2006-08-10 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-08-10 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 MISCELLANEOUS 1 09:01:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer from coming into this place and providing a full and proper explanation as to why he refuses to provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under s95ZE(1) with a direction that would enable the ACCC to: formally monitor petrol monitor terminal gate, wholesale and retail petrol prices; obtain all information from refiners, wholesalers and major retailers in the transport fuels sector relevant to fuel prices, including costs, profits and margins; and conduct all other inquiries relevant to the spiralling fuel prices. We all know oil prices are high. That is all the more reason this government’s— Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 09:02:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 2 09:11:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —I second the motion, Mr Speaker. This is a disgrace. The government comes into this place— Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 09:11:00 —Mr Speaker, I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 09:12:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 85 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. 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. Wood, J. 57 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. 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. Question agreed to. 09:16:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 57 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. 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. 84 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. Question negatived. 09:06:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 84 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. 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. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 57 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. 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. Question agreed to. 09:12:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 85 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. 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. Wood, J. 57 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. 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. Question agreed to. 09:16:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 57 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. 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. 84 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. Question negatived. 3 BUSINESS 3 09:20:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —I 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. The issues covered by this bill have been well and truly canvassed both in this parliament and elsewhere over quite a few weeks now. We have had the discussion. Let us move swiftly to the decision. I commend this bill to the House. 4 09:20:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP 0 0 Mr BURKE —Mr Speaker, they spent weeks listening to the Indonesians and now they want to silence the Australian parliament. Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 09:21:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 09:25:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 82 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Bailey, F.E. 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. 59 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. 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. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 09:31:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 83 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. 59 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. 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. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 09:25:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 82 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Bailey, F.E. 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. 59 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. 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. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 09:31:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 83 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. 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. 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. 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. Wood, J. 59 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. 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. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 6 BILLS R2559 6 Debate resumed from 9 August, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. 6 09:33:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —The change that is proposed by the government is essential. It is essential to preserve equal treatment of refugees so that we can give priority to the most needy. The position being advocated by the opposition is a flawed policy currently in place which has proven to have the following main consequences: (1) it kills people by luring them or encouraging them onto the high seas, where they will drown; (2) it condemns the most needy refugees to rot and die in African detention camps while we give priority to others comparatively safe and well in Indonesia. Twelve months ago the government was stampeded into supporting changes that have this effect. The 43 Papuans who came from Jayapura and risked their lives and the lives of their children on the high sea were coming, they said, to the mainland of Australia. Why did they do that? Why did they come to the mainland? Because the ill-advised law rushed into place in Australia told them that such a course would give them a better outcome than crossing safely into Papua New Guinea or going to a Torres Strait island. They brought children with them. Why? Because those same ill-advised laws ensured that, if they took that risk and they put that risk to their children, they would be released into the Australian community—and that is exactly what has happened. They have been released into the Australian community. We often focus on that one boat of 43 refugees from April this year. We talk about that one boat that left from Jayapura, but in fact, as I illustrated earlier on in my speech last night, there were two boats that left Jayapura. Boat 2 sank. People drowned. There were bodies in the water. Although no-one can say for sure that that boat was following directly in the wake of boat 1—it may have been going somewhere else—it certainly was carrying asylum seekers. If that was the case and it was following directly in the wake of boat 1, I say that those deaths can be put down directly to the flawed policies now being urged on us by the opposition. These policies, these laws, must be changed, because we cannot continue to give that kind of incentive to desperate people to take to the sea in boats, particularly when it is a matter of fact that, from Indonesia or from other locations, people can apply to seek refugee status in Australia. Even if you are in West Papua and you are a freedom fighter—or whatever you might want to say about your position over there—you can cross the border into Papua New Guinea and you can make an application for refugee status in Australia from there. That is still a lot safer than taking to the sea in a canoe. Last night I gave the quotes from the people on that boat that successfully arrived in Australia about how they ran out of food, how the motors on the boat conked out and how they were crying and in fear for their lives when the high seas hit them. We cannot continue to endorse that kind of policy. We cannot continue to give support to policies that will (1) kill people by luring them onto the high seas where they will drown and (2) condemn the most needy refugees to rot and die in African detention camps while we give priority to others comparatively safe and well in Indonesia. I gave two examples of that last night. I spoke about the 43 West Papuans and the circumstances of how they came to be on the sea and the risks that they faced. I also spoke about that one poor soul from the Sudan who was bombed and strafed as a child and fled over the border and across the desert to Ethiopia and was then bombed and strafed there and fled across to Kenya. He was in a refugee camp there where raping and killing was going on all the time. He was bombed and attacked there and then made it to Australia by what he thought was basically a fluke, a whim or an act of God. That guy is now in Australia and he is what I would say is a very needy man, someone whose case needs to be considered by this government and not pushed back by people who jump to the front of the queue, who come here in a boat, who risk their own lives and put the lives of their children at risk just to jump that queue and give themselves the priority they otherwise would not have and which they do not deserve in the worldwide scheme of things. I want to say one thing that I feel very strongly about in this circumstance. If we do not make these changes, there will be other boats and there will be other deaths. We can heap them up and keep a total of these deaths but, if we do not make these changes, more people will die on the high seas and it will be down to the flawed and wrong policies that are currently in place and that are luring people onto the sea in this way and causing them to die. We need to make changes to ensure people are equally assessed across the world. The most needy must get the best chance. People who are safe but still want to apply will get the opportunity to apply, but they will not get the kind of rolled gold, red carpet treatment that is being urged on us by the opposition to the detriment of the most needy. It is shameful, it is deceitful, it is wrong and it is unprincipled for them to do that. 7 09:40:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 0 Mr McMULLAN —I rise with my colleagues to oppose the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This legislation, notwithstanding some attempts to ameliorate it, cannot be saved. It shows clearly that the government never really believed in the reforms they proposed in 2005 to seek to accommodate the rebels in their midst. If anything proves that, it is the speech by the member for Blair which we have just heard. It is stunning. I know the member for Blair and I do not regard him as a bad man, but I do not know if he appreciates quite how callous those remarks that he just made were and the implications of them. I am not quite sure. He is implying, of course, that people deliberately put their children at risk to advance themselves in the queue not because they are in genuine fear but for self-advancement. He is implying that the legislation he voted for last year was appalling and unprincipled. The double standards are almost breathtaking. It does not really matter what the member for Blair thinks—the member for Blair thinks whatever the government thinks. It matters that the government came in here preaching high virtues last year, saying: ‘We won’t incarcerate children. We won’t put people in circumstances where they lose the right to have their cases reviewed. We will no longer detain people indefinitely.’ It was applauded by me, amongst others, and I congratulated the member for Kooyong for it at the time as a step forward; but what we have now is a great leap backwards. It is the government saying, ‘We absolutely repudiate our 2005 reforms now in the face of pressure from international friends.’ I agree with the remarks made by those on this side, and some on the other side, who have called this bill profoundly disturbing and draconian in its implications. I hope that those who have spoken up from the government side can carry the burden of the pressure that is being put on them and I hope they can bring enough senators with them to defeat this bill. I know to some extent how they feel because I have been somewhat of a recalcitrant on this side— SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr Cadman —You’ve never crossed the floor. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —in my party with regard to this matter. I have never had to face the challenge which my colleagues on the other side face because my party never introduced a piece of legislation like this and the issue has not arisen in the periods in which we have been in government to confront me in this manner. I am not saying we did not do anything wrong when we were in government, I think we did, but they were not on matters of controversial legislation while I was in the parliament. It is not easy. I welcome the fact that on this occasion—and I am glad that he is in the chamber—the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Watson, has given a lead on this matter which has been strong and principled and which I have been comfortable in supporting and endorsing. I thank him and congratulate him for that. Let us go to the essential character of this legislation. The three principal characteristics of it that I find totally unacceptable are those which effectively overturn the 2005 legislation as it relates to the incarceration of children, the denial of review and indefinite detention. There has been some attempt made to pretend that this legislation does not have that effect, but we all know that it does and it will not achieve the purpose that the member for Blair was lauding unless it does. If people in Nauru are to be treated exactly the same way as they would be treated in Australia, the legislation could not do what the member for Blair claimed. It can only have that effect if we treat them worse, and it is deliberately designed to do so. It cannot be both. It cannot be both what I heard my ACT colleague Senator Humphries saying it was on radio this morning—merely a continuation of the existing policy with regard to these matters—and the deterrent that the member for Blair is talking about. It cannot be both those things. This matter does not occur in isolation. It is part of a long history in Australia of the easy appeal to fear. Australia has had a long history of seeing ourselves under threat: that somehow or other the force of gravity is going to make people sweep down from the north into our country. It goes back to the White Australia policy and the formation of the Labor Party, when our party was very much committed to the White Australia policy on the ground of fear as to what would happen as the hordes came sweeping in. It took a long time for all of the major parties to change their policies and fundamentally they all have, but, because of that underlying element in Australia about the hordes that may come flooding down, it has always been the easy political option in Australia to appeal to fear and it has always been the hard political option to resist that and appeal to the better angels of our nature. That is always harder politically, and in recent history the easy option has been a temptation to which the government has succumbed with enthusiasm, particularly since 2001, when we had images of a flood, which was of course minor by international standards. But most significantly, given this bill before us, the number of people, even in that so-called flood, who were coming by boat always was a very distinct minority of asylum seekers. If the intent of government policy had been to deter asylum seekers, everybody seeking asylum would have been treated the same way. But it was only those who were seeking asylum and were on the front page of the Daily Telegraph who were treated this way. It was not a policy about border protection. It was not about protecting Australia from people seeking asylum; it was about protecting the government from the Daily Telegraph. It had bad photos on the front, so something had to be done and we dealt with the minority who come by boat with draconian legislation but kept exactly the same rules for other people who sought asylum. The government’s own figures show that in the last four years boat arrivals were three to four per cent of all unauthorised arrivals. In 2003-04 they were about 1½ per cent. In fact, in 2004-05 there were no individuals seeking asylum arriving by boat. But, even at the peak of the political controversy in 2001, slightly more than 25 per cent but less than 26 per cent—almost exactly a quarter—of asylum claims were by boat arrivals, yet we had draconian legislation about those people and nothing about the rest. I do not think we should have done about the rest what we did about the boat people, because I did not agree with what we did about them. It was the height of hypocrisy; it was double standards of the first order, compounded by the fact that the high point of the debate was that the people concerned ‘would never set foot in Australia’. What is the result? About a year ago we got to the situation—and I cannot tell you the exact situation today, because my latest data is almost a year old—where, of the 958 refugees processed on Nauru, 559 had been resettled in Australia, some of them in my electorate. I am very happy to have them. I met here in this building a young man who was not the last person to leave Nauru, because some of them were single individuals, but was in the last family to leave Nauru. He was learning English at the Secondary Introductory English Centre, which is in my electorate. He was with people who came to the parliament for a familiarisation course. I spoke to them in the public gallery. He is a very fine young man who is very welcome in my community. But in the election he was never going to ‘set foot in Australia’—and I can tell you that he is living in Watson and is doing very well. So all of that was a political stunt for the times, because the legislation would have had to have other character and other consequences had it been genuine. I have another concern, which is the implications of this legislation for Australia’s standing as it relates to the refugee convention. I am a bit of a critic of the refugee convention. I think it is out of date and needs fundamental review. I certainly do not think that Australia should implement bad laws merely because an international convention says we should. I am not one of those who think we should be a slavish adherent. There are some elements of some international treaties which I would not wish to see in Australian law. If it were up to me, I would be seeking internationally to review the refugee convention. But there are some bedrock elements of the refugee convention that must not be changed, and they are put at threat by this legislation, in particular article 33(1), which says you do not return people who may face human rights abuses. That is at the very core of the refugee convention; without that you do not have one. There are elements about how it should be dealt with that I think are out of date. They were written for the Cold War period and are no longer as relevant to the nature of the refuge that people seek as refugees these days. But those concerns which I have do not go to this legislation, because this legislation goes to the core of what the international community, including Australia—including this government, which says it adheres to the refugee convention—say that we think that the fundamental principles of the refugee convention are: the fundamental humanitarian obligations of every nation and that we should never return people who may face human rights abuses. I do not say that the government would deliberately set out to do that; I am sure that it would not. But this legislation removes the protections for people who may face that. I will go now to the detail. We have had a controversial report from the Edmund Rice Centre about concerns with regard to people who might have been sent back to hazardous circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq. What have they got for their troubles? Abuse. I know some of the people associated with that organisation. I do not agree with everything that they say, but they are fine and principled people and they would not have made that allegation lightly. I hope those allegations are examined seriously. Even if you do not accept the concerns they have expressed, let us have a look at the consequences for people who are denied—as people under this legislation will be—access to the refugee tribunal. The Refugee Review Tribunal has overturned decisions by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to send 3,200 people back to Iraq and Afghanistan. Those 3,200 people would have been sent back had they not had access to an appeal. That might make some people unhappy—they might wish that they had gone back. But what that means is that an independent tribunal appointed by this government concluded that those people would be genuinely at risk if they were sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq. Let us say that the tribunal is 90 per cent wrong—I do not think that they are, but let us say that they are. That then means that 320 people have been saved from being sent back to the risk of persecution. I would not support a law that sent one person back. I am not saying that other people in this House would callously do that. I know many of the people speaking on the other side of this debate and they are people of goodwill, but they have to look at the consequences of what they do, whatever the motivation. And the consequence is that in the future the next 3,200 people, were they to be subject to this law, would not have access to that review and would be sent back. That goes to the very heart of why we offer refuge: so that people will not be sent back if they may face human rights abuses. There are allegations that we have done so. In this legislation there is a removal of the protection that will prevent us from doing so in the future. What this shows is that the process concerns that people on this side of the House, people on the other side and people in the public debate have been raising are not just the technical legal obsessions of lawyers about process. The checks and balances of our legal system and our system of administrative review are not there for fun; they are there because, although Australia is very well served by its public service, we all know that public servants, like everybody else, can make mistakes, and we need a process of review. It is especially important here because in this area of administration the consequences of getting it wrong can be tragic. To consciously set out to deny review of a decision can have profound consequences. To put it generally, the consequence could be being sent back to human rights abuses—but it could be more stark than those mere words ‘human rights abuses’ indicate; it could mean torture or death, as in the allegations raised recently here in Australia. My concern is that the legislation is profoundly unfair. It is totally unnecessary. The amendments that are being contemplated cannot save it. I say to the government and to the people who are considering how they might vote—not just the four who have said so but also the others who are considering how they might vote—do not go down this path. The parliament and the processes of government in Australia are under challenge. This is happening not just in Australia but in every Western democracy, because people think that opportunism is sometimes prevailing over their interests. Sometimes people think that and I think they are wrong, sometimes people think that and I think they are right; but it does not matter. We need here to take a stand. This is an important stand. I welcome the fact that the opposition has taken it. I welcome the fact that the minor parties are supporting it. I hope Family First does too. I particularly congratulate on their courage the people who have taken the decision to say that they will not support this legislation. I hope they are joined by others, because I profoundly wish that Australia does not go down this path and that we seek a positive role in the future review of refugee arrangements, not the negative role which we have played in recent years and which is reflected in this legislation. 11 09:58:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I completely refute the statement that Australia has played a negative role in the settlement of refugees. Australia leads the world with its settlement and compassionate programs, and the Labor Party are vile and contemptible in trying to paint the picture in any other way. Let us have a look at what the Labor Party did when they were in office. They established a program of humanitarian care. There was no refugee test or UNHCR test; there was something that the minister declared to be of interest to the Australian government. They did not observe any international covenants or processes; they took anybody that the minister designated as important under the special humanitarian program. That is not a humane program. That is a political program. This government has looked around the world for those most in need and taken people in large numbers. Proportionately we have one of the largest programs in the world for the size of our nation and for our capacity to settle refugees. I am proud of the programs that we have introduced because they are based on need. I invite members of the opposition to have a look at what is happening outside Australia’s borders and to have a look at the human rights issues in Indonesia—and they are not perfect, I acknowledge that. Let us have a look at Darfur and Sudan and see whether or not you are willing to compare the people that Australia is bringing from those nations to the boat people who happen to get here because they have paid somebody or because they are inventive enough to get hold of a canoe and paddle to Australia. There is a huge difference between these two classes of people, and if we lose sight of that then we lose sight of a humanitarian program to support those in most need around the world. I think this opportunistic approach to what is need and to refugees is just a wrong and an inhumane approach. The reports I have from international organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide are that, in Sudan, 1.6 million people have been displaced, 20,000 have fled to Chad and 70,000 deaths have occurred since February 2003. That is just in one area. If you look at the surveys of what has gone on in those places, you will see that in September last year the World Health Organisation revealed that between 6,000 and 10,000 displaced persons were dying each month in the camps. These are refugee camps—humanitarian refuges—and people are dying in them at the rate of 6,000 to 10,000 a month. Are the Labor Party serious when they say we need to give preference to people who can get here by boat or pay someone to come to Australia? There is a huge difference between the needs of those people and those dying at those rates in what are supposed to be places of refuge—they are called refugee camps—for people who are displaced. Why are they dying? They are dying of malnutrition, of disease and because the armies of the Sudanese government are bombing refugee camps—something that has never occurred before in the management of displaced people. The targets are actually the refugee camps. The stories are particularly appalling, and the UN has documented them. Female displaced people risk being robbed, abused, threatened, beaten with whips and gang-raped as they undertake the traditional female task of seeking firewood. Sudanese authorities deny these reports, often claiming that their soldiers are disciplined and follow strict sharia. That is absolutely proven to be wrong. The Australian Labor Party, rather than deal with the issues that confront the world and that should confront Australia, would rather play games with people who can get into canoes and who can seek a better way of life in Australia. If I were in their position, I admit I would do everything to improve the way of life for my family. I would want to escape from an area that was oppressive. I would want to escape to something that offered me greater economic prospect. I would want to seek a better way of life. But that is not the same as being a refugee. A refugee, according to the United Nations, is very specific, and the way in which they should be managed is also specific. If we are going to stray outside that, we will go back to the old days of a Labor minister declaring areas of special humanitarian need, declaring on a political basis without any objective test what areas in the world we are going to take people from, with neither rhyme nor reason. That is the way you lose community support for immigration. That is the way you lose community support for refugee programs. That is the way you despoil and wreck the rationale, the compassionate basis, that should be the very root of our immigration policy. That is the game the Labor Party want to play. They want to go back to those days where the minister declares areas of interest—no rationale, no reason: ‘Get here on a boat and we’ll declare you a different class of refugee to the type of refugee that the international community is looking at.’ This government has a fine record of compassionate support for refugees. I do not want to see that change, because I think it is impeccable, I think it is reasonable and I think it needs to have a solid basis. We are not talking about a solid basis here today; we are talking about changes to the act that will allow those who can approach Australia a different class of refugee status. They will have hot and cold running lawyers to attack Australian law. Tell that to the people in the camps in Sudan. Tell them that they will have right of appeal by Australian lawyers flying into those camps to defend their claims! They will not see a lawyer; they will not even see a review. There will be one interview and the decision will be made about whether they come to Australia or not. That is not a fair way of treating people who claim to be refugees: two classes of asylum seekers—one in need and dying in camps; the other strong enough to paddle a canoe or to pay someone to bring them here. They are two different types of people, and they would be treated differently if the Australian Labor Party had its way. It wants to say, ‘If you can arrive on Australian shores, you’ll have hot and cold running lawyers and, not only that, you’ll have numerous appeals through the courts—but, if all that goes wrong, let’s put the ombudsman onto them as well, for the sake of parliament.’ Tell that to the people in Sudan! Tell that to the people in the camps suffering around the world. Tell the genuine refugees we are taking that we will send the ombudsman there to see whether or not they have had a fair deal. You are creating two classes of refugees—a completely intolerable situation when you look at the humanitarian need of the situation. The government has changed its processing to deal with people who do come onshore, but this proposal is aimed to keep people offshore, deal with them as objectively as possible, search out real need, establish the true refugees and then allow them onshore, with settlement or settlement in a second or third country. What the Australian Labor Party appears to skate over and ignore completely is the international convention on the settlement of refugees. The first goal of settlement is to create a political solution to the conflict and settle people back in their own land. That is the No. 1 goal of the United Nations, endorsed by Australia. The second goal is to have them settle nearby so they may return easily to their country of origin and reclaim their homes, their farms and their land. That is the second option adopted by the United Nations. This is sensible stuff. This is common sense. This is the way refugee management should be handled. The international community recognises it, but it appears that the Australian Labor Party does not want to recognise it. It wants to make up a whole bunch of new rules as we go ahead about how refugees are dealt with worldwide. The third option, according to the United Nations, is a country of settlement remote from the area, where people will be safe. Australia often gets into the situation where we take people from all around the world as part of our refugee program of 13,000. It is a big program, I would remind the House, for the size of this nation: year in, year out, we take 13,000 people. It does not matter what the economic circumstances are in Australia, we take them. That is our compassionate program, that is our internationally sound program and that is why we can hold our heads high in international fora. Year in, year out, we take 13,000 people, based on these principles: (1) can there be a political settlement?—often there cannot be; (2) can there be safe settlement in a nearby country? I have read to the House the circumstances of refugees from Sudan who fled into nearby countries, dying at the rate of 6,000 to 10,000 a month and then being bombed for the pleasure of the Sudanese government. That is how safe those settlements are. The third option is the least preferred option, according to the United Nations—this is not an Australian conservative government making these rules; these are the United Nations rules on refugees. The United Nations said, ‘Only if those two measures can’t be met should we consider third country settlement some distance from the source of the conflict and the reason for people becoming refugees.’ How are we going to look at these so-called asylum seekers, these refugees that come to Australia by boat? We are going to give them first-class accommodation. There will be water, schooling for the kids, electricity and regular food. There are no threats to their lives, no bombings, no starvation, no ill-health, good medical services—everything that they could want for their safety, security and good health. Compare that with what is going on in the camps, where people have one interview: ‘Yes, you’re in to Australia,’ or ‘No, you’re not.’ What do these people get? They get security, safety, care, good health, good food and a good existence, compared with, in many instances, where they have come from, but not what they ultimately desire. What they desire is settlement in Australia. Who would not want to settle in Australia? I do not blame them for that; I cannot criticise them for that. I would do that myself for my family, to get a better way of life, but I can understand why any story would be invented, why any tale would be told to achieve that. Compare the situation of a tale told, or a story invented, to the factual reality of what is occurring around the world that you want to turn your back on in order to rescue who you think are genuine people. They may or may not be genuine. Let us have an objective test and put them up against the rest of those claimants and see how they stack up. That is the way we should make the decision and that is the way the government is making the decision, with all of these added things thrown in: hot- and cold-running lawyers, safety for the children, schooling and clean water, which allows people to live a healthy life and one reason why there has been such a large increase in longevity around the world. They can live in those circumstances, have review after review and have lawyer after lawyer. They can even send the Commonwealth Ombudsman to check whether it is real and then we will make a decision about whether they should be settled here or elsewhere. There has been some protest about whether people should be settled here or elsewhere. There seems to be a theme running within the Labor Party that, automatically, whatever their condition they should come and settle here. That is not the way to run a refugee program. If you want to call it something else, call it that and be honest about it. But this is not a refugee program. With refugees, you look for the best outcome for those families and, sometimes, it just happens that settlement is not Australia. Sometimes it is New Zealand, sometimes it is elsewhere in the world, but this government has always done everything possible to ensure the safety and security of those people whom it has found should not settle in Australia. Why should people be in detention? The simple fact of the matter is that every country that has tried to let them go has found that they never turn up again. Tony Blair tried it and lost 98 per cent of everybody he said could move around in the community. Britain has since adopted many Australian rules and laws regarding the handling of refugees and asylum seekers. People have tried that process. I ask the opposition and my colleagues: what would you do in those circumstances? If you were let go and you thought that you had a chance of escaping and not being found again, that people were confused by your appearance and your name, wouldn’t you take that chance? Wouldn’t you seek to escape the officialdom that will declare whether you are a refugee? If you could disappear into the community and say, ‘I am now a resident of the country in which I am seeking to gain residency,’ wouldn’t you take that risk? Of course you would. It is human nature. You try to get the best you can for yourself and your family, and that is what this is about. It is about preservation, aspiration and a new lifestyle. That is what people are on about. The problem is that we need to sort out who is under the hammer, whose life is under threat—those who have faced torture, whose homes have been bombed, whose houses have been burnt down and who have had traumatic experiences. One only has to read some of the stories, both from the UNHCR and other agencies, to realise how serious the circumstances are. A report prepared in July this year by the United Nations Refugee Agency says the insecurity in the rule of law—the very thing that we seem to be debating here today—in these areas of refugee population has changed dramatically: It states: On one hand, refugee-populated areas may be the target of direct military attacks … …     …         … A number of different examples can be cited in this respect: attacks on Sudanese refugee settlement in northern Uganda … Outside Sudan, in Uganda, people have been attacked by the Sudanese army. That is what we are looking at. You cannot compare that with people paddling their canoes to Australia; these are quite different things. We ought to be focusing on these things if we are going to call it a refugee program and a settlement program for refugees. If you are going to reinstall the special humanitarian system, call it that. Let us see your policy. Let us know what you are on about. I do not believe you are really saying that. I believe the Australian Labor Party wants to play games with this issue. Not having a policy is a privilege that oppositions have. The United Nations Refugee Agency report goes on to describe ‘incursions by the armed forces of Burundi into refugee-populated areas neighbouring Tanzania, intended to apprehend combatants and “subversives” living amongst the Burundi population’ in refugee camps. I do not think the Labor Party or my colleagues have a case. I will go into bat every time for those people whose lives are at risk, whose children are being tortured and raped, whose homes have been destroyed and bombed, whose crops have been destroyed, whose cattle and livestock have been taken by invading armies. That, to me, is a refugee program. This program that the government has put in place is a type of refugee program. People are being given extraordinary support and assistance to make their claim—a claim that is not given to anybody else. The only reason they are given this claim is that they can pay somebody or paddle a canoe—one or the other. In anything that I have read about refugees, whether from the United Nations or from anywhere else in the world, those are not among the criteria that are necessary to establish the needs or the refugee status of anybody. 15 10:17:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —In 1951 the United Nations convention for the protection of refugees came into force. The world realised the mistakes of the 1930s, when many Western nations turned their backs on Jews fleeing persecution in Germany. Collectively, we said, ‘Never again.’ I am sure that all of us involved in public life would like to think that we would have done the right thing in those circumstances and stood up for those facing the worst of circumstances, regardless of whether it was popular or unpopular. If the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 passes the parliament today, it will be the day that Australia turned its back on the refugee convention and on refugees escaping circumstances that most of us can only imagine. This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character. The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia. This bill represents an extension of the so-called Pacific solution, in which we saw individuals who were processed offshore being treated differently from those processed in Australia. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said in his second reading speech that the offshore processing system had preserved ‘Australia’s strong commitment to refugee protection’. He is wrong. Let us take a look at how the Pacific solution has worked in practice. This bill extends the Pacific solution, so it is legitimate to look at how it has worked up until now. Firstly, we have seen families of refugees broken up—callously and in contravention of the refugee convention. Spouses of people who have been recognised as refugees in Australia received correspondence from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which has been reproduced by Michael Gordon in his excellent book Freeing Ali. It states: Your claims have been assessed separately from your husband’s claims because you travelled at different times. Under the conditions of your husband’s stay in Australia he is not able to sponsor you. Like all refused asylum seekers you cannot remain in Nauru indefinitely. You should consider voluntary repatriation now. What a callous piece of correspondence. I agree with Michael Gordon, who said of that letter: There was only one conclusion to draw: if you wanted to be reunited with your husband, whose fear of persecution if he returned had been judged to be well founded, your only choice was to return and to convince him to leave Australia and confront the very danger he had fled. Of course, several asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru have had their applications rejected three, four or five times, only to have the government eventually accept their claims. Unlike people processed onshore, people processed offshore have no access to professional assistance. It is hard enough for a well-versed Australian native to understand Australia’s immigration system, let alone somebody with obvious language difficulties who is attempting to come to grips with the massive change in their circumstances. Of course, asylum seekers offshore have no right of appeal to higher authorities. McAdam and Crock highlighted the importance of this in an article in the Australian on 15 May. They said that between 1993 and 2006 the refugee tribunal overturned 8,000 determinations by departmental officers to refuse asylum. Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will not have this right of appeal if this bill is passed. Asylum seekers have been encouraged—pressured—to return to the nation they are fleeing when their applications are rejected. The government made it very clear to asylum seekers that, if their application were not successful, they would be involuntarily returned to the country they were fleeing. Some stayed and fought and eventually had their applications approved. Others were returned to their homeland. The results of this are outlined in a report by the Brotherhood of Saint Laurence entitled Return to danger and in a report by the Edmund Rice Centre, which other honourable members have referred to. I cannot vouch for those examples—I am not qualified to say whether they are true or not—but if just one of them is true it damages Australia as a nation. The biggest problem is that, even if an asylum seeker overcomes all these obstacles and has their application for refugee status accepted, there is no guarantee of a visa to settle in Australia. Someone who makes it to the Australian mainland and has their case as a refugee accepted may not be able to gain a protection visa in this country, and that is a national disgrace. This is something that the government wishes to gloss over; there was no mention of it in the second reading speech to the bill. I must say, for such a major and important piece of legislation to receive the cursory treatment that this bill did in the second reading speech by the parliamentary secretary is an insult to the parliament and to the Australian people. The lack of speakers on this debate from the government side is also insulting. I also note that this morning the government gagged this debate—the most important debate that we have seen in many years. The government has gagged the debate such that every government member wishing to speak on the bill was given the opportunity to do so but while there are still many opposition members wishing to speak. I am sad that Liberal members on the other side voted for that gag motion. The parliamentary secretary did at least acknowledge one point in his second reading speech. He acknowledged that this bill was brought about by the granting of asylum to a group of refugees from West Papua. While the government recognised the link, they have not admitted the full story. The government first embraced the Pacific solution for crass electoral reasons, but they are extending the Pacific solution for reasons of crass international appeasement. I happen to think that our relationship with Indonesia is one of our most important. I have spent time in Indonesia. It is a wonderful country and it has made remarkable democratic progress in recent years, but our relationship must be one of mutual respect. In Australia that means respecting the Indonesian legal system, even when we do not like the way some of our own nationals are treated, but Indonesia must respect our system of dealing with asylum seekers. The Howard government changing our system to suit the concerns of another nation is nothing short of a disgrace. The Prime Minister is selling out our national sovereignty. This tragic and discriminatory policy does not come cheap. Taxpayers are paying for the maintenance of offshore detention centres at the cost of $3 million to $4 million a month. They are much more expensive than detention centres in Australia. We have the worst of all worlds—an expensive, discriminatory and tragic policy. Let me turn to the illogical and hypocritical nature of this bill. In his second reading speech the parliamentary secretary stated that it is ‘incongruous’ that asylum seekers who arrive by boat to excised areas are treated differently to those who arrive by boat to the mainland. But he did not say that it is incongruous that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are treated differently to those who happen to arrive by aeroplane. The government is claiming that the whole rationale of this bill is to fix an illogical outcome—that asylum seekers should be treated the same regardless of where they land. We say that asylum seekers should be treated the same regardless of how they land. We say they should be dealt with fairly, swiftly and on Australian soil. The government has not changed the situation for asylum seekers arriving by means other than boat, because that is how, in almost every circumstance, asylum seekers from Indonesia arrive. In his contribution, the honourable member for Mitchell talked about the different ways asylum seekers are treated depending on where they are. His contribution suggested that this bill would end that situation—that now asylum seekers in camps in Africa would be treated the same as those who arrived on the Australian mainland. Of course he is wrong. They will not be treated differently if they happen to arrive by aeroplane—if they happen to be able to afford an aeroplane ticket. The convention on refugees says clearly: The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. This bill contravenes that convention because it treats people differently in Australia depending on what part of the world they have come from and how they arrive. In 2003-04, 1.5 per cent of people seeking asylum in this country arrived by boat. On 9 May 2006 Minister Vanstone stated that unauthorised boat arrivals in the last four years represented three to four per cent of all unauthorised arrivals. So this bill, which the government claims is so necessary to protect our borders, will deal with a maximum of four per cent of unauthorised arrivals in Australia. It is so clearly a sop to international appeasement that I cannot believe government members can come into this House with a straight face and argue otherwise. Far from removing illogicality, the government has embraced it. In the wake of the Tampa incident, the then Minister for Defence gave instructions that asylum seekers should not be humanised. He instructed that no images be presented, no stories told and no facts relayed which gave a human dimension to the people in such desperate circumstances as the Tampa asylum seekers. He did not want the Australian body politic infected with the view that these people were somehow normal human beings escaping persecution. But, of course, they are human beings and the government cannot stop their stories being told. I suspect there are government members in this House who will vote for this legislation today but have never met a refugee or talked to them about what they have been through. Of course, some government members have acknowledged great empathy for refugees, and I acknowledge their courage, but I suspect that there are some opposite who have never looked a refugee in the eye. There are few more uplifting experiences than to meet a refugee who has made their home in Australia and is making a contribution to this nation. I met a young Vietnamese woman at the Education Week celebrations in Fairfield a few weeks ago. She came to Australia by boat with her family in 1993. When she arrived she did not speak English. She is now studying medical science at the University of Sydney. She gave a speech at the Education Week celebration about what Australia and its public education system has done for her. She will be giving back to Australia much more than what Australia has given her. There is also the young man, Zaya Mohamed, who escaped from Afghanistan and attended Holroyd High School in my electorate. He did not know whether his family was dead or alive; he escaped alone. When he arrived, he did not speak English. His schooling had been interrupted and he was hardly literate in his own language. But Zaya did the HSC last year with a view to studying information technology, and a more delightful man you could not hope to meet. It is people like this to whom the government is trying to send a message—the message that they are not welcome. Not all people seeking asylum in Australia are genuine. Not all deserve to have refugee status, and not all deserve to be granted visas. But what they are entitled to is a fair process, and they are entitled to a swift process. They are entitled to have their claims considered in Australia, and if they are granted refugee status, they are entitled to a refugee protection visa from Australia. This bill denies them those rights. If this bill is passed, the so-called softer edge which the government put into the detention regime last year, under pressure from a few members opposite and from this side, of course, will be replaced by an edge of barbed wire. Children will be back in detention. The amendments proposed by the government do not stop that. The amendments are, in my view, particularly weak. The amendments talk about taking all reasonable steps to encourage other countries to provide suitable accommodation for children. The amendments call for all reasonable steps to work with another country to uphold the principle that children should be in detention only as a last resort. This parliament cannot pass a law that tells Nauru what to do. Amending this bill is like putting lipstick on a pig. You can put all the lipstick you like on it but it will still be a pig. You can amend this bill all you like but it will still be a bad bill. What future is there for children in detention? We hear a lot about how important it is to read to our children, to ensure that they are nurtured and to ensure that they have access to resources for a much better chance at life. What future are we delivering to these children? What message will we be sending to them? How will they feel about Australia—an Australia that kept them in detention in their early years? We can only hope that they realise that it is this government that is making them unwelcome, not this nation. I appeal to the better angels of the nature of those opposite. Some have already expressed their unwillingness to support this legislation. Labor alone cannot defeat this bill. Labor, together with a principled and courageous stand by some members opposite in this House and in the other place, can defeat this bill. It is, as I said, a bill with no redeeming features. We will oppose this bill, and I call on members opposite to join us. If it is passed, it will be repealed by an incoming Labor government. Decency and self-respect as a nation would demand nothing less. 19 10:33:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —I rise also to oppose the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. Labor opposes it outright. There is nothing you can do to this excision bill that will fix it. We do not seek to amend it; we will oppose it in its entirety. The bill is shameful and xenophobic. It is cast in denial and reeks of appeasement of the Indonesian government. It is also another broken promise by the Prime Minister of this country—this time to his party colleagues, none of whom are sitting in here at the moment. We have seen some of them with the courage to come into this place and say they oppose it, but we now have a government that is gagging debate. So embarrassed is the government of this debate that it wants to stop it. John Howard ditched commitments he made to his own colleagues last year to make the immigration laws more compassionate. If he cannot be trusted by his own colleagues, he cannot be trusted by the Australian people. I congratulate those members on the other side who have shown courage in this debate—the members for Kooyong, McMillan, Pearce and Cook—and Senator Troeth for the way in which she is still standing firm against pressure. These people are not rebels. They only want the Prime Minister to honour his promise to them last year. What is wrong with that? Why should people be accused of rebellion simply for insisting on a man honouring his word? He is not any ordinary man; he is the Prime Minister of the country. Peter Costello knows that the Prime Minister breaks his word. We now know that the Prime Minister breaks it in a serial way to his colleagues, just as he has betrayed the trust of Australian people so many times over the years. In the past, Labor have opposed excision as a solution to our immigration issues. We opposed it as part of the so-called Pacific solution back in 2002. That Pacific solution has been shown to be a costly and ineffective failure. This legislation, in response to the West Papuan refugee issue, will perpetuate that failure of policy. The bill in effect surrenders our borders in the name of protecting them. It is a ludicrous proposition. It says that we defend ourselves by shrinking ourselves. The original excision bill, introduced by the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Ruddock, sought to excise all of Australia’s outlying islands—if you like, the islands beyond the mainland. When it was introduced in June 2002, both the minister for immigration and the Minister for Foreign Affairs refused to rule out excision of parts of the mainland from the migration zone, because we said that it was possible to do that. At the time, the minister for immigration took umbrage at our suggestions that you could excise Tasmania, for example. The Prime Minister of the day in fact said that that was a ludicrous proposition. I remember, in this House, on 17 June, asking the Prime Minister whether he would rule out excising parts of the mainland. This is what the Prime Minister said then: 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. That is what the Prime Minister said on 17 June 2002. It was ludicrous then and it is ludicrous now. But this bill legislates for the ludicrous. It excises the Australian mainland, the big island, and Tasmania, the little island. The only thing left after this bill is Macquarie Island. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —And Heard. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —And Heard and McDonald Islands. The parliamentary secretary is joining in the joke. It would be a joke if it was not so serious. Now, Labor is totally committed to strong and effective border protection, but you do not protect your borders by surrendering them—and that is what this legislation does. Surrendering the outlying islands in 2002 was a strategic mistake. The Labor Party said so at the time. We said it would encourage the people smugglers to aim for the mainland. It was an invitation to them to get to the mainland. Now that we have been proven correct in that analysis the government’s response is to excise the mainland. When the government’s response to xenophobia is to surrender it loses all credibility. And that is what has happened with this legislation. At the time of our response to the 2002 excision we were very supportive of other measures to stop the people smugglers. We called for deterrence in the form of a coast guard—a cop on the beat to patrol those islands. We called for laws which, by developing international agreements on processing and location, dealt with asylum seekers in the country in which they first landed, not the last country that they headed to, so that they could not country hop. That is what we proposed then. We also proposed solutions to stem the flow of people whose misery was being exploited by unscrupulous and illegal smugglers. We proposed urging the eight countries in the pipeline of the people smugglers to sign the protocol of the refugee convention, and we proposed that the Prime Minister use his good offices, through CHOGM and other international forums, to get those signatures. We urged the government to get Indonesia and other transit countries to make people-smuggling a crime under their domestic laws. We accepted, as part of the people smuggler deterrent, that it was appropriate to support the special treatment of Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands because of their distance from Australia and their proximity to Indonesia. This bill continues to ignore all of those constructive solutions. Instead, its solution is to excise Australia from Australia, pretending that none of Australia is Australia. It is absurd. This is a response to a circumstance in which we were not confronted by people smugglers but by genuine West Papuan refugees—genuine, as determined under Australian law. The government has resorted to a solution—a solution that the Prime Minister said was ludicrous—to deny the very operation of that same Australian law. We believe that the government did the right thing in accepting the West Papuans. But the government could not stand the heat of the Indonesian response so it rolled over, and this is the solution. So we are having this debate today, until the government brings the gag in to stop the debate, on this bill to appease Indonesia. In it we are asked to accept that ‘designated unauthorised arrivals’ may be removed to a declared country outside Australia—namely, Manus Island or Nauru. They are to be removed there for the processing of any claims for refugee protection—not under our law, but under the refugee convention. Just understand the hypocrisy of that dimension of this issue. Can you remember that the government in this place, time and time again, said they were never going to cede Australian law to international authorities and that we would determine the law that would apply here and we would not have it determined by international bodies such as the UN? They bagged the UN left, right and centre when it suited them over that misplaced, misguided involvement in the war in Iraq. They bagged the UN, but this proposal adopts the refugee convention as the alternative to Australian law for the processing of these refugees. In this proposal the law is made more ridiculous because it only applies, as was mentioned earlier, to those people arriving by boat. What about those who arrive by air—those who can afford to pay the ticket? They will be processed here. Think of this: 43 West Papuan people arrive by boat and the law is changed to stop them coming in in the future. In the meantime, last year alone, over 1,600 people arrived illegally by air. And of those, 40 people applied for protection visas. So here we have the same order of magnitude, the same number of people. How is the government going to explain this dimension of inconsistency in its policy? It is worse than that; it is blatantly discriminatory, because if you can afford to fly to Australia you get Australian law but if you are too poor—if you are escaping repressive regimes where you have no means and you are so desperate to make the rush for asylum that you go in a leaky boat and take all those risks—then you do not get the protection of Australian law. What is fair about that? How does the government justify that? You could understand it if it had a consistent position. It does not. It is a reactive position. That is why we are in this mess today. The effect of this legislation is to put the kids back behind razor wire. Australian law, which now prevents it, is inoperative. The laws of other countries will apply. All of those so-called ‘softenings’ of the legislation—the assurances from Minister Amanda Vanstone about this harsh legislation, assurances that they have had to give to try and placate those on the other side of this chamber to prevent them from crossing the floor—are no substitute for retaining control of the situation ourselves. How can they be? If you believe in humane treatment, then use your own laws to ensure it. Do not shift the responsibility and abrogate the control. This bill loses that control. In so doing, this country loses its compassion and its obligation to protect the rights of refugees. This is a bill which appeases Indonesia at the expense of people fleeing persecution. Australia should not change or, in this case, abrogate its laws just to please Indonesia or, for that matter, any other country. Last year we saw some welcome changes to immigration policy by the government. Those changes brought the government’s policy closer to that which Labor had been advocating for many years beforehand. We wanted the government to go further last year but, as far as they went, we supported the changes. Last year, led by John Howard, they agreed that children would no longer be placed in detention, that indefinite detention would cease and case managed mental health care would be introduced, and that the Commonwealth Ombudsman would also become the Immigration Ombudsman and gain independent oversight of people in detention. They were important concessions. They dealt with concerns which were eventually—and I say ‘eventually’—raised by people in the Liberal Party. This bill reverses all of those reforms. If asylum seekers are to be sent offshore to centres such as Nauru, this bill reverses all of those reforms. That is the broken word I talked of earlier. Asylum seekers will be out of the reach of Australian law if they arrive by boat. If the bill passes, once again children will be in detention; they will be behind razor wire. No wonder there is disquiet in the government ranks. No wonder they want to gag this bill. Razor wire and detention is no place for children, as Australian law now acknowledges. This bill denies that protection. Our fundamental position is that if asylum seekers land in Australia, they should be assessed under Australian law as it now stands and which we want to further amend. If they are found on the high seas escaping an alleged place of persecution, they should be taken to Christmas Island for assessment. I want to take the opportunity to point out the efforts Labor has consistently made to get reforms in this very important area. On Australia Day 2002 in my first major speech as Leader of the Opposition, I spoke of the riches that migrants to this country had brought us: economic, social and cultural. I believe fundamentally in multiculturalism in this country. I believe it has made Australia a greater place. I said that Australia had successfully settled millions of people, rich and poor, and refugees, while becoming a diverse but united and peaceful people. This immigration policy, I might add, has essentially always had bipartisan support. It needs it in a country such as ours. That bipartisanship gave us the confidence to build a diverse, tolerant and harmonious nation: a country that we could be proud of; a country that was looked to and held up as an example overseas. That bipartisanship was shattered under the leadership of John Howard. He trashed the bipartisanship in this country. Think about it: no other Liberal leader in this country has done that—not Menzies, not Fraser, not Peacock and not Hewson. And remember this: it was John Howard who lost the Liberal leadership in 1989 because of his anti-Asian remarks. That bipartisanship has essentially been trashed under his leadership, and this bill is in part a reflection of that fact. Following the Australia Day call to get the kids out from behind the razor wire, in February of that same year I called for a number of measures, including bringing detention centres back under government control, not the privatised rabble that we have seen in existence under this government. I called for the closure of the Woomera detention centre and for media access to detention centres to be allowed. In April 2002, we opposed, as I have said before, the original excision bill which excised parts of Australia’s territory from the migration zone. That was when we heard the Prime Minister’s ‘ludicrous’ statement. In June of that year I reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to strong border protection but pointed out the futility of protecting our borders by handing them over or surrendering them. That is what we are doing further today. In December 2002 we moved amendments to the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill to get the children out from behind the razor wire. Subsequently the member for Gellibrand moved a private member’s bill to get the children out before Christmas. All these attempts in parliament failed—all of the attempts that we proposed. Not one member from the government side supported any of those humane and sensible solutions. In policy development in a broader sense, Labor worked through 2002 to get the balance right—the balance between protecting our borders but responding in a human, compassionate way to genuine refugees. In December 2002 the then shadow minister for immigration, Julia Gillard, and I, as leader, announced a series of measures to protect our borders while treating asylum seekers with decency, respect, compassion and in a timely way. We believed then and we believe now that treating them decently does not come at the expense of national security. We proposed abolishing the so-called Pacific solution—a costly and unsustainable failure. This bill is a complete antithesis of the positive, constructive and humane proposals that Labor has advanced over a number of years. It seeks to legislate away a problem by creating a legal fiction: excising Australia from Australia by pretending that for asylum seekers Australia does not exist—terra incognita indeed. This is a foolish nonsense. It is worse than that though. It is a vindictive and vicious measure to take against unfortunate and desperate people. It does nothing to secure our borders and returns to the government’s old policy of deterrence and punishment based on fear. It is a bill that should be opposed. 23 10:53:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —Labor will be opposing the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 for many reasons, many of which have already been articulated by colleagues both on this side and the other side of the House. This bill proposes to amend the Migration Act 1958 to effectively excise the Australian mainland and Tasmania from Australia’s migration zone for people arriving by sea without a visa. The so-called designated unauthorised arrivals may be removed to a declared country outside Australia for processing of any claims that they are owed refugee protection under the refugee convention as amended by the refugees protocol. The government has indicated at this time that Nauru will be used as the declared country with Manus Island and Christmas Island as contingency locations. Asylum seekers would be prohibited under this law from instigating any legal or appeal proceedings in Australia following any determination of their protection claims. To excise the Australian mainland and Tasmania from Australia’s migration law is an absolutely ludicrous and flawed proposal. We know that, for the purposes of Australian migration law, there are islands off northern Australia which have already been excised so that if asylum seekers arrive on those islands, they do not have access to Australian migration laws. After those excision laws were passed in this parliament there were only two islands left: Tasmania and the mainland. This legislation excises those two final islands from Australia’s migration law. What this means is that if an asylum seeker reaches our country by boat without a visa then they will be declared as not being on Australian soil for the purpose of the migration laws. They will be shipped off to Nauru, a country which, coincidentally, is not a signatory to the 1951 convention on refugees. What this means is that these asylum seekers who have come in leaky boats, in canoes and by whatever means they have in fleeing from their country of origin will find themselves, on reaching Australia, shipped off to Nauru and processed there under the international conventions. The background to this is that on 18 January 2006, 43 West Papuan asylum seekers arrived on the Australian mainland. These asylum seekers feared for their lives and the lives of their children. They spent four weeks in canoes in the ocean between West Papua and Australia. They risked their lives coming here. We can only imagine what they feared back in their own country. They put their own children at risk, putting them into canoes to flee what they feared in their own country. Can you imagine, as a parent, putting your child at that kind of risk? As a parent, I cannot imagine what desperation would cause me to do that but there was that desperation for these 43 West Papuans. The decision was made fairly early this year that 42 of those asylum seekers were found to be refugees and were granted asylum. Just last month the 43rd asylum seeker had his refugee status approved. At this time the Indonesians were unhappy with Australia. They believed that the 43 West Papuans did not face persecution and believed that Australia should send them back to Indonesia, notwithstanding Australian law and Australian migration law processes. The Indonesians withdrew their ambassador from our country. What did our government do? The Prime Minister could have explained our system of migration to the Indonesian President. He could have explained the way that our processes work and explained that the fact that these 43 West Papuans seeking asylum were granted refugee status did not mean that the Australian government agreed with the ideological position that these 43 people have taken in West Papua. The Prime Minister did not do that. He could have gone through those conversations with the President of Indonesia and explained those processes rather than taking a knee-jerk reaction in proposing this legislation that we have before us today. If we take a step back, last year, as has been explained here before, we had a group of government members who were concerned about the immigration processes in relation to asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat without visas. They were also concerned about the processes of detention in this country and, along with Labor, forced changes to the migration laws, particularly in relation to children. They forced changes so that we would no longer see children arriving in this country by boat placed in detention behind razor wire when they were found to be asylum seekers. They made changes to the length of time people could be kept in detention, which led to the effective abolition of indefinite detention of asylum seekers. We saw the introduction of case managed mental health care, a major recommendation which came out of the Cornelia Rau inquiry as well. We have all seen the examples of how an individual’s mental health suffers while being in detention for an indefinite period. We also now have the fact that the Ombudsman is also the Immigration Ombudsman and that the system can be overseen by that person. This legislation overturns all of those changes. Australian law only applies in Australia. Australian law does not apply in Nauru. While we saw Australian law changed or softened around the edges last year, that law cannot be applied in Nauru, so we are going to have, for example, children being locked up in detention behind razor wire. We are going to have people’s mental health affected. We are going to have a system where people may be held indefinitely in detention. A point that also needs to be made is that, under this legislation, an asylum seeker arrives in Australia and Australia ships that individual off to Nauru and locks that individual up. If under the UN processes that individual is found to be a refugee, they can still languish in detention in Nauru until a third country decides to take that particular individual so that that person can get on with their life. There is no time frame for that detention, even if the person is found to be a refugee. Indeed, it was reported in June that the member for Pearce reminded her colleagues at a party room meeting that, at the time that they were discussing this bill, it had been 12 months since their party room had agreed to those changes that I have already listed. A lot of people in this place, on both sides, would agree that children should not be held in detention behind razor wire for any reason at all. There is no reason that anybody could conceivably understand as a good reason for that to happen. There has been a recently published report called Seeking asylum alone, by Associate Professor Mary Crock of the University of Sydney. It found a significant increase in the number of child asylum seekers who arrived in Australia without a parent or guardian in the last few years. Between 2000 and 2002 there were 197 children travelling to Australia seeking asylum alone, of whom 154 have been found to be refugees and granted asylum. However, as recently as February this year 56 of these young people remained in immigration detention. Adele Horin’s opening paragraph in last Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald illustrates this. She says: They were smuggled out in the dead of night in the backs of trucks under hay or bags of flour. They were children from Afghanistan whose relatives were desperate to save them from the fate of older brothers or fathers, killed or kidnapped by the Taliban. Most of the children had no say in the decision, did not know where they were going, and had never heard of Australia. What is it that could possibly drive a young person from the security and comforts of home to undertake a perilous journey through strife-torn countries and across the water in vessels of questionable seaworthiness? If you think about this as a parent, as a human being, it is beyond the imagination of most of us Australians, who really take the comforts we have very much for granted. The case of Sayed Reza Moussawi, who was interviewed on Radio National’s Law Report on Tuesday of this week, is telling. Reza left Afghanistan unaccompanied as a 14-year-old. His brother was kidnapped and murdered, his bloodied body dumped on the front door of his family home almost three weeks after his abduction. Following his brother’s brutal murder by the Taliban, inquiries were made around Reza’s community as to whether there was another son in the household. Reza recounted what his dad said to him: My Dad turned his face to me and he started crying. I saw the tears in his eyes, and he said, ‘Reza you should leave Afghanistan because your life is in danger, and I don’t want you to be killed like your brother and in front of us like a kind of a sheep or a horse or goats’. Reza’s father insisted that he flee. Can you imagine the pain and torture a parent would experience in sending their adored child away, with only hope that they may be given a chance of survival better than the one they have at home? I remind the House that yesterday Australia committed further troops to Afghanistan to keep the Taliban at bay. We obviously recognise that this terrorist organisation is determined to kidnap and murder, and yet the government does not understand that it is not right to treat those victims who have fled this regime and its remnants as animals, leaving them to languish in detention for indefinite periods. Upon his arrival in Australia after a harrowing journey in which the 14-year-old Reza was exhausted and sick, he was questioned by the authorities. He was petrified. He had fled a country where authority is to be feared with one’s life. Reza did not understand what was happening at first but was granted his freedom after 45 days in a detention centre. Whilst 45 days may not sound like an extended period, we must remember that Reza was still an unaccompanied child. He describes the detention centre as ‘a horrible place for all the immigrants and especially unaccompanied people and for the children’. In her report, Associate Professor Mary Crock describes where Australia’s treatment of refugees in immigration detention continues to be inadequate and she makes it clear that the passage of this legislation will make things much worse. Unaccompanied children are not provided with any effective support while awaiting the determination of their applications for asylum. Under the measures proposed in this legislation, which is abhorrent to Australia’s obligations under international law, they will not even have the slim protections available to them under Australian law. This legislation proposes to send these asylum seekers offshore to places like Nauru to languish until their applications are processed. Mary Crock’s report found that unaccompanied children detained in Australian immigration centres were identified and placed in separate compounds with families. However, the report made the important point that such niceties were not extended to those children detained in Nauru and that they were treated as adults. It must be noted that, of those unaccompanied children detained within Australia, either they were all granted visas or their status was resolved. But, according to statistics provided to Mary Crock’s report by the International Organisation for Migration, of the 55 unaccompanied young people who arrived in Nauru, 32 were returned to the ravages of Afghanistan. This underscores the point that those seeking asylum who will be transhipped out to Nauru like freight by the Australian government under the measures proposed in this legislation will not have the protections of Australian law. I would like to get some figures into perspective. Asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 2003-04 were approximately 1.5 per cent of the total number of so-called unauthorised arrivals, the rest of them arriving by aeroplane. The so-called unauthorised boat arrivals in the last four years, as has been indicated by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs herself, represented only three or four per cent of the total unauthorised arrivals. In recent history, 2001 represented the highest number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. In that year, 12,355 claims for asylum were lodged by individuals already in Australia, while 4,137 asylum seekers arrived by boat—only one-quarter of the total number of asylum seekers that year. To add to those figures, almost 70 per cent of the 1,547 people intercepted between August and December 2001 and assessed offshore under the Pacific solution turned out to be genuine refugees. Add to that again the total of 130 Afghans on the Tampa who were given immediate sanctuary by New Zealand and the approval rate for refugee status rose to 71.1 per cent. I congratulate all the speakers in this debate who are opposing this legislation who have brought their personal, humane values and principles to this discussion, including the member for Pearce, the member for Cook, the member for Kooyong and the member for McMillan. These people have stood up against fierce bullying within the Liberal Party and we saw an example of that this morning by the member for O’Connor, who is renowned for his bullying tactics. It has been fierce bullying. These members of parliament have bravely, humanely and with principle stood up against it. I encourage them to further support their comments in this discussion by voting with Labor, voting against the bill. Do not be bullied by your leader; do not be bullied by the Prime Minister when he says you need to abstain from this vote, not vote against it. To further support the statements that you have made publicly and in this place you need to cross the floor, leave the Liberal-National Party coalition, vote with Labor and oppose this abhorrent legislation that will end in tragedy for many families who come to our country seeking asylum. It must be opposed, it must be defeated and that can happen in the Senate and, hopefully, it will. 26 11:13:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 0 Mr TOLLNER —Thank you to members opposite for persevering with me this morning. I know that we have a line-up of people who want to speak and I want to thank members opposite for allowing me this opportunity to stand up. As most people in this place would know, I am a pretty simple country boy at heart. I do not profess to be a moral crusader or to have any sort of monopoly on moral or ethical thought, but I find this debate on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 interesting, as I do the way it is panning out. People talk about compassion for people who arrive in this country illegally. People obviously have different views on what is the right moral position to take on these matters. I enormously respect the member for Cook, the member for Pearce, the member for Kooyong and the member for McMillan for having the strength of their convictions. They have obviously put a lot of time and effort into pondering this bill and they have been very public about their views on it. I note, reading the front page of today’s Australian, that they are out there telling people exactly what they think about this legislation. I do not share their views on the legislation, but I do admire their strength of conviction and their character in doing that. But when I go around my electorate, those in it wonder what all this is about and why there is so much opposition to this sort of stuff. We in Darwin are at the leading edge of illegal boat arrivals in Australia—there is no doubt about it. I remember that some years ago, when I first arrived in the Territory, they were a regular occurrence: people lobbing onto our beaches and looking around for taxis to find their way to the nearest police station so that they could hand themselves over to the authorities and involve themselves in long, drawn out legal processes, which inevitably led to their permanent entry into Australia. That has changed in the last 10 years. We do not have people lobbing onto our beaches like we used to and I think the majority of people in my electorate are happy that is the case. Darwin is of course a multicultural city. People who have turned up from other countries and settled in Darwin have done it the hard way. They have done all of the processing correctly and they have come in the front door, and I tend to think that they are a little bit peeved and miffed that there is a debate going on that would allow some relaxation in respect of people who come to this country in unauthorised and illegal manners. I look at that issue in respect of my electorate and I see that is the view of my constituents. I wonder what the members on the other side are saying to their constituents and how they are selling this line. Does the member for Lilley tell his constituents in Sandgate and Shorncliffe, as they have beaches there, that boat people could be lobbing onto their beaches and wandering around their streets, looking for the authorities, trying to find somewhere to hand themselves in? What does the member for the wonderful multicultural electorate of Watson tell his constituents who went through all of the processes and came here legitimately and are worthwhile and wonderful members of the Australian community? Does he tell them that he is trying to make it easier for people who want to get here illegally? Does he tell them about the examples that we see in England, where they have got 60,000 unauthorised arrivals? They have no idea whom these 60,000 people are, where they have come from, how they intend to make them fit into the country, whether these people are criminals, whether they have criminal backgrounds, whether they are carrying diseases and whether they have gone through various health checks. Does the member for Brand tell his constituents that there is a possibility that if we continue to further relax immigration laws we will see people coming down between the coast and Garden Island in his electorate and landing at Point Peron, Becher Point and Golden Bay? Does he tell his multicultural constituents, people who have come here legally, that this is what his goal is, or does he—like other members—hide behind the skirt of the member for Pearce? Do these members just stand there and watch the member for Pearce, the member for Cook, the member for Kooyong and the member for McMillan take all the heat in this debate? Do they stand there and laugh at them? The greatest dog whistler that we have in this parliament is the member for Brand. I am sure that what he says to his backbench and his party is something completely different from what he says to the constituents of Brand. Does he actually tell them that he is going to sit there and hide behind the skirt of the member for Pearce and try to water down our immigration laws? I think not. The point that I want to make this morning is that I find it quite reprehensible that members opposite sit there and hide behind the courage and conviction of the members for Cook, Pearce, Kooyong and McMillan. It is an appalling situation. I will be waiting to see the division on this legislation, because they will all be sitting there whistling and saying, ‘Come on! Come over to our side!’ yet none of them have the courage of their convictions to go out into their electorates and tell them exactly where the Labor Party is coming from on this issue: that they want to water down our immigration laws, that they have absolutely no compassion whatsoever for the millions and millions of refugees around the world who want to come to this country in a legitimate way and that they are all there to support illegal smugglers and illegal immigrants. We do not hear any of that from the other side, and to me that is the sorry part of this whole debate. 28 11:21:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —I would like to point out to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that the Australian Labor Party does not support any smuggling of people anywhere in the world and we do not support the weakening of our immigration laws in any way. Forty-three people in a leaky canoe—this is what this legislation is about. It is about 43 people from Papua in a leaky canoe fleeing persecution, landing in Australia and the government getting out its 10-tonne hammer to crack a nut. This legislation is a farce. What sort of invasion is this? How much of a threat are a few terrified people in a canoe? Time passes and the memory of this event is supposed to have faded since the autumn sittings of parliament. But I doubt it has. Accounts of returned Afghanis are now coming through. How many of them survived their repatriation? It seems they have been sent back to an unstable and dangerous land where the war still rages and the Taliban are beginning to make themselves felt again. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 can mean children in detention again. Indefinite detention will return. Case managed mental health care is over. The Commonwealth Immigration Ombudsman will also lose oversight of asylum seekers when they are sent to a remote foreign island for processing. Earlier this year the government did the right thing in issuing more than 40 protective visas to asylum seekers from Papua. The visas were issued on the grounds that these individuals had a well-founded fear of persecution. When the government made this decision, we on this side congratulated them on it. This latest legislation, if it is passed, will guarantee that the government will never again treat asylum seekers with the decency that they saw earlier this year. The bill means that if in future people fleeing persecution arrive on Australia’s mainland in a canoe, they will be sent to Nauru to be processed and Australia will act as though it has no obligations. Under this proposal, children will be in detention again. We will see indefinite detention come back. Case managed health care will be stopped. The Commonwealth Immigration Ombudsman will also lose oversight of asylum seekers when they are sent to a remote foreign island for processing. The latest idea to come to light has this government suggesting we accommodate the would-be asylum seekers in prison hulks before they are processed. That would really be offshore! My ancestors were convicts and spent time in those miserable, rat-infested prison hulks on the Thames before they came to this country. Are we going back to those days? What exactly are we trying to achieve by punishing those who believe that Australia is a safe and decent place to aspire to live in? There is no way of amending this bill to make it just. If one government senator crosses the floor in parliament and votes with Labor in opposing this bill, it can be stopped. This issue should be above politics. If this goes through, it means that anyone who comes to Australia’s shores by boat, ship, canoe, sailboard or bathtub—anything that floats on water—will not be deemed to be in Australia. Suddenly we have no boundaries—if they do not have papers, they have not arrived in Australia. What if someone gives birth and that baby is deposited on Australian soil? What country are they in? It certainly would not be in the country of the mother’s birth; they may have been through several countries since then. It seems they are stateless and forever bound to spend their life in Nauru. They will have to go through the process of seeking assistance and be sent off to Nauru for processing. They are assessed by a single officer and if that person deems them not to be refugees, they can appeal to another officer—once again one person—and then that is it. If there is no sympathy there, they are off to Nauru to try and find another country to take them. This virtually means anyone arriving by sea without papers has little or no chance of gaining asylum in Australia, whether they are eligible or not. What about the visiting ships? Or luxury yachts? Are they going to be banged up in a prison hulk or asylum camp just for daring to cross the country’s sea boundaries and set foot on Australian soil somewhere? It starts becoming a nonsense when you think of it like that. More potential illegal immigrants come to this country by air than by any other way. They go through the normal processes of visas, false or real, and walk happily off aeroplanes all round the country. Is this the way we want them to turn up instead? It just means we get the rich illegal immigrants, not the poor ones, who really are the asylum seekers fleeing persecution, with only the clothes on their back and a few trinkets of memories. With this legislation I get the feeling I am living in a country run by the Red Queen out of Alice in Wonderland. You know what she used to say? She said, ‘Off with his head, off with his head’, when someone displeased her. So if whoever it is does not approve of this legislation or disagrees with our leaders, and it annoys the leaders that there is dissent, then their views are dismissed summarily. ‘We cannot possibly be wrong,’ seems to be the sentiment here. The arrogance of this government comes through. Yet there are many on the government side of the House, as well as in the opposition, who are concerned about this legislation. These people do not believe it right to lock up women and children. They believe that we should have a firm but just and fair process for all who seek to come here by whatever means. Whatever happened to the tenet that all are innocent unless proven guilty? It is a sad world in which we are making our own citizens suspicious of all other citizens of other nations. We are all one people under the sun—all part of the human race—and we do not have the right to subject them to this undoubted persecution. The introduction of this bill appears to demonstrate that our refugee laws are being determined and rewritten by a foreign state. This is not an initiative of the responsible department seeking to improve the quality of our asylum processes. There is no doubt that the proposed law is in direct response to Indonesian anger over the granting of protection visas to the 42 West Papuans. Australian law should not be enacted at the dictate of a country which itself falls significantly short of democratic and human rights standards yet rejects any criticism of its own justice system, particularly its criminal justice system. The introduction in this way of foreign policy considerations into an asylum determination process giving effect to Australia’s treaty obligations under the refugee convention will render these obligations meaningless in practice. As a member of this parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I find this extraordinarily stupid. We should be ensuring that we have some consistency in our approach to treaty making and are abiding by those that we have agreed to—otherwise, why do we bother to engage in this process? I do not believe this legislation is needed, nor should we support it. The next thing will be that Tasmania is annexed and becomes that ‘prison offshore island’—not much different from how it was in the 1800s when my ancestors finally arrived there at His Majesty’s pleasure. That experiment did not work. It did little to change the behaviour of many of the inmates; it only deprived them of their liberty and hope, which sent so many of them mad or even to an early grave. If we want migrants with skills to become part of our nation, we would be better off accepting some of these desperate people who want to learn from us and who want to work and improve life for their families and for communities of which they are a part. We are all capable of learning, and many of those people would be already halfway there with many skills. So why take temporary overseas workers when we can take people who really want to be here and be part of our communities? This legislation is to appease the Indonesian anger at the acceptance of some of their people who arrived by sea from West Papua. The argument is that they are refugees and they need to be assisted under the international obligations that the world accepts as due practice—for example, they are being persecuted and, if they return to their country, they will be harmed. Those are the grounds to grant them the status of refugees. Fortress Australia was never a way of solving the issue of boat people coming here. The work we do to help other countries improve the conditions of their people and their workers would be far more useful than trying to keep people out of Australia and, in doing so, wasting vast amounts of money. I oppose this legislation and reject the reasoning behind it. 30 11:32:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 1 0 Mr ENTSCH —I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006, coming, if you like, from the perspective of a member who represents a constituency in which all too often constituents find people basically knocking on their back doors. Those people have arrived in this country, unauthorised, through various means, walked up to constituents’ family homes and knocked on their doors in some of the most remote areas of Australia. By that I am talking about the western Cape York communities and in the Torres Strait. We had no idea who they were. They had no background checks and no health checks. It was not so many years ago that we actually had a vessel land at Holloways Beach in Cairns with quite a number of very well-dressed gentlemen from China, I think. They dispersed very quickly—some of them catching cabs and others racing to the railway station to buy tickets to disappear because they had bought a ticket over. What the member for Lyons said in the introduction to his contribution is actually quite correct. This debate is about 43 people in a leaky boat. The problem we have is that those 43 can very quickly become 430 or 4,300 because, even in this case, there were many lined up to come after if they had seen that these people had got a successful outcome. You can see no better example of that than what happened prior to the Tampa, where we started to see twos, threes, fours and fives turning up in places like the Torres Strait, in the member for Solomon’s electorate in the Northern Territory and those areas. Because of the system that we had, which was far more generous than anything that they could expect through any of the United Nations conventions, those couple of handfuls of people became literally thousands. Thousands arrived here but we have no idea of the number that did not—because, like those 43 I talked about and that the member for Lyons talked about earlier on, many of them were in leaky boats. Many of them were in boats that were totally unseaworthy. I can remember going to Christmas Island about the time when large numbers were arriving, and people in the Christmas Island community were complaining about the numbers of unidentified bodies that were being washed up because their vessels had sunk. It is very easy to sit back and attack the government and say that we are not compassionate, but I would challenge anybody that has that argument. By creating opportunities and expectations that people are going to get an outcome that they are not entitled to under normal circumstances, it encourages people to get into these leaky boats. Of course, we see many women and children perish as a result of it. I think that any action that we can take that will prevent people from making that decision and trying to bypass the system is something that we need to consider. I am elected to represent my constituency of Leichhardt, and the Leichhardt constituency extends to within three kilometres of the mainland of Papua New Guinea. My constituents on Saibai Island, Boigu Island, Dauan Island, Badu Island or in Aurukun in the Western Cape communities are no less important and no less significant to me as an elected representative, nor should they be any less important to the Australian government and the Australian people. They are Australian citizens and they have every right to be afforded the protection that we can give them and their families to ensure that they are not exposed to unnecessary risk. I wonder how many on the other side, who argue that we should be allowing these illegal migrants to come through these channels at will, would change their position if suddenly, in the middle of the night, they woke up, walked out and opened their front door and found a total stranger standing there, knowing that they had no health checks, no migration checks and no background checks. We have had them come through the Torres Strait, where we discovered that they were special security guards for Saddam Hussein. These are the sorts of people who have come through. They have bought their way through and have been knocking on the door of my constituents. We have had people up there with tuberculosis and Japanese encephalitis. There is no screening and it puts a lot of Australians at risk. I believe we have a strong obligation to ensure that we protect, in the first instance, the rights of our Australian citizens. That is why we are elected to this place and I think that has to come first. For that reason, I am strongly supportive of any sort of measure that is likely to act as a serious deterrent to people coming through in this way. We have many people languishing in refugee camps around the world. We are a very generous taker of refugees—about 14,000, as I recall—including people from Sudan and places such as that. There are horrific stories. I am very proud to have Sudanese men in my community in Cairns. When you talk to them about their difficulties, it brings a tear to your eye. They could never have come and had the opportunities if we as Australians did not have the generosity of spirit that we have. I do believe we have to discourage people from taking risks by buying an outcome, particularly those coming from Papua New Guinea, through Irian Jaya, given that over the border they could have got asylum in Papua New Guinea. We have to take into consideration those Australians whose lives are impacted by this situation. So I strongly support this legislation. In closing, I would like to say that I respect the opinion of my colleagues the members for Pearce, Kooyong, McMillan and Cook. As a member of the Liberal Party, I think one of the great things is that we are able to have a different opinion and, while I totally disagree with their views, I respect their right to have that opinion and I admire their courage in standing up for their convictions. I support this bill. 32 11:41:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —I wish to speak in the strongest possible terms in opposition to the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. This government has a policy that is built on sand. It shifts with the wind, it shifts on the basis of what is in the political interest of the government in terms of its preparedness to promote fear, to promote hatred and to vilify some of the most vulnerable people in the global community. It is no way for this parliament to provide the leadership that we have been entrusted to provide by our respective communities. Last year, pressure from the Australian public forced the Howard government to make some minor changes to the Migration Act. These changes finally saw an end to the detention of children. The government committed Australia to processing asylum seekers within 90 days and they introduced the oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in cases of prolonged detention. These reforms were a very small step in the right direction. But now we have a case of one step forward, two steps back. Today this parliament is debating a bill that reduces us as a parliament and as a nation. This bill is based on a number of falsehoods. We just had the member for Leichhardt again introducing fear of diseased people and people who were Saddam Hussein’s bodyguards coming through on this basis. What is this about? It is about 43 people who were found to be genuine asylum seekers, the Indonesian government being upset by this decision and the Australian government saying that they were prepared to put the interests of the Indonesian government before the interests of the Australian people and before Australian sovereignty. In guillotining this bill, we have seen a government that is prepared to even silence Australian parliamentarians. This bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong in motivation. It cannot be improved by any amendments, so we are not moving any. I pay tribute to my colleague the member for Watson—who is here in the chamber—who has taken a principled stance and who has shown that, in taking a principled stance, we can appeal to people’s better nature. I think that the Australian people are essentially warm and generous people. We have taken people from countries all over the world and, with the exception of our Indigenous people, we must remember that all of us are migrants or the sons and daughters of migrants. Yet we have, because of 43 people, this promotion of fear and a bill that is prepared to excise the entire nation. You do not protect your borders by giving them up—and that is what this bill does. We need to put this into perspective. As of 28 April, there were 803 people in immigration detention in Australia—18 of them were unauthorised boat arrivals. During the first nine months of 2005 Australia received around 2,400 claims for asylum. This compares with 23,000 claims in Britain and 38,000 in France. The USA received 38,000 claims, but many times that number of people simply arrived in the USA without applying. During the past five years approximately 80,000 migrants and asylum seekers have reached the Italian peninsula by boat. More than 6½ thousand Africans have arrived, by sea, on the Canary Islands archipelago this year alone. The Australian government is removing our borders because of 43 asylum seekers whom it has found to be legitimate. This continues a campaign of fearmongering and vilification of asylum seekers. The Labor Party supports border protection but does not accept that excising the whole of Australia is an effective means of border protection. You do not deal with boat arrivals by pretending that you do not have sea borders or by pretending that, if you arrive by one particular mode of arrival—boat—you do not arrive in Australia at all. In a statement on 19 April the UNHCR expressed serious concerns about the Australian government’s announced changes to the processing of boat arrivals. It said: 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 bill is a disgraceful shirking of responsibility by Australia and it must be rejected. The Australian Labor Party rejects it. Australia’s 43 Catholic bishops have rejected it. As of 8 August 2006 almost 88,000 Australians had signed Get Up’s online petition rejecting the bill. I reject the bill as being fundamentally abhorrent to everything I believe in and all the reasons why I want to represent my electorate in this great parliament. The government would have us believe that these changes are small and the concessions great. The government would have us believe that the end justifies the means—that is, the temporary appeasement of Indonesia justifies the offshore detention of asylum seekers who have reached Australia by boat. We know that that is not the case. You cannot achieve peace by undermining human rights. If Australia’s relationship with Indonesia is built on such a flimsy foundation it is doomed to fail. I believe our relationship with Indonesia is much stronger than that. Our relationship with Indonesia needs to be built on mutual respect. I would like to quote Justice Michael Kirby: Every diminution of freedom takes us in the wrong direction. Every act of discrimination by our parliament and governments dishonours our nation. That is certainly the case with this bill. Our perspective on the 43 who arrived by boat is very different from our perspective on the majority of people who illegally arrive in Australia—who, of course, are on planes. Surely, that dichotomy is entirely inappropriate. As a result of this bill, asylum seekers arriving by boat will be processed by countries such as Nauru or PNG. The Pacific solution was created to deter the secondary movement of asylum seekers who, before they entered Australia, had bypassed other countries in which they could have sought asylum. We need to bear in mind that this whole thing is motivated by the 43 people from West Papua. I wonder what country they could have gone to between West Papua and Australia to seek asylum. The bill will affect everyone arriving by boat in Australia, even those who have arrived directly from a state in which they face persecution. The government argues that this is the next logical step—that people arriving on mainland Australia should be processed as if they had arrived on one of the currently excised areas. This argument is patently absurd. The government is trying to pretend that, if you seek asylum in Australia and arrive by sea, you never actually arrive in the nation. This bill also reaffirms the government’s commitment to prolonged detention. We all remember when the Pacific solution was established. We remember the Prime Minister’s grand statements that none of these people would ever set foot on the Australian mainland. We know that a majority of those people, considered under Australian law and UN conventions, were found to be legitimate asylum seekers. We know that, despite the Prime Minister’s rhetoric, many of them are now settled in Australia and making an outstanding contribution—as generations of migrants before them have done. But we know it was all about politics. Who were most of these people? Most of them were people fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan—an abhorrent, fundamentalist regime that persecuted Christians, women and people who questioned the regime—and the abhorrent regime of Saddam Hussein. These refugees are understandably confused that the Australian government says that these regimes are so abhorrent that we will risk the lives of the brave men and women of the Australian defence forces to combat those regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet those people who fought courageously for democratic change and human rights in those countries and were persecuted as a result arrive in freedom-loving Australia only to be locked up and sent away to Nauru for processing. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were so evil and yet we will persecute the victims of those very same regimes. Through this legislation the government has committed to providing migration assistance for asylum seekers at offshore processing centres, but a number of questions are raised. Who will provide the assistance? Will the migration agents be chosen by the government? If so, how will their independence be ensured? Will this assistance even be guaranteed? Will journalists and lawyers be given access to detainees in the centres? So far only one journalist has been allowed to visit, and that was in April 2005. Access is also a problem for the Ombudsman. Further, this bill gives asylum seekers arriving by boat no access to the Refugee Review Tribunal or to Australian courts for judicial review if their applications are refused. This bill not only physically removes Australia and its borders and excises the whole country; it also excises the values of our country. It excises our law. It excises our upholding of human rights. It excises our dignity. We know that wrong decisions can often be made on refugee status. Between 1993 and 2006 the Refugee Review Tribunal overturned 7,885 departmental decisions rejecting applications for asylum. This means that more than 7,885 refugees were not returned to countries in which they feared persecution when the department had previously refused them a protection visa. Just this week the Edmund Rice Centre released information concerning the subsequent death of asylum seekers that has resulted from bad decisions by the government in sending back asylum seekers who legitimately feared persecution in their country of origin. We know that there is a mental health aspect to this. We know about Cornelia Rau and the horrific circumstances of the failure in her case. But these failures have continued. On 22 May this year Dr Fiona Hawker, a very senior and highly respected psychiatrist who had been treating detainees at Baxter, revealed that at least six detainees who had been hospitalised with severe psychiatric conditions had been returned to detention against the specific advice of their treating psychiatrist. As a result they had to be returned to acute psychiatric care. This undermines the global framework of the 1951 refugee convention. Why was the refugee convention developed by the United Nations in the post-World War II period? It was because of the experience of Jewish citizens fleeing Nazi Germany and the other fascist persecutors in Europe. These Jewish refugees were pushed back offshore in their boats, in many cases sent back to their deaths. The world said: ‘Never again.’ By adopting the refugee convention the world said that humanity is better than that, that we are part of a global community and that we do have a responsibility to stop that occurring again. Of course, Nauru is not a signatory to the 1951 convention, which is one of the reasons why that country has been chosen to house detainees. Papua New Guinea is a signatory, but it has not passed domestic legislation implementing a refugee status determination. I watched with some amazement Minister Vanstone’s cold dismissal on television earlier this week of the allegations made by the Edmund Rice Centre. It is no wonder that there is not a single church organisation in this nation which is supporting this legislation. I say to Senator Fielding, who will have to consider his vote on this bill, that you are a representative of the Family First Party, not the ‘Australian Families First Party’, and kids being locked up behind barbed wire in what is essentially a prison camp on Nauru is just unacceptable in 2006, regardless of their origin, religion, race, gender or colour. It is simply unacceptable. Article 31 of the UN convention makes it very clear that asylum seekers arriving in a territory directly should not be penalised for their mode of arrival. It is no wonder the UN High Commissioner for Refugees stated on 14 May 2006: It’s a pretty dramatic solution to the situation ... They’re penalising people arriving in Australia by boat, as opposed to people who arrive by plane. Other countries deal with boat arrivals in much greater numbers than Australia. I will conclude my comments by saying that this is a test of this parliament and this government. It has been a test of the Australian Labor Party and we have risen to the occasion, and that is why we are rejecting this legislation. But we have to bear in mind how future generations will look at what we are doing here. The kids in the schools in my electorate who saw Ian and Janey Han Hwang taken out of Stanmore Public School have seen, at that level, the persecution that can occur. But to take children offshore and lock them up behind barbed wire is something that should be completely unacceptable to all Australians. We need a government that is prepared to promote hope over fear, and we need a government that is prepared to respect the human rights of all individuals. I urge the House to reject this abhorrent legislation. 35 12:01:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I support the view of the shadow minister for immigration, my good friend the honourable member for Watson, that this is a bad and unnecessary piece of legislation. I agree with you absolutely, member for Watson. The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 is also a piece of legislation that contradicts the government’s own statements last year after the debacle of the Cornelia Rau and the Vivian Solon affairs and after the Palmer inquiry into the administration of the immigration program that it was going to turn over a new leaf in policy and practice on the treatment of asylum seekers. It violates the agreement that the government came to with its own members, led by the honourable member for Kooyong. As the honourable member for Watson has said, we will be opposing this bill at every stage. I am pleased to see that some of the members opposite—the members for Kooyong, McMillan, Pearce and Cook—agree with us. I commend their adherence to principle on this matter and hope other coalition members and senators will also agree with us. Before examining the specific provisions of this bill, I would like to reflect on some of the events that brought it about. This bill is a reaction to the Indonesian government’s anger at the decision by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to recommend the granting of protection visas to 43 people from the Indonesian province of Papua, who arrived in Australia by boat in March. The arrival of these people created a difficult situation for Australia. Indonesia is one of our most important regional neighbours and a vital partner in the war against terrorism in our region. Indonesia’s national sentiment is strongly opposed to separatism in Papua, and some Indonesians suspect that Australia is conniving to detach Papua from Indonesia. Australia is clear that we respect the territorial integrity of Indonesia and that we do not support Papuan separatism. Now that Indonesia is a democracy, in which the rule of law and respect for human rights are being established—I am not saying that they are fully established, but great progress has been made—I do not believe that there is a case for separatism in Papua. In fact, the evidence of last year’s free election in Indonesia is that the majority of people in Papua do not support separatism. It is true that violations of human rights are still taking place in Papua, but I do not believe that the solution to this problem lies in support for an independent Papuan state. As the recent peace agreement in Aceh shows, the Indonesian government is willing to come to agreements with separatist forces in the outlying regions of Indonesia, and I commend both sides in Aceh on that settlement. I think Australia’s policy should be what it has been for a long time, particularly set out by the member for Griffith: to encourage a similar agreement on a ‘special autonomy’ status for Papua within Indonesia. Nevertheless, so long as there is separatist agitation and repression in Papua, Australia will have to deal with the problem of small numbers of Papuans seeking to come to this country. The 43 people who came to Australia earlier this year were judged by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to be people genuinely in need of protection, and they were duly granted visas. As the honourable member for Watson has pointed out, Labor did not take a position on whether or not these people were genuine refugees. That was a matter to be determined by the department in following the correct procedures, and that is what happened. If the decision was made by two junior officers, that is a reflection on the competence of ministerial arrangements. The displeasure of the Indonesian government should have been anticipated. Now that Indonesia is a democracy, Indonesia’s governments have to respond to domestic political pressure just as we do—just as all democratic governments do. President Yudhoyono responded to nationalist anger in Indonesia by withdrawing his ambassador to Canberra. This was unfortunate, but I think the correct response for the Australian government was to continue with patient explanation of Australia’s position—that Australia does not support Papuan separatism, that Australia supports the strengthening of human rights in Indonesia, including Papua, and that Australia supports a negotiated autonomy agreement in Papua along the lines of the one in Aceh. The government should also have defended its own immigration policies and the integrity of its own immigration department. It should have said that the 43 Papuans were not judged by politicians but by an independent process based on objective criteria. That would not have satisfied the more outspoken anti-Australian elements in Indonesia, some of whom have a broader anti-Western agenda, but it would have eventually satisfied the Indonesian government, which is an essentially moderate government trying to carry through extensive reform programs in its own country and which has no desire to have pointless disputes with its neighbours, particularly neighbours such as Australia, which is so well disposed towards Indonesia. But what did this government do instead? It reacted in a blind panic, determined to ensure that no further asylum seekers from Papua would be allowed into Australia under any circumstances. In reacting in this way, the government has trashed its own procedures, repudiated its own public servants, undermined the process of reform in the immigration department and broken the undertakings it gave last year to implement the recommendations of the Palmer inquiry, in both letter and spirit. No wonder the government’s own backbenchers, who thought they had the Prime Minister’s word on this, are so angry. It is notable that this bill did not have its origin in the immigration department. It emerged from a meeting of the cabinet National Security Committee. In other words, it is a bill designed to fix a foreign policy problem, rather than a bill designed to improve our immigration system. Once again, as it did in 2001 at the time of the Tampa episode, this government has dealt with an immigration issue with a quick political fix rather than with a coherent policy. At the time of the Palmer inquiry, after the shameful treatment of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon were revealed, we were promised that immigration decisions would no longer be made on the basis of crude politics. Now we can see how long that promise has lasted—less than a year. It is hard to see how this legislation has any rationale other than as a quick fix for a political problem. The Papuans who came to Australia in March were not brought here by people smugglers. There is no evidence of an organised attempt to gatecrash our immigration system as there was in the 1990s. In recent years the situation in Afghanistan has become more settled and, as a result of improved cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in cracking down on people-smuggling operations, there have been many fewer attempts to bring people to Australia illegally by boat. The most deplorable aspect of this bill is that it revives the discredited Pacific solution. All unauthorised arrivals by sea will now be dispatched automatically to Nauru, where they will have to stay while their claims are assessed. Even if they are found to be genuine refugees they will have to stay in Nauru until a third country is found that will accept them. Maybe a third country will be found but no other country is obliged to accept asylum seekers that Australia has refused to accept. The government says that such people will only be dispatched to places were their safety and wellbeing can be protected, but Australian law does not apply in foreign countries. We cannot really guarantee that asylum seekers sent to Nauru or any other place outside Australia will be properly treated. I am sure those managing the detention centre in Nauru will do their best—although events in the past give us cause to doubt even that—but Nauru is a very small island with a small population and many problems of its own. It has a tropical climate, an acute shortage of water and very limited amenities. With all the goodwill in the world, prolonged detention there cannot be but psychologically harmful, especially for families with children but also for single people separated from families. Last year the honourable member for Kooyong and his colleagues ended their rebellion on the basis of four promises from the Prime Minister. These were: an end to indefinite detention; an end to detention of children, except as a last resort; more attention to the mental health of detainees; independent oversight of detention arrangements by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Now we discover that these concessions were phoney concessions because they only applied in Australia, not to the offshore detention centres, which the government is now reviving as receptacles for all the unauthorised arrivals by sea. Under this bill we once again have de facto indefinite detention, because even genuine refugees will be stuck on Nauru until third countries agree to take them on. Under this bill children can once again be detained. They can be detained on Nauru indefinitely. Under this bill detained people will once again be denied adequate mental health care, which is impossible to provide on Nauru, an environment almost guaranteed to cause mental health problems. Under this bill detainees will be 5,000 kilometres from the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who will need a Nauruan visa even to visit the people he is supposed to be protecting, and who will be operating in a country where Australian law does not apply. This bill is a disgrace to Australia and a disgrace to this government. It is an attempt to fix a foreign policy problem at the expense of vulnerable and friendless people. I think anyone who knows my record knows that I am in favour of good relations with Indonesia. Indeed, I have written many articles in the Jakarta Post arguing for good relations between our two countries. I am in favour of any reasonable steps to reassure Indonesia that Australia respects Indonesia’s territorial integrity and does not support separatism. But this bill is wrong, unprincipled and unnecessary. The spectacle of this government reneging on its promises and undertakings from last year and returning to the failed policies of the past—and all because of 43 Papuans in a canoe—is a truly shameful one. I hope there are enough coalition senators with a conscience who will share the scruples of the honourable member for Kooyong and his colleagues, and who will defeat this bill in the Senate. They will have the thanks of the Australian people if they do so. 38 12:11:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 excises the Australian mainland and Tasmania from the Australian migration zone for people arriving by boat without a visa. Nauru will be used to detain asylum seekers, and asylum seekers arriving by boat will have no access to legal or appeal proceedings in Australia. I think that is rather horrendous. Australia’s history in relation to refugees and asylum seekers has been somewhat sullied over the last few years, and I think it is very important to look at who asylum seekers are and why they are seeking asylum on our shores. For a start, asylum seekers are men, women and children who have the same feelings and needs that we do. They are people who have been subjected to the most horrendous conditions: war, and many forms of torture. They face death and persecution on a daily basis. That they hop into leaky boats and come across the seas to Australia shows just how desperate they are. They are not criminals. They are not people who are trying to circumvent systems. They are people with real needs who are suffering. They come to Australia in this way as a last resort. Unfortunately, the Howard government’s record in this area is something that is less than we, as a nation, can boast about. They have politicised the whole process—something that previous governments had moved away from. There is always political gain to be made in blaming victims, particularly in this area. Previous governments have recognised the need to work together to provide asylum to people who come to our country seeking solace. This government has been very inept in the way that it has addressed the issue of asylum seekers and, as I mentioned, has politicised it at every level. The government’s 2001 election strategy revolved around the Tampa. The government is on the record as publicising the event where women and children jumped from a boat to save their lives by saying they were thrown overboard. They have vilified asylum seekers and refugees in a way that would make Goebbels blush. To be quite honest, I see asylum seekers and refugees as some of the most vulnerable people in the world. I am very ashamed to have been part of a parliament that has adopted this approach. We have a fairly interesting history when it comes to refugees. The first people of English descent who came to Australia were refugees from the prison system in the UK. From 1838-39, hundreds of German Lutherans came to Australia. From 1938-39, there were 6,500 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. From 1941-45, we had thousands of Asians fleeing Japanese aggression. From 1945-53, 170,000 European victims of war and oppression came to Australia. In 1975, there were 1,800 East Timorese, following the Indonesian invasion. From 1975-85, there were 95,000 Vietnamese refugees. There was concern in the community at that time, but the approach by the government and opposition of the day was very different from the approach that we have seen under the Howard government. That was a time when people came in boats to Australia and Australia recognised their needs, embraced them and took them into our society. And some of those refugees are some of the most successful people in Australia today. In 1989, we had 20,000 Chinese students who were permitted to stay after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In 1999, we had the 4,000 Kosovo refugees who were given temporary sanctuary in Australia and whom we have spoken about in some detail in the past. I feel that as a nation we have suffered because of the Howard government’s actions. We have been a compassionate nation in the past, but this will be seen as a very dark era in our history. History will judge the Howard government’s actions in this area very poorly. I will go to the main points of the debate. We should not be appeasing Indonesia. That is exactly what this legislation is about: appeasing Indonesia. We should respect Indonesia. Indonesia is one of the countries that are very important to Australia. It is a country that we need to have a strong relationship with, but that relationship should be equal; it should not be subservient. This legislation, I believe, found its roots in the fact that 43 Papuans arrived in Australia on 18 January this year by sea, and 42 of those were later found to be refugees. In response to the immigration department’s decision to grant visas to the 42 Papuans, the Indonesian government promptly withdrew its ambassador from Australia. Following this, the Australian government released the proposed legislation being debated today. We are an independent nation. We need to look at these issues on a basis that is in line with our culture, our laws and our history. We should not be adopting the approach that we have in this legislation. It is a very short-term approach that fixes a diplomatic, foreign affairs situation, rather than a long-term approach—one that is considered, will benefit Australia and will raise our standing in the world and our recognition as a nation. Our immigration policy should be based on Australia’s interests and obligations to international law. Our immigration policy should not be based on appeasing Indonesia. Labor will not support a policy motivated by this at the expense of fulfilling our international obligations and humanitarian responsibilities. That is why we are not supporting this legislation. We realise we have international obligations. We realise that there are humanitarian responsibilities. We know who those asylum seekers are and we know the issues that have forced them to flee their countries. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should have the right to access the same Australian legal system as asylum seekers who arrive by other means. Just because you come into Australia on a plane does not mean that you should be treated differently to asylum seekers who hop into leaking boats and are so desperate that they are prepared to come to Australia in that way. Asylum seekers on Nauru will not have access to the Australian legal system provided to asylum seekers detained at our airports or to people who come to Australia on another visa, overstay the visa and apply for asylum once they are here. Asylum seekers who arrive by boat should not be punished and discriminated against. Members on the other side of the chamber have talked about people who come on boats as queuejumpers. I do not accept that in any shape or form. If I was in a situation where I was as desperate as many of these people who are hopping on those leaking boats are, I would do exactly the same. Do not tell me that a person who arrives at an airport and seeks to circumvent the process deserves to be treated any differently. That is a non-argument. Labor believes all asylum seekers should have the right to access Australian appeal processes, the Refugee Review Tribunal and Australian judicial review. To deny this is to deny basic human rights. Women and children should not be put in detention. The government recognised last year that children should not be kept in detention, and legislated accordingly. At the time, I would have liked the government to have gone a little bit further. There were some issues that I did not think had been addressed fully, surrounding the impact of detention on mental health and the ability of somebody in detention to know that they need to have an independent medical assessment. But, in comparison to this legislation, the previous legislation was a golden piece. A little over 12 months ago, in that legislation, we moved that children be removed from behind barbed wire. Here we are, 14 months later, putting them back again. Every single piece of information that I have read on the impact that keeping children in detention has on their psychological wellbeing and their development is negative. I do not know how a government can legislate to treat children in this fashion. These children will be crippled by the time they are released from detention. They will not be allowed to develop in the same way as the young people who are in the gallery today. They will not learn in the same way. When and if they are released, they will not be able to be integrated into our society in the way that we would like them to be or that they would like to be. The Howard government has gone back on a promise. This legislation will once again condemn children to live behind barbed wire, to indefinite detention and denial of basic civil liberties. In 2004 a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry into children in immigration detention centres found that the government’s policy of detaining children: ... failed to protect the mental health of children, failed to provide adequate health care and education and failed to protect unaccompanied children and those with disabilities. Detention is no place for child. They are not criminals; they have not done anything wrong. The government have acknowledged that in the past but now, to appease Indonesia, they will once again immorally detain children. I will not support policy that denies basic human rights and liberty to children. This legislation amendment means that asylum seekers will, once again, be sent to languish in limbo, indefinitely, on Nauru. Under the new policy, asylum seekers granted refugee status on Nauru cannot automatically apply for Australian visas and can be resettled in a third country. That is what this government wants. They want them to be settled in a third country. Are we not abrogating our responsibility? If these asylum seekers are identified as genuine refugees, should we not be welcoming them into Australia rather than locking them up behind barbed wire or asking another country to accept them as refugees? The government’s policy has shown that genuine refugees have been left to languish on Nauru in the past, and under this policy it will be much worse. The new legislation means that case managed mental health care will not be available to asylum seekers on Nauru. There has been case after case of detainees suffering mental health problems, including numerous cases of self-harm and suicide attempts. That is what we, as a nation, will be sanctioning when this legislation is passed. This government needs to rethink the legislation and what it is about. It is not about a political quick fix. It is not about winning the next election. It is not about appeasing Indonesia. Rather, it is about offering asylum to people who are refugees. These are people who are fleeing atrocities. Revelations about the botched handling by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in the past have shown the unbelievable detention of Australian citizens such as Cornelia Rau. The deportation of Vivian Solon, an Australian citizen, proves that it is necessary for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to oversee asylum seekers on Nauru. This legislation will deny this. This is bad policy designed to appease Indonesians at the expense of human rights for asylum seekers who have arrived on our shores. The Pacific solution is an illogical policy. It is a policy to which we are returning. It is a policy that has cost taxpayers more than $240 million since its implementation in 2001. This money would be better spent on services to resettle these people in our community after initial processing on the mainland. The government is abandoning our international obligation to the 1951 refugee convention and our responsibility to offer protection and humanity to asylum seekers seeking our protection. It is a mean-spirited, poll driven government that lacks moral integrity and the backbone to be independent and stand up for Australia. It is a government that kowtows to Indonesia rather than approaching Indonesia as an equal partner and negotiating so that both nations are held in respect. The government’s latest initiative to holding people in detention when they enter Australia reverts back to the treatment of the first European Australians. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! It being 12.30 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the debate is interrupted and I call the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. 