetings. Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association; and Youth Action and Policy Association Other organisations may also contribute to issues relating to the needs of children but not in a specialised manner. Attachment A Committee Membership Consumer Consultative Forum Law Enforcement Advisory Committee Emergency Services Advisory Committee Consumers' Telecommunications Network. Small Enterprises Telecommunications Centre. National Farmers Federation. Australian Consumers' Association. Communications Law Centre. Central Land Council. Isolated Children's Parents' Association. Australian Federation of Disability Consumers. Australian Telecommunications Users Group. Consumers Law Centre of Victoria. Connecting Over 50s Throughout Australia (COTA) National Seniors. Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia. Youth Action and Policy Association. Observers Electronic Frontiers Australia. Australian Communications Industry Forum. Telecommunications Disability Consumer Representation. Australian Council of Social Services. AAPT. Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Ltd. Internet Industry Association. MCI Australian Pty Ltd. SingTel Optus Pty Ltd. Telstra Corporation Ltd. Vodafone Australia Ltd. Hutchison Telecommunications (Australia) Ltd. SingTel Optus Pty Ltd. Telstra Corporation Ltd. Vodafone Australia Ltd. St John Ambulance WA. Australian Communications Exchange. Consumers’ Telecommunications Network. Australian Telecommunications Users Group. National Relay Service Consultative Committee International Radiocommunications Advisory Committee Numbering Advisory Committee Australian Association of the Deaf. Queensland Association of the Deaf. Sensory Options Co-ordination. Better Hearing Australia (Victorian Branch). Deafness Forum. DeafBlind Association. Communication Aids User Society. AGOSCI (Australian Group On Severe Communication Impairment). Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association Limited. SingTel Optus Pty Ltd. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Cemdia Pty Ltd. Telstra Corporation Ltd. Free TV Australia Limited. Broadcasting Industry Technical Advisory Group. Telstra Corporation Ltd. SingTel Optus Pty Limited. Vodafone Network Pty Ltd. Service Providers Action Network Ltd. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Communications, Information Technology & the Arts. Australian Telecommunications Users Group Ltd. Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Ltd. Consumers' Telecommunications Network Inc. Australian Information Industry Association Ltd. Australian Electrical & Electronic Manufacturers' Association Ltd. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association Ltd. Observers Hutchison. Primus. Power Tel. Mobile Innovations. Industry Number Management Systems. MCI WorldCom. Committee Membership - ACA Committees in abeyance Communications Technical Regulation Advisory Committee (CTRAC) Radiocommunications Consultative Council Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Australian Communications Industry Forum. Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers’ Association Limited. Australian Information Industry Association Ltd. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association. Australian Retailers Association. Australian Telecommunications Users Group. Consumer Electronic Suppliers Association. Consumers’ Telecommunications Network. Electrical Compliance Testing Association. Mobile Carriers Forum. National Association of Testing Authorities. SingTel Optus Pty Limited. Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Ltd. Standards Australia. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Telstra Corporation Ltd. Mr Kevin Richardson. Mr Reuben Medding. Air Services Australia. Australian Council of Trade Unions. Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association. Australian Information Industry Association. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association. Australian Telecommunications Users Group. Broadcasting Industry Advisory Council. Optus. Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation. Commonwealth/State (& Territories) Telecommunications Group. Consumers' Federation of Australia. Department of Communications, Information Technology & the Arts. Department of Defence. Electricity Suppliers' Association of Australia. Emergency Management Australia. Radiocommunications Users Association. Radio Site Operators & Users Association. Telstra Corporation. Vodafone. Wireless Institute of Australia. 84 84 3253 84 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms Hoare asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Can the Minister confirm that the Government has recognised in the Beyond Kyoto Report the need to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions to near zero. Is the Minister aware that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a report on carbon capture and storage (CCS), which included contributions from the Chief Executive Officers of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) and the Centre for Low Emissions Technology and, in particular, that the report concluded that the price of coal power with CCS is likely to be higher than the current price of wind energy; if so, how does the Minister justify the current lack of support for an expanded Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) that would increase use of existing low cost renewable energy technologies. Is it the case that the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) does not expect CCS to be applied to coal-fired plants in Australia until 2015 at the earliest, with many experts predicting it will be 5 to 10 years after 2015. Does the Minister concede that Australian energy consumers in industry and households will not benefit from CCS if the projected cost of energy derived from coal power with CCS is not lower than low emission energy sources (such as wind or other renewables); if not, will the Minister explain on what basis the Government formed its view. Is the Minister aware that the recent ABARE report Technological Development and Economic Growth, commissioned by the Federal Government to assess the effectiveness of the Asia Pacific Partnership (AP6), showed that under the Partnership, global emissions would more than double by 2050. Does it remain the Minister’s view that the AP6 will be more effective at reducing emissions than Kyoto and that Australia will meet its Kyoto targets in any case; if so, why does Australia not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Has the Government recognised the need to reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions to near zero in the Beyond Kyoto Report; if so, why is there a delay in emissions reductions achievable from wind and other renewable energy sources at a similar or lower cost to Australian households and industry, in favour of CCS which will not come on line for 15 to 30 years. Does the Minister concede that a larger penetration of renewable power sources into the Australian energy sector would help achieve the Government’s aim to reduce greenhouse emissions, and much sooner than CCS; if not, why not. Could reducing emissions in the near future be achieved by increasing the MRET from 9,500 GWh; if not, why not. What other methods are being considered to reduce Australia’s emissions in the short term. Does the Government have cost/benefit analyses comparing (a) CCS applied to coal plants and (b) CCS applied to gas plants, with other low emission technologies such as wind and renewable energy sources; if so, will the Minister make them available; if they do not exist, on what basis does the Minister continue to advocate the need for CCS as the primary source of carbon dioxide emissions reduction. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: There are a number of ‘Beyond Kyoto’ reports and I am uncertain as to which of these reports the honourable member is referring. I can confirm, however, that I have publicly stated that I acknowledge the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which indicates the world will need global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in the order of 60 per cent by the end of this century. That is why the Australian Government is working so hard for an effective global response to this critical issue and investing almost $2 billion in initiatives to reduce our domestic greenhouse gas emissions. I am aware of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS), released in September 2005. The Australian Government welcomed this report which involved input from more than 200 international scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries. The report draws on peer-reviewed literature and provides a snapshot of the status of the technology, drawing out the current knowledge about opportunities, challenges and risks. Importantly, the report represents an increasing global consensus between researchers and government policy makers on the integrity of carbon capture and storage as an option for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The report indicates that the current estimates of the cost of CCS cover a wide range and significant cost reductions are expected in the next decade or two as the technology develops. Current cost estimates differ according to the specific technology, and the assumptions and models underpinning those costs. There is no mention of a cost comparison to wind in the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. Different reports also ascribe different costs to energy from wind, depending for example on whether or not they include costs associated with transmission to grid as well as electricity generation. The Australian Government’s approach is to invest in the development and commercialisation of a range of new low emissions technologies (whether they are fossil fuel or renewable based) as well as reducing impediments to the uptake of existing low emissions technologies. The ABARE has produced a number of reports that include carbon capture and storage technologies. These are based on models of hypothetical scenarios, and do not represent their views or expectations of likely futures. The Australian Government’s Energy White Paper Securing Australia’s Energy Future recognised that demonstrating the commercial application of CCS technologies is likely to take at least ten years. Nevertheless, their potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions released to the atmosphere mean that it is an important part of a portfolio of technologies required to address climate change. See responses to questions 2 and 3. The ABARE report does not make predictions as to global emissions, rather it presents a number of illustrative scenarios of the relative impact of different rates of technology take up in Partner countries. The scenarios deliberately include quite specific assumptions, which are not intended as representing likely outcomes, but illustrate the relative effects of assuming different drivers of combinations of technology take up across a range of sectors and countries. The report deliberately focuses only on the possible effects of activities under the Partnership and does not, for example, take into account the large number of other measures that are being implemented across other sectors and elsewhere in the world. Nevertheless, the report concludes that the Partnership has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions compared to a business as usual scenario. The Asia-Pacific Partnership is not in competition with the Kyoto Protocol. As made clear in the Partnership’s vision statement, the partnership will be consistent with and contribute to Partners’ efforts under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and will complement, but not replace, the Kyoto Protocol. A key feature of the Partnership is that it has effectively engaged key developing country emitters in practical climate change action. It also provides industry with an opportunity to participate in practical climate efforts. Action will focus on the development and deployment of the breakthrough technologies needed for a comprehensive response to climate change. The Government will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because, while it has some positive elements, it does not provide a comprehensive or environmentally effective long-term response to climate change and there is no clear pathway for action by developing countries. Without commitments by all major emitters, the Kyoto Protocol will deliver only about a 1 per cent reduction in the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Put another way, global greenhouse emissions are still expected to increase by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol, compared to an increase of 41 per cent without it. The best scientific advice is that significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be needed by the end of the century. Australia is therefore working actively with other countries to develop a global response to climate change that is environmentally effective, economically efficient, involves all major emitters, and will reduce global greenhouse gases to the levels that scientists tell us are needed. This country contributes just 1.46 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if Australia switched off all our power stations today – shutting down all schools, hospitals, factories, heaters and air conditioners – the greenhouse gas savings would be completely replaced by increased emissions from China’s booming power sector in less than 12 months. The Government’s participation in the Asia-Pacific Partnership is an important part of this international effort as the Partnership brings together key countries (Australia, China, India, Korea, Japan and the United States) to explore ways to develop, deploy and transfer cleaner, more efficient technologies that the world will need to make the required deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of the Partnership is clear when you consider that between them these six partners account for almost half of the world’s population, gross domestic product, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Distinctive features of the Partnership include the way it seeks to address climate change, air pollution, energy security and sustainable development in an integrated manner, and fully engages business in developing and implementing solutions. The Australian Government has committed $100 million over 5 years to the Partnership. The Government remains committed to Australia’s target of limiting emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Australia is on track to meet this target. See the responses to questions (1), (2), (3) and (4) The Australian Government believes that energy from a range of renewable sources will play an important role in both securing our energy future and addressing climate change. The Government is working with industry to identify and reduce impediments which may prevent greater uptake of these energy sources. Similarly, the Australian Government agrees with the IPCC special report on carbon capture and storage on the integrity of the technologies as a key option for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The Government is investing in the development of a range of low emissions technologies (both renewable and fossil-fuel based) to ensure we meet our Kyoto target in the short term, and to help achieve future cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The world first MRET scheme was designed to ‘kick start’ the renewable energy industry in Australia and it has been highly successful in doing so, generating around $3 billion in investment. The Government decided not to increase the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target because this would impose significant economic costs through higher electricity prices. The Government considers the most effective strategy for achieving long-term greenhouse emission reductions is to promote the development and demonstration of a broad range of low emission technologies, and address impediments to the uptake of renewable energy. The Government is supporting the development of renewable technologies through programmes such as the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the $75 million Solar Cities programme, the $100 Renewable Energy Development Initiative, and measures to promote electricity storage technologies and improve wind forecasting. The Australian Government’s $2 billion climate change strategy includes a broad range of measures designed to ensure we meet our Kyoto target in the short term, and to help deliver future cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. These include, for example, the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund; $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative; action on energy efficiency; $75 million Solar Cities programme; Greenhouse Challenge Plus (incorporating Greenhouse Friendly and Generator Efficiency Standards); Greenhouse Gas Abatement programme; Local Greenhouse Action (including Cities for Climate Protection; and Greenhouse Action in Regional Australia. See answer to question 2. 84 84 3256 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Further to the answer to question No. 3017 (Hansard, 2 March 2006, page 160), which Commonwealth Government agencies are responsible for cameras installed at Sydney International Airport. Do Commonwealth Government cameras have coverage of all areas of Sydney International Airport, including the baggage handling areas; if so, what are the details; if not, which areas of Sydney International Airport are not covered by cameras and will the Minister explain why they are not covered. What commercial entities at Sydney International Airport own or operate surveillance cameras in addition to those operated by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Do any New South Wales State Government agencies, including the New South Wales Police Force, have cameras installed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Commonwealth agencies that have cameras at Sydney International Airport include Customs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. A number of entities do maintain security cameras at Sydney International Airport. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the cameras rests with those who have installed and operate them, including aviation industry participants and the border agencies mentioned. Customs has a network of cameras located in the Customs controlled areas at international airports which includes inside the terminal, in airside areas and in basement baggage make-up areas. Customs does not provide detailed information about camera locations for operational reasons. Organisations such as the airport owners, airlines and retail outlets also have CCTV camera networks at the airports to meet their operational needs. Details of these networks can only be provided by the entities or with their express permission This is a matter for the New South Wales Government to answer. 84 84 3257 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Further to the answer to question No. 3017 (Hansard, 2 March 2006, page 160), has the Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) been briefed on or informed of the three occasions the cameras required adjustment; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. Does the IAU have video footage or another record at a classified level or at a Secret/Special Footage level of those three occasions; if so, when will the Minister authorise the IAU to release the footage to Parliament and, if the Minister will not release the footage, will the Minister explain why not. Has the IAU, in investigating the legitimate activities of the Customs Service on these three occasions, inadvertently detected activity amounting to criminal conduct; if so, what action has the Minister taken and, if no action has been taken, why not. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No. The IAU investigates misconduct by Customs employees. There is no evidence of misconduct in respect to these incidents. The Customs CCTV system has built-in redundancy and full operation effectiveness was maintained at all times because of the overlapping fields of view of Customs cameras. No. There is no video footage or another record at a classified level of the three occasions. The IAU has not undertaken an investigation. 84 84 3258 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Is he aware that the Customs maintenance provider of its CCTV cameras at Sydney International Airport has been required to adjust two Customs CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area of the airport on three occasions between October 2004 and May 2005 in order to correct the field of view following reports from Customs’ control room operators that the cameras were pointing in the wrong direction; if not, why not. Does QANTAS have surveillance cameras installed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details. Does QANTAS have viewing coverage of all areas of Sydney International Airport, including the baggage handling areas; if not, which areas of Sydney International Airport are not covered by QANTAS cameras. What is the procedure under which QANTAS liaises with his department with respect to its surveillance footage. Does QANTAS disclose or otherwise share its surveillance footage with his department; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. Qantas operate CCTV cameras in those parts of Sydney Airport for which it has a lease, or other operational control over. It is not appropriate for me to provide details of location and type of camera for security reasons. See answer to question (2). Qantas has responsibility for the footage it records on CCTV. Should a Qantas controlled CCTV camera record footage of an aviation security incident, Qantas is required under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to report that incident to my Department. An aviation security incident means an unlawful interference with aviation or a threat of unlawful interference with aviation. The term ‘unlawful interference with aviation’ is defined in section 10 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Routine surveillance is a matter for Qantas. Footage would be shared with the relevant authorities if necessary. 84 84 3259 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2006: Does Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL) have surveillance cameras installed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details and, in particular, does SACL have surveillance cameras installed in the baggage handling areas. Do SACL cameras have viewing coverage of all areas of Sydney International Airport, including the baggage handling areas; if not, which areas of Sydney International Airport are not covered by SACL cameras and which organisations are responsible for camera surveillance of those areas. What is the procedure under which SACL liaises with the his department with respect to its surveillance footage, in particular, what is the procedure under which SACL discloses or otherwise shares its surveillance footage with his department and, if no such procedures exists, will he explain why not. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) currently has approximately 800 closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras in operation at Sydney Airport, including cameras installed in the baggage handling areas in Terminal One and Terminal Two of Sydney Airport. In addition to SACL, organisations responsible for camera surveillance in areas of Sydney International Airport include the Australian Customs Services and Qantas Airways Limited. Other organisations and airport tenants have their own security camera systems to meet their internal security requirements. It is not appropriate for me to provide further details for security reasons. SACL has an approved Transport Security Program in place. The Program provides how CCTV cameras are utilised to support security measures in place on the airport site. Should a SACL controlled CCTV camera record footage of an aviation security incident, SACL is required under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to report that incident to my Department. An aviation security incident means an unlawful interference with aviation or a threat of unlawful interference with aviation. The term ‘unlawful interference with aviation’ is defined in section 10 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. 84 84 3280 and 3282 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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. 84 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and (2) Verossity Pty Ltd $137,696.36 Green and Green Group $8,645.00 Recruitment Management Company $23,338.70 Australian Council of Education Research Ltd $17,107.45 $186,787.51 ACIAR and (2) Adecco $31,633.17 Stelle International $12,466.68 Kowalski Consulting $6,429.82 $50,529.67 AusAID and (2) Recruitment Management Company $122,589.10 $122,589.10 Austrade and (2) BLM Consort $14,108 Bob Dwyer $382 Bronwyn Rodden $19,821 Frontier Group Australia $26,368 Hays Personnel Services $119,687 Heidrick and Struggles Australia $33,600 Hudson Global Resources $30,804 J-Yes Recruitment and Consulting $13,333 Kelly Services (NZ) $43,782 Omega Personnel $900 Profile Ray and Berndtson $46,131 Recruitment Management Company $24,901 Shirley Dryden $5,327 Tanna Partners $3,892 Terese Smith $472 The Green and Green Group $2,000 Tuckwell Trade and Logistics $4,662 Waitsearch International Pty Ltd $22,500 Zenith Management Services Group $8,788 $421,458 Australia-Japan Foundation and (2) Verossity Pty Ltd $1023.00 $1023.00 Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and (2) Michael Page International $94,316 Ellington Savage $89,954 Perceptor $3,929 Carmichael Fisher $99,201 Chandelor McLeod $26,633 Hudson $39,032 Taylor Root $25,143 SOL Outsource Legal Services $13,080 Select Australia $32,575 Hays Personnel $37,690 $461,553 The figures quoted above do not include the fees paid to recruitment agencies for the provision of non-ongoing (temporary) staff, contractors or - in the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and AusAID - locally engaged staff overseas as compiling these figures would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources. 84 84 3281 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, 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. 84 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics and (2) Company Amount Addeco 10,010.00 Aquarius Communications 3,740.00 Careers Unlimited 1,650.00 Chandler Macleod 10,802.00 Forstaff Oz Jobs 7,150.00 Frameworks for Change 1,505.00 Green & Green Group Pty Ltd 33,000.00 Hays Personnel Services 11,000.00 Hitech Group Australia Ltd 4,833.00 Hudson Global Resources 38,426.00 Josal Enterprises Pty ltd 170.00 Julia Ross Recruitment 4,535.00 Kelly Services 38,415.00 Lacey Personnel Consulting 634.00 Management Projects 25,444.00 Max Network Pty Ltd 65,855.00 McArthur Management Services 750.00 McArthur Management Services Vic 750.00 On Time Typing 6,417.00 Resource Options 1,361.00 Rod Goodall & Associates 27,248.00 Select Australasia 88,327.00 Skilled Group Limited 18,845.00 Westaff 15,975.00 Workplace Research Associates Pty Ltd 1,149.00 Zenith 3,367.00 $421,358.00. All costs are GST exclusive. Costs include scribing services. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission and (2) The recruitment agencies used, sums paid and total amount paid during 2005 is set out below: Company Amount Acting Services 3,250.00 Corporate Outsourcing 59,918.38 Drake 10,473.89 Hamilton James 6,521.00 Hays 39,888.51 Hudson 1,951.82 Jane Devereux 100,940.96 Julia Ross Recruiting 2,178.25 Lebour Pty Ltd 470.00 Link Recruitment 18,558.44 Manpower Services 52,717.92 Maxima Recruiting 17,348.03 PKL Personnel 21,295.75 Select Australia 3,609.61 SOS 43,108.29 Staffing Office 19,147.18 $401,378.03 Australian Office of Financial Management and (2) Below is a list of recruitment agencies use and amounts paid by the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) during 2005: Company Amount Recruitment Management Company 6,660.23 Green and Green 15,400.00 For 2005, the AOFM spent $22,060.23 on recruitment agencies. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and (2) Amount spent on recruitment agencies in period Jan-Dec 2005 Recruitment Agency Amount April Carter Group  119,896.20 Apsley Recruitment 9,000.00 Bluefin Resources 19,250.00 Carmichael Fisher (NSW)  50,250.00 Compliance And Risk Management  6,525.00 Financial Recruitment  9,000.00 Finite Recruitment Pty  11,053.50 Freeman Adams Pty Ltd  31,663.63 Gap It Consulting  39,200.00 Ideal Candidate  21,970.00 Infinite Systems  3,187.50 M And T Resources  13,500.00 Paxus Australia  13,200.00 QPL Limited  12,051.59 River City Recruitment  6,500.00 Ross Human Directors Ltd  4,680.00 Spencer Stuart  117,377.00 Staff And Executive Recruitment  26,970.00 The Ideal Candidate Co  24,580.91 The Whitney Group  16,052.73 $555,908.06 Australian Securities and Investments Commission and (2) Supplier Name Amount Futures The Career Consultants 4,500.00 Genesis It Search Pty Ltd 17,301.28 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd 13,681.73 Hudson Global Resources 1,250.00 Jo Fisher Executive Pty Ltd 34,176.49 Jonathan Wren Australia Pty Ltd 19,268.13 Julia Ross Recruitment Pty Ltd 16,157.38 KR Consulting Group Pty Ltd 1,987.20 Law Solutions 1,164.06 Recruitment Solutions Limited 8,904.58 Shearn Legal Recruitment 9,608.62 Staff & Executive Resources 6,480.31 Talent2 Pty Ltd 94,369.99 $228,849.77 Australian Taxation Office and (2) Recruitment Agency Amount (incl GST) Adecco Services Pty Ltd 990,119.88 Candle Australia Pty Ltd 1,562,640.79 Drake Australia Pty Ltd 771,660.90 Hays Personnel Services Australia Pty Ltd 394,793.14 Hudson Global Resources 1,793,468.81 Kelly Services (Aust) Ltd 199,988.20 Manpower Services Australia Pty Ltd 2,072,466.12 Michael Page International 13,973.92 Ross Human Directions Limited 623,334.00 Select Appointments 5,313.00 Watermark Exec Search 227,366.35 Westaff Australia Pty Ltd 153,425.03 Zenith Management Services Group 7,857.00 The total sum spent on recruitment agencies by the ATO was $8,816,407.23 (incl GST). Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee and (2) Company Amount (GST Excl) Futures Recruitment 9720.99 Select Australasia 2509.95 $12,230.94 (GST exclusive) Inspector-General of Taxation Blackadder Recruitment Agency was the only recruitment agency used by the office of the Inspector-General of Taxation in 2005. $5,865. $5,865. National Competition Council During the calendar year 2005 the Council engaged the services of recruitment agency, Jacinta Fish Legal. and (3) A sum of $18,183 inclusive of GST was paid to Jacinta Fish Legal for provision of this service. For 2005 the Council incurred a total expense of $18,183, GST inclusive, on a recruitment agency Productivity Commission During the calendar year 2005 the Productivity Commission engaged the services of recruitment agency, Talent Partners $60,500 $60,500 Royal Australian Mint and (2) Company Amount (GST Excl) Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd 608,803.00 Kelly Services 376,971.00 Westaff 8,854.00 Hudsons 53,572.00 Professionals Online 61,171.00 Verossity 64,336.00 Benit Pty Ltd 83,938.00 Frontier Group 24,153.00 Skilled Group Limited 114,503.00 Adecco 126,578.00 Professional Careers Australia Pty Limited (PCA) 89,857.00 Kowalski Recruitment 1,320.00 Hays 13,718.00 In 2005, the sum spent by the Royal Australian Mint on recruitment agencies was $1,627,774 (GST exclusive). Treasury and (2) Company Amount Alliance Recruiting 990.00 Boekel Communications 1,683.00 Cantlie Recruitment Services 1,020.25 Effective People 5,454.90 Green and Green 1,589.69 Hays Personnel Services 6,692.66 ITEC 116,767.26 Kowalski Recruitment 1,320.00 Patriot Alliance 4,741.86 Spherion Recruitment Solutions 48,662.47 Verossity 25,773.68 Westaff 59,497.06 Wizard Personnel 51,002.76 Total = $325,195.59 84 84 3283 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, 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. 84 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) to (3) The recruitment agencies used by Finance in 2005, the sum paid to each agency, and the total sum spent on recruitment agencies is outlined below: Name of Recruitment Agency Amount Paid to Recruitment Agency Adecco Australia Pty Ltd $3,000.00 Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd $900.00 Chandler Macleod Consultants Ltd $5,300.00 Chris Farrell Consulting Pty Ltd $3,272.73 Effective People Pty Ltd $110,459.26 Hays Personnel Services Pty Ltd $47,427.39 Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd $34,793.39 Kelly Services (Aust) Ltd $14,497.22 Manpower Services (Aust) Pty Ltd $2,135.70 Paper Shuffle Pty Ltd $58,118.62 Paxus Australia Pty Ltd $7,473.38 Peoplebank Australia Ltd $3,150.00 Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd $11,412.30 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd $30,117.76 Recruitment Plus ACT $1,095.24 Recruitment Solutions Limited $4,930.00 Seek Limited $3,590.00 Select Australasia Pty Ltd $3,000.00 SOS Recruitment (Staffing and Office Solutions Pty Ltd) $21,963.91 The Empower Group Pty Ltd $12,000.00 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $5,334.57 The Public Affairs Recruitment Company Pty Ltd $22,940.17 Verossity Pty Ltd $47,081.73 Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd $2,052.00 Total $456,045.37 Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to (3) The recruitment agencies used by the AEC in 2005, the sum paid to each agency, and the total sum spent on recruitment agencies is outlined below: Name of Recruitment Agency Amount Paid to Recruitment Agency Adecco Industrial Pty Ltd $2,623.99 Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd $7,449.21 Capital Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $7,465.00 Dart Data Entry Services Pty Ltd $1,178.29 Effective People Pty Ltd $275.00 Firstwater Pty Ltd $17,526.60 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd $12,986.42 Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd $66,759.51 Julia Ross Recruitment Ltd $4,908.78 Kelly Services (Aust) Ltd $6,283.38 Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd $42,406.48 Manpower Services (Aust) Pty Ltd $26,531.90 Optimum Business Consulting $23,705.00 Peoplebank Australia Ltd $1,439,237.21* Public Relations Placements $29,701.08 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd $5,837.98 Resolution Consulting Services Pty Ltd $1,430.00 Select Australasia Pty Ltd $50,422.37 SOS Recruitment (Staffing and Office Solutions Pty Ltd) $780.00 Tarakan Consulting $885,627.09* The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $40,388.13 The Public Affairs Recruitment Company Pty Ltd $14,674.00 Verossity Pty Ltd $945.00 Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd $1,358,614.37* Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd $12,355.80 Westaff Australia Pty Ltd $1,033.00 Total $4,061,145.59 *NB: These amounts include payments for services to IT contractor personnel through an established contractor panel. ComSuper to (3) The recruitment agencies used by ComSuper in 2005, the sum paid to each agency, and the total sum spent on recruitment agencies is outlined below: Name of Recruitment Agency Amount Paid to Recruitment Agency Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd $11,550.00 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $6,446.53 Total $17,996.53 PSS/CSS Boards to (3) The PSS/CSS did not use any recruitment agencies in 2005. Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) to (3) The recruitment agencies used by the CGC in 2005, the sum paid to each agency, and the total sum spent on recruitment agencies is outlined below: Name of Recruitment Agency Amount Paid to Recruitment Agency Cordiner King & Co. $28,000.00 Verossity Pty Ltd $2,000.00 Total $30,000.00 84 84 3284 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, 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. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. and (3) – See attached tables: Department of Transport and Regional Services The Department maintains its financial records on a financial year basis. On that basis, and consistent with the Department’s previous response to Question on Notice 1104 of 10 May 2005, the sum spent in 2004-05 on firms that provide recruitment services as part of their business is: Alliance Recruiting Australia Pty Ltd  $ 1,345 Ambit Group Pty Ltd  $ 3,926 Cantlie Recruitment Services Pty Ltd  $ 4,875 Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd  $ 446,003 Catalyst Recruitment Systems Ltd  $ 49,530 Chandler Macleod  $ 446,276 Continuum Services Pty Ltd  $ 221,844 Data#3 Ltd  $ 216,917 Drake Australia Pty Ltd  $ 2,796 Effective People Pty Ltd  $ 71,233 Firstwater Pty Ltd  $ 33,190 Greythorn Pty Ltd  $ 81,976 Hansen & Searson Executive Search  $ 29,065 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd  $ 365,973 Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd  $ 3,993 Julia Ross Recruitment Pty Ltd  $ 49,529 Kelly Services (Australia) Pty Ltd  $ 22,313 Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd  $ 203,112 M&T Resources  $ 441,194 Prime Recruitment  $ 19,168 Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd  $ 53,730 Quadrate Solutions  $ 124,979 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd  $ 4,265 Ross Human Directions Ltd  $ 18,055 Select Australasia Pty Ltd  $ 52,816 Skillsearch Contracting Pty Ltd  $ 78,604 Staffing & Office Solutions Pty Ltd  $ 266,704 Spherion Group Ltd  $ 1,454,948 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd  $ 268,942 The Public Affairs Recruitment  $ 46,582 Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd  $ 176,356 Wizard Personnel & Office Services  $ 106,119 Total paid to Recruitment Agencies (GST exclusive)  $ 5,366,358 Note: These figures are the total amounts paid to agencies, which include the provision of recruitment services as part of their business line. The amounts paid to these firms (as shown above) include payments for a range of services such as: salary related costs for provision of contract staff (for example to meet short-term staff shortages resulting from absence of the substantive occupant, during interim periods associated with the filling of ongoing vacancies, or where the Department is unable to find suitably skilled staff through normal recruitment procceses), assistance with recruitment services, conduct of recruitment campaigns, scribing services and other related services. Air Services Australia: Advertising Energy  $ 14,095.90 Cantlie Recruitment Services Pty Ltd  $ 1,337.50 Career One Pty Ltd  $ 180.00 Careers Unlimited  $ 2,325.00 CCS Index Pty Ltd  $ 13,080.00 Classic Recruitment  $ 45,697.18 Effective People Pty Ltd  $ 31,213.89 EOC Consulting Asia Pacific Pty Ltd  $ 4,363.64 Executive Business Centre  $ 405.35 Futurestep  $ 69,460.00 Gillian Beaumont Recruitment Pty Ltd  $ 13,500.00 Green and Green Pty Ltd  $ 245.77 Grey Worldwide Canberra Pty Ltd  $ 5,905.00 Greythorn Pty Ltd  $ 1,755.85 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd  $ 59,323.30 Hobsons Australia  $ 10,600.00 HRM Recruitment Pty Ltd  $ 7,963.36 Hudson Global Resources  $ 32,637.16 I/T Hire Pty Ltd  $ 11,824.18 JML Australia Pty Ltd  $ 8,000.00 Jonathon Wren Australia Pty Ltd  $ 7,713.95 Kingscroft Consulting Pty Ltd  $ 23,000.00 Kowalski Recruitment  $ 1,643.00 Link Recruitment Group Pty Ltd  $ 5,803.35 Mahlab Recruitment Vic Pty Ltd  $ 6,400.00 McGinty Recruitment Pty Ltd  $ 9,068.80 Mercer Human Resource Consulting Pty Ltd  $ 4,320.00 Professional Careers Australia  $ 8,113.36 Publicis Mojo  $ 794.55 Recruitment Solutions Ltd  $ 33,692.95 Russell Reynolds Associates Inc  $ 98,500.82 Saville/Holdsworth  $ 218.18 Seek  $ 135.00 Seek Communications Ltd  $ 270.00 Seek Limited  $ 3,415.00 Select Australasia Pty Ltd  $ 6,280.86 Staff & Executive Resources Pty Ltd  $ 4,376.53 Stevens Hallis Personnel  $ 10,755.79 Testgrid  $ 17,000.00 TMP Worldwide Pty Ltd  $ 116,863.76 Yellow Edge Pty Ltd  $ 10,000.00 Total paid to Recruitment Agencies (GST exclusive)  $ 702,278.98 National Capital Authority: Frontier Group  $ 87,092.81 Hays Personnel  $ 14,527.28 Jobwire  $ 3,515.66 Kelly Services  $ 3,129.18 Profile Ray & Berndtson  $ 24,755.88 Verossity  $ 5,621.00 Total paid to Recruitment Agencies (GST exclusive)  $ 138,641.81 Note: These figures may include the costs associated with contracting agency staff. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Adecco Australia Pty Ltd  $ 21,773 Candle Australia t/a the One Umbrella  $ 178,675 Chandler Macleod Group – The Ready Group  $ 143,632 Green and Green Group – Catalyst Recruitment  $ 429,251 Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd  $ 25,257 Hudson  $ 1,980 Kyriakidis Recruitment Services  $ 88,000 Manpower Services Australia Pty Ltd  $ 716,872 Spencer Stuart and Associates  $ 160,250 Total paid to Recruitment Agencies (GST inclusive)  $ 1,765,690 Note: These figures include all salary and employment on-costs paid to recruitment agencies for the provision of temporary staff where the staff member was an employee of the agency, not Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Australian Maritime Safety Authority: The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has an in-house human resources unit which handles all recruiting issues for the Authority. 84 84 3290 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, 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. 84 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources Total payments made to recruitment agencies by the Department during 2005 are listed in the table below. These amounts include payments such as agency fees, reimbursement of salaries and entitlements for agency staff, and payments for scribing services. Agency Total payments Ex. GST Adecco $118,475.75 Alliance Recruiting Australia $1,396.56 Ambit Recruitment Group / Ambit Group $767,218.67 Careers Unlimited $102,706.88 Diversiti Pty Ltd $111,679.50 Drake $600.40 Effective People $6,4239.84 Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd $414,903.40 ICON Recruitment Pty Ltd $232,823.20 Informed Sources Pty Ltd $7,918.91 Kelly Services Australia $1,099,510.55 Kowalski Consulting Pty Ltd $167,073.39 Lightsource Solutions Pty Ltd $60,720.64 Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd $82,163.89 Omega Personnel $36,597.05 Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd $542,293.55 Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd $1,853.00 Quadrate Solutions $5,559.60 Searson and Buck Pty Ltd $733.99 Select Australasia $251,263.05 SOS Recruitment $179,693.96 Spherion Recruitment Solutions $770.00 Staffing and Office Solutions $343,527.67 Tarakan Consulting $75,836.00 The Green and Green Group $314,904.09 The One Umbrella $131,334.25 TMP Worldwide / Hudson Global Resources $97,116.65 Verossity Pty Ltd $10,500.00 Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd $340,617.08 Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd $168,836.22 Total $5,732,867.74 Geoscience Australia Total payments made to recruitment agencies by Geoscience Australia during 2005 are listed in the table below. Agency Total payments Ex. GST Adecco $32,746.80 Atlas Superstore $300.00 Collective Resources $108,236.34 Diversiti Pty Ltd $24,881.00 Effective People Pty Ltd $29,543.88 GIS Mapping Pty Ltd $71,160.00 Hays Accountancy Personnel $21,599.25 Hays Personnel Services $30,297.69 Hudson Global Resources Pt $5,020.45 Interpro Australia Pty Ltd $75,723.50 Keenyear Pty Ltd $1,026,128.72 Lightsource Solutions Pty $4,928.90 Movers and Shakers $380.00 Online 89 Pty Ltd $40,623.15 Spherion Recruitment Solutions $53,877.78 Staffing and Office Solution $10,292.50 Techstaff Pty Ltd $793.80 The Green and Green Group Pty Lt $750.00 Verossity Pty Ltd $60,437.37 Westaff $1,236.75 Windmill Information Technology $115,830.40 Wizard Information Service $133,609.18 Wizard Personnel & Office $51,838.40 Total $1,900,235.86 IP Australia Total payments made to recruitment agencies by IP Australia during 2005 are listed in the table below. Agency Total payments Ex. GST Adecco $1,265.00 Careers Unlimited $4,303.75 Effective People $24,074.27 Hays Personnel Services $10,251.30 The Green and Green Group $5,637.61 Total $45,531.93 National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority Total payments made to recruitment agencies by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority during 2005 are listed in the table below. Agency Total payments Ex. GST Benchmark Recruitment $4,700.90 Select Appointments $7,970.00 Workskills Professionals $10,495.45 Total $23,166.35 Tourism Australia Total payments made to recruitment agencies by Tourism Australia during 2005 are listed in the table below. Agency Total payments Ex. GST Ambit $9,454.54 Aquent $17,467.27 Hays Personnel Services $8,991.82 Jocellin Jansson $18,638.18 Neilsen Research $11,046.36 Options Consulting $6,381.82 Peoplebank $23,410.00 Select Australasia $7,868.18 Staff and Executive Resources $13,739.10 Talent 2 $15,151.82 The One Umbrella $4,087.27 Watermark $15,919.10 Total $152,155.46 84 84 3291 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, 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. 84 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: The requested information is not readily ascertainable, and to provide the requested answers would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental and portfolio resources. 84 84 3303 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group, or market research in 2005; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on conducting or commissioning opinion polls, focus groups or market research surveys by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Refer to table below. Refer to table below. Refer to table below. Refer to table below. Department of Transport and Regional Services Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Colmar Brunton Social Research Pty Ltd GPO Box 2212 Canberra ACT 2601 Market research to advise on the overarching communication strategy messages for Transport Security $135,372 Colmar Brunton Social Research Pty Ltd GPO Box 2212 Canberra ACT 2601 Market testing of creative material for the Green Vehicle Guide communications campaign $37,087 Colmar Brunton Social Research Pty Ltd GPO Box 2212 Canberra ACT 2601 Stage 1 - Online Exit Survey for Green Vehicle Guide: development and design of survey $13,696 The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd Level 1, 262 Victoria Street, North Melbourne Victoria 3051 To conduct surveys to monitor changes in community attitudes and perceptions on a wide range of road safety issues $80,304 AirServices Australia Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Jane’s Information Group (Strategic advisory service) 110N. Royal Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 US International Market Scoping Study to scope, quantify and define AirServices’ business development markets and opportunities $216,577 Eureka Strategic Research Pty Ltd PO Box 767 Newtown NSW 2042 External Customer Satisfaction Research relating to perceptions of AirServices operational performance, and ongoing overall individual service delivery areas among key customer groups $78,493 Right Management Consultants (OC) Pty Ltd Lvl 33, Northpoint 100 Miller Street Nth Sydney NSW 2060 Employee Opinion Survey, profiling workplace climate and employee satisfaction $48,411 Eureka Strategic Research Pty Ltd PO Box 767 Newtown NSW 2042 International Brand Research to assess and report on matters relating to the AirServices branding in international markets $42,884 New Focus Suite 3, Level 1, 99 Elizabeth St, Sydney NSW 2000 Key Government Stakeholder Survey to obtain feedback on their expectations of AirServices Australia and provide input to the development of stakeholder relationship strategies $23,304 NetRatings Australia Pty Ltd 59 Wentworth Ave Surry Hills NSW Internal Customer Survey to monitor the expectations of internal functional groups and to benchmark performance and identify key areas of organisational improvement by examining internal customer satisfaction $12,540 Civil Aviation Safety Authority Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd GPO Box 2282 U 3001 Survey of Public Attitudes to Aviation Safety The purpose of the Survey was to measure public perceptions of the level of air safety in Australia, the performance of CASA and the level of air safety in Australia compared to North America. A total of 1500 people were surveyed. $32,780 National Capital Authority Name Postal address Purpose Cost (GST incl) Orima Research 65-67 Constitution Avenue Campbell ACT 2612 To run four focus groups from 20 to 25 June 2005, looking at the attractiveness and useability of the Parliamentary Zone, as a basis for a marketing strategy for the area. $10,000 84 84 3310 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group, or market research in 2005; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on conducting or commissioning opinion polls, focus groups or market research surveys by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 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: and (2). Department/Agency Company Purpose Cost in 2005* DEWR Mercer Human Resource Consulting PO Box 10244 BRISBANE QLD 4000 2004 APS Remuneration Survey. The survey of SES and non-SES plus the Broader Market Comparison provides an overview of remuneration trends and outcomes across the APS and the wider market with a view to informing APS agencies in the determination of remuneration practices and policy. $268,043.77 DEWR Colmar Brunton Social Research Pty Ltd 39 Torrens Street BRADDON ACT 2601 To explore and monitor changes in and report on attitudes, awareness, understanding and knowledge of both the current workplace relations system and the new WorkChoices system in order to develop effective communications strategies. The research had a further purpose of testing, evaluating and improving on creative concepts and key messages. $1,552,350.64 Wallis Consulting Group 25 King Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Current and potential future corporate participants were contacted to gain information about how to promote the Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project to engage businesses to demonstrate leadership in the employment of Indigenous Australians. $50,160 TNS Social Research 65 Canberra Avenue GRIFFITH ACT 2603 Participant survey of the Job Placement, Employment and Training (JPET) programme. The object of the research was to identify the level of participant satisfaction with the JPET programme; the type and effectiveness of assistance provided to young people by JPET; and the sustainability of outcomes achieved by JPET participants. $71,719 DEWR The Hiser Group Pty Ltd 47 Albion Street SURRY HILLS NSW 2010 To assess Australian JobSearch www.jobsearch.gov.au for usability, effectiveness and accessibility, including an examination of the content management system. $26,939 The Hiser Group Pty Ltd 47 Albion Street SURRY HILLS NSW 2010 To review a bulk recruitment campaign by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to determine the most effective advertising strategy. $7,681 DEWR The Hiser Group Pty Ltd 47 Albion Street SURRY HILLS NSW 2010 To assess Australian JobSearch www.jobsearch.gov.au for usability, effectiveness and accessibility, including an examination of the content management system. $26,939 The Hiser Group Pty Ltd 47 Albion Street SURRY HILLS NSW 2010 To review a bulk recruitment campaign by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to determine the most effective advertising strategy. $7,681 Vision Australia PO Box 860 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 To review Australian JobSearch accessibility with a particular focus on people with a print disability. $6,875 Orima Research Pty Ltd PO Box 5067 LYNEHAM ACT 2602 Jobseeker Omnibus Survey (2002-2005). Collect information on job seekers’ perceptions of and satisfaction with Centrelink and Job Network. $341,213.81 The Social Research Centre Level 1, 262 Victoria Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 2003 Employment Service Provider Survey and Internet Feasibility Study. Collect information on service providers’ satisfaction with Centrelink and DEWR, including performance indicators. NOTE: The first survey was conducted in 2003 and the second survey was conducted in 2005. $23,424.99 DEWR TNS Social Research PO Box 3343 MANUKA ACT 2603 Collect information on service providers’ satisfaction with Centrelink and DEWR, including performance indicators $77,550 CIRCA Research, Level 1, 93 Norton Street LEICHHARDT NSW 2040 Investigate and measure outcomes of the Indigenous Small Business Fund (ISBF). $69,070.41 The Social Research Centre, Level 1, 262 Victoria Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Collect qualitative information on how Job Network members allocate Job Seeker Account assistance, and quantitative information from job seekers about the assistance they receive from JNMs. $227,442.60 Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd 25 King Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Collect quantitative information about employers’ use of employment services, recruitment methods, and recruitment from specified disadvantaged groups. $261,896.25 The Social Research Centre, Level 1, 262 Victoria Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Collect quantitative information on the attitudes of community members and working age Centrelink customers to the social security system. $113,658 The Social Research Centre, Level 1, 262 Victoria Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Collect qualitative and quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of the Personal Adviser measure in individualising service delivery and supporting increased participation. $53,960 Orima Research Pty Ltd PO Box 5067 LYNEHAM ACT 2602 Research designed to inform assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of the Personal Support Programme (PSP) in assisting clients and supporting Australians Working Together (AWT). $135,397.70 DEWR Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd 25 King Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Collect information, in October 2002 and October 2004, on demographic characteristics and participation in paid work, job search, study and training and community work. Note: This project was completed in 2005. $151,646 Australian Institute of Family Studies 300 Queen Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Evaluate the impact of activity requirements on Parenting Payment customers, on their children aged 13-15 years. $66,106.39 Kate Sullivan & Associates 22 Waterview Street BALMAIN NSW 2041 Investigate job seekers’ and community leaders’ views on the performance of the Fee for Service and Flexible Servicing Arrangements under Job Network. $90,500 Orima Research Pty Ltd PO Box 5067 LYNEHAM ACT 2602 Qualitative research with Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients examining factors which contribute to job retention. $17,655 TNS Social Research PO Box 3343 MANUKA ACT 2603 Provide further analysis and reporting on the results of the Longitudinal Survey of Job Seeker Attitudinal Segmentation. $22,000 Data Analysis Australia 97 Broadway Street NEDLANDS WA 6009 Participation Patterns of Working Age Income Support Recipients. Welfare to Work Evaluation. $35,331.83 Blue Moon Social Research Level 2, 71-73 Chandos Street ST LEONARDS NSW 2065 Investigate impact of Job Placement Organisations (JPOs) and examine the effect of the Active Participation Model on job search behaviour. $54,561.10 DEWR Survey conducted in-house by DEWR using the following resources. Salmat 2-20 McDonalds Lane MULGRAVE VIC 3170 (mail house services) Green & Green Level 1,100 York Street SOUTH MELBOURNE VIC 3205 (data entry and call centre staff) Australian Post GPO Box 2943D MELBOURNE VIC 3001 (postage for survey forms posted by Salmat) Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs TIS National Centre GPO Box 241 MELBOURNE VIC 3001 (translation services for ESL clients). Survey of clients three months after assistance to measure DEWR programme effectiveness in terms of finding work for participants. $131, 577.72 $568,631,78 $389,096.33 $325.49 TNS Social Research 13 Richardson Street WEST PERTH WA 6005 Market segmentation analysis and recommendations to provide the basis for future Australian JobSearch communication strategies. $19,364.40 DEWR Chant Link & Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 302 HAWTHORN VIC 3122 Research identifying how to best communicate with job seeker key target groups—parents, mature aged people (45+), young people (15–24), people with a disability, Indigenous people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Also addressed barriers to employing Indigenous, mature aged and people with disabilities. $316,000 TNS Social Research 65 Canberra Avenue GRIFFITH ACT 2603 Market testing to determine if the Job Able site meets the information needs of its target audiences, informing direction of future redevelopment and content upgrades. $54,857 Wallis Consulting Group 25 King Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Exploratory research informing the re-branding of employment and related services. $45,243 Open Mind Research Group 68 Drummond Street CARLTON VIC 3053 Developmental communications research for the Welfare to Work campaign . $145,826.62 Instinct and Reason PO Box 371 OATLEY NSW 2223 Market testing a new range of Indigenous communication materials. $21,538 Orima Research 19 Donald Street PRAHRAN VIC 3181 Research for the Support the System mass media campaign including concept refinement testing, direct mail testing, stakeholder consultation, baseline survey and two rounds of tracking. $243,655 Alfresco Design Milton Circle 6/18 Kilroe Street MILTON QLD 4064 Market testing information and content for the redevelopment of jobjuice.gov.au. $10,194.93 TNS Social Research 65 Canberra Avenue GRIFFITH ACT 2603 Market testing the existing JobWise website name, site functionality and design. $53,493 Social Research Centre Level 1, 262 Victoria Street NORTH MELBOURNE VIC 3051 Survey of Parenting Payment clients who volunteered to register with the Job Network as part of the Outbound Call Strategy conducted by Centrelink to examine their experiences with Job Network and looking for work. $52,108 Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd 25 King Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 The OEA annual Client Services Survey. The main aims of the survey were to: assist in the evaluation of OEA performance against indicators in the OEA Service Charter, Portfolio Budget Statements, and the Strategic Plan for the 2004-05 financial year assist in the evaluation of OEA performance in relation to small business initiatives assess satisfaction levels and effectiveness of the OEA’s current services, including in such areas as publications, electronic services, templates and community partners, and to gather feedback on how such services could be improved. $36,113 * These figures are inclusive of GST. For 2005 the total sum spent by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and its agencies was $5,813,206.76 (GST inclusive). 84 84 3313 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group, or market research in 2005; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on conducting or commissioning opinion polls, focus groups or market research surveys by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 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: The department is required to undertake market research from time to time to ensure the Australian community’s views are canvassed and communicated in the most appropriate and cost-effective way. Refer to page 299 of the FaCS Annual Report 2004-5 for a list of expenditure on market research. The name of each company is provided in that list. Market research undertaken for Financial Year 2005/06, including names of organisations undertaking the research will be published in the FaCSIA Annual Report 2005/06, due to be tabled in Parliament in October 2006. 84 84 3324 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose. What was the cost per massage. How many staff made use of the service. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that the following portfolio agencies paid for massages for their staff in 2005: Australian Customs Service Yes. The total cost was $5,756. Customs provided massages for its staff as a practical way to help alleviate body stressing given the extensive hours worked by some staff. The approximate cost per massage was $17.50. 329 staff. Australian Federal Police The AFP paid for massages in the first two weeks of the Tsunami Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) response in Thailand during January 2005. These were provided for the Australian DVI team that at the time was standing for up to 16 hours a day performing mortuary duties. The details of the sum spent and the number of staff involved is not able to be extracted without considerable use of staff resources. The team consisted of 23 AFP and 16 State Police members. Not all members made use of the service. Australian Law Reform Commission Yes. The total cost was $396. $17.22 per massage. 23 staff. Federal Court of Australia Yes. The total cost was $2,625. The Court has had a number of costly compensation cases related to overuse injury over the past 10 years and has implemented a range of strategies to address this problem, including offering massages to staff in some District Registries. Typically staff meet half the cost. The cost varies from State to State but amounted to $10 on average. Overall the cost ranged from $6 - $16.50 per massage. 52 staff, but typically each staff member had more than one massage as part of the program. Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia Yes. The total cost was $195.00. As part of an OH&S strategy and a preventive measure to minimise absenteeism due to stress and work related overuse injuries (Occupational Overuse Syndrome), a ‘corporate massage’ arrangement was introduced in the South Australian branch of the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA). This enables employees to have a 15-20 minute massage each fortnight. Employees meet this cost however the SA branch finance one massage per employee, per annum. $15 per massage. 13 staff. National Native Title Tribunal Yes. The total cost was $150. $15 per massage. 10 staff. No other portfolio agency paid for massages for staff in 2005. Note—The Attorney-General’s Department and Federal Magistrates Court have a certified agreement with staff that includes re-imbursement of up to $100 per employee, per annum, for health and well-being activities, which can include massage therapy. In addition, some injured staff with an approved workers’ compensation claim may have had therapeutic massages approved by a medical practitioner as part of an agreed rehabilitation and return to work program. Comcare meets the payment and administration of these costs in their role as the administering authority for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. 84 84 3328 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose. What was the cost per massage. How many staff made use of the service. 84 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources As part of its promotion of a healthy lifestyle, the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources has in place a healthy lifestyle subsidy. Staff members are entitled to claim reimbursement of eligible costs related to healthy living up to an amount of $110 per calendar year. Massage costs are an eligible item under this subsidy, however they must be provided outside the employees’ work times and away from the workplace. In 2005, a total of 875 healthy lifestyle subsidy claims were made with reimbursements totalling $89,355.44. To determine specific massage related costs and usage rates would require individual examination of each claim. Such a process would require an unreasonable diversion of resources. IP Australia IP Australia spent a total of $3,176.00 on massages for staff in 2005. The cost per massage varied from $37.00 to $160.00 each. Ten staff received the massages. Tourism Australia Tourism Australia spent a total of $2,075 on massages for staff in 2005. The cost per massage was $25. A total of 83 staff made use of this service. Geoscience Australia and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority did not pay for any massages for staff in 2005. 84 84 3335 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose. What was the cost per massage. How many staff made use of the service. 84 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: Yes. Total $1,455 (including $132 GST). The massages were provided as part of special health promotion programs. There is no on-going program that provides massages for staff. 240 massages were provided at $5.50 each (5 minutes duration). 9 massages were provided at $15.00 each (15 minutes duration). 249 84 84 3343 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training. For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that my department and agencies within my portfolio engaged the services of media training companies in 2005 as follows: Attorney-General’s Department Yes, 15 individuals. $5,897.50 (incl. GST) Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) Yes, three individuals. $1,650 (incl. GST) Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) Yes, five individuals. $16,250 (incl. GST) National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) Yes, 17 individuals. $10,466.50 (incl. GST) Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) Yes, three individuals. $1,635.98 (incl. GST) 84 84 3344 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training. For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (2) The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts did not engage the services of a media training company in 2005. Portfolio agencies which did engage in media training services have provided the following details; Agency Number of individuals who received media training Total Cost of media training in 2005 including GST (calendar year) National Museum of Australia 14 $2000 Australia Council - John Connolly and Partners 4 $9735.00 ASC 120 $28,279.90 Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) 1 $2,000 Australia Post 19 staff members received media-related training in 2005. $69,300 Telstra Telstra conducts media training for its staff on an ad hoc basis as required. The media training is generally organised by the person or group that requires it and no centralised record is maintained that would allow this information to be provided. NA ABC 1 $550 84 84 3348 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training. For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 84 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: No. However, the Office of the Employment Advocate engaged the Australian Public Service Commission to conduct media training for OEA Workplace Relations Advisers. The Australian Public Service Commission engaged Media Gurus to conduct the training. Media training was conducted in six capital cities and attended by 54 OEA staff. $65,700. Note: The Office of the Employment Advocate responded to QoN REP2361 in 2005 with this information. 84 84 3355 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. No. Not applicable. Not applicable. 84 84 3356 and 3358 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I did not receive any media training in 2005 nor did any member of my personal staff. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade did not receive any media training in 2005 nor did any member of his personal staff. Not applicable – refer (1) Not applicable – refer (1) 84 84 3357 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No media training was undertaken by either the Treasurer or any of his personal staff during 2005. 84 84 3359 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (b) No. Not Applicable. Not Applicable. 84 84 3361 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I did not receive any media training in 2005. The Minister’s personal staff did not receive any media training in 2005. and (3)  Not applicable. 84 84 3363 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) her personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No. and (3) Not applicable. 84 84 3365 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. Not applicable. Not applicable. 84 84 3368 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 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: No Not applicable Not applicable 84 84 3370 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No, (b) No. Not applicable. Not applicable. 84 84 3375 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 Fran Bailey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes; the Minister and members of staff received media training. $5,156. Sarah Gorman Communications, PO Box 69, Kent Town, Adelaide SA. 84 84 3377 84 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 84 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No media training was undertaken by either the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer or his personal staff during 2005. 84 84 3388 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 30 March 2006: Has he read the article published on the Catholic News Agency website on 20 March 2006 titled ‘Two more women die after taking abortion drug RU-486’ which reported that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not pulled Mifeprex, the drug known as RU-486, despite the fact that the FDA has reported that two more women died after taking the drug, that there have been seven reported deaths in the USA and 12 deaths worldwide of women who took RU-486 and that the FDA has received more than 800 reports of complications caused by the drug RU-486. Will the Government concede that RU-486 is a drug that is dangerous and harmful to women and therefore seek to have it removed from the administrative responsibility of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Is there a procedure under which a therapeutic good may be removed from sale by him following its approval by the TGA; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. What action is he taking to prevent the sale of RU-486 in the interests of women’s health and in light of the clear and demonstrable risk this drug poses to women using it and, if he is not taking any action, will he explain why not. 84 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is the Commonwealth regulatory agency responsible for the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. The Government has no position on the suitability of RU486 (mifepristone) for use in Australia because the quality, safety and efficacy of the drug for general marketing has not been assessed by the TGA. This is because no sponsor has ever applied to register RU486 in Australia. Inclusion of a therapeutic product in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods allows for the marketing and supply of the product in Australia. Section 30 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 provides that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing (or her delegate) may cancel the registration of a product under certain circumstances. Cancellation of the registration of the product means that the product can no longer be legally marketed and supplied in Australia. This may take effect immediately in circumstances where it appears that failure to cancel the registration would create an imminent risk of death, serious illness or serious injury. In other circumstances, the sponsor may have the opportunity to submit additional information addressing the basis of the proposed action before a decision is made. The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, in its entirety, is available from the ComLaw website: http://www.comlaw.gov.au. Before a prescription medicine can be marketed in Australia it needs to be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). In order to register a new medicine in Australia a sponsor needs to submit an application together with data demonstrating the quality, safety and effectiveness of the product when used as intended. The TGA requires that when companies lodge applications for approval of medicines they provide all studies related to that use, published or not, positive or negative, and all information relevant to the safety of the medicine. As RU486 is not a registered product in Australia, it is not able to be marketed in Australia. 84 84 3391 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 30 March 2006: Further to the answer to question No. 3017 (Hansard, 2 March 2006, page 160), what are the full details, including the dates, of the circumstances that gave rise to each of the occasions that led to reports from Australian Customs Service (ACS) control room operators that one (or both) of the CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area of Sydney International Airport were pointing in the wrong direction. What was the precise location of each of the cameras at the time and what were the precise areas they were intended to capture. When pointing in the correct direction and with the correct field of view, would the cameras have recorded any person having any physical contact with passenger baggage or any other cargo; if not, what would these cameras have recorded. Whilst pointing in the wrong direction and having an incorrect field of view, did the cameras in the baggage make-up area record any person in contact with passenger baggage or any other cargo between October 2004 and May 2005; if so, did they detect any impropriety in the baggage make-up area and, if they did, what are the details; if not, what did they record. Can he confirm that these cameras were controlled and operated by Commonwealth Government agencies; if not, what are the details of the agencies or organisations that had operational and supervisory control of the cameras between October 2004 and May 2005. Has an inquiry been undertaken by the ACS, any government department or agency, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) or any other organisation to establish why two cameras in the baggage make-up area were pointing in the wrong direction; if so, what were the findings, conclusions and recommendations in respect of each episode of interference with each camera; if no inquiry has occurred, will the Minister explain why not. Did the ACS have a procedure requiring its control room operators to regularly review the field of view of the cameras and liaise with the ACS’ maintenance providers; if so, how frequently were such reviews undertaken between October 2004 and May 2005 and what are the details; if not, why not. Is he able to say how long each camera was pointing in the wrong direction until each of the first, second and third discoveries were made by ACS control room operators; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. On what dates were each of the cameras adjusted to point in the correct direction on each occasion that the cameras had been discovered by ACS control room operators to be pointing in the wrong direction. Which Commonwealth and private entities were responsible for rectifying the cameras fields of view and what are the details. Can he explain why the cameras’ fields of view were not permanently corrected when they were first adjusted and can the Minister explain why they required adjustment on two further occasions; if not, why not. Was action taken by any Commonwealth agency or private entity to prevent future interference or other anomalies with cameras in the baggage make-up areas of Sydney International Airport after the (a) first (b) second, and (c) third occasion ACS control operators discovered cameras pointing in the wrong direction; if so, what are the details; if no action was taken, why not. What further preventative steps had the Government taken after the third occasion ACS control operators identified cameras pointing in the wrong direction to ensure surveillance in the baggage make-up area of Sydney International Airport could not be compromised. What were the occupations of the employees, and the names of the agencies and companies for which they work, whose workplace included the baggage make-up areas in Sydney International Airport where cameras were discovered to be pointing in the wrong direction. Can the Minister confirm that QANTAS baggage-handlers have had access to those baggage make-up areas in Sydney International Airport where cameras were discovered to be pointing in the wrong direction; if so, what are the details; if not, why not. Can he confirm that security cameras were stolen from the cargo-handling areas of Sydney Airport before May 2005; if so, what are the details, if not, why not. Were there any other cameras in the baggage make-up areas of Sydney International Airport; if so, did these cameras record any person tampering with the cameras discovered by ACS control operators to be pointing in the wrong direction between October 2004 and May 2005. Have any surveillance cameras used by the ACS, government departments or agencies, SACL or any other organisation been interfered with at any other time at Sydney Domestic Airport or Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Customs CCTV control room operators undertake a regular routine survey of the position and operation of each of the cameras in operation at Sydney International Airport. At the time of the incidents Customs owned and operated 270 cameras at Sydney International Airport. During a regular review it was noted by the Customs officer that, on one occasion, one of the cameras in question was not functioning properly. On two separate occasions, it was noted that a camera was pointing in the wrong direction. The Customs maintenance contractor fixed the cameras following notification by Customs of the faults, as follows: On 23 October 2004, camera 1 was reported as having ‘no focus’. This fault was fixed on 29 October 2004 On 26 January 2005, camera 2 was reported as ‘facing wall’. This fault was fixed on 2 February 2005 On 30 January 2005, camera 1 was reported as ‘facing wall’. This fault was fixed on 2 February 2005 The cameras were located in the baggage make-up area at Sydney International Airport. Providing details about the exact location of the cameras on the public record could potentially harm the effectiveness of Customs’ operations. The Customs cameras in the baggage make up area are intended to capture images of baggage or cargo of interest to Customs which includes baggage handling activities. It is important to note the Customs CCTV system has built-in redundancy and full operation effectiveness was maintained at all times because of the overlapping fields of view of Customs cameras. Customs does not have a record of any impropriety in the baggage make-up area during this period. The cameras in question were Customs owned, controlled and operated cameras. Yes. Customs has investigated the incidents and there is no evidence of misconduct. Customs has reviewed operational procedures to ensure that episodes of suspected interference are quickly discovered, rectified, reported and dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Yes. Customs CCTV control room operators undertake a regular routine survey of the position and operation of each camera at Sydney International Airport. Providing details on the public record about the frequency of the regular reviews could potentially harm the effectiveness of Customs’ operations. Refer to Question 7 above. See answer to Question 1 above. Customs and the Customs Sydney International Airport maintenance contractor, Bemac Security Pty Ltd. All three incidents of faults reported on these cameras have not reoccurred since correction. As noted in response to Question 6, Customs has reviewed and instituted improved operational procedures to ensure that episodes of suspected interference are quickly discovered, rectified, reported and dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Customs has built-in redundancy in the CCTV system and full operational effectiveness was maintained at all times because of the overlapping fields of view of Customs cameras. Customs officers access the baggage make-up area. Employees and contractors engaged by other organisations, such as the airlines, the airport owner and security firms, also have access to the baggage make-up area. Customs does not have information in relation to employees and contractors of other organisations. In the course of their normal duties baggage handlers employed by the various employers at Sydney International Airport, including QANTAS, have access to the baggage make-up areas in order to discharge their duties. Access control to the baggage make-up area is exercised by the airport operator, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL). No Customs CCTV cameras were stolen during the period or at any other time. There were other Customs CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area at Sydney International Airport. They did not record any person tampering with the cameras. The only incidents since January 2005 involving Customs cameras occurred in April 2006. Two instances of damage affecting two Customs cameras at Sydney International Airport were reported. One camera was water damaged during external cleaning of the airport building and the other camera was dislodged from its housing above a baggage belt. This dislodgement appeared to have occurred during normal operational activity carried out in the area. These incidents have been investigated by Customs and it was determined that the damage was accidental not intentional tampering. Customs is unable to answer this question on behalf of other agencies and entities at Sydney Airport. 84 84 3397 84 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 30 March 2006: When will a determination be made on the status of the proposed grey nurse shark fishing sanctuary in Commonwealth waters off Laurieton in New South Wales (the Cod Grounds). Will the Minister explain why this process has taken three years, longer than the restructuring of the south east trawl region. What access to retraining will be available to fishermen affected by any closures of existing fisheries. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (2)  My Department is currently finalising this process with a view to having it completed by the end of 2006. The details of the assistance package are currently being finalised. 84 84 3421 84 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 Ms King asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 9 May 2006: How many projects were funded in each federal electoral division from the recent allocation under the Community Water Grants Program. What was the total sum allocated in each federal electoral division from the recent allocation under the Community Water Grants Program. What are the names and addresses of the unsuccessful applicants from the electoral division of Ballarat. 84 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Number of projects (by site location) within federal electoral divisions is provided in column A of the attached table. Total project funding for approved projects in each federal electoral division is provided in column B of the attached table. Unsuccessful proposals have not been assigned to federal electoral divisions. A B Federal Electoral Division Number of approved CWG Round 1 projects Approved funding (GST exclusive) $ Adelaide 16 640,837.82 Aston 4 127,893.00 Ballarat 21 635,281.30 Banks 10 383,004.61 Barker 30 926,199.55 Barton 7 306,488.53 Bass 7 189,264.26 Batman 9 351,449.90 Bendigo 21 714,269.21 Bennelong 9 391,209.64 Berowra 7 265,466.72 Blair 21 743,517.28 Blaxland 2 37,305.64 Bonner 8 240,038.17 Boothby 12 436,917.64 Bowman 10 324,044.57 Braddon 4 106,114.75 Bradfield 4 146,167.30 Brand 5 156,325.00 Brisbane 10 379,773.01 Bruce 1 48,465.55 Calare 13 414,911.26 Calwell 9 302,144.01 Canberra 2 89,579.00 Canning 12 437,095.12 Capricornia 24 747,821.67 Casey 5 206,940.11 Charlton 3 118,334.05 Chifley 3 53,879.09 Chisholm 3 122,556.55 Cook 17 771,316.64 Corangamite 24 848,370.06 Corio 5 106,496.50 Cowan 1 23,273.00 Cowper 15 565,448.82 Cunningham 3 100,654.20 Curtin 15 579,926.55 Dawson 15 462,829.38 Deakin 3 137,132.00 Denison 4 196,968.00 Dickson 5 113,018.66 Dobell 11 381,574.49 Dunkley 7 265,828.91 Eden-Monaro 28 949,887.13 Fadden 4 158,105.50 Fairfax 22 788,386.25 Farrer 29 930,019.92 Fisher 9 368,328.05 Flinders 23 775,413.63 Forde 10 354,976.00 Forrest 10 238,517.55 Fowler 2 78,932.73 Franklin 4 173,123.36 Fraser 7 266,314.09 Fremantle 6 198,904.30 Gellibrand 5 189,642.56 Gilmore 8 169,124.44 Gippsland 20 640,423.97 Goldstein 3 61,987.60 Gorton 2 81,657.00 Grayndler 10 373,946.84 Greenway 1 34,008.00 Grey 68 2,230,074.29 Griffith 4 127,188.36 Groom 21 663,268.72 Gwydir 32 1,105,987.79 Hasluck 6 226,854.00 Herbert 10 378,937.44 Higgins 4 166,375.01 Hindmarsh 11 413,129.73 Hinkler 12 276,713.61 Holt 1 45,454.55 Hotham 7 300,365.33 Hughes 7 245,603.82 Hume 27 907,609.35 Hunter 9 324,263.50 Indi 28 922,421.83 Isaacs 8 319,576.30 Jagajaga 5 192,216.31 Kalgoorlie 27 926,162.25 Kennedy 26 799,475.18 Kingsford Smith 7 271,794.98 Kingston 11 356,480.45 Kooyong 5 174,047.48 La Trobe 7 211,684.77 Lalor 4 193,235.25 Leichhardt 14 527,883.90 Lilley 11 442,562.38 Lindsay 6 227,323.36 Lingiari 23 736,306.45 Longman 5 169,555.82 Lowe 8 339,734.55 Lyne 11 297,258.81 Lyons 14 507,746.42 Macarthur 4 197,336.00 Mackellar 7 295,317.77 Macquarie 13 483,820.09 Makin 10 466,150.83 Mallee 51 1,615,200.46 Maranoa 57 1,543,203.92 Maribyrnong 6 171,635.95 Mayo 28 836,678.95 Mcewen 22 719,853.96 Mcmillan 16 517,470.04 Mcpherson 10 410,962.00 Melbourne 8 284,278.21 Melbourne Ports 6 236,345.55 Menzies 7 202,259.95 Mitchell 5 232,743.00 Moncrieff 4 144,788.84 Moore 3 91,417.00 Moreton 6 247,949.67 Murray 26 851,959.27 New England 24 687,249.97 Newcastle 5 145,925.00 North Sydney 3 99,911.82 O'Connor 36 1,267,261.15 Oxley 11 362,503.77 Page 22 872,005.70 Parkes 37 1,247,964.22 Parramatta 9 285,956.73 Paterson 6 248,460.55 Pearce 19 489,180.51 Perth 5 123,100.65 Petrie 4 108,790.74 Port Adelaide 5 177,679.00 Prospect 5 226,054.09 Rankin 3 100,466.17 Reid 3 68,312.41 Richmond 22 740,475.26 Riverina 37 1,187,513.97 Robertson 10 332,449.65 Ryan 7 252,379.28 Scullin 8 302,000.33 Shortland 12 368,359.00 Solomon 2 75,000.00 Stirling 3 126,268.00 Sturt 13 501,740.67 Swan 8 241,423.27 Sydney 4 139,461.00 Tangney 8 303,230.81 Throsby 7 222,809.27 Wakefield 11 327,378.68 Wannon 20 778,306.61 Warringah 4 143,731.57 Watson 4 114,248.64 Wentworth 4 66,862.82 Werriwa 3 137,314.55 Wide Bay 16 638,567.43 Wills 2 53,029.31 84 84 3425 84 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2006: How many refugee and humanitarian entrants settled in each Sydney municipality or shire in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Whilst the Department is unable to report settler arrivals by municipality or shire, it can report on arrivals by Local Government Area (LGA). The breakdown of refugee and humanitarian entrants to Sydney, by LGA, has been provided for both the 2003-04 (Attachment A) and 2004-05 (Attachment B) financial years. Attachment A Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals to Sydney from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004; by Local Government Area* Local Government Area (LGA) Refugee Special Humanitarian Programme Grand Total Ashfield (A) 3 8 11 Auburn (A) 226 312 538 Bankstown (C) 26 56 82 Baulkham Hills (A) 28 25 53 Blacktown (C) 163 438 601 Botany Bay (C) 1 10 11 Burwood (A) 2 1 3 Camden (A) 1 2 3 Campbelltown (C) 9 6 15 Canada Bay - Concord (A) 1   1 Canada Bay - Drummoyne (A) 0 1 1 Canterbury (C) 37 111 148 Fairfield (C) 174 586 760 Gosford (C) 2 2 4 Hawkesbury (C) 0 6 6 Holroyd (C) 82 221 303 Hornsby (A) 13 12 25 Hurstville (C) 9 8 17 Kogarah (A) 6   6 Ku-Ring-Gai (A) 1   1 Liverpool (C) 89 295 384 Manly (A) 2   2 Marrickville (A) 12 10 22 North Sydney (A) 1   1 Parramatta (C) 113 183 296 Penrith (C) 14 47 61 Pittwater (A) 1   1 Randwick (C) 7 13 20 Rockdale (C) 5 9 14 Ryde (C) 3 13 16 South Sydney (C) 14 2 16 Strathfield (A) 11   11 Sutherland Shire (A) 1 9 10 Sydney (C) 1   1 Warringah (A) 3 14 17 Woollahra (A) 1   1 Grand Total 1062 2400 3462 Attachment B Refugee and Humanitarian Arrivals to Sydney from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005; by Local Government Area* Local Government Area (LGA) Refugee Special Humanitarian Programme Grand Total Ashfield (A) 6 1 7 Auburn (A) 147 295 442 Bankstown (C) 17 65 82 Baulkham Hills (A) 22 49 71 Blacktown (C) 269 501 770 Blue Mountains (C) 1   1 Botany Bay (C) 2 3 5 Burwood (A) 2 8 10 Camden (A) 1 6 7 Campbelltown (C) 20 13 33 Canada Bay - Concord (A) 0 2 2 Canada Bay - Drummoyne (A) 0 6 6 Canterbury (C) 57 121 178 Fairfield (C) 211 496 707 Gosford (C) 1 8 9 Holroyd (C) 86 300 386 Hornsby (A) 3 9 12 Hurstville (C) 16 18 34 Kogarah (A) 0 4 4 Ku-Ring-Gai (A) 1   1 Lane Cove (A) 1   1 Leichhardt (A) 2   2 Liverpool (C) 217 251 468 Marrickville (A) 8 23 31 Parramatta (C) 77 248 325 Penrith (C) 13 61 74 Pittwater (A) 1   1 Randwick (C) 3 9 12 Rockdale (C) 8 7 15 Ryde (C) 5 11 16 South Sydney (C) 6   6 Strathfield (A) 23 1 24 Sutherland Shire (A) 1 8 9 Sydney (C) 2   2 Warringah (A) 0 19 19 Waverley (A) 0 4 4 Woollahra (A) 1   1 Wyong (A) 1 1 2 Grand Total 1231 2548 3779 * Local Government Areas are the legal areas defined under the Local Government Act. The abbreviations used to indicate LGA status include: (A) Area; and (C) City. 84 84 3432 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Prior to the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ visit to Jakarta, Indonesia, on 26 February 2006, who and which organisation in Defence were tasked with examining the feasibility of joint patrols with Indonesia to combat illegal fishing and when and by whom were they assigned this task. How many Australian patrol boats were considered for joint patrols, what area was expected to be covered by joint patrols and over how many days in a year were they expected to be conducted. Was the ADF or Department of Defence required to report to him or his staff; if so, when. Since the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ visit to Jakarta, Indonesia, on 26 February 2006, who and which organisation in Defence have been working on the detail of joint patrols with Indonesia to combat illegal fishing, when and by whom were they assigned this task and when are they expected to finalise the details of joint patrols. When are joint patrols expected to commence. How many Australian and Indonesian patrol boats will be participating in the joint patrols, what area will be covered by joint patrols and over how many days in a year will they be conducted. Will joint patrolling detract from the normal Australian patrol boat surveillance; if so, why and to what degree. 84 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government asked Defence to examine the feasibility of coordinated patrols with Indonesia in mid-2005. ‘Coordinated patrols’, not ‘joint patrols’, aim to maximise the on-station capability of each navy through information exchanges, sharing a maritime surveillance picture and better scheduling of patrols. During the Australia/Indonesia Navy talks in August 2005, the Royal Australian Navy proposed coordinated naval patrols with the Indonesian Navy. Both sides agreed to examine the feasibility of such a proposal. Australia and Indonesia have planned to resume the patrol boat exercise, Cassowary, later this year. This exercise (last held in 1999) focuses on maritime surveillance and response activities and will be useful in determining operational procedures for future coordinated patrols. A decision has not been made regarding these issues. The outcomes of exercise Cassowary will help Australia and Indonesia to mutually determine the potential scope of coordinated patrols, should they go ahead. Yes. I am regularly informed by Defence on progress regarding Australia’s proposal for coordinated patrols. The Chief of Navy and I discussed the proposal for coordinated patrols with the Indonesian Chief of Navy during his visit to Australia in March 2006. The Royal Australian Navy continues to manage this initiative. No date has been set for the commencement of the patrols. The proposal for coordinated patrols is still under consideration and no date has been set for the commencement of the patrols. See my response to part (2). I cannot comment on which ships Indonesia might contribute to any patrols. No. Coordinated patrols will be scheduled into the Royal Australian Navy’s existing fleet schedule and will not detract from existing patrol boat surveillance. 84 84 3436 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 9 May 2006: How many and which Aboriginal communities have sea rangers in Australia’s northern waters. Are some sea rangers members of NORFORCE and are they trained and paid as any other reservist. What is the formal and informal relationship between the Australian Customs Service (ACS) and sea rangers. Do sea rangers implement part of the Government’s policy on illegal fishing known as ‘catch, kiss and release’; if so, what exactly are their roles. Will sea rangers be providing information to the Offshore Protection Command; if not, why not; if so, what are the arrangements for their remuneration by the Commonwealth other than through the CDEP. 84 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: Sea rangers are a Northern Territory Government funded programme. The Northern Territory Department of Fisheries advises that there are currently 14 Marine Ranger groups in the Northern Territory based in each of the following localities: Borroloola Ramingining Ngukurr Maningrida Numbulwar South Goulburn Island Groote Eylandt Tiwi Islands Yirrkala Blue Mud Bay Croker Island Nhulunbuy Larrakia Galiwin’ku Port Keats (Wadeye) The Cape York Community Engagement Group advises that there are currently 13 Indigenous Land and Sea Management Services groups in northern Queensland, however the Australian Government is not aware of how many of these groups have active sea ranger programmes. Queensland Indigenous Land and Sea Management Groups are based in the following localities: Kowanyama Kaiwalagal (Muralug Archipelago – Thursday Island and near islands) Pormpuraaw Lockhart River Aurukun Coen Napranum Laura Mapoon Kalpowar Injinoo (Northern Peninsula Area) Hope Vale and Wujal Wujal The Australian Government is not aware of any formal sea ranger groups in Western Australia. This is an issue for the Department of Defence. This is an issue for the Australian Customs Service. Sea rangers have no legal authority to board or apprehend foreign vessels. A DAFF officer (covering fisheries and quarantine interests) will be placed in the expanded Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) in Customs. An information campaign will be established to encourage indigenous communities to report illegal foreign fishing vessels. These communities are engaged in quarantine surveillance activity through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service’s Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) program under arrangements with AQIS which provides for payments to communities on a fee-for-service basis. 84 84 3437 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 9 May 2005: Is it the case that that there were some 13,000 sightings of illegal fishing boats during 2005 equating to some 78,000 illegal foreign fishermen. Has AQIS estimated how many illegal foreign fishing boats landed on the (a) Western Australian , (b) Northern Territory, and (c) Queensland coastline in 2005; if not, why not and can he explain on what basis the estimates in part (1) were made. 84 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: This question should be directed to the Honourable Minister for Justice and Customs as this matter relates directly to his area of responsibility. 84 84 3440 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Is there evidence showing that the policy of administrative detention referred to as ‘catch, kiss and release’ is effective; if so, what are the details; if not, why is it being continued Can the Minister confirm the estimates of industry experts and practitioners that the success rate of illegal foreign fishers is higher than 90 per cent; if so, is this not a powerful incentive to (a) criminal syndicates who finance the boats and (b) the illegal foreign fishermen to return; if not, what is the Minister’s estimate and how is it derived. Is there a target for the number of apprehensions; if so, (a) what is it, (b) when, by whom, and how was it derived, and (c) how well has it been met over the past 10 years; if there is not a target for the number of apprehensions, will the Minister explain why not. 84 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: When Australian patrol vessels respond to a sighting of an illegal foreign fishing vessel, it can carry out one of two actions. It can apprehend the vessel and detain the crew via an administrative detention process while the suspected offence is investigated, or it can seize the catch and gear on board and release the vessel. The administrative detention of apprehended foreign fishers is required to provide Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) officials with sufficient time to investigate suspected illegal foreign fishing offences and prepare briefs of evidence for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision whether a case exists to charge the fishers with an offence. Administrative seizure of catch and gear are an efficient means of enforcement in situations where the apprehension of vessels is not considered to be the optimal response for operational reasons, such as in situations where there are higher priority targets. The Government’s intention is to seek the maximum number of apprehensions, resulting in administrative detention, possible. The funding announced for the 2006-07 Budget will greatly increase the number of apprehensions of illegal foreign fishing vessels per year. No, I am not able to confirm that the success rate of illegal foreign fishers is higher than 90 per cent because the available data does not allow this estimate to be made. and (b) The recent measures announced as part of the 2006-07 Budget to boost the Australian Government’s efforts to combat illegal foreign fishing operations will effectively reduce any incentives to fish illegally in Australian waters. Yes. As part of the 2006-07 Budget, the Australian Government has funded enforcement agencies to more than double the number of annual apprehensions made during 2005. 84 84 3442 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: When was the Offshore Protection Command established. Will the Minister explain its structure, including its key and total personnel, to whom they report and its internal and external lines of control. What additional positions have been provided to the Command and which positions, if any, have been transferred to it and from which agencies were they transferred. What sum was allocated to the Command on its creation, what are its annual allocations for the forward estimates period and what sums have been allocated to its assigned functions for the forward estimates period. Under what provisions of the Defence Act and Regulations, or other legislation, are ADF personnel allowed to report to a Minister other than the Minister for Defence. Are there any embedded units in the Command; if so, how many personnel, at what levels do they comprise and from which departments and agencies have they come. Are there any plans to embed other departments or agencies into the Command; if so, which departments or agencies, when and at what strength and level. What guidance has been given to the Command and against which criteria will the success of its operation be assessed. 84 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) was established on 30 March 2005. JOPC is an interagency partnership, with officers from Customs and Defence working together in a common command and control structure to deliver whole-of-Government outcomes in relation to the identification of, and response to, threats in Australia’s maritime domains. The Commander of the JOPC is a serving Navy Rear Admiral who is also Director General Coastwatch. Under a joint accountability arrangement, the Command reports to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Customs Service for its civil functions and the Chief of the Defence Force for its military functions. The constituent elements of JOPC are the Coastwatch Division of Customs, Defence’s Northern Command and a small headquarters. The Deputy Director General Coastwatch is the Deputy Commander JOPC (Customs) and the Commander Northern Command is Deputy Commander JOPC (Defence). Officers are subject to the human resource policies and conditions of service of their parent agency. Eighty-six JOPC staff are Customs personnel in the range of Customs Officers Bands 1 to 5. Northern Command has 102 personnel, including Australian Public Servant staff and Australian Defence Force (ADF) staff of various ranks. Many of the Northern Command staff have additional responsibilities, such as those that fall within Defence Aid to the Community commitments. The JOPC is not a separate Commonwealth agency and therefore no additional positions have been transferred to it. All positions that fall within the JOPC partnership remain either Customs or Defence positions. As JOPC is an inter-agency partnership, no funding has been allocated to it. Forward Estimates for JOPC responsibilities are contained in Output 4 of the Australian Customs Service Portfolio Budget Statements and Outcome 1 of the Department of Defence Portfolio Budget Statements. All ADF personnel within the JOPC ultimately report to the Minister for Defence. There are two embedded units within JOPC: the Coastwatch Division of Customs and Defence’s Northern Command. Headquarters JOPC staff have been drawn from positions within those two units. For the total number of personnel and their levels see my response to part (2). There are three SES equivalent positions within JOPC: the Commander JOPC, the Deputy Commander (ADF) and the Deputy Commander (Customs). There are no plans to embed other agencies within JOPC. However, as a result of decisions taken within the 2006-07 Budget process, staff representing the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Customs Enforcement Operations Coordination Unit will be located in Headquarters JOPC. Additionally, the Customs National Marine Unit has outposted a Liaison Officer to Northern Command. The Command operates under a Directive signed by the CEO of Customs and the Chief of the Defence Force. The success of its operation will be assessed against this directive and the performance measures of its constituent units. 84 84 3446 84 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: What forms of (a) radar and (b) satellite imaging are able to detect illegal foreign wooden fishing boats during the (i) day and (ii) night. 84 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In general terms, the ability of individual radars to detect wooden fishing vessels is dependent on a range of conditions prevailing at the time including, but not limited to, the size of the boat, sea state, weather and distances involved and the frequency and anti-clutter capabilities of the radar. Similarly, the capability of satellite equipment is dependent on the nature of the satellite and the sensors onboard, together with other factors, such as revisit times. Defence and Customs assets operating in support of the responsibilities of the Joint Offshore Protection Command use specialised equipment in operations to detect relevant threats in Australia’s maritime zones. 84 84 3456 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Further to the answers to question Nos 2357 (Hansard, 2 December 2003, page 23543), 2871 (Hansard, 16 February 2004, page 24981), 3014 (Hansard, 11 May 2004, page 28236), and 3041 (Hansard, 11 May 2004, page 28237), has any person been (a) charged with and (b) convicted of the theft of the missing servers (two desktop personal computer systems) containing potentially sensitive data and programs; if so, what are the details. Has he acted to improve security at Sydney Airport and other airports, in particular with respect to the security of Custom’s assets including computer equipment and surveillance cameras; if so, what are the details; if not, when will he take action to prevent tampering with, and the loss, theft, destruction, or sabotage of, Custom’s equipment. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: AFP inquiries resulted in the arrest of two men on Wednesday 17 September 2003. They were charged with the offence of stealing under section 131.1(1) Criminal Code Act 1995. Both men appeared in court. These men pleaded guilty to charges relating to the theft and were sentenced on 19 November 2004 to significant periods of community services. $2.145m was allocated to enhancing the security of Customs network server rooms, including those at International Terminal Buildings in each state. Most work for this project has been completed, with only minor delays in some areas due to lack of availability of equipment and qualified tradespersons to work in regional offices. A second phase of this project has been undertaken to review all server hardening activities, and to assess that all remaining Customs sites have been adequately upgraded to manage the outcomes of this review process and to approve any new works that have been identified. Any further improvements that might be identified will be progressed through normal business including regular Protective Security Risk Reviews (PSRR) and annual Work Area Security Risk Review (WASRR) processes. 84 84 3464 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Has the Minister read the article ‘Clearer picture from CCTV body’ in the Australian Financial Review on 11 April 2006. What are the current CCTV units installed by Government agencies at Sydney Airport. Are the CCTV units selected on the basis of their picture quality such that they produce footage that is of sufficiently high quality that it may be used in a court of law. Have there been criminal incidents at Sydney Airport where the CCTV footage produced by cameras owned or operated by Commonwealth and State Government agencies was of such low technical quality that it was of no evidentiary value in criminal proceedings; if so, what are the dates, times, nature and other particulars of each of those incidents. 84 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Customs fixed cameras at Sydney International Airport are Ikegami, Panasonic or Sony cameras. The pan tilt zoom cameras are Sensormatic mini domes. CCTV units are selected, installed and maintained by Customs for operational suitability. CCTV footage is of recognised high quality and, amongst other things, is used in courts of law to assist in prosecutions. Customs has not had any incidents where the CCTV footage produced by Customs cameras was of such a low technical quality that it was of no evidentiary value in criminal proceedings. Customs cannot answer on behalf of other Commonwealth and State agencies about CCTV footage produced by cameras owned or operated by them. 84 84 3465 84 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Further to the answers to question Nos 2336 and 2337 ( Hansard , 14 February 2006, page 212) in which the website to which he referred does not provide the breakdown asked for by postcode, how many persons (a) are in receipt of the Disability Support Pension, (b) have been granted the Disability Support Pension since 10 May 2005, and (c) are in receipt of Parenting Payment in the postcode area (i) 2502, (ii) 2505, (iii) 2506, (iv) 2526, (v) 2527, (vi) 2528, (vii) 2529, and (viii) 2530. 84 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: The number of Disability Support Pension recipients who currently reside in each of the specified postcodes is set out in the table below. Postcode Number of Disability Support Pension recipients as at 3 March 2006 2502 953 2505 332 2506 485 2526 501 2527 675 2528 1607 2529 715 2530 1255 Notes: Data as at March 2006. Data supplied is point in time data. This means that the data is reflective of the point in time when the snap shot was taken. The number of people who have been granted Disability Support Pension in each of the specified postcodes since 13 May 2005 is set out in the table below. Postcode Disability Support Pension grants between 13 May 2005 and 12 May 2006 2502 76 2505 37 2506 43 2526 25 2527 44 2528 88 2529 61 2530 68 Notes: Data has been provided from 13 May 2005 rather than from 10 May 2005 as requested. This data is only collected at four-weekly intervals and the nearest four-weekly counting period commenced on 13 May 2005. The number of Parenting Payment recipients who currently reside in each of the specified postcodes is set out in the table below. Postcode Number of customers receiving Parenting Payment income support 2502 566 2505 172 2506 400 2526 411 2527 691 2528 1064 2529 593 2530 958 Notes: Data as at March 2006. Data supplied is point in time data. This means that the data is reflective of the point in time when the snap shot was taken. To prepare this response it has taken approximately 20 hours and 15 minutes at an estimated cost of $1,069. 84 84 3472 84 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 9 May 2006: How many kilometres of the Hume Highway between Sydney and Albury are not duplicated and what are the unduplicated single carriageway sections. What is the estimated cost of duplicating each section and the total estimated cost of completing the duplication of the Hume Highway. Which duplication projects are underway on the Hume Highway and when will they be completed. What are the planned projects for completing the outstanding duplication works over the next five years and when and where will they be undertaken. How many road accidents and fatalities have occurred on each section of the Hume Highway not yet duplicated in each year since 2001. When will the Albury-Wodonga bypass duplication be completed and what is the detailed estimated cost of this project. 84 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: Approximately 107 kilometres is unduplicated. Unduplicated sections are Coolac (about 11.9 kilometres); Sheahan Bridge, Gundagai (about 1.2 kilometres); Tarcutta (about 10.5 kilometres); Kyeamba Hill (about 9.1 kilometres); Little Billabong (about 7.9 kilometres); Holbrook (about 19 kilometres); Woomargama Gap to Table Top (about 40.2 kilometres); and Ettamogah to Lavington (about 7.7 kilometres), which is being undertaken as part of the Albury-Wodonga Hume Freeway Upgrade. The current approved project cost for the Coolac bypass is $145 million. The allocation for the duplication of the Sheahan Bridge provided in the 2006 Budget is $43 million. Current estimated project costs provided by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) in October 2005 to duplicate other two-lane sections of the Highway are as follows: Tarcutta section: $100-160 million; Kyeamba Hill section: $75-130 million; Little Billabong section: $65-120 million; Holbrook section: $185-280 million; Woomargama Gap to Table Top: $340-570 million. The sum of these figures is $953-$1,448 million. The Australian Government has set the objective of completing the duplication of the Hume Highway by 2012. Construction of the Ettamogah to Lavington section is underway as part of the Albury-Wodonga Hume Freeway upgrade, which will be completed by mid 2007. Preconstruction, such as planning and environmental approvals is underway on all the other projects. Land acquisition has been carried out on the Coolac bypass. The Coolac bypass and Sheahan Bridge duplication will be completed by 2008-09. As announced in the 2006-07 Budget, the Australian Government, provided an additional $800 million to New South Wales in 2005-06 to enable the completion of duplication of the remaining sections of the Hume Highway by the end of 2009, except for three short sections through Tarcutta, Holbrook and Woomargama, totalling about 20 kilometres of road, which will be bypassed. This work requires more complex planning, consultation and environmental assessments. It is intended that these tasks be completed by 2008-09, so that construction can then be commenced. This will enable construction of these sections to be completed by 2012. See answer to question (3) above. The Department of Transport and Regional Services does not have an annual breakdown of crash statistics on the Hume Highway. However, RTA statistics show that from 2001 to 2005, total crashes for each section were as follows: Section Fatal (a) Casualty (b) Tow-away (c) Coolac 6 31 35 Sheahan Bridge, Gundagai 0 2 3 Tarcutta (rural only) 0 9 16 Kyeamba Hill 2 24 40 Little Billabong 0 11 13 Holbrook 1 24 23 Woomargama Gap to Table Top 9 27 37         Number of crashes involving fatalities (some involving more than one fatality) Number of crashes involving casualties, excluding crashes involving fatalities (some may involving more than one injury). Number of crashes involving towaways, excluding crashes involving fatalities or casualties. The Albury-Wodonga Hume Freeway Upgrade Project is expected to be finished in mid 2007. The Australian Government’s contribution to the project is $518.2 million, including $5.8 million towards the cost of the Bandiana Link to the Hume Freeway. 84 84 3473 84 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Has planning and route selection for the Murrumbateman By-pass on the Barton Highway been completed, if so, (a) when, (b) what is the estimated cost of the project, (c) when will it be commenced, and (d) what is the expected date of completion of the project. 84 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: No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) On 5 October 2001, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon John Anderson MP, announced that he accepted the RTA’s recommendations and that future planning for the bypass should proceed on the basis of the Eastern route. On 9 May 2006, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon Warren Truss MP, and I announced that the Murrumbateman bypass and Barton Highway duplication from the border of the Australian Capital Territory to the Murrumbateman bypass would receive up to $20.0 million in the period to the end of 2008-09 to allow construction to start after 2008-09. These funds will be used to complete planning and design, including conduct of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), and some land acquisition. The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority estimated the cost of the Murrumbateman bypass to be $47.0 million in February 2004, but the cost estimate will be refined as planning progresses. 84 84 3477 84 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 Mr Edwards asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Is he aware of the announcement made by the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Mr Brough, on 26 June 2004 of the Government’s “intention to establish a new medal that recognises volunteer service in the Australian Defence Force”. Why did he alter the criteria for the award of this medal from a “volunteer” medal in his announcement of 30 March 2006. In respect of his statement on 30 March 2006 that the change came “after extensive consultation with veterans’ organisations” will he provide details of the ex-service organisations he consulted and the consultations that took place prior to him changing the criteria. Can he confirm that the only ex-service organisation he consulted prior to the change was the RSL. 84 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: Yes. The eligibility criteria for the Australian Defence Medal were broadened to recognise all personnel who served their country, including national servicemen. For this reason, the medal is inscribed with the words ‘for service’. and (4) Significant consultation occurred with individuals, ex-Service organisations and the Australian Defence Force. Those in the ex-Service community and others who lobbied the Government included, but were not limited to: the Returned and Services League; the Ex-Service Women’s Medal Group; the New Medals Groups; the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia; the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service Association; the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association; the Far East Strategic Reserve Association; the Ex-Women’s RAAF Reunion Group; various Members of Parliament and Senators; and numerous individuals. While a number of these groups were not contacted directly by the Government or the Department of Defence, they made their views known through ministerial representations. The Government considered all their views and opinions and agreed to revise the criteria for the award. 84 84 3478 84 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in writing, on 9 May 2006: For each of the Australian programs listed on pages 3-18 in the January 2006 publication Drought Assistance Measures – A summary of measures by the Australian, State and Territory Governments, will he provide expenditure estimates for (a) 2005-2006, (b) 2006-2007, (c) 2007-2008, and (d) 2008-2009. 84 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: I am only able to provide information about programmes administered by my own portfolio. The estimated expenditures for programmes administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) are as follows: DAFF EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES FOR DROUGHT ASSISTANCE MEASURES Page 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 $m $m $m $m Exceptional Circumstances Interest Rate Subsidies (ECIRS) 3 302.993 100.913 0.593 0.000 Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payments (ECRP) 4 173.382 34.700 0.000 0.000 Interim Income Support (IIS) 5 0.511 0.521 0.000 0.000 Country Womens Association (CWA) 6 3.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 FarmBis 10 8.582 13.350 15.350 0.000 Farm Help 11 15.000 24.986 7.094 0.686 Rural Financial Counselling Service 18 2.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 NB: ECIRS, ECRP and IIS are demand-driven programmes. The estimates at each year’s opening Budget is for EC assistance that has been approved in prior years where costs have extended into the next financial year. As each EC area is assessed and approved for new or extended EC declarations, the costs are added and additional funding is requested through the Additional Estimates and Budget processes. 84 84 3480 84 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 10 May 2006: Is she aware of the difficulties being encountered in our education system by recently arrived students from Africa? What Commonwealth Government programs are in place to assist these students? What funding and support is the Federal Government providing specifically to address the difficulties being encountered by recently arrived students from Africa. Is the Government considering new proposals to assist these students; if so, when will they be announced? 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 —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. and (3) Across the schooling, vocational/technical and higher education sectors, the Australian Government has a range of programmes that are potential sources of assistance to address the needs of recently arrived students from Africa – see Table 1 for details. Table 1. Sector Australian Government Programme Programme Explanation/Summary Estimated Total Funding School General Recurrent Grants (GRG) GRG funding helps government and non-government schools with the recurrent costs of school education so they can offer students educational programmes directed towards the achievement of the Australian Government’s priorities for schooling. $27.4 billion over the 2005-2008 funding quadrennium English as a Second Language – New Arrivals (ESL-NA)* To assist with the provision of intensive English language tuition for eligible students $287 million over the 2005-2008 funding quadrennium Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs (LNSLN) To address the needs of disadvantaged students, including those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. $2.0 billion 2005-2008 funding quadrennium. Youth Pathways To assist the most at-risk young people (aged 13-19 years) to make a successful transition through school to completion of year 12 (or its equivalent) and ultimately, to further education, training or employment and active participation in the community. In 2006, funding of some $24 million will assist at least 17,000 young people. The 2006-07 Budget will provide additional funding of around $46 million over four years, so that Youth Pathways will provide an estimated $37 million each calendar year to 2010 to assist at least 25,500 young people. Partnership Outreach Education Model (POEM) Targets young people who are disconnected from mainstream schooling, and possibly their families and communities, and provides an education and personal development programme delivered in supported community-based settings. The 2006-07 Budget provided $34.9 million over four years to assist more than 3,000 marginalised young people each year. Vocational /Technical Language, Literacy and Numeracy Programme (LLNP) To provide English literacy and numeracy support to jobseekers. Eligibility is assessed by Centrelink or Job Network members. $56.1 million provided in the 2006-07 budget Higher Education Commonwealth Supported Places** On average the Australian Government contributes around three-quarters of the tuition costs for eligible students to study in Australian Universities, while the student contributes the remainder. $3.23 billion has been allocated in 2006 under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to higher education providers to support over 417,000 Commonwealth supported places Higher Education Contribution Scheme – Higher Education Loan Programme (HECS-HELP)** Eligible students can take out a HECS-HELP loan to cover their tuition costs. Repayments are not required until the students’ income reaches a minimum repayment threshold ($38,149 in 2006-07). HECS-HELP ensures eligible students are not prevented from participating in higher education if they are unable to pay their tuition costs up-front. $2.2 billion in HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP loans to eligible students in 2006, plus around $100 million in HECS-HELP discounts for up front payments. Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarship** Assists students from low socio-economic backgrounds with higher education costs. In 2006, the scholarship is worth $2,080 per annum (indexed annually). The scholarships are non-repayable and are not counted as income for Centrelink benefit purposes or as income for tax purposes for full-time students. $198 million (legislated prices) is available over the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. *A range of visa subclasses, including all school-aged humanitarian entrants, are eligible for funding under this programme. **Students from Africa who are holders of a permanent visa may be eligible. Government policies, and deliberation on those policies, are a matter for Government. 84 84 3485 84 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 10 May 2006: Did he write to the animal advocacy group, Animals Australia, on 9 August 2005 and say, inter alia, that the Egyptian abattoir, Bassatin, is a good example where Australia’s involvement in the live trade industry has allowed it to influence change and improve animal welfare conditions in the Middle East. Has the Government provided funding and technical assistance to upgrade facilities and procedures at Bassatin abattoir; if not, why not; if so, what are the details. What is the Government’s response to the report by Animals Australia titled ‘Egypt Investigation Report’ which found animal welfare practices at Bassatin abattoir to be in breach of World Animal Health Authority guidelines. Can he confirm reports that the Government is currently considering lifting the suspension of live trade to Egypt; if so, what evidence does the Government have that animal welfare practices in Egypt now meet humane standards. Can he ensure that no Australian animals exported to the Middle East will be subjected to acts of cruelty or acts in breach of World Animal Health Authority guidelines; if not, why not. Has the Government taken steps to promote markets for processed meat products rather than live sheep and cattle; if not, why not; if so, what are the details. 84 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: Yes. Yes - Funding was provided in November 2003 to assist in upgrading facilities at the Bassatin abattoir and the Bassatin Abattoir Manager was brought to Australia late in 2004 to obtain first-hand experience of Australian livestock handling techniques and facilities. This was in addition to funding and technical assistance provided by industry via Meat and Livestock Australia. In response to information alleging animal abuse in Egyptian slaughterhouses, the Australian Government suspended live cattle exports to Egypt pending further investigation by Australia into the allegations. Australia’s Consul-Agriculture (Middle East) visited Egypt in February 2006 to investigate the allegations first hand. This was followed by a visit from a high level delegation from Australia who also met with senior Egyptian officials in March 2006 to discuss animal welfare issues and to seek their assurances on the handling of Australian animals in Egypt. The trade will not be reopened until these assurances are obtained. The suspension will remain in place until an arrangement is agreed with Egyptian authorities and the Australian export industry that handling and slaughter practices of Australian cattle are sensitive to animal welfare. If, or when, an arrangement is agreed to enable the trade in Australian cattle to Egypt to recommence, the detail of that agreement will include a requirement to comply with the relevant guidelines of the World Organisation for Animal Health. Government policy supports both livestock exports and meat exports. 84 84 3490 84 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 May 2006: In respect of the announcement that the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO) facility in Bendigo will be relocated to the site in Atlas Road, Bendigo, when will DIGO’s current site at Fortuna Villa in Bendigo be disposed of. Will the Fortuna site be cleared of all hazardous materials including chemicals, compounds and structures, prior to disposal. Will the Fortuna site be offered for sale by tender, auction or an open market basis. 84 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: The Fortuna Villa site is not expected to be available for disposal until at least the first half of 2008. As part of the normal due diligence process, detailed environmental studies will be undertaken and any identified issues addressed before disposal action is commenced. The Heritage Management Plan for the site will also be updated. The method of disposal is still to be decided. The disposal will be in accordance with the Commonwealth Property Disposals Policy. 84 84 3491 84 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 Mr Gibbons asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 10 May 2006: Can he confirm that the application by the Central Goldfields Shire Council for funding under the Water Smart Australia Program was unsuccessful. Can he confirm that the submission adhered strictly to the criteria; if so, will he explain why the application was unsuccessful. Will further grants be available at a later date; if so, when. Is he able to assure the Central Goldfields Shire Council that if it applies for funding in future that its application will be considered favourably. 84 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2)  Applications to the Water Smart Australia Programme are treated in confidence and it is up to proponents to release information on their proposals. A new round of funding under the Water Smart Australia Programme opened on 22 March 2006, with applications due by 16 June 2006. All proposals are considered on their merits against the eligibility and assessment criteria set out in the guidelines for the Water Smart Australia Programme. 84 84 3498 84 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 11 May 2006: What is the text of Governor-General Hollingworth’s resignation on 29 May 2003. What is the text of the revocation of Governor-General Hollingworth’s Commission on 29 May 2003. 84 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The public statements made by Dr Hollingworth on 25 and 28 May 2003 regarding his decision to resign from the position of Governor-General are available online at the Governor-General’s website: www.gg.gov.au. The revocation of Governor‑General Hollingworth’s Commission was published by Special Notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S178 on Thursday 29 May 2003, available online at the Attorney‑General’s Department website www.ag.gov.au/portal/govgazonline.nsf.