42 12:30:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 0 Mr ROBB —in reply—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay. I acknowledge your status as, I believe, the only MP to come to Australia as a refugee, back in 1949. I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. For 60 years Australia’s proud migration and refugee settlement record has been built on three crucial foundations: a firmly regulated and planned immigration program, an effective border control system and programs to effectively integrate migrants into our community. This bill is necessary to maintain the strength of our border control measures. It is necessary to maintain the integrity and honour associated with our nation’s longstanding success in integrating people from the four corners of the globe. It is necessary to prevent Australia from being used as a staging post for political protests. In other words, this bill will act to protect Australia’s sovereignty, not diminish it. In contrast to the weakness and the opportunism of the Labor position, this bill will strengthen our border controls, not weaken them. This bill is also about consistency between those who arrive by boat at an excised offshore area and the mainland. It removes the distinction based on where a person lands and ensures all unauthorised sea arrivals have their asylum claims processed offshore. While removing the incentive to reach mainland Australia, we have also significantly enhanced arrangements for processing asylum claims in a humane and compassionate way, and we have preserved Australia’s very strong commitment to its protection obligations under the refugees convention and other relevant human rights instruments. This bill is also about ensuring that Australia’s limited capacity to provide places for refugees is filled by those most in need. Every year Australia welcomes thousands of refugees from camps in some of the most desperate parts of the world, many of whom have been waiting many years for resettlement and none of whom would have any chance of reaching Australia as unauthorised boat arrivals. In 2004 Australia ranked second in the world for numbers of refugees resettled, with 14,122 visas granted, and that is not a new trend. Historically Australia has ranked third, behind the US and Canada, in terms of humanitarian intake—a very proud record over 55 years. Importantly, this bill protects our ability to maximise our intake of these refugees, whom we as an independent nation choose to resettle and who enter our country lawfully. In 2001 this government made a promise to the Australian people that we would take all reasonable steps to ensure that unauthorised boats did not arrive, did not land on our shores. The measures we took in 2001 to excise certain islands—measures supported by the opposition—discouraged people from getting into boats and embarking on highly dangerous journeys. As a consequence, we have avoided loss of life and we have avoided unauthorised boat arrivals until recently. Those excision measures, together with other steps taken by the government, worked and have been very effective. The 2001 measures discouraged people smugglers from manipulating our migration entry arrangements. At the time, the government’s response asserted Australia’s sovereignty to be able to deal with those issues. It is not a dereliction of Australia’s sovereignty to prevent people from manipulating our migration entry arrangements. In fact, it is an act of asserting Australia’s sovereignty. The suggestion has been made that these changes before the House are at the behest of Indonesia. Let me make it very clear: Indonesia does not determine our policies. The Australian government determines our policies, which are in the best interests of the Australian people. Part of the design of this legislation is to ensure our system cannot be manipulated by those seeking to use our system for political advantage. It is quite clear that some people in West Papua and Australia decided that asylum seekers would make the hazardous canoe journey to Australia rather than walk to Papua New Guinea, as they had in the past, with the deliberate intention of fostering tensions between Australia and Indonesia. The government has decided to have such future claims processed offshore rather than give these people the opportunity to manipulate our migration entry arrangements to create a staging post for political protest. The changes allow genuine refugee claims to be determined and dealt with without the risk that our system will be used to suit the political purposes of others. Surely, in not leaving our system open to be used in this manner, as the Labor Party would have it, we are very clearly asserting our sovereignty and, in the process, we are maintaining the strength and integrity of our migration and refugee settlement program. The refugees convention does not prescribe how states must give effect to their international obligations. The convention allows a host country to restrict the movements of a refugee who is unlawfully within the country until the person’s immigration status is regularised or they are admitted into some other country. The new arrangements contained in this bill draw on this flexibility. They ensure that all people continue to have access to a reliable refugee assessment process. Refugees will also be protected from involuntary return to their homeland if they are found to be refugees. Designated unauthorised arrivals will only be taken offshore for processing of their asylum claims to a declared country, and a country may only be declared by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs if it meets significant protection and human rights standards. Unauthorised arrivals taken to Nauru, a declared country, will be processed by officers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Applicants will be able to seek a merits review of their refugee status determination in line with the non-binding international guidance on standards for refugee status determination procedures. Historically, figures for processing in offshore processing centres have compared favourably with onshore figures in terms of positive determinations. The overall refugee approval rate for people in offshore processing centres who chose not to voluntarily return to their homeland was 94 per cent. This compares favourably with the 89 per cent approval rate under Australia’s onshore protection visa process for unauthorised arrivals who applied for protection visas between mid-1999 and mid-2005. This bill includes mechanisms for scrutiny. There is a requirement that the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs report to the minister on arrangements for designated unauthorised arrivals who make asylum claims. These arrangements relate to accommodation, health—including mental health—education and processing of their asylum claims. The secretary must provide details of the number of asylum claims processed and the numbers granted refugee status in the financial year. The minister is required to table this report in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Other checks and balances to ensure the integrity of the arrangements and the fair treatment of asylum seekers include: merits reviews; independent legal advice to claimants; 90 days for the initial refugee status decision; an independent review within 90 days of that decision; ministerial powers to intervene and grant a visa; Ombudsman’s powers to investigate actions and report to parliament; an independent review of the legislation in two years time; a five-year sunset clause in the provisions which extend the offshore processing regime to all sea arrivals, including those to the mainland; and women and children not to be detained—they will be housed in residential style community accommodation. So, far from being regressive, this bill in fact essentially implements the changes that were seen last year as progressive for onshore processing. It would in fact implement a system far better and fairer than that experienced by thousands of asylum seekers around the world. Our opponents have sought to bring down this bill. They have tried to suggest it will weaken Australia’s sovereignty. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is about protecting Australia’s sovereignty. It is about deciding who can come here. It is about giving thousands of people waiting in refugee camps around the world their chance to come to Australia, not leaving them waiting in the queue while others who come here illegally take their places in our humanitarian program. It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, who said in this parliament nearly five years ago: It is in the national interest of all Australians to have our borders effectively protected. It is in the national interest of all Australians that our generous attitude towards refugees is not undermined by people who seek to flout that generosity by placing themselves ahead of others in the queue who are determined by an orderly process to be more deserving. It is sad that weak political opportunism fogs the memory of the member for Brand in 2006. This bill marks an important strengthening of Australia’s border control measures by providing a single and consistent set of rules to apply to unauthorised boat arrivals who unlawfully enter our migration zone—whether that be around islands, such as Christmas Island or Cocos, or the mainland. It is wrong, or disingenuous, to assert, as Labor does, that the migration zone has been changed in any way through this legislation. It has not. The bill merely defines what rules will apply if you unlawfully enter the migration zone by sea. It is the sovereign government that determines those rules. We have never abandoned sovereignty. We are making the decisions about who comes here. We are maintaining control of our borders while preserving our very strong commitment to protection obligations under the refugees convention. As a country, we are strong and fair on these matters and generous to a fault. I commend the bill to the House and table the supplementary explanatory memorandum. Question put: That this bill be now read a second time. 12:46:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay) 78 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. 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. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Hockey, J.B. Howard, J.W. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. 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. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. 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. Wood, J. 62 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Broadbent, R. 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. Georgiou, P. 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. Moylan, J.E. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 12:57:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay) 79 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. 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. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Hockey, J.B. Howard, J.W. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. 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. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. 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. Wood, J. 62 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Broadbent, R. 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. Georgiou, P. 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. Moylan, J.E. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 45 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question now is that the remaining stages of the bill, including the government amendments as circulated, be agreed to. The government amendments read as follows— (1)    Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 and 8), opposition member it the clause, substitute: 2  Commencement Commencement information Column 1 Provision(s) Column 2 Commencement Column 3 Date/Details 1.   Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2.   Schedule 1 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. 3.   Schedule 2 On the day after the end of the period of 5 years beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. Note:   This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent. Note:   The Minister has the power to direct officers of the Department to take all reasonable steps to work with any country in respect of which a declaration is in force under subsection 198A(3) with a view to having this principle upheld.                     (i)    seeking to enter the migration zone; and                    (ii)    a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non‑citizen; or Note:   See also sections 84A and 195A, under which the Minister has non‑compellable powers to grant visas to certain people (whether or not the people have applied for the visas). Subdivision AA, this Subdivision, Subdivision AF and the regulations do not apply to the Minister’s powers under those sections. 84A  Minister may grant visa to designated unauthorised arrival, transitory person or refugee People to whom section applies Minister may grant visa Minister not under duty to consider whether to exercise power Minister to exercise power personally Tabling of information relating to the granting of visas Note:   The Minister has the power to direct officers of the Department to take all reasonable steps to encourage countries in respect of which declarations are in force under subsection (3) to provide suitable residential accommodation for people who are taken by officers to those countries. Part 8E—Ombudsman investigations in relation to designated unauthorised arrivals, transitory persons and refugees 486S  Referral of actions Note:   The Commonwealth Ombudsman may also investigate action, which relates to a matter of administration taken by a Department or a prescribed authority, regardless of the geographical location of the action (see the Ombudsman Act 1976, particularly sections 3C and 5). Department has the meaning given by subsection 3(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976. prescribed authority has the meaning given by subsection 3(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976. 486T  Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate and report 486U  Minister to table statement from Commonwealth Ombudsman 486V  Application of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation and effect of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken by a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, possesses appropriate qualifications and experience to undertake the review. (2)    The review must be undertaken as soon as practicable after the second anniversary of the commencement of this item. (3)    The person carrying out the review must, within 6 months of commencing the review, give the Minister a written report of the review that includes an assessment of the operation and effect of the amendments made by this Act, and alternative approaches or mechanisms as appropriate. (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister. (5)    Before the copy of the report is tabled in accordance with subsection (4), the Minister may remove information from the copy of the report if the Minister is satisfied that the inclusion of the information is contrary to the public interest or adversely affects the privacy of any person. Schedule 2—Amendments commencing 5 years after Royal Assent Migration Act 1958                     (i)    entered Australia by sea (see subsection (8)); or                    (ii)    entered the migration zone by air (see subsection (9)); Question put. 12:57:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. AM Somlyay) 79 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. 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. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Hockey, J.B. Howard, J.W. Hull, K.E. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. 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. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. 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. Wood, J. 62 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Broadbent, R. 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. Georgiou, P. 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. Moylan, J.E. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. 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. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 51 BILLS R2532 51 Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane: That this bill be now read a second time. 51 13:01:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —As I rise today to speak on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2000, I think we all appreciate that Australians are more concerned than ever about record high petrol prices. Reform of the petrol retail industry, including the repeal of the two acts dealt with in this bill, has never been more important. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 are outdated. They serve no useful purpose in today’s petrol retail industry, and I will tell the House why. Well over 50 per cent of the industry by volume of sales is not covered by these acts, including the supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths, and the rules for market participants are inconsistent and unfair. That is bad for industry and, perhaps far more importantly, that is bad for the Australian consumers, who are doing it tough at this point. The Oilcode, which will be introduced as a mandatory industry code under section 51AE of the Trade Practices Act 1974, will finally and appropriately bring the whole industry into a common regulatory regime, with better protections for market participants and better protections for consumers. The Oilcode will improve the protections available to commissioned agents and independent operators, who currently do not have the protections available to franchisees. Both franchisees and commissioned agents will also appropriately have access to a low-cost dispute resolution scheme for the first time. The Labor Party’s view is that section 46 amendments to the Trade Practices Act are necessary to address outstanding concerns about the potential for abuse of market power. I call on the government to bring these forward as a matter of urgency. In that context, I also indicate to the House that we are taking the government on trust with respect to these very central and important amendments. I expect the minister to confirm in his reply undertakings given to the opposition that the government is keen to introduce legislation, the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006, to implement its response as soon as the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, the Dawson bill, has passed through the parliament. In essence, we have shaken hands on the importance of this amendment. It is therefore very important that the minister, in replying to the debate, confirms on the public record his undertaking given to the opposition with respect to the importance of those amendments and their urgency. Nevertheless, the introduction of the Oilcode to cover the entire petrol retail sector is an improvement over the existing situation, where more than 50 per cent of the industry by volume is not regulated at all. Petrol retail reform is a good step forward to give consumers more confidence that the petrol prices they are paying are as fair and as competitive as we can make them. But reform, we also accept, has been a long time coming. Interestingly, petrol reform has been on the Howard government’s policy agenda since 1996. In 1998, the opposition appropriately said that it would support petrol reform as long as the Oilcode was agreed to. But it has taken this government another eight years to get to that point. As in many other policy areas, reform under the Howard-Costello government has stagnated over 10 long years. The Australian government, led by the Prime Minister, John Howard, simply cannot keep up with the changes that are necessary to encourage investment and maintain competitive markets and affordable prices in petrol, electricity, transport and telecommunications. Look at the debacle, for example, that confronts the Australian community on the issue of broadband this very day. The Howard-Costello government has also failed completely to keep the reform momentum of the Hawke and Keating governments going. That was when tough decisions about reform in the Australian economy and opening it up to competitive pressures were actually put in place—the foundations of economic growth that we now experience. But we are starting to pay the price. We are paying the price for neglect—if anything, absolute negligence by the Howard government—on the need for ongoing reforms so as to keep Australia competitive. I refer to labour shortages, erosion of our skills base, choked infrastructure which is holding back exports, inflation pressures, productivity stagnation and higher interest rates. It is most worrying of all that the Howard-Costello government’s answer to everything as we appreciate it—as is reflected in the recent budget—is simply ‘spend, spend, spend’. Unfortunately, all the indicators now show that that short-term approach to economic management has hit a brick wall. The budget is no longer sustainable. If anything, the chickens are coming home to roost. What are the indicators? Let us deal with a couple of those indicators. Interest rates are rising and the government seeks to deny that they have an impact not only on business in Australia but also on ordinary households trying to make ends meet from week to week and day to day and pay their mortgage payments. The high level of debt held by Australians continues to rise disproportionately to the increase in their incomes and cost of living in Australia. Then we go to the issue of prices, which is central to this debate. Prices are going through the roof. Wages—that is an interesting debate. The government are in so much trouble handling the industrial relations debate today that they now have a junior minister, the member for North Sydney, Mr Hockey, to try to assist the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to sell their message. That is interesting because the truth is that they know it is very hard to sell. I will tell you why it is very hard to sell. Wages for those already struggling are under pressure because of the government’s extreme industrial relations changes, which not only open these wages and conditions to attack but also create a major sense of uncertainty in their minds, in their household’s minds, in their families and in Australia at large. Then we go to the issue of tax cuts. We heard the Prime Minister and the Treasurer waxing lyrical about the impact that the tax cuts were going to have, only a matter of months ago on the second Tuesday of May. The facts show that they have been swallowed up because of mismanagement by the Howard government on a broad range of other fronts. We have the issue of competitiveness and our capacity to survive in a tough global market. Foreign debt is through the roof. All these indicators suggest that unfortunately the Howard government approach of buying or spending their way out of trouble is no longer appropriate. Tough decisions and leadership are required. Let us go to the issue of the petrol debate. Back in 2001, when they were having difficulties, they decided to cut petrol excise. They have used tax cuts, family payments, baby bonuses and any number of handouts to buy off the electorate, but eventually, as we all appreciate, the patience of the Australian community runs out just as the government coffers are starting to run dry. They have no options left on petrol prices. One of the reasons is that petrol reform has taken 10 long years. Excise cuts are no longer an option because we simply cannot afford them. This government has still done nothing to address the real issue. The real issue is Australia’s security. This is the guts of the debate that Australia has to have in the lead-up to the next election, because if we do not get this debate right we not only worsen the potential situation confronting Australian consumers but also put at risk Australia’s economic future. The principal reason is that the Prime Minister has sat in the oval office and accepted that basically we should place our future, in terms of where we go on resource security and the energy debate on transport fuels, on foreign oil from—guess where—unstable parts of the world like the Middle East. What a gamble. It is not a gamble that the Labor Party is prepared to take. I say that because it is obvious to everyone except the government that, if you do not have home-grown fuel industries, Australia is at risk. We will always be hostage to foreign oil. We will always be hostage to unstable areas such as the Middle East. These are very serious issues that Australian consumers understand and appreciate. They are very serious issues that Australian industries speak to me about regularly in terms of my portfolio responsibility as the shadow minister for resources—a portfolio that includes energy, forestry and tourism. This is about what is going to rule the future and our capacity to have energy to drive the Australian economy. I think we have to accept that there is no longer a capacity for short-term fixes. We need a national transport fuel policy that guarantees supplies for the long term and gives Australia options to deal with global fuel supply and price emergencies. That is the debate in Europe; that is the debate in North America; that is the debate in Asia; but unfortunately it is not the debate that the Prime Minister wants in Australia, because it requires tough decisions and leadership. I believe that we can no longer ignore that debate because, if other countries accept that this is the new Cold War and that the new cause of tension in the international community is who supplies the energy, then it is also part of what we have to face up to in guaranteeing our future as a nation. I will tell you why. It is pretty simple. It is about supply and demand. Who supplies the energy and who has influence over the energy supply of the world has economic power in the world. We want the Australian economy to go at full bore. We want to guarantee the creation of further training and apprenticeship opportunities for the Australian community. That requires a few tough decisions. We have to lift our productivity and we have to try to make it easier for Australian workers to survive from week to week and day to day with all the added cost pressures that are imposed on them because of neglect and negligence by the Howard government. That simple debate goes like this: when supplies are short or demand is high—or both, as is the case right now—guess what? Prices go up. Prices are going up at the moment. As you as a former teacher know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, it is simply economics 101. Unfortunately the Treasurer does not understand it and nor does the Prime Minister. They are not really interested in economic reform in Australia; they are merely interested in political survival: who occupies Kirribilli House or who might occupy Kirribilli House in the future. That is what occupies the minds of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer from sun-up to sundown each day—not where Australia goes but who occupies the Lodge and Kirribilli House and who might occupy the Lodge and Kirribilli House in the future. We can no longer accept the contempt shown by the Australian government for these hard issues that have to be fronted up to now. The solution has to be embraced by the Australian community, with leadership from government in partnership with the private sector. The solution is home-grown fuel industries in Australia. That requires that we accept that there are policy options available to ensure that the wheels continue to turn for Australian consumers and Australian industries, to ensure that Australians can afford fuel and to ensure that Australian industry can afford energy. That drives job growth, apprenticeships and higher education opportunities. In doing so, it creates the social dividend which enables us to have a decent healthcare system and to look after the elderly in their aged years, and it also gives us the capacity to create opportunities for families experiencing stress at the moment, to manage the family difficulties of child care. So I would have thought the debate is pretty simple. It goes from A to B and C: make the hard decisions, embrace the policy options and get on with implementation. But unfortunately this is where the Howard government is remiss. Federal Labor, alternatively, has always supported the oil and gas and alternative fuel industries. Let us deal with a few facts of modern history in Australia, because these industries are strategically important to Australia, strategically important to the region in which we live and strategically important to the world. I remind the House that Labor supported the proposal to extend the effective excise-free period for biofuels and LPG by three years to 2011. It supported legislation to introduce mandatory cleaner fuel standards that should benefit environmentally friendly fuels. So it is not about having economic growth without paying attention to environmental considerations; it is about doing both. However, while Labor supported this approach, the House should be reminded that the overwhelming reason was—and this has always been the key to running a business in Australia—to provide some level of certainty for the alternative fuels industry and for the refining industry. It was the Keating government which introduced an 18c a litre production bounty for ethanol in the 1993-94 budget and, in addition, the zero excise rating for the product. Perhaps the member for Blair ought to pay a little bit of attention to the history of why ethanol has gone backwards while the Howard government has been on watch. The record shows that the Howard government abolished the bounty scheme one year early, in the 1996-97 budget. It has consistently undermined the industry by changing the playing field on a regular basis over the last nine years. In the last parliament alone, the Howard government changed its mind not once, not twice but on three occasions with respect to the excise regime, not only for ethanol but also for the LPG industry. Despite his May 2002 view that applying an excise to ethanol and LPG was a bad idea, the Treasurer announced in the 2003 budget that he would do just that. He announced that biofuels and LPG would be subject to an excise from July 2008. In December 2003, guess what? He changed his mind again, announcing a new excise regime to apply from July 2011. For those reasons, we will be moving today a detailed second reading amendment which stands in my name, to be seconded by the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon. This goes to the future of the ethanol industry. I challenge the member for Blair, who likes to interject, to have the guts to cross the floor like other members of the government if he wants to stand up for his local community and to vote for this second reading amendment, because it is about guaranteeing the future of ethanol and biofuels in Australia. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that he will dog it. He will go missing in action when it comes to putting up his hand. He has form on that front. These are important issues, because, between May and December 2003, the LPG industry was in turmoil. Many of the small business operators involved in LPG conversion and maintenance suffered from serious business downturns due to the uncertainty about the excise regime. Similarly, the biofuels industry suffered during this period because there was simply no certainty for investors in the industry. It has taken time for the industry to recover. That is mainly because record high prices have meant that consumers are more willing to set aside their concerns about fuel uncertainty than they would otherwise have been and that biofuels are now more price sensitive and attractive to refiners and marketers. In fact, let me say at this point that Caltex is to be commended for its announcement today that it will discount E10 petrol by 3c per litre. We await the other refiners. The history of the Howard government’s double backflips on alternative fuels is in stark contrast to the stability Labor provided through its 13 years in office when it maintained the LPG excise exemption introduced in 1979 for fuel security reasons. The other stark contrast— 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —You’re a comedian! 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—The member for Blair will get his go. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —is just how interested in fuel security the Prime Minister was, back then in 1979, compared with his complete lack of interest today as Prime Minister, when fuel security has never been so important and petrol prices have never been so high. As I have said before, this government treats tax cuts as go-away money for motorists worried about petrol prices. I therefore remind the House of some facts I have raised many times in this place. The fact is that, without developing large-scale alternative fuels industries in Australia, we will increasingly be hostage to supplies from the Middle East, West Africa and Russia. This is the debate about security. I do not need to spell out the implications of that fact for energy security and for the security of Australia’s economic future. Australians around the kitchen table each night want to know that their governments and the companies with stewardship of their resources have a plan to secure their energy supplies for the future at prices affordable to Australians. I raise this because it is important. At the moment there is no plan. Unlike Uncle Arthur would have them believe, they should be relaxed and comfortable. Have we heard the Prime Minister talking about being relaxed and comfortable? They are not relaxed and comfortable about our energy future. Creating the right fiscal and regulatory regime to convert our natural gas and coal to clean diesel as a new industry option and a new fuel supply source for Australia is unfortunately not on the Howard government’s radar. Mr Howard was thinking about it, interestingly, in 1979, but it is not on his radar in 2006 when he is the Prime Minister and it is more important. Unlike with other alternative fuels, the Prime Minister has done nothing to provide any industry framework to encourage the establishment of industries in Australia to convert our vast local coal and gas resources to clean diesel. This is the future debate. This is the key to transport security in terms of energy in the future. Alternatively, the Labor Party has always been a great supporter of both gas to liquids and coal to liquids, which is integral to the commercialisation of clean coal technology for power generation in Australia and which is part of the environmental debate. We actually achieve on both fronts—energy security and environmental progress. I recall that a former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, as resources minister, was a great advocate of gas- and coal-to-liquids technologies. That was more than 20 years ago. This is a debate that has been ongoing. It is about time the Howard government actually got serious about it. My colleague the member for Hunter was also a great advocate when he was shadow minister for resources in the last parliament—and we continue this tradition because we believe that establishing new nation-building industries is not easy and requires, more than anything, sustained leadership and focus at a national level. For that reason, over the last couple of weeks I have had the pleasure of dealing with two innovative proposals in the private sector, both looking at coal gasification and conversion to diesel, one in Queensland and the other in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. Unfortunately, the Howard government has waxed and waned on both coal to liquids and gas to liquids. It should pick up the challenge and run with it. Once again, let me remind the House that it is now almost five years since Senator Minchin, then minister for resources, appointed a GTL task force to investigate the feasibility and benefits of establishing a GTL industry in Australia. Five years later, no action has been taken. I suppose that is why the member for Hunter once said that in John Howard’s mind it is easier to get gas to Shanghai than to Sydney. That says it all: export it; do not worry about our own local economy. John Howard is happy to dig it up, ship it out and look after Japan, China and the United States. He guarantees their resource and energy security, but when it comes to Australia he has no plan for our energy security and our economic future. I simply say to the Prime Minister that he needs an industry policy, a resources policy and an energy policy. We can no longer wait. Those policies will have to give us large-scale options to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. This is pretty interesting. I think it is what Australians actually believe. We cannot rely on foreign oil if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, if the Alaskan pipeline has to be fully shut down, if war escalates in the Middle East or if civil unrest shuts down West African production. GTL is the best option. It is about time the Prime Minister took up the challenge laid down by the Leader of the Opposition in October last year about the importance and urgency of this debate. The Prime Minister’s own GTL task force noted that, while Australia could simply wait for the market to provide an incentive for a GTL industry, once gas supply infrastructure is in place and investment is sunk in other countries—not in Australia—where taxation and infrastructure incentives are on offer today, those countries will serve as investment hubs for expansion for years to come. Unfortunately, that is what is happening in Qatar at the moment while the Prime Minister is asleep on his watch. The implication from the task force’s review was that Australia’s remote gas fields could be left stranded from markets for even longer because, by and large, it will be cheaper to expand existing projects than to build new ones here. It is about economies of scale. I am sure this is a concept Australia’s LNG industry fully understands. The task force also highlighted the potential significance of a GTL industry to Australia’s economy, saying that it could underwrite offshore gas supply infrastructure to bring forward the possibility of further major new domestic gas pipelines to connect the national market, increase domestic gas competition and energise gas exploration. That is an interesting challenge, one the Labor Party would love to have the opportunity to implement. That is why it is going to be an ongoing debate between now and the next election. This debate can no longer be put off. The task force also said, and this is the crux of the debate: These benefits would be of national strategic significance to Australia. It went on to say this, and perhaps the Prime Minister should revisit the report: The cost of any government intervention must be considered against the potential benefits. That is simply saying that if you invest now you get the return in the future in terms of competitive energy supply in Australia, which is the key to our future. That is what attracts investment to Australia—a stable economy, stable government and energy at a reasonable price and with security of supply. The potential benefits go beyond unlocking new resources. They go beyond wealth and creating new industry, more jobs and more exports. They include the opportunity for Australia to address our most pressing problem, our future transport fuel security challenge. It is also three years since CSIRO’s report Energy and Transport Sector Outlook to 2020 laid out its proposed strategy for Australia’s transport future—a strategy that identified gas to liquids and coal to liquids as the keys to our future transport fuel security. The tragedy is that we all appreciate the potential but the reality remains just beyond the Howard government’s grasp. It requires sustained and committed national leadership. It requires that we review the PRRT regime and consider special treatment of capital investment in gas to liquids fuel projects and associated gas production infrastructure. It requires that we have some responsibility for resource related infrastructure instead of simply saying that it is a state responsibility. Above all, it requires that the Howard government should send a clear signal to Australians that it is interested in their future fuel supply security. We should send that clear signal. So on that basis, in order to bring this debate to a head, I will have pleasure in moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name calling on the government to immediately conduct a feasibility study into a gas-to-liquids plant in Australia. The Prime Minister needs to dust off his 2001 report, bring it up to date, move on the implementation and make it a reality. I also call on the government to review, in 2009, the proposal to introduce excise on ethanol and biodiesel, LPG and CNG in 2011 and to consider whether or not there is a case for deferring the introduction of excise depending on industry progress. I think this is a matter of such public importance that the department should report to parliament, in the period commencing next year, on the measures taken and the progress made to wean Australia off foreign oil dependence. Such a review would keep the pressure on parliament and decision makers. It would be on the uptake of alternative fuels. We have got to be serious about the implementation, given the issues raised in the opposition’s blueprint. I simply say in conclusion, before moving the second reading amendment, that the government ought to be criticised for its tardiness in moving on petrol retail reform, for bypassing the parliamentary process in taking companies out of the sites act, for failing to announce amendments to the Trade Practices Act to implement the 2003 Dawson and 2004 Senate committee reports and, above all—and this is the crux of the debate—for failing abjectly to take action to reduce Australia’s dependence on foreign oil. I now move the second reading amendment standing in my name: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: calls on the Government to require the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to report to the Parliament annually, commencing in August 2007, on the measures taken and the progress made to: increase market penetration of ethanol and biodiesel, LPG and CNG, including the number and location of service stations and the names of the companies offering these products on their retail sites; secure new investment in biofuel, LPG and CNG production and supply infrastructure in Australia; and secure investment in new alternative transport fuel industries in Australia, including gas and coal to liquids; calls on the Government to review, in 2009, the proposal to introduce excise on ethanol and biodiesel, LPG and CNG in 2011, and consider whether or not there is a case for delaying the introduction of excise, depending on the progress made: in increasing market penetration of biofuels, LPG and CNG; in securing new investment in biofuel, LPG and CNG production and supply infrastructure in Australia; and towards achieving the 350 million litre biofuels target in 2010. criticises the Government for: its tardiness in moving on petrol retail reform; bypassing due parliamentary process in introducing a regulation to “undeclare” companies under the Sites Act; failing to introduce amendments to the TPA to implement the 2003 Dawson and 2004 Senate recommendations for reform; and failing to act to reduce Australia’s dependence on foreign oil and improve its transport fuel security; calls on the Government to immediately conduct a feasibility study into a gas to liquids fuels plant in Australia, including: consideration of Petroleum Resources Rent tax incentives for developers of gas fields which provide resources for gas to liquid fuels projects; examining a new infrastructure investment allowance for investment in Australian gas to liquids infrastructure; and developing a targeted funding scheme for research and development in this area; calls on the Government to immediately embrace Labor’s Fuels Blueprint proposal to: make alternative fuel vehicles tariff free, cutting up to $2000 off the price of current hybrid cars; and grant tax rebates for converting petrol cars to LPG; and calls on the Government to immediately embrace Labor’s Fuels Blueprint to find more oil and use more gas by; re-examining the depreciation regime for gas production infrastructure; allowing the selective use of flow-through share schemes for smaller operators”. (Time expired) 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—Is the motion seconded? 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —I second the motion. 59 13:32:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —After all that hot air from the member opposite, it is great to be able to stand up and create some of my own. Fuel is causing a lot of drama for Australians. We have got a situation of continually rising prices causing real pain, and that is even in the state of Queensland, where, as you would probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is not a petrol franchise fee. That fee does not apply in Queensland; it never has. All the other states of Australia had a petrol franchise fee, which was rolled into the GST. So we in Queensland are privileged because the price of our fuel is still, on average, about nine cents a litre cheaper than in all the other states. So while we in Queensland feel the pain, it is hard to imagine how people are putting up with the incredible prices that they are paying in the southern states and elsewhere in Australia. It is a pleasure to speak on the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 because there is no doubt that we have come a long way down the road since 1980, when the previous bills were created. We have come a long way to where we are today. So much has gone on and there have been so many changes, particularly in the automotive industry and fuel retailing, that it is hard to see how those bills could possibly still be regarded as effective in today’s environment. The world has moved on and Australia has changed dramatically, and that is reflected in the government’s treatment within this bill of this area, with the introduction of the new Oilcode and the removal of quotas on the oil majors as to the number of sites that they can own. You would have to be Rip Van Winkle not to notice that today in Australia shopper dockets are playing a really big part in our process of buying fuel. People are religiously collecting shopper dockets to get what they regard as bargains as they try to minimise their fuel costs. The shadow minister said that we needed to look very strongly at alternative fuels and he was roasting the government, saying the government needed to act. That was an amazing set of words to be coming from the member of an opposition that killed off ethanol quite some time ago with a whole lot of spurious nonsense about the dangers that it supposedly posed to motor vehicles. They concocted a bodgie case on that. I remember that a couple of their members were fingered in the process of doing it. They put about false claims about ethanol and its dangers and, as a consequence of that, across my electorate I still come across fuel pumps that have these hideous little stickers on them saying, ‘Does not contain any ethanol,’ as if that is a bad thing. Ethanol actually boosts the octane content of petrol. It is a welcome addition to any fuel. I feel very strongly about this, because we could produce it so readily in Australia. Shame on the Labor Party for killing it off, given that it could have been introduced so much more effectively several years ago. Shame on them for going about Australia and telling a whole lot of untruths about the impact of ethanol on people’s motor vehicles and for continuing to maintain that for such a ridiculous period of time. They fallaciously linked it to the Manildra group and to all kinds of claims that they regarded as being politically advantageous to them to make. The result of their pursuing political ends is that the national interest has been badly set aside. We have not made progress down the road to ethanol—there has not been an uptake of ethanol—because Labor Party members have been telling everyone that they meet in the street that ethanol is no good. They have been doing that again and again, but today the shadow spokesman is trying to perform a backflip and trying to get those words out of his mouth about ethanol being good. It must be hard for him to do that, but at last Labor are starting to get with the strength and the reality of what is going on all over the world. Ethanol is a great alternative, particularly for a country like ours which produces heaps of sugar cane. A lot of people simplistically say, ‘Oh, sugar cane is what you get your ethanol from,’ but there are plenty of other ways to get ethanol. We have lots of low-grade sorghum produced in this country that could go into ethanol. There are all kinds of other grain crops and opportunities. We have got so much land and the capacity to generate sources of ethanol; it is there all over the country. What we need to do is to look at mandating that ethanol and saying, ‘Let’s have 10 per cent of it in our fuel.’ It certainly will not harm anything at 10 per cent. I think we could even have 20 per cent. That is certainly being done in the US. I think in the US now they are running something like 85 per cent ethanol in some cars. That brings me to the situation in Brazil. In that country they are using flex-fuel cars and they are making big savings because of the use of ethanol in their fuel. That use of ethanol is something that I think needs to be carefully examined by Australians, and I think we need to pursue it. I would like to quote a couple of articles about the way things are going in Brazil. The first one comes from the Guardian from 23 November 2005. It traces the history of what has happened with ethanol in Brazil. The article was entitled ‘Sugar powers a revolution on Brazil’s roads’. It says: In the 80s the then military government reacted to the oil price shocks of 1973 and 1981 by offering tax advantages to run cars on ethanol - so much so that between 1983 and 1988 up to 90% of vehicles were powered by the fuel. It goes on to make an interesting point. It says: The bottom fell out of the market when oil prices collapsed - and sugar cane producers jacked up ethanol prices more than 40%. The difference now is that drivers have a much greater choice, being able to mix ethanol and petrol at will in “flex fuel” engines that Volkswagen introduced in 2003 and are being built by rivals such as Peugeot, which launches a 1.4-litre version next month ... And it goes on to mention other producers. So fluctuations in the price of sugar and oil have meant in the past that, for example, overnight, sugar producers suddenly do not want to sell you their ethanol. When flex-fuel is the way to go, when that provides the motive power, there is no reason why those kinds of market forces will impede in any way the growth of an ethanol industry in Brazil—and there is certainly no way that it will impede the growth of an ethanol industry in Australia. The article quotes Serge Habib, Citroen’s managing director in Brazil, as saying that in Brazil as many as 80 per cent of new Brazilian built cars are powered by flex-fuel engines. I heard a member of this parliament saying the other day that Holden is producing flex-fuel engines in Australia—or certainly one of the Australian producers is producing them here and exporting them to Brazil. So we have a ready-made source of flex-fuel cars already here in our country. We can buy locally in terms of the fuel and we can buy locally in terms of the vehicles. According to this article, Mr Habib, from Citroen, said that producing ethanol from sugar is profitable as long as oil costs more than $37 a barrel. It sounds to me like we will be producing ethanol profitably till hell freezes over, the way things are currently. That price of $37 a barrel is a price that we are probably not likely to revisit in the near future. I think we can look at this opportunity to switch to ethanol. The article makes another point about what has happened in Brazil—and I am looking at the way this impacts on our fuel industry in Australia. It quotes Luiz Custodio Martins, president of a sugar and alcohol union in Brazil, who said: The Brazilian economy has saved $400bn in imports since the creation of the National Alcohol Program, and that’s without mentioning interest ... So Brazil has made $400 billion in savings in terms of imports. We are a country that has a lot of imported fuel. The opportunity for import replacement with ethanol is a very good thing. We did not hear an awful lot on ethanol from the opposition. They still find it a dirty word. They still cannot bring themselves to recognise it as the most important option that faces us. I heard them talking about gasification—that is, turning gas to liquids—using coal to generate energy. Honestly, the member opposite quoted Paul Keating as having said that many years ago. I reckon they must have had that discussion in a telephone booth somewhere out the back of Winton, because it is not something that they have paraded down the street on. It is not something that they have brought on the cabaret for—they have not lit the lights; they have not put on their tights. They have not been out there saying anything about what to do with this gas to liquids option. It has hardly rated a mention anywhere within the Labor Party, and now we are in a position where, suddenly, it is apparently, according to them, an even greater option than the logical conclusion of a transition to ethanol. One of the major issues that we are all discussing at the moment is the price of fuel. It is affecting people’s livelihoods and it is something that we have to address directly. This bill will modernise the legislation, remove irrelevant restrictions on the structure of the petroleum market and create a more transparent, competitive market that will be the best way to deliver cheaper fuel prices to consumers. As I said earlier, there have been significant changes in the retailing of petrol in Australia since the acts repealed by this bill were introduced in 1980. The legislation has not been able to keep pace with these market structure changes. In Australia, the retail petroleum industry provides approximately 38,100 jobs and had a turnover of about $21.7 billion in 2004-05. There are about 6,500 service stations throughout our country. It is a major part of our economy. It is also inseparable from the international economy. This bill repeals the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980. The Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act sets quotas on the oil majors—BP, Caltex, Mobil and Shell—restricting the number of sites that they can own, lease and operate either directly or on a commission agency basis. In fact, going back to 1980, there were nine majors regulated in this way. It just shows you that we have now slipped down to where there are basically four and, honestly, those are divesting themselves, in these arrangements with Woollies, Coles and Quix, of their sites. The whole thing becomes an irrelevance to the way fuel is actually being retailed in our country. The only major company now hindered by quotas as a result of those retailing activities is BP. It is at its limit, with no room to compete with the other industry operators in terms of creating additional sites, because it is now the only one being limited by the sites act. Quotas are based on the volume of fuel each company has the capacity to produce in its own domestic refineries. The act was introduced at a time when there was a lot of fuel available. Independents would be able to acquire internationally sourced fuel while the refiners could sell on their own. The abundant supply meant a potential threat to the independent operators’ viability. Because the acts have not progressed alongside the petrol retailing sector changes in the last 26 years, an effect of the acts themselves has been to encourage trading in the industry outside the coverage of the act. The obvious example of that is major companies divesting their retail operations to the supermarket chains. They have taken a large chunk of operations. This has radically altered the structure and thus the competitiveness of the market. Because of the trend, the competition that was meant to be fostered by the act has been split into those industry traders operating under the act’s coverage and those operating outside. BP has not divested its operations and is therefore prevented by the act from increasing its number of sites. It cannot increase its competition with the supermarket traders, who are not limited by the acts. As a result, we have a two-tiered system that is, by its nature, discriminatory: applying one set of rules to one party while allowing the remainder to operate without those rules. The ability of the majors to compete with newer market entrants, such as the supermarkets, is limited. It has also resulted in advantage for small business franchisees over small business commission agents. Since 1980, fuel quality standards have also tightened in line with global environmental best practice. Global supply capacity is stretched, with massively increased demand internationally, resulting from economic growth throughout Asia. The situation of 26 years ago, with abundant supply and lower demand, has been dramatically reversed. The acts no longer serve the industry or the public. This bill will create a fair and open competition between the oil majors, healthy independents and supermarkets. It also allows for what is sure to be major change in the industry in coming years as it finds alternative supply. As I said before, the obvious source to consider is ethanol. There are also the biodiesel opportunities. I do not mind the opposition talking about coal to liquids or gas to liquids. These are courses that, of course, we must pursue, but I think the one that is staring us right in the face is ethanol. We should be looking at a mandate for ethanol to drive it forward. If we look at that example from Brazil, we see quite clearly that in that country it was necessary for the government to go so far as to provide special tax advantages to promote people running cars on ethanol. That is the kind of step we need to be looking at in this country. We have reached a point that, perhaps, Brazil did way back then. We have reached this point now, and we need to be looking to those positive measures to drive it forward. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Hear, hear! Take the initiative. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —I see the member for New England over there. He was the one I saw talking about E85 in the United States. That is an example of the flex-fuel opportunities we certainly need to be taking up in this country. The bill is part of a government reform package: the downstream petroleum reform package. The aim of the package is to provide a more competitive retail fuel market. It has the potential to have a positive impact for consumers at the pump, and we can all hope for that but we must continue. We must find other ways to drive that forward, as I have mentioned. As a part of the package, the government will introduce a mandatory industry code for the oil industry called the Oilcode. The aim is to provide industry certainty and to make that regulatory environment uniform. This will encourage investment and employment in what is a major industry in this country, as well as achieve transparency and competition in petroleum pricing. The Oilcode will cover the relationships between suppliers and retailers. The terminal gate prices provisions in the code will improve the transparency in the industry and create an even and fair opportunity for operators. All customers, small businesses or supermarkets, franchises or commission, will have access to fuel at the published terminal gate price. Dispute resolution is also covered in the Oilcode to ensure the industry participants have access to ongoing cost-effective resolution without the need for involving the courts—and I say ‘Hear, hear!’ to that. If we look at the quotas that are allowed, the quota allowed to BP is 87 and it has 87 current sites. Caltex’s quota is 136, and it has 87 sites. Of course, it has also got its arrangements with Woolworths. Mobil’s quota is 87; current sites, one. Quite obviously, that has been divested as well. Shell’s quota is 114 and its number of current sites is 16. Quite obviously, the minister and the government have responded effectively to what is an emerging change in the industry. We have taken a major step in the way we control the operation of these retail sites, but we have got to go right down to the base of the industry and we have got to provide it with alternative solutions. The idea of import replacement using ethanol will be a bonus not only to our farming industries and not only to our motorists but to our current account as well. If we can reduce the amount of our reliance on imports of oil and replace it with ethanol, I think we will be moving in the right direction. Despite the shameful activities of the Labor Party in trying to kill off ethanol, it will survive. (Time expired) 63 13:52:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I will not even do justice to the member for Blair’s weak and poorly researched speech, but I will congratulate him on speaking on a bill relating to petrol prices in this very week when petrol prices are such an important issue and are so much at the forefront of the minds of all Australians. I do note, from having a look at the speakers list, that he was the only member on that side game enough to do so, but I may return to that point. It is a pleasure to speak to the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 and to provide support to the amendments moved by the member for Batman and seconded by me. This is a very important piece of legislation and a piece of legislation that is long overdue. The regulatory regime which controls the petroleum retailing sector in Australia is now 26 years old. It was forged in an era when we had nine major oil companies, and of course now we have four. It was forged at that time because the then government was concerned about market concentration in the petroleum market. I repeat, then we had nine majors, now we have four. Some people might think we would be looking at actually strengthening the act rather than repealing it but, unfortunately, it is not that simple. This act is now antiquated. It really does not mean anything much because, over the years, the major oil companies have effectively been able to circumvent the act, particularly by way of creative multisite franchise arrangements. But, just as importantly, we now have operating in the market the partnership arrangements between Coles and Shell, and Caltex and Woolworths. Of course, the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act, which is designed to limit the number of service stations the oil companies can run directly, does not cover Coles or Woolworths. So we have a big problem. Labor supports the idea that we repeal the two acts—that is, the sites act and the franchise act, which supports it—to put in place a more modern and more effective regulatory regime. This should have happened at least five years ago. Why did it not happen five years ago? Because of government incompetence and the government’s failure to show leadership and to secure amongst industry and consumer representatives a new regulatory structure that was acceptable to all involved. Those involved include those at the industry, refinery, wholesale, distribution and retail levels and those who represent consumers and who are naturally concerned about the impact and the efficiency of the regulatory regime and its ability to hold petrol prices as low as possible and to protect independent service stations as best as can be achieved. Competition is everything in keeping petrol prices down. We cannot sit back and allow a few major oil companies to drive any competition out of the market. In this country we need an independent sector, as we see in many American and European markets, which keeps the major oil companies and their partners, such as Coles and Woolworths, honest. It took a lot of work to get a regulatory regime, which of course keeps all those players happy. I am not suggesting the government is there yet, and I know there remains a lot of concern, particularly amongst organisations like the MTAA, representing independent service station operators, but I suspect the government has secured as close an agreement as it can achieve. But it should have happened five years ago. Certainly, it should have happened a long time before now. This bill is about consumers, it is about small business and it even goes to Australia’s competitiveness, because fuel in Australia is an input to production in both the manufacturing sector and the services sector. It is also about international competitiveness and it is something we should have dealt with long before now. There is a caveat contained within the member for Batman’s second reading amendment. The opposition has indicated its support for this bill on the basis of the government’s belated promise that it will finally do something about the Trade Practices Act. I have talked about the importance of competition in keeping petrol prices down. We cannot have competition unless we have a strong Trade Practices Act. It is well known to all watchers of this industry that we have not had a strong Trade Practices Act for some time now. We have not had, in particular, a sufficiently strong section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, which of course contains the main provisions for protecting against misuse of market power, therefore protecting and enhancing competition. We say to the government: we intend to support the bill this time around, but we want to see the whites of their eyes, we want to see the detail of the amendments they intend to finally and belatedly move to the Trade Practices Act so we can be sure that this new regulatory regime, in partnership with those changes to the Trade Practices Act, is sufficient to protect consumers and Australian small business. Make no mistake about it: Australian families, Australian small business and indeed Australian business generally are hurting as a result of high fuel prices. Australian families are hurting to the tune of between $40 and $50 a week. Australian business are hurting to the extent that they are starting to question their viability. Yet, despite that, the Prime Minister and his Treasurer say there is absolutely nothing they can do about petrol prices. We on this side acknowledge that high petrol prices are driven largely by the high price of crude oil. We accept that. But, when crude oil is high, it is all the more urgent for governments to act in the short term, the medium term and the long term. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer can act today in a couple of ways. They can bring forward those amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Treasurer can sign this letter, which I have with me today, which would refer to the ACCC the power it needs to properly investigate petrol prices in this country. So, Mr Prime Minister, while you and your Treasurer are present, I appeal to you on behalf of Australian families and Australian business to take that short-term action. But there is more, Mr Prime Minister, that you can do. I also appeal to you and your Treasurer to embrace the Leader of the Opposition’s fuels blueprint and start doing something about energy independence in this country, weaning ourselves off our dependence on Middle Eastern oil— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 65 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 65 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I present for the information of the House a revised ministry list reflecting the appointment of the Minister for Human Services as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations. This appointment is in addition to his current portfolio responsibility. The document read as follows— FOURTH HOWARD MINISTRY 10 August 2006 TITLE MINISTER OTHER CHAMBER Prime Minister The Hon John Howard MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Minister Assisting the Prime Minister The Hon Gary Hardgrave MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP Minister for Trade (Deputy Prime Minister) The Hon Mark Vaile MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) The Hon De-Anne Kelly MP Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon Alexander Downer MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) The Hon Teresa Gambaro MP Treasurer The Hon Peter Costello MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon Peter Dutton MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Chris Pearce MP Minister for Finance and Administration (Vice President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Nick Minchin The Hon Peter Costello MP Minister for Human Services Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations The Hon Joe Hockey MP Senator the Hon Rod Kemp Special Minister of State The Hon Gary Nairn MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Parliamentary Secretary Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck Minister for Transport and Regional Services The Hon Warren Truss MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads The Hon Jim Lloyd MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Minister for Health and Ageing (Leader of the House) The Hon Tony Abbott MP Senator the Hon Santo Santoro Minister for Ageing Senator the Hon Santo Santoro The Hon Tony Abbott MP Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Christopher Pyne MP Attorney-General The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Senator the Hon Chris Ellison Minister for Justice and Customs (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Senator the Hon Chris Ellison The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Helen Coonan The Hon Peter McGauran MP Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon Rod Kemp The Hon Peter McGauran MP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP Minister for Defence The Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Minister for Veterans’ Affairs Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence The Hon Bruce Billson MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Parliamentary Secretary Senator the Hon Sandy Macdonald Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon Fran Bailey MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Bob Baldwin MP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service The Hon Kevin Andrews MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Minister for Workforce Participation The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Minister for the Environment and Heritage Senator the Hon Ian Campbell The Hon Warren Truss MP Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Greg Hunt MP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Deputy Leader of the House) The Hon Peter McGauran MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon Eric Abetz The Hon Peter McGauran MP Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Sussan Ley MP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs The Hon Mal Brough MP Senator the Hon Rod Kemp Minister for Community Services The Hon John Cobb MP Senator the Hon Rod Kemp Minister for Education, Science and Training Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues The Hon Julie Bishop MP Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone Minister for Vocational and Technical Education The Hon Gary Hardgrave MP Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Pat Farmer MP Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in b old type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. Except for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the title of each department reflects that of the portfolio minister. There is also a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio and a Department of Human Services in the Finance and Administration portfolio. 67 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 67 67 14:00:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister and follows that excellent speech by the member for Hunter as members were walking into the House. Will the Prime Minister support Labor’s amendments to the Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 being debated today—amendments which implement parts of Labor’s fuels blueprint, including the promotion of greater oil and gas exploration in Australia—by re-examining the depreciation regime for gas production infrastructure, by allowing the selective use of flow-through share schemes for smaller operators, by promoting the use of alternative-fuel vehicles by cutting their tariffs, by granting tax rebates for converting petrol cars to LPG and by implementing Labor’s green-car challenge to get competitive value-for-money green cars on the roads? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Further, will the Prime Minister protect and promote the growth of ethanol, biodiesel, LPG and CNG through a review of the 2009 date of the government’s plans to apply an excise to those fuels, which will determine whether a deferral or application of the exercise is required? Finally, will the Prime Minister support our position of strengthening the ACCC’s powers to investigate petrol prices by removing the requirement that they cannot do so without the Treasurer’s consent? Does the Prime Minister still maintain that nothing can be done about these crippling fuel prices? 67 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have very carefully studied the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition. I read them, in fact, before I came into the House. After very thoughtful consideration, the government has decided, at this time, not to accept them. 67 67 14:02:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the results of the July labour force survey? 68 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I can inform him that today’s labour force survey showed that unemployment has fallen further from 30-year record lows. It has fallen from 4.9 per cent in June to 4.8 per cent in July, a position that Australia has not been in for over 30 years. There was a solid rise in employment, with 50,700 new jobs in July—although, as the ABS indicates, some of that could have been generated by the training of temporary staff for the August 2006 census. This is to be added to the increase in jobs in both June and May, meaning that, over the last year, 219,000 jobs have been created in Australia—and, under this government, 1.9 million new jobs have been created. In addition to that, the participation rate rose to 65 per cent in July, which is a new record high. Putting those things together, the participation rate is higher than it has ever been before, yet unemployment is now at a 30-year low. Can I also indicate to the House an interesting statistic. Since Work Choices was introduced in March, 159,000 new jobs have been created in Australia. The Labor Party predicted there would be mass sackings and that the world as we know it would end. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —‘What rubbish!’ he says. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, some of us have a memory that lasts longer than 24 hours. We remember all of the doom and gloom which the Leader of the Opposition forecast in relation to Work Choices. He was wrong about that. There is no evidence whatsoever that Work Choices has led to doom or gloom—in fact, quite to the contrary. I should mention for the benefit of the member for Bass that unemployment in the seat of Bass was 11.1 per cent when the Leader of the Opposition was the relevant minister. It is now 5.4 per cent—double as good as it was under the Labor Party—because of the economic reforms which this government has put in place. 68 68 14:06:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Tristar in my electorate has an enterprise bargaining agreement which expires on 30 September and allows for four weeks redundancy pay per year of service? Is the Prime Minister also aware that the workforce has been reduced from 300 to 60 because there is no work to do and the factory is facing closure? Is the Prime Minister aware that Tristar is refusing to guarantee that it will not use the Work Choices legislation to avoid these redundancy provisions after 30 September? What does the Prime Minister say to the 60 remaining workers at Tristar, including Simon, who has 32 years of service and stands to have his redundancy of $160,000 reduced to just 12 weeks pay after 30 September? Given the refusal of the company to meet with local representatives about these issues, will the Prime Minister use his office to ensure that the Work Choices legislation— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —is not used to reduce these redundancy payouts to these great, hardworking Australians? 68 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The answer to the member for Grayndler is: no, I am not aware of the facts and circumstances. As always, I will check what the member has said. Clearly, we will expect the obligations of this company, like all other companies, under the law to be met. You mentioned redundancies. I seem to remember you had 13 years to fix a redundancy safety net and you never did. 69 69 14:07:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 Mr BARRESI —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House of the benefits of workplace reforms for Australian workers? Is the minister aware of any misleading claims about employment agreements offered to employees at Lufthansa? 69 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 honourable member for Deakin for his question. I note at the outset that in the 138 days since Work Choices has been in operation 159,000 jobs have been created in Australia. That is an average of more than 1,000 jobs per day—something which the member for Deakin and I are very proud of. Despite this creation of jobs and a record low unemployment rate of 4.8 per cent, we continue to have a misleading and deceptive campaign by the ACTU and the ALP about Work Choices. The latest of these cases in which they have been caught red-handed with misleading information involved, as the member for Deakin asked me about, employees at Lufthansa. Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU—and I remind the House that Sharan Burrow was the woman who, at the outset of this misleading campaign, made the infamous comment that it would be desirable to have the grieving family of a dead or injured worker to help their campaign; that is what Ms Burrow said at the start of this campaign and that set the tone for everything that has followed since in a misleading campaign—said yesterday about this matter at Lufthansa that the employees were denied the right of union representation. She said, and I quote from the transcript of her interview, ‘And refused point-blank when they asked for the union to be involved.’ This was what was peddled by the President of the ACTU yesterday, and it is simply plain wrong. The very respected legal firm Blake Dawson Waldron, one of the most respected legal firms in Australia, wrote to the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate in relation to this matter. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —I quote from part of the letter written by Blakes, one of the most respected law firms in Australia, to the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate: The complaint investigated by you is not one made by an employee of GTS. No employee has sought to appoint the ASU— the Australian Services Union— as a bargaining agent in relation to an AWA. No employee has complained to you that the operation of an AWA has adversely affected them. So much for the false information from the President of the ACTU that the unions were denied involvement. Indeed, Blakes go on to say: There is questionable legitimacy in a complaint which is divorced from the opinions of employees who have the opportunity of agreeing or not agreeing to the terms of the AWA. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —Mr Speaker, I table that letter from Blake Dawson Waldron. Beyond this, we have the hypocrisy of the ACTU—Mr Combet in particular and the member for Perth and others from the Labor Party—on the matter of penalty rates, because the member for Perth was saying, ‘Isn’t this a disaster that there is some trading of penalty rates going on in relation to this particular matter.’ Trading of penalty rates is hardly new. Indeed, let me read you a quote: Who do you think might have said that? Who was it that negotiated these changes in penalty rates? None other than the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Greg Combet himself. So Mr Combet is on record as saying he has been personally involved in the negotiation in relation to penalty rates, and yet the member for Perth comes in here yesterday and says, ‘Isn’t this a disaster that there was a negotiation of penalty rates.’ What is most bizarre about this particular case and this allegation is that the Australian Labor Party, once the party of workers in Australia, is actually standing in the way of employees at this particular business achieving a 12 to 13 per cent increase in their wages. So we have got to the bizarre situation in the ACTU campaign that the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party, if they had their way, would actually deny workers a 12 to 13 per cent increase in their wages. Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition is so opposed to Australian workplace agreements? Why is it that he wants to rip them up when they can lead to desirable outcomes for workers, such as a 12 or 13 per cent increase in their wages? It can only be because of the vested interests of the union movement, who are ideologically opposed to Australian workplace agreements. I began this answer by recounting the fact that 159,000 jobs have been created in Australia in the last 138 days. There is no doubt about which parties represent the workers in this country. 70 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 70 14:14:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Argentine foreign minister, His Excellency Mr Jorge Taiana. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 70 Questions Without Notice 70 70 14:14:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and follows on from his answer to the previous question. It relates to the Lufthansa subsidiary Global Tele Sales’ AWA and his reference to the performance bonus and the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate. I refer the minister to his statement in which he said: The Advocate reports that there has been a reduction in the base pay offered in the AWA of between 3% to 10%. More critically he found a bonus system had been introduced that offers up to 16% per annum—enabling employees to earn up to a net 13% increase in wages. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth will come to his question. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Minister, isn’t it the case that the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate actually reported: And he concluded: In my view this does not provide employees with the certainty they should expect ... in circumstances where their base rates of pay are being reduced and penalty rates are being reduced and/or abolished. Why won’t the minister just admit that these employees will be worse off under the government’s wages race to the bottom? 70 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. If the proposition advanced by the member for Perth were correct, the reality would be that workers would not be taking up these AWAs. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Member for Sydney! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —The workers at this particular business have a choice of taking this AWA or remaining on their collective agreement. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —So what we have here is another indication from the member for Perth and the Australian Labor Party that individual Australian workers should not have the opportunity to make a choice for an industrial instrument— 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sydney is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —that will make them better off. As I said earlier, this is the bizarre and twisted situation which the Labor Party has got itself into: it wants to rip up an industrial instrument that enables tens if not hundreds of thousands of Australian workers to actually be better off and to make a choice for that. But on top of that, if there was something so bad about these particular provisions, I am trying to remember when I heard a complaint from the member for Perth about, for example, the CFMEU and Dunlop Bedding Victoria enterprise bargaining agreement 2005— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Perth has asked his question. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —which contains similar provisions to those in the Lufthansa agreement. Did I hear anything? Did anybody hear anything from the member for Perth about an agreement negotiated by the CFMEU which contains like conditions? No, nothing whatsoever. This again exposes the total hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this subject. 71 71 14:18:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 1 Mr ENTSCH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on Australia’s contribution to securing stability in the Solomon Islands? 71 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Leichhardt for his question and for his interest. I also add to your words, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs; I am delighted to have him in Canberra today. The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, RAMSI, celebrated its third anniversary in July. I think it is fair to say that, with the strong participation of New Zealand and Pacific Island countries, it has done a great deal to help Solomon Islanders put their lives back together again after the ethnic conflict that essentially brought the country to a halt. There is no doubt that RAMSI enjoys very strong public support in the Solomon Islands; perhaps not all politicians support it or appreciate it but certainly the general public in the Solomon Islands are enormously supportive. The Solomon Islands government now, after the upheaval of a few months ago, appears to be stable, and our expectation is that that will continue. The recent Foreign Investment Act has made the Solomon Islands a more attractive destination for investment, with palm oil and goldmining well on the way to restarting, but there still is a very long way to go. For example, we have some concerns about a commission of inquiry into the April Honiara riots, to be led by Mr Marcus Einfeld QC. We are particularly concerned that some of the terms of reference could interfere with the independence of the Solomon Islands judiciary and may impact on current court proceedings in relation to the riots. For example, a review of the arrests, charges and detention of two MPs, Messrs Dausabea and Ne’e, relates directly to the independent decision of a magistrate of the Solomon Islands judiciary. I note that the Solomon Islands legal profession is also concerned about the terms of reference. The Attorney-General has challenged two of the terms of reference in the Solomon Islands High Court and one of the commissioners has resigned because of these concerns. I mention this simply to underline the fact that there is still a long way to go in the Solomon Islands. We should not just be complacent that RAMSI is there; the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Federal Police have done a wonderful job. The media have withdrawn from the Solomon Islands so we do not hear about it anymore, but we remain extremely focused on it and there are still some concerns about activities taking place in that country. 72 72 14:22:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is again to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and follows on from his previous answer about the Lufthansa subsidiary Global’s AWA and his reference to choice. Isn’t it the case that the internal Global documents associated with the AWA and presented to Global employees make it crystal clear that the AWA is not subject to negotiation, that, if the AWA is not accepted, access to staff benefits will be lost—a matter which the Victorian Workplace Advocate identified as possible duress—and that Global has fewer than 100 employees and is exempt from any unfair dismissal remedy? Isn’t it the case that, far from choice, this was a take it or leave it AWA—take the AWA or lose benefits, or lose your job because you have no unfair dismissal remedy? 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 —The short answer to the honourable member’s question is no. What the honourable member for Perth is arguing is that there should be no choice between an AWA or a collective agreement. What this company has offered is a choice between an AWA or a collective agreement. Those workers who choose not to take the AWA remain on the collective agreement, and that was pointed out in advice from the company to the Victorian Workplace Advocate. The member for Perth knows that very well. Why is it— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith interjecting— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —Do not get too excited, Stephen. The reality is that the Labor Party do not like Australian workplace agreements because they give workers choice and they give them the opportunity to earn more money. Why is it that the once great party of the Australian worker is abandoning the worker today? 72 72 14:24:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 Mr JOHNSON —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister explain to the parliament how the deployment of troops to Afghanistan will enhance the security of Australia? 72 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Ryan for his question. He has a very strong commitment to the global war against terror. The Prime Minister yesterday, on behalf of the government, formally announced that Australia will send another 150 Australian troops to Afghanistan, bringing to 400 those who will be working with the Dutch, NATO and other forces in Afghanistan to assist the democratically elected Afghanistan government in dealing with significant political, economic, social and military challenges. It is important that, as Australians, we appreciate that our contribution to this is not just about supporting the Afghanistan government but also about upholding our responsibilities to be a part of the solution in relation to global terror. Australians, and too many Australian families, have been touched, if not scarred, in this decade by two Bali bombings and by the bombing of our embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia. And we have seen other evidence of terrorist activity in our region. There are a number of links between those who planned and committed these heinous crimes and Afghanistan. Samudra, who was sentenced to death for plotting the Bali bombing, testified during his trial that he had fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s, alongside Osama bin Laden. He also testified that it was his duty as a true Muslim to wage jihad against the West. The International Crisis Group in our region is headed by Sidney Jones—the respected and pre-eminent expert in Indonesian terrorism. A 2003 document to the International Crisis Group on Jemaah Islamiah in South-East Asia documented the relationship between those who trained in Afghanistan and terrorist activity in our region. Zulkarnaen, for example, who trained in Afghanistan in 1985, was a senior military commander of JI. Muklas, who was sentenced to death for the Bali bombing, trained there in 1986. Hambali, who is JI’s chief strategist and primary link between JI and al-Qaeda, also trained there in 1987. Dr Zachary Abuza, who is head of the Department of the Political Science and International Relations at Simmons College, in a paper that was published in 2002 looking at Hambali and the relationship between those who trained in Afghanistan and global terrorism, said: One cannot underestimate how important the Afghan connection is. It is, he says, the basis for the al-Qaeda network throughout the world. It is extremely important for us as Australians to appreciate, particularly when five per cent of the Australian population is overseas at any one time, that the defence and security of our country, our people, our interests and our values is not just about our borders, nor indeed our region. It is about ensuring that we make a contribution, along with others, to demonstrate what the Australian newspaper describes as ‘moral musculature’ in taking up the struggle against global terrorism. There is no greater source of it than Afghanistan. We have responsibilities in this area. We are very proud of the Australian Defence Force, what it is doing and what it is about to do on our behalf and on behalf of the next generation. 73 73 14:28:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that the monthly mortgage payment on the average mortgage of $220,000 is $1,430. Prime Minister, is it the case that, if the average borrower in Australia today were paying a top interest rate of 21.39 per cent that prevailed under Treasurer John Howard, they would face monthly mortgage payments of $3,922—more than twice what they are paying today? 73 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I think what the member for Lilley is saying, and I agree with him, is that, if you were paying higher interest rates now, you would be a lot worse off—that is true. The reality is that you are not paying higher interest rates now. That is why the community is so much better off. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley has asked his question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! 73 73 14:29:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 Mrs HULL —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government’s investment in infrastructure is helping our regional exporters, particularly in my electorate of Riverina? How does the Deputy Prime Minister respond to recent calls for that investment to be scrapped? 74 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question. Of course the member for Riverina knows only too well that it is just as important that we continue to invest in critical infrastructure across regional Australia to support our exporters as it is to open up new opportunities in export markets for them, whether it be the wheat growers in her electorate of Riverina or the manufacturing exporters like Celair-Malmet or Precision Parts that are doing very well. They are in regional Australia, and we support them. We support their efforts of competing across the world and providing jobs in those regions in the export industries. This year we have committed a significant amount of money to invest in infrastructure across Australia, particularly in regional Australia, through our AusLink program, in adding to the already successful AusLink program and in building it to a $15 billion investment in roads across Australia. But we have also announced a significant investment in communications infrastructure to underpin the need for modern communications across regional Australia as well as in the metropolitan areas. I instance the $3.1 billion Connect Australia package that we announced. It had two components: the $1.1 billion investment for services such as Broadband Connect to help fill in those gaps, particularly across regional Australia; and the $2 billion perpetual Communications Fund, which is going to provide the safety net for regional Australia for years to come. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —I will come to that in a minute. So, where the market fails to provide new technology, there is going to be a guaranteed source of revenue to provide that technology in regional Australia for industries like those in the member for Riverina’s electorate. It is well known that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to these two lots of investment in infrastructure in regional Australia. Firstly, he referred to the Roads to Recovery program as a boondoggle. In this year’s budget we have added another $307 million to local authorities through the Roads to Recovery program, and I bet that the local authorities in the member for Brand’s electorate take the money and want to keep it. They would not want it taken back and they would not believe it is a boondoggle. The Leader of the Opposition described the Connect Australia package as a National Party slush fund. I wonder if the member for Capricornia thinks it is a National Party slush fund when it helps her constituents get better communication services. People in country Australia do not believe, as the Leader of the Opposition does, that it is unnecessary and trivial. They do no believe that the Roads to Recovery program is a boondoggle. They believe that the Leader of the Opposition is unnecessary and trivial. 74 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 74 14:33:00 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 National Parliamentary Committee on Social Development from the Parliament of South Africa. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 74 Questions Without Notice 74 74 14:33:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that the monthly mortgage payment on the average mortgage of $220,000 is $1,430. Is the Prime Minister aware that the monthly mortgage payment on an equivalent sized mortgage would currently be $1,169 in the United States and $1,234 in the United Kingdom? When will the Prime Minister admit that Australians are paying some of the highest interest rates among developed countries? 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I welcome this resort by the member for Lilley to American and British analogies. I am reminded, in the context of industrial relations, of that immortal injunction of Tony Blair’s that fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job. I am fascinated that the member for Lilley wants this government to embrace the economic policies of the current United States administration. I wonder if the member for Lilley would like us to embrace, as one of his predecessors did— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Apart from the fact that the member for Lilley does not want to embrace— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will come to his point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —The point of order is on relevance. It is a question about interest rates. The Prime Minister does not want to talk about that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is answering the substance of the question. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I wonder if they would like us to have a look at the capital gains tax on the family home that exists, subject to certain thresholds, in both Britain and the United States. When he asked me that question, I was reminded of that great Labor campaign in 1980, when Peter Walsh raised the possibility of having a capital gains tax on the family home. If the opposition wants— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Lilley will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Lilley then left the chamber. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is a question about interest rates. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have just ruled on that point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —He hasn’t mentioned interest rates. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat and will not debate it. I will rule on his point of order. The Prime Minister is answering the substance of the question. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —If the Labor Party wants to start advocating American housing policies, including a capital gains tax on the family home, this government will be very happy to oblige the member for Lilley and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition. Of course interest rates in the United States have been lower than they have been in Australia; that is obvious. The reason is that the United States economy was flattened a few years ago by adverse economic developments. The reason the Australian economy was not flattened is that this government managed the Australian economy better than the American administration did the American economy. 75 75 14:37:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 Dr WASHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House what the government is doing to fight cancer in Australia? In particular, what recent steps have been taken to improve detection and treatment of bowel cancer? 76 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Moore for his question. I thank him for the passion and commitment that he brings to all of these health issues based on his long experience as a medical practitioner in the suburbs of Perth. I regret to say that cancer will afflict one in three Australian males and one in four Australian females before the age of 75, but the good news is that Australian cancer survival rates are the second highest in the world and that our cancer survival rates have increased by 14 per cent over the last 20 years. Bowel cancer, I regret to say, currently kills about 5,000 Australians a year, but the good news is that it is relatively easy to treat and cure if it is detected early. Over the next two years, everyone turning 55 and 65—more than one million people—will be offered bowel cancer screening as the first stage of the government’s national bowel cancer screening program. The first test kits went out in the mail this week in Queensland. Test kits will be going out in New South Wales from next week and test kits will be going out in Victoria from next month. I say to the Australian people: if you do have the chance to be screened, take it because it could save your life. It is estimated that, of the 25,000 people who participated in the trial program, some 20 lives were saved. Finally, I would like to thank the states and territories for their cooperation in establishing this important new national program. 76 76 14:39:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms MACKLIN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the BIS Shrapnel senior economist who recently said in relation to constraints on the growth of the Australian economy that ‘the real, enduring problem is going to be the shortage of skilled labour’? In light of the analysis that the skills shortage is the major constraint on the Australian economy, why did the Commonwealth reduce expenditure on education and training as a proportion of this year’s budget? 76 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have not seen the full contribution from BIS Shrapnel, but I certainly agree that one of the problems this country faces at present is a shortage of skilled tradesmen. I agree with that. The government recognised that at the time of the last election. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —It takes four years— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader has asked her question. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The most significant policy in the last election, dealing with the issue of skills, was the commitment by the government to establish Australian technical colleges. I am very pleased to inform the House that 20 of the 25 technical colleges will be up and running by the beginning of next year. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —Why weren’t they getting trained this year? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I remind the parliament and I remind the member for Jagajaga in particular of an interview on 8 August 2006—it is very contemporary. It was an interview with Michael Costa, who is a senior minister in the New South Wales government. The intro from the ABC presenter said: After 11 years of Labor government, the Treasurer is happy to admit to other failures. Michael Costa: We failed to keep our apprentice numbers up—partly that was due to, you know, the focus on the balance sheet, the need to look at cost-cutting strategies—and unfortunately, it seems that apprenticeships was an easy one. In other words, what that does is implicate the states. The member for Jagajaga talks to me about the investment of this government in skills. Let me remind the member for Jagajaga that we now have 389,000 apprentices and trainees in training. That represents a 151 per cent increase since March 1996. We are providing 167,000 additional places between 2005 and 2008. By contrast, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training in 1993 there were only 123,000 apprentices in training. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler is warned and so is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I remind those opposite that, since 1995-96, the Australian government VTE funding has increased by 85 per cent in real terms. Unmet demand for VTE—vocational training and education—places has halved. In other words, the allegation that this government has cut funding for skills training is absolutely incorrect. 77 77 14:43:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House of steps the government has taken to stop Australians from joining terrorist organisations overseas? 77 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the honourable member for Casey for his question because he raises a very important question and Australians ought to be informed. It is important in the context of the conflict in the Middle East, in particular. Many in our community have strong ties to Lebanon and Israel. We understand that people are legitimately concerned about family and friends, but I would urge caution if people plan to join in the conflict or send funds to assist. While it is unlikely to be an offence if people join or are conscripted into the defence forces of recognised governments, the same cannot be said for engagement or involvement in Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a multifaceted organisation. It has political, social and military components. There is one element, Hezbollah’s External Security Organisation, that has been listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government since 2003. The External Security Organisation is a distinct terrorist wing of Hezbollah and has been responsible for attacks dating back to the 1980s. It is assessed as continuing to prepare, plan and foster acts involving threats to human life and serious damage to property. The military wing of Hezbollah, referred to as Islamic Resistance, is not proscribed, nor are the political or social components. So Australians who engage with or provide support to the External Security Organisation might be committing a terrorist offence under the Criminal Code and, equally, under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. But under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act it is an offence to enter a foreign state with the intent to engage in hostilities or to engage in hostile activities in a foreign state. The foreign incursion offence does not apply if a person is with the armed forces of a government, and that would mean it would not apply in relation to Israeli or Lebanese defence forces. However, Australians who engage in hostile activities with the Hezbollah military wing or the External Security Organisation could well be committing an offence. The whole of Hezbollah is listed for the purposes of our asset-freezing legislation, and it is an offence under the Charter of the United Nations Act to deal with its assets or to make assets available to it. I think this is a very important matter, which Australians who are thinking of dealing with Hezbollah in any way, shape or form should have regard to, because, as I have outlined, there is the potential for serious criminal acts to be committed. 78 78 14:47:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Can the minister confirm that, prior to his Lateline interview, Mr Andrews was subject to intensive coaching by departmental lawyers and the minister’s own office on the form and content of his Lateline presentation? 78 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 —No, I cannot. 78 78 14:47:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister update— Honourable members interjecting— KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —Please! Would the minister update the House on the productivity gains achieved on the Australian waterfront as a result of this government’s actions? 78 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr TRUSS —I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. He represents two important Australian ports—Gladstone, which is one of the big-volume ports in Australia, and Bundaberg, which receives a large number of international recreational vessels as the first port of call—so he has a particular interest in the performance of our ports and in ensuring that our trade flows freely through those ports. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —Tell us the cost of containers! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne Ports! GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —The reality is, of course, that it is very important for Australia to have a smoothly working port system. The BTRE, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, is about to release a report in which it forecasts that the volume of non-container trade to pass through our ports in Australia will grow from 0.6 billion tonnes this year to 1.4 billion tonnes in 20 years time. A big proportion of that will be going through ports like Gladstone. In addition, it is forecast that there will be an even bigger increase, a 5.4 per cent per annum increase, over the next 20 years in the movement of containers, from 5.2 million 20-foot equivalent unit containers this year to 14.9 million TEUs in 2024—virtually a threefold increase. When you think back to 1996, the rate of moving these containers across the port was stuck on 14, 15 or 16 containers an hour. In fact, when the Labor Party were last in office they told us that it was physically impossible to move them at a faster rate than 17 containers an hour—that was the absolute maximum rate that could be reached. Of course, we are now well over 27 containers an hour and doing very much better. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne Ports is warned! GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —Imagine what a crisis we would have in this country if we were trying to move 15 million TEUs a year with crane movement rates. How could we possibly get the freight across the ports if we were still operating our container terminals at the rate that Labor said was the maximum that could be achieved? The reality is that this government has made substantial reforms to facilitate trade, to get our ports working better. The bad news, of course, is that the Leader of the Opposition wants to roll back industrial relations reform. He wants to go back to 1996 and presumably 1996 container-handling rates, and that will bring our country to a standstill. Our trade will stop. Those are the kinds of policies that Labor is trying to put before the Australian people. 79 79 14:51:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 Mr SNOWDON —My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to his claim yesterday that the protection of whistleblowers is paramount. Can he confirm that an Indigenous whistleblower in his department, Tjanara Goreng Goreng, has been suspended and had her home raided by the Australian Federal Police? Can the minister confirm that one of the grounds for suspension included the officer’s alleged connection with the Mutitjulu community? Why has Ms Goreng Goreng not enjoyed the same protection as Mr Andrews, a man with a demonstrated connection to Mutitjulu? 79 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 thank the honourable member for his question. As he pointed out, this is a matter of investigation by the Federal Police. I do not discuss such matters in this forum or anywhere else. 79 79 14:52:00 Prosser, Geoff, MP RI4 Forrest LP 1 Mr PROSSER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister outline to the House the government’s efforts to support business innovation and competitiveness in Australian industry. 79 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I thank the member for Forrest for his question and lament his recent announcement that he will not be joining us again in this place after the next election. He has made a fine contribution on behalf of Western Australia, particularly in the resources area. The cornerstone of the Howard government’s support of business innovation is very much the R&D tax concession program, a market driven program that responds directly to the needs of industry. We now have almost 6,000 Australian businesses, 90 per cent of them SMEs, registered for the concession. That is an increase of some 52 per cent in the last five years. That is no accident, and it is also no accident that business expenditure now is at record levels, reaching $7.2 billion in 2004 according to the latest ABS study. Innovation is a critical part of our competitiveness for Australian industry. As I go around Australia as part of my preparation for the industry statement I will be discussing the issue of how we can further assist industry with innovation. Our international competitors are not standing still in this area, and neither can we. If we want to talk about people standing still, there is the opportunity to consider what is happening on the other side of this chamber in terms of policies or attempted policies that have recently been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. In raising for the Labor Party what he called the Innovation Blueprint, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was very attracted to the scrapping of the R&D concession in favour of loans and grant schemes. Judging by the reaction from industry, people there are not quite so sure that the Leader of the Opposition has any idea about innovation. In fact, some of the responses that we received, particularly from industry bodies, are worth recalling. The AiG’s Heather Ridout said that the proposal would mean that ‘a board—or the government for that matter—decides what programs get up, but that under a tax concession it is a market driven scheme, which is far more accessible’. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies said that scrapping of the tax concession would do ‘more damage than good’. And R&D tax experts from firms like KPMG and PwC describe the proposal as ‘retrograde’, ‘unfortunate’, sending the ‘wrong message’, creating a ‘grant mentality amongst companies’, ‘picking winners’ and being ‘costly and time consuming’. What we have here is obvious opposition from industry but obvious lack of understanding of innovation and innovation policy by the Leader of the Opposition. It is no coincidence then that he has gone completely silent on this area as his reheated ‘noodle nation’ becomes limp and soggy. It was a poor attempt at policy which exposed the Leader of the Opposition for not only being a weak leader but also having no idea on innovation, no idea on industry and no idea to help either. 80 80 14:56:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the role of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in signing off on water entitlement allocations to the six New South Wales valleys involved in the Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program as recommended by the Groundwater Adjustment Advisory Committee some two months ago. I do not want to overdramatise the urgency of this decision, but the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary should be aware that irrigators are making critical planning decisions relating to their cropping activities on the basis of unknown water entitlements and need an urgent decision at government level. Could the Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary update the House on progress relating to this issue. 80 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I will do my best. I will consult the parliamentary secretary at the end of question time. I am aware of the importance and urgency of this issue. I am also aware that there are still a number of taxation aspects that need to be resolved. They are in hand. I had a meeting with some people concerned in relation to this issue. Of course, the actual determination of the entitlements has something to do with the roles and responsibilities of the New South Wales government, as I think the honourable member for New England would be aware. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I cannot quite pick that up. I will talk to you later. Let me simply assure the honourable gentleman that if there is anything further that needs to be done by the Commonwealth government to expedite the resolution of this matter I am quite sure that the member for Wentworth will do it. 80 80 14:58:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 Mr TICEHURST —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House how schools are benefiting from the government’s Investing in Our Schools program. Has the minister received any feedback on the effectiveness of the program? 80 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the member for Dobell for his question and acknowledge his keen interest in education in his electorate. The Australian government’s $1 billion Investing in Our Schools program is designed to provide funding for smaller scale projects for necessary infrastructure for schools. This program has become necessary because of the chronic neglect by state Labor governments of state government schools. There are state government schools that have been waiting years for some of the most basic amenities to be funded. To put it in context, there are about 6,900 state government schools across Australia. Just in the first two rounds—rounds 1 and 2—of the Investing in Our Schools program there have been over 8,000 applications for funding from the federal government for state government schools. In round 3 there are now 10,000 applications from state government schools to the federal government. That is almost three applications per government school—per state government school—to the Australian government. The sorts of projects for which they are seeking funding are things like fixing up vermin infested sports sheds, fixing up threadbare carpets and fixing up canteens that have failed to meet state government health department standards, yet state governments are doing nothing to invest in their schools. You would have thought that perhaps the state Labor governments would be shamed into doing something about it but, according to the Sunday Telegraph of 9 July, the New South Wales state government will spend more money on buying new cars for public servants than on upgrading schools this financial year. You would think that members opposite would be slamming the state Labor governments for failing to properly invest in state government schools. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cunningham. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —But, no, the members opposite— DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cunningham is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —are complaining to the coalition about funding for state government schools. The member for Charlton wrote to us about sports facilities in a government school in her electorate. She said: The current facilities are inadequate, impractical and unsafe ... This is in a state government school. So under round 1 of the Investing in Our Schools program the Howard government provided the $50,000. The member for Chifley wrote to us about a lack of air conditioning in a school in his electorate, a state government school. He said: This is having an adverse effect on students’ health and their ability to concentrate. He goes on: The students inform me they suffer headaches, dehydration, nosebleeds as a result of the school’s lack of airconditioning. This is in a state government school. Did he write to the state government? No, he wrote to the Howard government, and we funded it under round 2—$118,000. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The member for Chisholm has written to me recently about problems caused by flooding because of a leaking roof in a state government school in her electorate. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Chisholm. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Chisholm is warned! 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Chisholm will remove herself from the House under standing order 94(a). The member for Chisholm then left the chamber. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —But the member for Ballarat takes the cake. She is going around her electorate claiming credit for the shambles that the state— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: as standing orders require of me, I raise a matter of privilege straightaway. The particular program to which the minister is referring is one which every member of this House, including me and all my colleagues, was written to about by the government asking us to correspond with them— Government members interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —We did not oppose this. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The leader has the call. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —We were asked to correspond with them on issues and concerns amongst schools in our constituencies, particularly state schools in our constituencies, in order to raise those matters with them. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The leader will come to his point. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —It is a matter of privilege, Mr Speaker. The privilege issue is this: when a minister invites correspondence with herself—or, in this case, the government—from individual members of parliament, is privilege breached when that material is taken into this chamber and presented to it? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I take note of the request of the Leader of the Opposition. I will take on board the comments, investigate them and report back to the House. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —But the member for Ballarat takes the cake. In her newsletter to her electorate, she lists a number— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege with you. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —The minister, in using both correspondence and a newsletter that I have in parliament in this way, is seeking to significantly impede my duty to do my job by communicating with my constituents. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat has the right to be heard. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —She is significantly impeding my right as a member of this place to communicate with my constituents and to write support letters for government programs to which they are entitled to apply for funding and for which they would expect to be supported by their local member. She is significantly impeding my duty and my ability to do that, and I ask you to call her to order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat, I believe, has raised a question of privilege. It is along similar lines to that raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I will investigate it and report back. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —Mr Speaker, I ask that if she continues to do that you refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have responded to the member for Ballarat’s request. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —I table the very public letter to some 80,000 voters in the member for Ballarat’s electorate and, in tabling it, I point out that in this newsletter she claims credit for the $4.3 million in funding that has been directed to the Ballarat electorate for state government schools. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat has already been warned. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —And nowhere in this newsletter is there any mention of the fact that this is Australian government funding under the Investing in Our Schools program for state government schools. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms Annette Ellis interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Canberra. 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms Annette Ellis interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Canberra is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —Members opposite ought to be ashamed of the fact that they do not publicly denounce state Labor governments across this country for failing to invest in their schools. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will remove himself from the House under standing order 94(a). The member for Grayndler then left the chamber. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Grayndler has been removed for an interchange with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I would have thought your approach would have been even-handed. If one is to be excluded for that interchange, so should the other—the minister on the other side of the House. All we seek in this House is an even-handed application of the standing orders. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will respond to the member for Batman because I believe he has raised a serious point. I remind him that the member for Grayndler was warned prior to his being asked to leave the chamber. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Mr Speaker, further to the point of order and your ruling: on that basis I seek your advice as to when you will be warning, in an even-handed fashion, the minister for Indigenous affairs. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the member for Batman that I have not made a ruling and that 94(a) is not a ruling—it is a case of upholding the standing orders. I think I can say that at all times I endeavour to uphold the standing orders fairly. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: if that is the case, that you seek to apply the standing orders in an even-handed fashion, I seek your advice in a similar vein as to when you will appropriately, in accordance with the standing orders and in accordance with your duties and responsibilities to all members of this House, warn the minister for Indigenous affairs. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think the member for Batman has made his point, and I have responded to him. 83 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL answers 83 83 15:09:00 Mr HOWARD,MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I would like to add to an answer that I gave to the member for New England. I have been informed since I answered that question that in fact agreement has been reached between the parliamentary secretary and the New South Wales minister. The parliamentary secretary has written to me and, subject to my being satisfied with the arrangement, it will be okayed and will go ahead. 83 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 83 15:10:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I have been misrepresented twice today: firstly, by the Prime Minister at a press conference and, secondly, by the Treasurer in question time. The Prime Minister repeated today, and the Treasurer joined him, that since the Work Choices legislation has been put in place I have alleged that the legislation would produce immediate mass sackings. Indeed, on a search of the parliamentary database it appears that I have been verballed on that 21 times by the Prime Minister, four times by Piers Ackerman and once today by the Treasurer. A further search of that database reveals that I have never at any stage claimed that the Work Choices legislation would produce mass sackings. The claim that I have made is, firstly, that workers are easier to sack as a result of this legislation—that is manifestly true—and, secondly, that the actions of this act on the workplace rights of Australian workers would be like an infestation of termites. That is true too. 84 Questions to the Speaker 84 84 15:11:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. In answering my question yesterday about the disguised appearance of Mr Gregory Andrews on Lateline, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs stated that he had been informed of Mr Andrews’s appearance on the afternoon before the interview was recorded on 2 June 2006. However, the Proof Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings records the minister as saying that he was informed on the afternoon prior to 21 June. The Lateline program featuring Mr Andrews was broadcast on Lateline on 21 June 2006. I have watched and listened to a tape of yesterday’s proceedings which confirmed that the minister advised the House that he was advised of Mr Andrews’s appearance on the afternoon before 2 June. In this matter involving a senior Commonwealth officer making an anonymous appearance on television to back claims made by his minister, the record is of critical importance. I ask that you view the tape of yesterday’s proceedings and ensure the answer actually given by the minister is recorded in the Hansard. I further ask that you investigate the circumstances of the inaccurate proof, including any requested corrections by the minister’s office that contributed to its inaccuracy, and report back to the House. 84 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Wills. I will undertake investigations with Hansard and report back as appropriate. 84 84 15:13:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —You may be aware of my vehement opposition to the government’s migration policy, both on the floor of this House and in my electorate. Notwithstanding the events of yesterday and your ruling, and the implications of that, I did note today that the government gagged debate on this piece of legislation. I would have wanted the opportunity to voice my opposition, with my colleagues, to this obnoxious piece of legislation that came onto the floor of the parliament. Mr Speaker, I am asking you whether there is any opportunity under the standing orders— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr Costello interjecting— WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Well, you would know about juvenile interjections. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will come to his question. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Mr Speaker, I am wondering whether there is any opportunity under the standing orders for me to register my opposition to the legislation notwithstanding your ruling, the implications of that and the fact that the government has gagged debate. 84 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —In response to the member for Corio, I do not believe there are any ways in the House in which he might do that, other than what he has just done. 85 85 15:14:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105(b). Questions have been on the Notice Paper in my name for more than 60 days and I would be grateful if you could write to the ministers and seek reasons for the delay in replying to questions in writing Nos 3075, 3247, 3488 and 3578. 85 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question and I will follow up his request. 85 85 15:15:00 Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP XS4 Fremantle ALP 0 Dr LAWRENCE —I have a question to you, Mr Speaker. On Tuesday morning, I am not sure what time but certainly around 9 or 10, two very fine women arrived here at the parliament after having spent some time walking across the Nullarbor to draw attention to the need to eliminate racism in our community—a very low-key affair, done without much fanfare, but of interest to the media. When they came into the parliament—with the approval of another member, not me—I must say they were treated with a lack of respect by the building staff and asked to remove the aprons that they had worn during that walk. The information on the aprons was very simple. ‘Steps toward healing’ is what it said on the front or the back, with a map of Australia, half black and half white, and hands reaching up to each other in relief, in reverse colour. They were required to remove that clothing before coming into the parliament and, although they did not complain greatly to me, it was clear that they were treated in ways that can only be described as officious and unpleasant. I wonder if you would investigate that matter, please. 85 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Fremantle. As the member for Fremantle would be aware, the staff at the doors do operate under guidelines concerning statements, but I will certainly make further investigations on her behalf. 85 DOCUMENTS Mr BROUGH (Longman —Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) 15:16:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Higher Education Funding Act—Report detailing determinations made under the Act in respect of 2004. Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Quarterly report on movement cap for Sydney airport—1 January to 31 March 2006. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 85 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 85 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to heed warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia that skills shortages have created inflationary pressures in the Australian economy, exposing Australian families to the burden of higher interests rates. 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— 86 15:17:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —The chickens have really come home to roost this week for the Howard government. What we have seen this week is not only an interest rate rise but another interest rate rise to hurt all the mortgage holders of this country. All the families around Australia who are finding it tough to pay their mortgages have only two people to blame: the Prime Minister of this country and his Treasurer. But this really was a watershed question time today. For the first time in 10 years, this Prime Minister refused to answer a question from the shadow Treasurer about interest rates, because he knows that Australian families are now paying more and more for their mortgages—and they are paying more because of the extremely poor economic management by this government. We have cackling up the back from a member of the government because he obviously, like the member for Wentworth, just thinks that the reaction to this interest rate rise has been overdramatised. I hope all the families in your electorate, all the electors of Moncrieff, know that their member thinks that this interest rate rise is a big joke. Just like the member for Wentworth, the member for Moncrieff thinks this is a big joke. I hope he goes home and tells— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Jagajaga professes to speak on my behalf, and she is completely incorrect. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member has no point of order. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —It is plain that the member for Moncrieff has not been able to tell the families in his electorate what this government has been up to for the last seven years. For seven years, this government has ignored the warnings of the Reserve Bank that go back to 1999. That was the first time that the Reserve Bank, in a statement on monetary policy, started warning this government about the serious skills shortages that existed in our economy. They reported in a survey done by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations at that time, way back in 1999, that we had skills shortages at historically high levels. Again, in the year 2000, there was a statement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, saying that skills shortages had emerged. Six years ago, the Governor of the Reserve Bank was telling this government how serious skills shortages were becoming and the pressure for higher wage rises appeared to be building. That was back in the year 2000. That is how long these inflationary pressures have been building in the Australian economy because of the actions of this government when it comes to skills shortages. And so it went on to 2004 and a statement on monetary policy: ‘business surveys suggest that a broad range of firms are finding it increasingly difficult to find skilled labour ... substantial increases in wages for skilled employees in construction and resources sectors and in some business service areas.’ And so it went on into 2005, when there was yet again a statement on monetary policy from the Reserve Bank. Year after year, this government has continued to ignore each of these warnings from the Reserve Bank about the higher labour costs being imposed on the economy—all due, to quote the Reserve Bank, to skills shortages that have arisen because of this government’s inaction on the training front. In 2005 there was a speech yet again from the Reserve Bank, with the wording getting more and more serious. In 2005 they were talking about the severity of the current skills shortage. They went on to say, ‘The difficulty of finding suitable skilled labour now is as high as it has been in the last two decades.’ That was in March 2005. So it went on until the most recent statement on monetary policy, where we have the Reserve Bank again talking about tight labour market conditions, shortages of skilled labour and recognising that that is particularly the case in the construction and resources industry. It is not only the Reserve Bank that has been telling the Howard government that this is a major constraint on the Australian economy. The government have ignored the warning of the economic forecaster BIS Shrapnel that this skills crisis will impact on the capacity of the Australian economy to grow. They have said that the Australian economy will struggle to maintain growth of three per cent because of the skills crisis. They said: While the difference between 3 and 4 per cent growth may sound minor, accumulated over a whole decade it amounts to a 10 per cent difference in the size of the economy— and this is the important point— … This is roughly the size of the output of Australia’s agriculture, mining and electricity sectors combined. That is all because this government, this Prime Minister and this Treasurer have not been capable of ensuring that we have sufficient skilled tradespeople in the economy, sufficient skilled professionals so that business has the skilled people to do the job that they need to do. How did all this come to pass? How is it that we have such a serious shortage of skilled labour in Australia? As a result of the government’s action, this country is the only developed country in the world to have seen, in the last 10 years, a cut in public investment in tertiary education—that is, to universities and technical education. There has been an eight per cent drop in public investment in tertiary education in Australia, while the average investment for the industrialised world is a 38 per cent increase. The government have cut investment in education and training, so is it any wonder that we now have a serious shortage of skilled labour—plumbers, carpenters, electricians and engineers? So the list goes on. It is because of the shortage of that skilled labour that we now have the Reserve Bank saying they have had to put up interest rates. The Australian family, who has a mortgage, is now paying for the extraordinary incompetence of the government as a result of the decisions taken, when they were first elected, to cut spending on higher education and training. If we look at what they did when they were first elected, we see that they froze the spending on vocational education and training, after there had been a significant cut when they were first elected. They massively cut funding to universities at the same time. We know that those cuts and the freezing of expenditure—when David Kemp was the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs—have resulted in the serious shortages of skilled tradespeople that this economy is now experiencing. It takes four years to train an electrician, a plumber or a carpenter. Between 2000 and 2003 there was a decline in the number of apprentices in traditional trades. That is why now, three years later, we have the Reserve Bank saying, ‘It’s these skills shortages that are driving up interest rates.’ The minister, who represents the electorate of Moreton, and the member for Moncrieff should go and tell all the mortgage holders in their electorates: ‘The reason you are paying higher interest rates on your mortgages is that we cut the funding to vocational education and training. We cut the funding to universities when we were first elected.’ It is the case that the mortgage holders of Australia are now paying through their mortgages for the extraordinarily short-sighted decisions that this government made nearly 10 years ago. In the most recent budget we had an extraordinary decision by the Howard government in the face of seven years of warnings from the Reserve Bank. We saw a decline in the proportion of funding in the budget going to vocational education and training, when we have an absolute crisis when it comes to the shortage of electricians, plumbers, carpenters—and so the list goes on. The Australian Industry Group, commenting on the 2006 budget, said that this was extremely disappointing. They are the people who represent all those businesses who now cannot get the skilled tradespeople they need to meet the jobs that have to be done in the economy. What has the response been from the Howard government to this massive shortage of skilled labour? Their one response has been to bring more people in from overseas. Rather than train Australians, rather than give young Australians the opportunity to learn a trade and ensure young Australians can get a skill and a trade, this government has turned 300,000 Australians away from TAFE and, at the same time, brought in 270,000 extra migrants from overseas to fill the skills shortages. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lyons has already been warned! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —That is exactly what has happened under this government. We know that the government has more recently got very keen on the idea of what is called a 457 visa. These are shorter term visas, where the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs allows employers to bring in temporary skilled migrants to fill these skills shortages. We understand how important it is for Australia to have skilled migration, but we do not agree with the department of immigration doing the dirty work for this government’s incompetence and allowing employers to bring in migrants from overseas to undercut the wages and conditions of Australian workers. We want Australian kids to have the chance to get a trade. We do not want those opportunities to be taken by people coming from overseas when there are thousands of young Australians who want the chance to get an apprenticeship. Skills as a driver of productivity in this country have dropped by 75 per cent over the last 10 years. We should be making sure that skills are the main driver of productivity. But we know this government’s answer for getting productivity increases out of the Australian workforce: make them work harder for less. The Howard government’s response to productivity is: let us compete with China and India by cutting wages and making people work harder. Labor’s answer to increase productivity is to invest in skills and the education of the Australian workforce to make sure that young Australians have the chance to get a good education and an apprenticeship—and not to give all those jobs to people coming from overseas. Labor has put forward many different policies in this area to address this government’s gross incompetence. We proposed a trade completion bonus—which, of course, this government could have picked up. We want to make sure that young people finish their apprenticeship. Forty per cent of young Australians are not finishing their apprenticeship. They are dropping out because the wages under this government are so appalling. So give them a bonus—give them $2,000 to encourage them to finish their apprenticeship. That way we might be able to address this very serious skills crisis. That is one thing this government could do immediately. But, no, they refused to do that. Rather than addressing what the Reserve Bank says is one of the main reasons for pressure on interest rates in this economy, their approach continues to be to drive their radical industrial relations reforms to make sure that Australians are competing with China and India on wages. Until we get action from this government to address this skills crisis, we are going to see the pressure on Australian families continue to grow—we are going to see the pressure on their mortgages continue to grow. These families have only one group of people to blame for the interest rate rises they are having to pay, and that is the Howard government. (Time expired) 89 15:32:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. The member for Jagajaga’s contribution was a curious grab bag. I noticed that less than half of the entire Labor caucus showed up and people left—in fact, so did the public gallery. In the member for Jagajaga’s efforts to secure her own deputy leadership, today is an historic occasion. She signed her letter to the Speaker today as ‘Jennifer Macklin’. I think there could be a push on. Maybe instead of losing her deputy leadership she is in fact starting to gain the momentum to try and roll ‘big Kim’, the member for Brand. We will have to wait and see. Going to the substantial nature of this debate, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a matter of public importance. It is absolutely important that the public is fully aware of the set of circumstances Australia is in today—and they can make a set of judgments. To compare and contrast the efforts of the previous Labor government and this government alone is a very worthy way of putting the case for why this government is quite the opposite of what the member for Jagajaga has put forward in her rant to this chamber today. The Labor Party used training to hide unemployment. I remember very clearly that, leading up to the 1996 election, there was a great community debate about the amount of money used on the Working Nation program, which was a training program designed to grab the long-term unemployed—unemployment was 11.1 per cent, while today it is 4.8 per cent; that is a great compare and contrast. There were billions of dollars in funding for Working Nation. No jobs were created, but people were slipped into a training program and not counted as unemployed. A way to hide unemployment was to train people; that was the way Labor saw training. Looking at apprenticeship completions, it is interesting to note that at the end of 1995 just 31,500 people completed an apprenticeship. How many completed an apprenticeship at the end of 2005? It was 138,700. So there were 31,500 completions in 1995 and 138,700 completions at the end of 2005. That is because this government has focused on training—not to hide people on welfare but because we believe people should have the opportunity to gain skills that are relevant to the way our economy works. We have generated an enormous number of apprenticeships. People are not only starting apprenticeships in record numbers today, but also completing apprenticeships in record numbers. The member for Jagajaga spoke about an ‘apparent’ cut in investment in education and training in the budget of August 1996. It is important to remind people that there was a very good reason why there would have been a review of expenditure in that budget. In fact, there were 96 billion reasons—and every one of them was an Australian dollar. There was a $96 billion black hole. The Australian Labor Party, announcing the 1995 budget at this very dispatch box, said there was going to be a surplus of more than $10 billion. When we came to office we found that they were not $10 billion up but $96 billion down. There was $96 billion of debt, which had an enormous impact on Australians who were borrowing money for their homes, for other investments and, indeed, for everyday expenditure. People were borrowing at a higher rate simply because the Australian government was in the borrowing market, owing $96 billion to the world. The government took the hard decisions in August 1996 and made the changes necessary to put us in a position where we are now debt free. In fact, we are now able to take the surpluses generated from the taxes paid by Australians and, using good economic management, put money aside in the Future Fund—something the Labor Party never imagined. What I also find amazing about the contribution by the member for Jagajaga today is that, in the previous parliament of 2001 to 2004, I think she asked one or two questions on skills. Yet today she tells me this is a crisis that has been building since 1999. It is a crisis that has not garnered any effort from the member for Jagajaga except for occasionally. Over the last six or seven weeks we in my office have been remarking about how quiet she has been—in fact, she has disappeared from the agenda. Maybe the winter recess was good to her; I was on the road talking with real Australians about real issues. I also know that the member for Jagajaga did nothing when it came to the 2003 national training agreement that this government attempted to negotiate with the states in a cooperative federalism model. All the states walked out on that to try and create a political pressure point at the expense of people in training. They walked away and denied Australians the extra growth funds we were offering through that agreement. I find all of that lack of attention, lack of credibility and lack of record of engagement on this issue a point that needs to be put on the record. In fact, I do not believe it was until the federal election campaign of 2004 that we heard from her. During that campaign the Prime Minister said that a raft of new measures and expenditure would be announced in the 2005 budget—which were delivered on time and in full; in fact, we delivered more than we promised in the 2004 election campaign. But we do not believe we heard anything from the member for Jagajaga until we started these sorts of initiatives that the government has put in place through over $1 billion of extra expenditure. If you want do a compare and contrast, the Australian Labor Party’s expenditure until 1996 was $1.07 billion; this government this year expended $2½ billion. On top of that there is additional money through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and a number of other departments for training, health and other areas. There has never been a government like this as far as investing in training is concerned. As an Australian government we have sponsored the distribution of more expenditure into the national training system than ever before in Australia’s history. What is absolutely critical is that we need the member for Jagajaga, and her apparently declining but nevertheless official influence in Australian politics, to participate with us to convince state governments to also do their part. I did not write the Constitution. It was written over 100 years ago and it was written by blokes. I often make the point that, if a few women had been involved, we might have got a few more sensible things in place. But, nevertheless, the Constitution prescribes that education and training is the responsibility of state governments. From the point of view of the Australian government, what we are trying to do is tell the states to stop standing at state borders and looking in and start looking across state borders and seeing themselves as part of an entire nation. If we start to get that sort of approach from state governments, we will not see a continuation of the stupid circumstance of a credential gained in one jurisdiction not being automatically recognised in another jurisdiction. That is why this government and this Prime Minister sponsored an enormous change at the Council of Australian Governments meeting earlier this year—to bring about a recognition of occupational licences in key nation-building traditional trades. State governments are now starting to realise the folly in their ways. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Get on with the issue! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Throsby interjects. This underscores how a former president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, now sitting as a member in this place, has herself sponsored the decline in the circumstances that they are complaining about. This government is actually doing something about it. The hard thing for those opposite to understand is that the state governments are starting to realise they must cooperate in this national agenda. The leadership from Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania is appreciated. The lethargy from Western Australia is lamented and the complete rallying against the way the world is going by New South Wales is pathetic. This is where the member for Jagajaga and, indeed, the member for Throsby could play a role. In fact, they could demand of the New South Wales government that they allow trade training to commence while kids are at school. There are no Australian school based apprenticeships at any of the certificate levels, first, second, third or fourth, in the trades in New South Wales schools—none, zero. In Queensland there are about 8,000; in Victoria there is a growing number that is currently around 2,000; but in Western Australia they will not let you in the construction trades. Despite today’s announcement of a 4.8 per cent unemployment rate in Western Australia and businesses screaming out for trade skills, they are instead legislating to tell kids to stay at school until the end of year 12 and denying them the full raft of possibilities to start the elements of learning a trade while they are at school. Instead of trying to become the Leader of the Opposition at the expense of the training opportunities of young Australians, I would ask the member for Jagajaga to get a serious contribution in mind and join with me, the Prime Minister and all the members on this side of the chamber and demand a truly national training system response from all state governments. Even Michael Costa, the New South Wales Treasurer, said earlier this week that dollars were more important than training. Mr Costa said: We failed to keep our apprenticeship numbers up, partly that was due, you know, to the focus on the balance sheet, the need to look at cost-cutting strategies and unfortunately it seems that apprenticeships was the easy one. The government is putting in $2.5 billion; Labor put in $1 billion the last time they were in office. That is an 85 per cent increase. We have contributed an enormous amount of additional expenditure that Labor never put into place. The state governments tell me that, for every dollar I put in, they put in three or four. So, by the state governments’ own account, if we put in $2.5 billion they must put in somewhere between $7.5 billion and $10 billion. I think they are exaggerating their involvement but I will take them at their word. If those numbers are right, where are the priorities? The priorities are building large, fat bureaucracies in the state government departments and giving jobs to union mates who can’t do anything around the workplaces anymore because people are turning their backs on trade unions. They have to give them something to do, and they give them a big, fat pay packet to go with that and, as long they have a job, ‘It’s okay, Jack.’ I am afraid that is not the way this government sees the world. We see training opportunities for young people to start at school as a critical element of the way forward. Again, the member for Jagajaga does not understand this. It has been 12 years since we started talking about competency based training, yet here again today the member for Jagajaga is talking about the amount of time it takes. The simple matter is, if we can get units of competency being the basis for the advancement of people’s ability to earn more money, the units of competency being the basis on which they are paid more because they are worth more in the workplace, we will see people leaving a trade apprenticeship in a faster way. In fact we will also see people who have experience in other places and who have done other things getting those credentials recognised, getting that prior experience recognised, and getting them working. That is why the Queensland government said to me—and in fact gave me a document to prove their point—that they need something like a 32 per cent increase in the number of people who know how to drive earthmoving equipment. They want to build dams and they want to build roads. They want to build all these things but they know that, because we lost 30,000 people in one year when Kim Beazley, the member for Brand, was the minister responsible for training, the recession we had to have dumped all of those people out of the apprenticeship system, which was evidenced by the fact that we had only 30,900 graduating in 1996. People dropped out. The Queensland government are saying to me that, because we lost so many people who had partly completed their apprenticeships in the early 1990s, there are people floating around this country with some of the skills but not all of the skills who are frustrated because they cannot actually do what they know they can do. They have not got the piece of paper. So I am happy to work with Queensland on that. I would also remind the member for Jagajaga, as she is a member of the same faction of the Labor Party in Victoria, that she was a senior adviser in the failed Cain-Kirner years when the Socialist Left faction presided over the closing down of the Victorian technical schools. It might have worked well as she was sipping cafe lattes in Brunswick Street and working for David White, a key member of that disastrous party. She was a member of the guilty party, as Victorians would know, but even Lynne Kosky, the Victorian education minister, has admitted today that the Australian Labor Party may have erred when it closed down the technical schools across Victoria during the former Cain government. So we have the member for Jagajaga trying to cover her sins and cover for the failure of the Labor Party when they were in government, and failing to understand that no government has invested more and no government has achieved more, failing to understand that never has there been more people in training, never has there been more people in the traditional trades and never has there been more opportunities for jobs, because of the strong economic management of this government. This economy is moving strongly, and as it demands more and more we will give it. (Time expired) 92 15:47:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —That was quite an intriguing contribution from the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, because he really did not at any stage defend himself on the points raised in this matter of public importance. He had a great deal of interest in the member for Jagajaga and where she has been and where she is going. I can understand that somebody would wish to follow the career of the member for Jagajaga, but that is not what we are here for today. It is not about one job; it is about many jobs. It is about the state of the Australian economy and it is about the fate of families who are confronting increasing interest rates and increasing petrol prices. I would have thought, as I understand the seat of Moreton, the electorate of the minister, that he in particular would understand that the people he represents in that area of Brisbane, the outer suburbs of Brisbane, are confronting those dual problems in their day-to-day lives. It is clear that the increase in interest rates and the threat to the consumer price index because of increasing petrol prices affect all Australians, but there are pockets in regional areas where the effect on people is even greater. Interestingly enough, there are studies now that clearly show that families in outer urban areas, such as the electorate of Scullin, who are confronting these dual phenomena at the moment are really finding it tough. The minister ignored the fact that the basis of today’s matter of public importance was comments in a Reserve Bank document of 4 August which, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly indicated, merely iterated concerns about the skills shortage. These concerns have been clearly identified for several years, and the member for Jagajaga went through in detail the times when this government had the opportunity to have the light globe go on and say, ‘There is a problem.’ But in defence of the accusation, which is factual, of a decrease in Commonwealth resources given to university and technical training, what does the minister say? He goes back to this 1996 black hole—the great spin doctoring of this government. But he did admit in making that contention that they did make the cut. So the government have now had 10 years to drag themselves out of the black hole they are supposed to have inherited at the same time that the Prime Minister said they had inherited an economy that was not bad, and very good in some parts. But forget about that 10 years down the track: ‘Oh, no, it was only the way we did the accounting and what we were told—what we didn’t know until we got the blue book.’ But they have had 10 years to redress this problem. In the last few budgets the government have not been fainthearted in the way they have thrown money at problems. It is just everywhere. The member behind reminds me of a comment I first heard from the member for Rankin: ‘They have just thrown money around like drunken sailors.’ That is one of the things that the Reserve Bank is concerned about: this is a mob who, in the way they run the economy, think it runs on autopilot. When you have something running on autopilot, you have to have the gizmo that is the autopilot. They did not put in the gizmo, and they let go of all the levers. When PJ Keating, the former member for Blaxland, was Treasurer, he often said that the way in which a responsible government made sure that the economy was working in the best interests of the Australian community and Australian families was by having its hands on the lever of economic management. He decried those opposite who parodied him about that. He was no shrinking violet and would take those sorts of criticisms with a grain of salt. I was interested in looking at some of the things that he said at that time about using the levers of economic management to ensure that the government was guiding the way forward for the Australian economy, and he made some comments about his predecessor. At one stage, back in 1988, he talked about a member of this chamber called ‘Mr Nearly’—that is a very unparliamentary term, which is beside the point as I am sure our standards have changed. I would suggest that he was referring to the Prime Minister as ‘Mr Nearly’. He said: He nearly floated the exchange rate. He nearly deregulated the financial market. He nearly got control of the Budget. He nearly cracked down on bottom of the harbour schemes. And those opposite want to lecture us about matters economic! Let us get this clear: if they want to enter into a dialogue about those matters then the conclusion that we could make is that they have had it pretty easy and that they have squandered their opportunities. One of the things that they have squandered is maximising the potential of our human resources. Because of commodity prices being the way that they are, the government has tended to see economic growth continuing on the basis of what we rip out of the ground or what we are able to generate as primary producers. Regrettably, that is where coalition governments always seem to drop back to. They just do not want to say: ‘We’re working in a modern global economy. We’re acting upon an economy that has changed because of the Hawke-Keating years, and we need to recognise that. So why would we be so foolish as not to invest in our human resources and ensure that our people are skilled to the hilt when our competitors—especially countries in the Asian region such as China and India—are growing and putting out graduates in the millions while we are struggling in the thousands?’ What is really amazing is that this government says: ‘We had this bright idea. At the election we announced that we would have 25 new technical schools.’ Wow! That is spectacular, isn’t it? There is a skills shortage of about 100,000 people. When you convert the loss of resources back to the schools sector, it means a reduction of 122,000 people who could have undergone training. Then you have to factor in that the promise of 25 colleges has come out as only 20. I thought the minister was getting close to admitting what the government’s idea for the Australian technical schools was really about. It was really about ideological hatred and differences. A couple of days ago I said that it concerned all the state administrations. Perhaps I was wrong, because the minister did not seem to want to have a go at Western Australia and New South Wales today. That is just amazing. He said again today that the solution for the Commonwealth not putting any effort into a portfolio area is to say that it is the states’ responsibility. This denies that there have been nearly 15 years of full-blooded cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth in the area of TAFE colleges. How can a minister of the Crown come before us today and say that this is really the states’ responsibility but then champion the Australian technical colleges as the only response that the government has to Australia’s skills shortage, the effect that it is going to have on families and the way that they will be able to cope with the economy? That is a duplication—a dual system. Instead, the minister should sit down and cooperate with the states and look at places like Northland Secondary College in East Preston, the VCAL and other things that the Victorian government and other state governments have done. There is no need to re-invent the wheel: just get in there and cooperate. But unless this government acknowledges the shortages of skills and the infrastructure deficiencies, we will not see families being able to tackle the economic constraints that confront them. (Time expired) 94 15:57:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —It has been an interesting debate this afternoon. The member for Jagajaga put forward this matter of public importance, with the central thrust that Australian households today have seen the recent rise in interest rates as a consequence of the Howard government not heeding Reserve Bank warnings. I heard all sorts of claims from the member for Jagajaga and the member for Scullin alleging to put forward the position of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the Australian economy. We heard allegations from the member for Jagajaga that interest rate rises were a result of inflation, and that inflation was a direct consequence of a lack of investment in skills training. We heard the member for Scullin making claims that interest rate increases were a result of economic ineptitude on the part of the Howard government—another theme that was central to the argument that the member for Jagajaga put forward. But my concern, as someone who sits on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and having had the opportunity to sit opposite the Reserve Bank board on quite a number of occasions is that, despite what the member for Jagajaga and the Labor opposition would say, the evidence that has been put to the committee time and time again by the Reserve Bank board is in direct conflict and contrast to the allegations that the member for Jagajaga and the member for Scullin have made. In fact, the Reserve Bank board has indicated that the Australian economy is one of the best performing economies in the developed world. The economic cycle in this country has been growing for 15 years. We know that unemployment today has dropped to a 30-year low of 4.8 per cent—the lowest level since August 1976—because of the good economic management by the Howard government. We know that the Australian people have been enjoying an average GDP growth rate of 3¾ per cent because of the good work of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and, importantly, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, when it comes to the management of the Australian economy. Do not listen to what Labor says when it comes to its policies; look at what Labor does. When you actually look at the facts, you see that what the member for Scullin and the member for Jagajaga said is simply not supported by those facts. People should turn their minds to the facts, because they certainly do not support what the member for Jagajaga or the member for Scullin said. I would like to quote from what the Reserve Bank governor said. Rather than simply pretending to speak on his behalf, as the member for Jagajaga did, I will quote him. He made reference to a couple of key points in respect of how the Australian economy was growing and has been growing for 15 years, averaging at 3¾ per cent GDP growth. He spoke about the need to maintain this growth. He said: At the current stage of the expansion, there are a number of factors that might be expected to put upward pressure on inflation. The economy is operating at a high level of capacity utilisation, the labour market is relatively tight, and there have been some large increases in raw material costs. Aggregate wages growth has picked up over the past year, and businesses generally are reporting difficulty in attracting labour. He continued: This outlook is, as usual, subject to significant uncertainty. One area of uncertainty relates to wages growth, where there is a risk that current labour market tightness will result in higher than expected wage increases. He spoke about the fact that we have unemployment down to 4.8 per cent today—it was at about five per cent when he made those remarks—highlighting the fact that, because the Australian economy has been growing so strongly, it is leading to some tightness in the labour market and that may push up the inflation rate. An important and key fundamental to recognise—and I questioned the Reserve Bank governor on this—is the fact that one of the key drivers of inflation is wages growth. We saw recently, for example, that the Queensland Labor government and the New South Wales Labor government have given pay increases in the vicinity of 25 per cent to 30 per cent. Those are the kinds of wage increases that the Reserve Bank governor is directly talking about in that quote that I just read when he said that that is the kind of wages growth that will cause concern and push up interest rates. Bear in mind as well that it is the state Labor governments that are again borrowing billions of dollars to put into their economies. At a time when we are facing the risk of higher interest rates, which are still five per cent lower than the ALP’s average, we have state Labor governments adopting Labor Party policy and again borrowing billions and billions of dollars. If there is anybody who is putting pressure on the Australian economy, it is the Australian Labor Party, by allowing these ridiculous wage increases at a state level and, furthermore, by actually borrowing billions of dollars. In addition, I would like to make some reference to what the Reserve Bank governor said with respect to labour market reform. He said: I have made the point on a number of occasions that, whilst monetary policy can take a lot of credit for the stability of the expansion, for a long period the lift in productivity was nothing to do with monetary policy; it was to do with structural and microeconomic reform. To me, there were about five components to this, which have been occurring over the last 15 years: tariff reduction, financial deregulation, privatisation, labour market reform and competition policy. I think all five have been extremely important. I think we want to see further reform. We will be constantly evaluating our institutions to decide whether or not they really are first best. We have one reform, which has been achieved but not implemented yet, which is the third phase of labour market reform. He goes on in that transcript to talk about the absolute importance of labour market reform in ensuring that the Australian economy continues to grow—the kind of labour market reform which is directly responsible for this 30-year low in the unemployment rate, the kind of labour reform which the Australian Labor Party stands opposed to. The Australian Labor Party goes out there on a scare campaign and lies about the consequences of labour market reform. The kind of reform the Reserve Bank governor talks about when he fronts the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration is the kind of reform the Australian Labor Party stands opposed to. I reassert: don’t listen to what the Australian Labor Party says but look at what the Australian Labor Party does. At a state level, the Australian Labor Party is doing nothing except pushing up inflation and driving up interest rates. It is the Howard government and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, that are working to bring these down. Importantly, I heard the member for Jagajaga saying that the government’s approach is to cut wages. I think, to use an almost exact quote from the member for Jagajaga, she said ‘to make them work harder for less’. Apparently that is the government’s policy—very strange. In 10 years under the Howard-Costello government, we have seen wages increase by 16.3 per cent. Contrast that with the 13 years under Labor when the growth rate in real terms was a miserly 1.3 per cent. So we had a 1.3 per cent growth in real wages under the Australian Labor Party and a 16.3 per cent growth in wages under the Howard government. It hardly seems to be the case that this government’s policy is to make them work harder for less. Quite the contrary: this government’s policy is to ensure that Australians are enjoying some of the best working conditions they have ever enjoyed, as a result of this government’s policies. Once again, we see another furphy put forward by the member for Jagajaga. We have seen furphies from the member for Jagajaga on what the Reserve Bank governor has said, we have seen furphies with respect to this policy on labour market reform and we have seen furphies by the member for Jagajaga on what the consequences will be of the Work Choices legislation. I would like to turn to some Labor Party form, particularly with regard to their rhetoric. What we have seen is that, despite their claims, Labor actually started shutting down vocational education facilities in a whole host of areas. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, in 1987 closed down the Apprentice Training School at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. As Minister for Defence he closed down one of the best apprenticeship training courses that there was. In the limited time I have, I simply reassert that the Australian economy is widely regarded as the miracle economy, and it is because of 10 years of solid and sustainable economic growth under the Howard government. It stands in stark contrast with the lies we have heard from the Australian Labor Party about— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Moncrieff will withdraw the word ‘lies’. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —Out of deference to you, I will withdraw. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Just withdraw the word ‘lies’. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —I withdraw. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 97 PRIVILEGE 97 16:08:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The Minister for Education, Science and Training used question time today to obstruct me from performing my proper constitutional duties. Her criticism of me writing a support letter for one of the public schools in my electorate in seeking support for their funding under the Investing in Our Schools program was a gross breach of privilege and I would like the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges at the earliest convenience. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The Speaker indicated that he would do the same for other members, so I am sure he will do it for the member for Chisholm. 97 BILLS R2528 97 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 97 FRAN BAILEY (McEwen —Minister for Small Business and Tourism) 16:09:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 98 BILLS R2582 98 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 98 FRAN BAILEY (McEwen —Minister for Small Business and Tourism) 16:10:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 98 BILLS R2532 98 Debate resumed. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 98 16:11:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —Before I was interrupted by question time I was making the point, in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, that there are a whole lot of things the government could do about the impact of high petrol prices on both Australian families and Australian industry—and, in particular, Australian small business. I am happy to see the Minister for Small Business and Tourism present, because there is no doubt that she has had a lot of feedback. I hope she has had some feedback; I hope people are talking to her about the impact of petrol prices on their operations and the combined impact on small business of higher interest rates and petrol prices. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —They are also talking to me about Labor’s policy on unfair dismissal— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Minister, we do not need a debate across the table. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —The minister interjects and she acknowledges that small business people have been complaining to her about the combined impact on their businesses of higher petrol prices and increases in interest rates. I am delighted that she has been getting that feedback. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —And I have been hearing their concern that unfair dismissals would be returned under Labor. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —I now hear her talking about unfair dismissals. I am happy to acknowledge that I have heard from some small business people who are a bit concerned about dismissal policies too. What they have been telling me is that they are not scared about unfair dismissals; they are scared about a thing called ‘unlawful dismissal’. They know that, now this government has taken away their opportunity to take the less expensive and less cumbersome path of unfair dismissal, people will be coming after their former employers under a thing we call ‘unlawful dismissal’. The minister sitting at the table must surely know—or, at least, I hope she knows—that the unlawful dismissal path will be far more cumbersome and far more expensive for small business operators. She also knows that— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Hunter might come back to the bill. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —She also knows that her government is going to fund the legal action of employees dismissed from hereon in. They will get a government grant to defend their cases against their former small business employers. She should know that this concept of unlawful dismissal is a very expensive one, if she has a look at some of the case law—and I recommend that she do that. But I will take your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hope so! 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —out of respect for you, and return to the issue at hand. I said just before question time that there are some short-term things the government can do about petrol prices. They can move quickly to strengthen the power of the ACCC to ensure that things are being done properly and fairly in the market. They can restore the Trade Practices Act to its former glory, in particular section 46, so that the ACCC has some prospect of securing prosecutions for misuse of market power. They are very simple things that the government could do tomorrow. In fact, I gave the Treasurer another opportunity today in the parliament to sign that simple letter to send to the ACCC chairman that is required to give him the power to properly investigate petrol pricing and the market—both retail distribution and wholesale distribution at the terminal gate. I said before question time that this is a very important bill. These are very important reforms to the regulatory regime which our petrol retail market operates under. They were originally put in place by the Fraser government out of concern about market concentration and vertical integration in particular. I spoke about the way in which they have been circumvented over the last half a dozen years or so and the government’s failure to show leadership and to secure some agreement between the various parties before now to get rid of this antiquated law. I just want to reinforce the point again that the opposition support of this repeal bill hinges on the promise we have had from the government that very soon—in other words, almost concurrently with the repeal by this bill—they will be introducing those amendments to the Trade Practices Act which we have been seeking for so long. It is very important to note that we are repealing legislation today that effectively does nothing anyway because, audaciously, some weeks ago now, the minister decided to move a regulation which undeclares each of the major oil companies under the legislation. The legislation sets up the framework, and who is covered by the legislation is determined by regulation. The four major oil companies have been undeclared, so we have a Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act that covers no-one. So it would be nonsense for the opposition to be opposing the repeal of the legislation, but the legislation is still there and has leverage for us to ensure that those trade practices amendments come forward. I look forward to the government producing those amendments in the next little while. We want to see 98 per cent of the Senate committee’s recommendations. We do not want half the story or some half-baked approach to restoring section 46 of the Trade Practices Act and therefore the ACCC’s ability to secure prosecutions for misuse of market power, collusion and all those other things under part IV generally. Listening to the debate on this bill before I received my opportunity to speak, I heard a lot of talk—and it is welcome talk—about what the Prime Minister could be doing in the long term about petrol prices in this country. When the price of international oil is high, it should be a call to arms to the government to swing into action, to do something short term—and I have addressed those issues—but also something medium to long term. We accept—we are not fools—that high petrol prices at the moment are largely driven by high oil prices, but there are both short- and long-term things that the government can be doing to mitigate the impact on people, as I have said. This should be a wake-up call to the government to finally get an energy policy together and to finally acknowledge that we have to wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. In fact, we have to wean ourselves off our traditional fuels. Oil is such a finite resource. We are running out of oil. On the basic laws of supply and demand, demand is going up and supply is going down, so naturally price is going up. When is the government going to realise that this is unsustainable and we are facing a fuel price crisis? There are some solutions. People have been talking about ethanol. Let me say something about ethanol again. The Labor Party support ethanol as an important contributor to this goal—that is, to wean us off oil and to stretch our finite resources further. We started the ethanol industry in this country with capital assistance grants back in 1993. We have supported pushing out further the application of tax on ethanol. We are now out to 2012. We did not oppose the government’s total removal of import competition. We have supported all the later rounds of capital assistance grants for new plant. We have done all the ethanol industry has asked of us short of mandating. None of us should be turning to mandating as a solution to ethanol’s challenges. We should not need to mandate. This is a good product. It is good for regional jobs. It is good for the environment. It is good for the agricultural sector. It helps the competitiveness of independent service stations, because they can blend the product—having no tax makes them more competitive. It does not need mandating. Where do we stop once we tell people they have to buy a product? Lemonade in beer next? Consumers do not expect to be told by legislatures what they should and should not buy, but if we work together and work sensibly we do not need to mandate ethanol. We want it to play an important role in the mix. A good industry out there wants it to play an important role in the mix. The oil companies need a jab in the ribs. The government should be jabbing them harder, and we are happy to support them in providing those jabs. Ethanol is a very important mix and has our total and unqualified support. But we only make 37 million litres of it in this country at the moment. If we mandated it at 10 per cent, we would need two billion litres. What would we have to do? We would have to import it. If we could not import it, demand would outstrip supply. What would that do to the price of the ethanol? It would send it up. What would that do to the price of the petrol-ethanol blend? It would send it up. So this would be an anti-consumer measure. We have to support ethanol, but we also have to support LPG, CNG, biodiesel and of course gas-to-liquids diesel. We have plentiful supplies of liquid petroleum gas. How amazing and hypocritical it was for the Prime Minister this week to roll out as a possible solution to growing LPG consumption the bringing forward of a rebate on installations which he planned to give anyway. This is the same Prime Minister who made LPG taxed for the first time, first with a GST. We should recall that the LPG industry took the full brunt of the GST. Petrol had its excise reduced by 7c to partly—and I underline partly—offset the impact of the GST. It did not. It was not enough to stop the GST causing petrol prices to rise, but petrol did have an excise reduction. LPG attracted no excise, so there was no excise to reduce, and it took the full 10 per cent brunt of John Howard’s GST. Now the Prime Minister plans to put an excise on LPG for the first time. This is a Prime Minister who has been working against LPG in the market rather than assisting a greater take-up of LPG, so it is entirely hypocritical of him to pose that as a weak solution to the significant issues we face. But LPG is a great opportunity for us. It is an indigenous fuel and we have plenty of it. Our other big opportunity is natural gas—prior to getting to hydrogen as an ultimate solution. I should acknowledge hydrogen, because it will be our ultimate solution, but prior to that our next big resource is the enormous reserves of natural gas we have in this country—150 trillion cubic feet of it. The member for Batman acknowledged my statement that it is a funny Prime Minister who has no trouble getting natural gas to Shanghai when he cannot get it from the west coast of the country to the east coast. We should be getting those fuels to the east coast as liquid diesel fuels. Our natural gas is easily convertible into liquid diesel which goes straight into diesel engines as they stand without any modification. Whatever the price of oil is—through $US25 a barrel—this is economically viable. Why aren’t we doing it? Because the government is not giving sufficient encouragement to the oil companies to get on with it. It has other plans for our gas—that is, shipping it off at bargain basement prices around the world without thinking about our future needs. What we need is an energy plan that takes into account our existing reserves, our future consumption needs and what we as a nation need in the future. (Time expired) 101 16:23:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —The Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 2006 shows that this government can actually achieve something when it puts its mind to it. With the bill before us today, the government has decided it is time to take some corrective action in the petrol retail market. It has decided that things cannot remain as they are. Sadly, I am not talking about the government taking action on petrol prices, but I will return to that a little later. The action is supported by the Labor Party. We support the repeal of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980 and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act 1980. We do so in principle—Labor’s second reading amendment is quite a welcome contribution to this debate because it does draw attention to the tardiness and the dragging of the feet exercise that has been pursued by this government in trying to address petrol retail reform. Despite the fact that the government has not rushed to deal with the issues facing the petrol retail industry, I do welcome the structures that the passage of this bill will allow to be put in place. It is important that, as we continue to see the march of the large supermarket chains as they purchase more and more businesses in more and more sectors of the retail industry, there should be some exercise undertaken by government to temper that approach. Those who are trying hard to compete against these massive organisations deserve a break. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism is at the table, because I am speaking for her constituency in this regard. Like her—at least, I assume like her—I have a lot of small business people talking to me in the electorate, expressing concerns about situations where they believe they need relief against some of the marauding and loss-leading practices of large organisations that seek to manipulate markets that they currently operate in. Under the current petrol retailing arrangements, there are at least three classes of operators: the commissioned agents, the independents and the franchises. Discrimination in one form or another obviously exists between these classes. It is made more difficult because of the imposition of certain legislative requirements. One in particular is that at the moment we have a class of emerging retailers which are effectively regulation free. The acts that are being repealed as a result of the passage of this bill cover only part of the petrol retailing industry, with more than 50 per cent of the industry by volume not covered at all. Under the existing arrangements, the new force in petrol retailing—the large supermarket chains of Woolworths and Coles—are not covered at all. The proposed Oilcode will provide protections and regulation for the petrol retail sector and will cover entities that are regulation free at present. This has got to be an important improvement for all those small business people operating as petrol retailers. A petrol retailer in my electorate spoke to me only recently to ensure that I understood how this piece of legislation would affect him and his business. One of the things he wanted to emphasise was that things are very tough. As a franchise operator he does not get to set the price that he sells petrol for and the margins are, as he put it to me, extremely thin. Despite the fact that petrol is hovering around the $1.50 mark, his margin remains fixed, and it remains at cents per litre. He also spoke to me about the fear that he has about the unfair competition that takes place in the industry, and he hopes that the action of establishing the Oilcode will go some way to levelling the playing field in the petrol retailing industry. He, like others, finds it difficult to compete with the entrance of the new retailers owned by the large supermarket chains, with their ability to apply discount schemes. Another thing to bear in mind, as I said, is that those large organisations, those large supermarkets, largely operate, in terms of petrol retailing, in an unregulated market at present. For them to be able to come out and offer, for instance, up to 4c a litre off the price of petrol may not seem much, but, as this operator put it to me, when you consider the difference that makes for a family, that is something that must be taken into account. That is the thing that can actually decide whether he as a franchisee can stay in business or not. There is no doubt that, given the rapid changes in the petrol retailing industry over the last few years, the time has come to address the issue facing the industry and address the disparities and the discrimination between different classes of owners and operators within this industry. We know that the petrol retail industry is currently experiencing some significant restructures, with the number of service stations dropping from some 20,000 to around 7,000 over the last few years. This process is set to continue. Debate interrupted. 102 ADJOURNMENT 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 102 102 16:30:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —On 12 July, at 9 am, a small force of Hezbollah fighters captured two Israeli soldiers, apparently on the Israeli side of the blue line designating the disputed border between Israel and Lebanon. The raid was accompanied by a Hezbollah rocket attack on Israeli targets. This attack was one of many violations of the blue line by both sides since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. But, as the United Nations interim force reports, none of these incidents resulted in a military escalation, and those same reports show that Israeli military aircraft have violated the blue line on an almost daily basis. Two days after the attack, after Israeli aircraft had begun laying waste to Lebanon, Robert Fisk reported from Beirut: ... and prisoner swaps is probably all that will come of this. In January 2004 for example, Israel freed 436 Arab prisoners ... in return for an Israeli spy and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. But this was not to be a measured response. What followed the Hezbollah attack has been an all-out aggressive war. Less than 12 hours after the incident, Israeli bombing of civilian targets began, and the killing and destruction has continued on a scale which has appalled the civilised world. But this was hardly a knee-jerk response. The San Francisco Chronicle reported: ... more than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving power point presentations, on an off the record basis setting out the plan ... The Washington Post says it was told by a senior Israeli official that the raid by Hezbollah provided Israel with a unique opportunity for wiping out the organisation, and, according to New Statesman, the US government knew in advance of Israel’s intention to take action in Lebanon and the British government was also informed. So it should come as no surprise that, as the carnage in Lebanon proceeded, the leading nations of the Western world did nothing to stop the killing in and destruction of Lebanon. And even today their interests ignore the welfare of the people in Lebanon. After 28 days of war, the situation on the ground can only be described as a humanitarian disaster. Over 1,000 people have been killed, the great majority being civilians. Over one-third are children. With the destruction of homes, roads, bridges and power plants, the deliberate targeting of Red Cross and other relief agency facilities and vehicles, the targeting of fleeing civilians and the deliberate killing of UN observers, the result is a nation in ruins. Over one million people, a quarter of the population of Lebanon, have fled their homes. The Israeli blockade and the bombing of vehicles prevent the supply of food and medicines to those in need. But the Western world seems to have its own agenda when it comes to calling for peace. The US-French proposal demands the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 of 2004 but says nothing of the 138 resolutions ignored by Israel, including resolutions 242 and 338, which declare the ‘inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war’. Indeed, Israel’s presence in Lebanon today is in breach of resolution 1559. The Israelis also ignore the 16 July statement by the G8, which says: ... the root cause of the problems in the region is the absence of a comprehensive Middle East peace ... But what is needed right now is an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. Israel must stop its bombing of Lebanon and Hezbollah must stop firing rockets into Israel. A just and lasting peace will only come from proposals such as that of the government of Lebanon which calls for not just the release of the two Israeli prisoners but the release of Lebanese prisoners as well. Critical to peace are the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to the blue line and the earliest repatriation of those displaced by the conflict. International assistance will be desperately needed to rebuild Lebanon. But, to address the root cause of the conflict, a just peace will require the return of lands illegally occupied by Israel since 1967, including the Shebaa Farms. 103 103 16:34:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I would like to use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an environmental crisis that threatens to slowly engulf the town of Coramba, which is in my electorate. This crisis has been developing since January 2002, when one resident of the town, Peter Attwill, noticed traces of petrol on his property in pools of water near the Orara River. The petrol did not originate from Mr Attwill’s land. But, more than four years later, Mr Attwill, his wife, Belinda, and his three young children are still facing the effects of the contamination. They have to cope on a daily basis with their fears of a threat to their health. Their house, which they built some 20 years ago, and their land cannot be sold. All that, you might think, is bad enough. But, as I will explain in due course, the Attwills are having to carry an extra burden in this matter, the consequences of which may well affect a large part of Coramba as well as those living downstream from the town. As a result of Mr Attwill’s discovery, shortly afterwards investigations at the local petrol station revealed that an estimated 3,000 litres of unleaded petrol had escaped from an underground storage tank, though no explanation has been provided of how a leak of this size went undetected—and neither have investigations taken place to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the petrol station was, in fact, the source of contamination. Though it clearly seems likely, I am told that there are other potential sources of contamination. Because of the lie of the land, it is possible that the petrol that leaked from the service station, if that is the source, has seeped not only onto Mr Attwill’s land but also in other directions and into other properties without yet surfacing. This has not yet been established or ruled out. That also applies to the other potential sources of pollution. To sum up, the residents of Coramba do not know how much of their town is, or will be, polluted. If they do not know the source of the pollution with certainty, they do not know whether petrol continues to leak into the ground. They do not know for how much longer or how much further the existing pollution is likely to spread. I have been informed that people in the town of Coramba can no longer sell their properties. Their houses have been blighted. No-one knows the consequences for the communities downstream that draw drinking water from the Orara River. No-one knows the consequences for the livestock owners whose cattle drink from the river. Despite being informed of the situation back in January 2002 when Mr Attwill first found petrol on his land, the NSW Environment Protection Authority, now absorbed into the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, has done little to resolve any of the outstanding issues I have mentioned. The burden of managing this situation currently lies with Mr Attwill himself, following the decision by the department of environment to set up a trust fund managed by Mr Attwill to pay for investigations by consultants. The consultants will present their report soon. So here we have a man whose property has been polluted through no fault of his own, who is under considerable stress and whose family is under considerable stress, being asked to set up and supervise a technical study by consultants in an area in which he has no expertise whatsoever. Ironically, Mr Attwill is a petrochemical tanker driver. But he is not a chemist. He is not a geologist. He is not an engineer. He is not an ecologist. However, I am pleased to say that there are now some hopeful signs. According to the local newspaper, the department will address the problem once the findings of the report currently under way are known. If this is indeed the case, I welcome the department’s good intentions. Mr Attwill tells me that there is little hope of redress from the owners of the service station or their insurers if the station is indeed proved to be the sole source of the pollution. What Mr Attwill and the other residents of Coramba desperately need to know, after four years of uncertainty, is the full extent of the pollution and that the relevant agencies will remove the risk to their health and properties. As I say, I am encouraged by media reports that the department is inclined to act. I have written to the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage bringing this matter to his attention and asking him to offer what assistance he can to the residents of Coramba—despite the fact that this is clearly a state issue. In the meantime, Mr Attwill, his family and his neighbours will be awaiting the consultants’ report with some trepidation. 105 105 16:39:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Mr Speaker, this evening I will talk about the UN Millenium Development Goals. In doing so I note that Australia this year will host the G20 gathering of finance ministers in Melbourne in the very near future. This group was established in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis to bring together industrialised economies and emerging economies to discuss the global economy. Debt and poverty reduction are among key issues that are part of this ongoing dialogue. Given this, it is timely to raise with this House the importance of the 2015 millennium goals. These goals include: halving extreme poverty; universal primary education; gender equality; the reduction of child mortality, AIDS and other diseases; improved maternal health; and environmental sustainability. I believe these goals must be recognised as more than an aspiration. They are a promise from rich nations such as Australia to the poor. With increasing wealth worldwide but growing inequality, it is more important than ever for parliamentarians across the world to confront these issues both in our own backyards—and, unfortunately, in our own Indigenous communities—and across borders. These international goals mirror aspirations we have for our community, particularly the Aboriginal communities that currently live in Third World conditions. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s undertaking just a week ago that as Prime Minister of Australia he would do something about Aboriginal health. To push the achievement of these goals the Make Poverty History campaign was launched across the world in 2005. It has had widespread impact in raising awareness of the need for poverty reduction. Next door to my electorate of Batman, VCE student Mervin Ng, from Parade College in Bundoora, took his own initiative recently in support of this campaign. I commend his leadership. He collected 1,500 signatures from students and staff on a 13-metre banner which was recently tabled by my colleague, the Member for Scullin, Harry Jenkins. Thankfully, as witnessed by these actions, the next generation of Australians has a rising awareness of increasing inequality, and they are to be commended. The attainment of these goals would have a dramatic impact on poverty reduction, and it is well within the power of the leadership in Australia to grasp this opportunity. To halve poverty in less than 10 years, signatories are obliged to increase their aid budgets. While increases under the aid white paper are welcome—from the present 0.28 per cent of gross national income to 0.36 per cent by 2010—the Labor Party believes Australia’s contribution can be greater. Britain, France, Spain and Ireland have increased their aid commitments to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2010. Of the 22 OECD donor nations, five already equal or exceed the 0.7 per cent target—namely, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Six others have indicated they will reach the 0.7 per cent target in the next few years. They are Belgium, Finland, Spain, France, the UK and Germany. That is what leadership is about. In addition, the EU has recently committed to collectively reaching a target of 0.56 per cent of GNI by 2010 and 0.7 per cent by 2015. I say therefore to the Australian community at large that as a nation we can, and should, increase our target. It is our joint responsibility, our collective responsibility. As the 2005 United Nations report into the millennium goals stated: ... we have the means at hand to ensure that nearly every country can make good on the promises of the Goals. Australia can also, therefore, make a contribution to this campaign by ensuring that debt forgiveness does not retract from the all-important aid programs in health and education. We can also take a leadership role, as we did with the Cairns Group, to push for the removal of agricultural subsidies through the World Trade Organisation. As we head towards these critical deadlines, we need a greater commitment to move beyond political rhetoric and make these goals a reality. I simply say in conclusion: where there is a will, there is a capacity to actually do something. That is the challenge to the Howard government and the leadership role it adopts in hosting the G20 gathering of finance ministers in Melbourne this year. Would it not be wonderful in the lead-up to that conference if we made an announcement as a nation that we were going to up our contribution and do something of substance in our own backyard and internationally for the general good of all people on this earth? I commend the Millennium Development Goals to the Australian community. 106 106 16:44:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —My seat is totally contained within one local government authority: the City of Stirling. Stirling’s neighbouring local government authority, the Town of Vincent, has put forward a proposal to the local government advisory board—which is the state government body that advises it on local council boundaries—to incorporate areas that are an integral part of the City of Stirling. I am totally against this ill-conceived land grab, and I am greatly concerned that it will have negative consequences for my constituents. I am concerned for two reasons: firstly, for the small number of electors that I represent within the affected areas and, secondly, for the vast bulk of the people who reside within the City of Stirling, who still have a legitimate voice in this debate even though they are not directly involved in this land grab. The people affected, in all likelihood, will end up paying higher rates for a lower level of services than they would expect under the City of Stirling. These families that I represent in the suburb of Coolbinia will be transferred to a local authority that does not enjoy the obvious economies of scale that they currently have within the City of Stirling. The Town of Vincent, even if this land grab is successful, is below the optimum size for the economic provision of services, and it has admitted as much. It also has a very questionable management record. It is worth mentioning that the City of Stirling, under the leadership by the current mayor, Terry Tyzack, of a hardworking, dedicated team, is in a very strong economic position. The same cannot be said for the Town of Vincent. I recently asked the Mayor of Vincent, Councillor Nick Catania, to answer this question: ‘Why continue to waste Western Australian taxpayers’ money on board deliberations to investigate a proposal that goes against the wishes of local residents and will push unnecessary costs onto my constituents?’ He wrote back effectively saying that I should stick to my federal constituency matters and leave local government to its own processes. This pretty much accords with his standard operating procedure and that of the CEO of the Town of Vincent, a John Giorgi, when people question the merits of their land grab. Their only response is to attack anyone who dares question them and to unfairly attack the record of the City of Stirling. It is clear from this that they are completely and utterly unable to provide a positive case to support their proposal. I would like to say this to the mayor: it is my responsibility to ensure the economic security of the families in my electorate so they can plan for the future, and it is my responsibility to listen to their concerns and act on them. It is my job to support my local community, and I will not ignore their concerns against this ill-conceived plan of the Town of Vincent. I have looked very closely at the submission provided by Vincent, and there appears to be no tangible benefit that justifies the $1 million price tag of making this change. That is an extraordinarily large bill that will most certainly be pushed onto ratepayers in the Town of Vincent, including those families that might be removed from the City of Stirling. The views of the residents of the City of Stirling outside of the affected areas also deserve to be heard, because, if they lose a substantial part of the existing council, that will obviously put upward pressure on their rates also. The loss of this significant area is ultimately going to mean that the City of Stirling will need to make a decision to either up rates or sack part of its workforce, something that I certainly do not want to see. I know that people in my electorate feel passionately about this issue because they have contacted me about it and I have been to a public meeting that the local government authority has had, where the overwhelming number of residents were opposed to making this change. I do not believe that the Town of Vincent has any option but to withdraw this ill-conceived proposal and find an alternative solution to its current lack of viability as a local authority. It might be more sensible for Vincent to seek to be incorporated into one of its neighbouring councils rather than limp along in its current state. It is certainly clear that there is no point in continuing to pursue its current plan against the interests of the people it purports to represent and against the interests of my constituents in the City of Stirling. 107 107 16:49:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —This afternoon I would like to address my remarks to a number of issues arising from questions which were raised in the parliament yesterday and today of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs regarding an employee of his department, Mr Gregory Andrews, who you will recall, Mr Speaker, appeared on the ABC’s Lateline program on 21 June this year. You will understand that this Lateline program made a number of very serious allegations about paedophilia and child abuse and other issues related to the community of Mutitjulu. There were a number of people who were interviewed who spoke with full identification who did not substantiate the allegations made by Mr Andrews, and what they had to say was very plausible. However, Mr Andrews’s evidence was heavily relied upon by the Lateline program. You will recall that he described himself anonymously as a former youth worker. He was not. It has turned out, of course, that he is a senior officer of the minister’s department. He made inflammatory, sensational and totally unsubstantiated hearsay allegations about individuals within the community. He was the subject of questions in parliament yesterday and again today. But Mr Andrews is an assistant secretary in the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination and, in that role, provides advice to the minister. Lateline was aware of this when it interviewed Mr Andrews on 2 June and went ahead with the deception that he was an anonymous former youth worker. The ABC did not disclose Mr Andrews’s absolute conflict of interest. That surely must be a breach of the ABC’s editorial guidelines. We have been told by the minister that this deception was because Mr Andrews believed that he had been threatened. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that Minister Brough said yesterday in parliament: I was informed that Mr Andrews had decided that he would only appear anonymously as he had already experienced a number of threats ... These apparent threats did not prevent Mr Andrews travelling to Mutitjulu on 6 June, a few days after he had undertaken the interview recorded by the ABC on 2 June. He travelled to that community freely, safely and without any police protection. It is clear that Mr Andrews’s boss, the head of the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, Mr Wayne Gibbons, and the minister were aware of his interview and the deception. Indeed, as I understand it, he was coached, counselled and advised by the minister’s office, Mr Gibbons and other senior officers of the OIPC prior to the interview. Indeed, I am also advised that Mr Andrews’s statement was legalled by his department. So now it is clear to me and many others that Mr Andrews’s unfortunate appearance on Lateline was part of a government-sponsored strategy. While he was in Central Australia, Mr Andrews was improperly seeking to secure access to criminal records of individuals and we know that Mr Gibbons was aware of this intention. I have here an email from Mr Greg Andrews to Mr Wayne Gibbons, dated Monday, 5 June 2006, timed at 2.50 pm and importance ‘High’. He says: I am currently on my way to Mutitjulu—plane has been diverted and delayed due to fog. I have been using the opportunity of the delay to talk to various stakeholders by phone. He says a number of other things and then he concludes by saying: A source in Central Australia has agreed to provide me with a physical copy of … official criminal record. If I am able to obtain this document, I will provide it to you immediately on my return. This raises very serious questions about the probity and propriety of Mr Andrews’s visit, the knowledge of the minister and the minister’s department about his activities and what in fact he was doing in the community. I have previously raised these issues, and I have raised these concerns with the ABC. I call on the ABC to apologise to the Mutitjulu community for the deception and the allegations which have been made by Mr Andrews, which have been unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and are all hearsay. This sort of public administration should not be tolerated in this country. Minister Brough knows much more than he has told us so far. There is a lot more to go, and we will find out. 108 108 16:53:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I had the good fortune yesterday of bumping into Sir David Smith, a former secretary to five successive Governors-General and the last Australian to be knighted by the Queen. It was his birthday yesterday: he turned 73 and did not a look a year over 55. He is a man of immense talent, with a brilliant mind and a keen eye for accurately recording history. Recently, Sir David penned a marvellous book, a very riveting read, titled Head of State. Few people have contributed more to the important constitutional and political history in Australia than Sir David Smith. His book goes a long way to dispelling the myth-making created by those who wanted to set their own agenda and rewrite history so that any depiction of the 1975 dismissal venerates Gough Whitlam on an eternal pedestal. In his book, Sir David Smith says: As for Gough Whitlam himself, there has grown up around him almost an entire industry devoted to polishing his image and turning him into a legend in his own lifetime. It is time we had a look at the basis of that legendary image. One of the greatest crimes that we can commit in a civilised society is to twist and distort history so that a lie is passed on to future generations. It is this issue that is the rationale behind the groundbreaking History Summit convened for next week here at Parliament House. I commend the Minister for Education, Science and Training on facing head-on the need for a ‘root and branch renewal’, as the Prime Minister put it, of teaching Australian history in our schools. But, whilst the summit sounds good and some may even feel quite warm and fuzzy about it, it is highly imperative that we get it right, not just for us but for future generations. Recently, I inaugurated an essay-writing competition for school students in the lead-up to the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Whilst there have already been some excellent entries from local school students, I was informed that a teacher at Wangaratta High School in my electorate belittled the concept, preferring not to engage their students in discovering more about a highly important military battle that illustrated the ingenuity, the skill and the courage of our soldiers in a relatively modern battle. It is this type of prevailing orthodoxy of the teacher in question that gave rise to the dreadful treatment of Australian soldiers who fought in Vietnam upon their return to Australia in the 1960s. Another example is the landing place of Captain Cook at Kurnell Peninsula, recently placed on the national heritage register. In the monuments currently there, very little is told of the significance of the moment when Lieutenant James Cook and his crew, including Sir Joseph Banks and Dr Daniel Solander, first set foot on Australian soil in 1770. Even so, one of the participants in next Wednesday’s summit, Greg Melleuish, was commissioned to produce a paper that would be a discussion point starter. In it he talks about the sorts of things that students should learn, but he does say that the story of Australian explorers needs to be told ‘but not to excess, as I recall explorers as being the most boring part of Australian history when I was at school’. It is particularly disappointing that an associate professor from the University of Wollongong is so dismissive of our explorers. The pioneering spirit of Douglas Mawson, the scientific achievements of his expeditions and not least the sheer human endurance should be an inspiring and proud part of Australia’s history. It is an integral part of the perseverance, the tenacity and the sense of adventure that makes this country the sort of nation that we should all be proud of. I hope there will be others with very differing views at next week’s summit. A great Australian, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who paid me a great privilege in 2002 when he gave the inaugural Indi lecture in Beechworth in my electorate, put it best when, recently, he said: Australia is one of the oldest continuing democracies in the world, and I think the effective continuation of a democracy depends on the majority of Australians understanding a fair amount about their nation and its background. Professor Blainey needs to be heard, unlike his time at the University of Melbourne where he was hounded from his position by the left-leaning intelligentsia. I close by wishing Sir David Smith a belated 73rd birthday and wish all of those participating in next week’s summit all the courage to be honest and not to give in to sectional interest groups. (Time expired) 110 110 16:59:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —Last Sunday I joined with the local Italian community to celebrate the feast of San Donato. The Italian community held mass in Latin, conducted by Bishop Prowse at St Luke’s Church. The choir Friulano sang in Latin and Italian. St Luke’s choir sang in English. It was followed by the procession of the statue of San Donato and music provided by the Bellini band. There was then a concert in the church hall. I congratulate the organiser, Donato Polvere, and his committee. This is the 30th occasion that they have held this feast. I think it is very important that migrants have the opportunity to share with their fellow Australians things that are very important to them culturally and religiously. I also congratulate the City of Whittlesea on their involvement in ensuring that it was a successful festa. 110 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 110 NOTICES The following notice was given: HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 to regulate the amount of renewable fuel in motor vehicle fuel, and for related purposes. (Fuel Quality Standards (Renewable Content of Motor Vehicle Fuel) Amendment Bill 2006). 2006-08-10 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.36 am. 111 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 111 111 09:36:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —It is my great pleasure today to use this morning’s speech to congratulate the civic leadership of Rockhampton and Yeppoon, as well as the state members and other individuals who were instrumental in ensuring that the water pipeline between Rockhampton and Yeppoon will proceed. Yeppoon and the greater Capricorn Coast are increasingly popular tourist destinations, and they are also experiencing massive residential growth, mainly as a result of the resources boom that is taking place in the Central Queensland region. The Livingstone shire is in fact one of the fastest growing shires in Queensland, with scores of people choosing the idyllic lifestyle that the Livingstone area provides over the bigger cities. This pipeline will give the Capricorn Coast sufficient water capacity to take the area to the year 2040. This is obviously a great milestone for the area. Not only will this pipeline provide the Capricorn Coast with a reliable source of water but it will also protect the pristine Sandy Creek area from potential future environmental damage caused by water extractions. The pipeline, travelling some 30 kilometres from the Rockhampton barrage to Yeppoon, will ensure that the Capricorn Coast is well prepared for the future. This outcome was made possible by the tireless efforts of individuals such as Margaret Strelow, the Mayor of Rockhampton; Bill Ludwig, the Mayor of Livingstone Shire; the state member for Keppel, Paul Hoolihan MP; and Mr Kim Mobbs, the Chairman of the Central Queensland Area Consultative Committee. These people are the real heroes of this project. But, as the National Party see it, all the credit can go to Senator Ron Boswell and Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, who would have us believe that they single-handedly secured the pipeline. The fact of the matter is that the project is to be funded three ways, with the state government, the federal government and the Livingston Shire Council each contributing a third of the almost $50 million cost. I say again, had it not been for the tireless efforts of individuals like Bill Ludwig and Kim Mobbs, in particular, this project would never have gotten off the ground. The teamwork displayed by these individuals should serve as an illustration to us all that we can achieve more as a group than as individuals. As is usual in situations such as these, none of the key players are out there blowing their own trumpets, as are certain members of the National Party. All criticism aside, though, everyone involved in getting this major project off the ground deserves to be thanked for their efforts. The pipeline, which is expected to commence construction next year, will be a major plus for the Capricorn Coast residents as well as the thriving tourism industry. 111 111 09:39:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —I rise this morning to raise a matter of great importance to the people of Bonner and Queensland. It is an issue that goes to the heart of the effort the Howard government is making to create jobs, enhance skills, boost the potential for small to medium enterprises and foster sustainable industry development in Australia. In recent months my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield and Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, has provided a clearer picture of the government’s commitment to spend $51 billion on defence capability over the next 10 years. The policy settings are in place to ensure Australian industry can play its part in delivering that capability. This is great news for Australian industry and great news for Queensland. This will be a catalyst for thousands of young Australians to join the workforce and take up apprenticeships and training opportunities in trade, engineering and technical areas. I am sure that this is something that will please my colleague the member for Moreton, the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, in his role as Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. It also underpins this government’s ongoing effort to grow the existing skills base in Queensland to develop not only defence capability but also the booming resources sector, which has seen Queensland become a powerhouse state in its contribution to the health of the Australian economy. This is of particular interest to me in that the long-established Cairncross dry dock and the expanding Brisbane Marine Industry Park nearby could well play a major role in the modular construction of two amphibious or landing helicopter dock ships if the bid by ADI Ltd is successful. I noted with concern, therefore, a reference in the recent submission by the Department of Defence to the Senate inquiry into naval shipbuilding in Australia to the effect that a number of the facilities in Brisbane were old and would not meet the demands of modern major ship construction. The commercial future of Cairncross is a matter for the Forgacs company, but I am sure that wiser heads will appreciate the key role that the already established Cairncross dock and marine industry park could play in the construction of these LHD ships. Even more significantly, these facilities are directly within the city of Brisbane, which has a concentration of relevant skills, infrastructure and industry support already available to the ADI and its partner companies. 112 112 09:42:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —Yesterday I, together with a number of other parliamentarians, received a briefing from a group called Australians for Lebanon, which has come together recently as a result of the tragedy that is occurring in Lebanon. I have also received a letter from the Ambassador of Lebanon, Michel Bitar, dated 6 August 2006. He says: Lebanon has become a disaster area and a humanitarian catastrophe of incredible dimensions. Since the bombardment began on 12 July— Then he details the number of deaths, now 1,000. He goes on: Hundreds more people lie trapped ... 900,000 are displaced ... Vital infrastructure has been decimated ... An air, land and sea blockade ... Ambulances, Fire-engines, Hospitals, Medics, aid workers and UN Peace-keepers have been targeted by Israeli air strikes. The precipitation of the crisis was action by Hezbollah, which should be condemned. But my concern is that Israel, in its actions, has responded in a hugely disproportionate way and that Lebanon is paying a high price in the massive destruction of its infrastructure. As of today, there are more than a million internally displaced citizens. It is going to take a very long time for the country to recover. I do not need to cite the Geneva conventions; they are well known. What concerns me about this whole process that Israel has engaged in is that I believe it is more than just surgical strikes. Too many innocent civilians are being killed. UN personnel have been killed. Infrastructure, including roads, has been destroyed. I think there is a humanitarian crisis in that country that is going to continue to unfold. I for one would like to see Australia, America and other like-minded countries calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in the region. That goes for both Hezbollah and Israel. Israel is supposed to be a civilised country. With the greatest respect, I do not believe its response has been civilised. I think it has been an overreaction to send a message to the region. What worries me is that it is taking the sort of action, through the targeting of civilians, that is outlawed under international law, and one needs to take care that one is going after military objects, not innocent civilians. I would like to see a cessation of fighting, I would like to see the UN brought in sooner rather than later and I would like to see people not sitting on their hands. What is happening is unjustifiable. (Time expired) 113 113 09:45:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I would like to take a few minutes of the House’s time today to draw its attention to the strengths of some of our regional communities, particularly the community in Wakefield. I speak particularly about the 10th eisteddfod of the Balaklava Eisteddfod Society, conducted this weekend past. This eisteddfod has grown to be a three-day event that involves hundreds of entrants from across Wakefield and culminates in the finale concert, which I had the pleasure of opening on Sunday afternoon, where there was a massed choir drawn from schools from the north of the electorate in places like Saddleworth and Clare; Kapunda to the east; and right down to the outer metropolitan areas. There was a large range of talent, and it was a large celebration of the value of music and performance by young people in the electorate of Wakefield. I believe it is important to look back to what Plato said about music. He contended that we should teach music, physics and philosophy to young people, but he said that most importantly we should teach music because in music and all of the arts are the keys to learning. What sorts of keys to learning was he talking about there? Obviously there is music itself, the confidence you gain from public performance or public speaking and team work. But I think that the most important key is learning to create—to create music and to create something that is greater than the sum of its parts. I would contend that, if young people who are currently out committing random acts of vandalism or other violence had the opportunity to participate in something like this eisteddfod, that great sense of achievement that they would have gained through creating would have stemmed any inclination to go into those more destructive areas. So I believe it is a great strength of the community that it can make the opportunity for young people to create music together. But that only happens with the strong support and commitment of people. I would like to congratulate and thank Di Spence, of the organising committee of the Balaklava Eisteddfod Society, as well as the Balco Group, the major sponsor—particularly Malcolm and Joe May, the owners of Balco. They sponsor this not only financially but also literally, as on the day they are there acting as escorts and helping with the administration of the eisteddfod. The community helps as well: the churches provide venues and support over three days; the Mayor, Mr James Maitland, is the patron of the eisteddfod; and small businesses like McCracken Ford, which also runs a petrol station, stayed open on the Sunday just so people from outlying areas could come to the eisteddfod. I think it is a great credit to the communities of Wakefield that this eisteddfod has given these young people this opportunity. 114 114 09:48:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —One of the issues that I think the government has not addressed properly is the chronic skills shortage throughout Australia. Three areas that particularly suffer from skill shortages are doctors, nurses and pharmacists. So you can imagine my surprise when in a very short time frame I had three constituents come and see me about the fact that they had been denied assistance from Centrelink because they had gone over their time. I will share with the House the stories of these three people, and members can judge for themselves. I believe that the rules are very inflexible and that there needs to be the ability for Centrelink to make some discretionary decisions. The first person I will talk about is a woman who commenced study at the University of Newcastle in 1999 to become a doctor. She studied in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Her fourth year was 2002, but she did not complete it because she was ill. She had a recurrence of the illness in 2003. Now she is well, back at university and completing her degree. But she has been denied support from Centrelink. She has been forced to go onto Newstart and to look for work. She is currently balancing her study and doing some work in the hospital but finding it very difficult. That is because Centrelink only allows 5½ years to complete the degree. Another case I would like to raise with you is that of a pharmacy student. To become a pharmacist there is no option other than to complete a master’s degree. Centrelink is saying that they will not pay the student for the final year of his studies, which means that once again we are putting in jeopardy an entrant to our pharmacy workforce. The final constituent I would like to mention is a person doing nursing full time at the University of Newcastle. He has less than six months to complete his degree, lives with his aged grandmother and needs to extend his studies by six months. Unfortunately, once again, Centrelink is refusing to give him any income support. If we are serious about addressing the skills shortage we need to be able to support students like these three students who are studying in areas of great shortage. Unless there is some flexibility put in the legislation, the whole of Australia and our workforce will suffer. 114 114 09:51:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I would like to take the time of the House this morning to recognise and pay tribute to the Croydon Football Club Past Players and Officials Association led by Mr Roger O’Brien, a past player and stalwart of the club. The association is dedicated to all of the past players and supporters of the club and is this year recognising and celebrating the club’s centenary year. Each year they have a special function, which I had the pleasure of attending just a couple of weekends ago on Sunday, 23 July. One of the things they do is recognise and remember the past players of the club who lost their lives serving Australia in all our conflicts. Just a few weeks ago at that function I had the pleasure on behalf of the club of presenting certificates to three families whose relatives had died during World War II. They were three players who had played for the club in their 1937 premiership team and who volunteered for service in World War II and lost their lives. Those three players included John Beck, who enlisted in the Army and joined the Second 33rd Infantry Battalion, was wounded in the Middle East, twice in New Guinea and died in 1943 after being shot. The second was Jack Cowley, who joined the RAAF and was an air gunner in the South-West Pacific. In May 1944 his plane was badly shot up and the plane and the crew were never found. The third was Frank ‘Skeeter’ Black, who enlisted in the Army in 1941, saw active service in New Guinea and Bougainville, left the Army at the end of the war but unfortunately died of wounds just a few weeks after returning to Australia. These three past players of the Croydon Football Club deserve to be remembered, and I want to place on record the great work that Roger O’Brien, his wife, Dot O’Brien, and Alan Baldwin do with the past players association in remembering the important history of the Croydon Football Club. 115 115 09:54:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —As you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is pretty rare that an individual can come into your life and make a significant difference, but what is rarer is for an individual, a single person, to make a significant difference to their local community. Today I would like to take a little of the House’s time to talk about Ron Moore as one such person. When I moved into Campbelltown some 30 years ago, as with most young families I certainly did not have the money to pay people to do things around the house such as maintenance and improvements. This is where Ron comes in. Ron and Joy Moore started their hardware business in Campbelltown in 1956 with a store in Queen Street, Campbelltown. They relocated in 1960 to Ingleburn and subsequently in 1977 to Minto. When you seek to make improvements, you obviously go to the hardware store and have someone help you. But, in the case of Ron’s hardware, apart from being able to sell you anything from a single screw through to paint and up to heavy hardware, he was always on hand to give technical advice. He taught a whole generation of people who became handymen solely by necessity and then went on to teach many of their kids, many of whom became professional tradesmen. Ron and Joy have been a significant part of the Campbelltown community. Ron is also patron of the Campbelltown Historical Society. Within our community, he has received many honours. I would quickly like to name a few. He was Campbelltown’s Citizen of the Year. He was inducted into the Hardware Hall of Fame. He was a finalist in the New South Wales Hardware Industry Awards. But his most treasured award is his Order of Australia Medal, which he received in 1994. Ron and his wife Joy together started this community hardware business and serviced a community in all our needs. We are sorry that at this stage Joy is suffering poor health and Ron has now had to close his store. After 50 years, this is very significant to my area. I wish Ron and Joy well for their future. Hopefully they will spend a little more time with their three adult children and their seven grandchildren and reflect upon what they have given to the area of Campbelltown. 115 115 09:57:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —In recent weeks I attended an official function at St Francis Catholic Primary School at Tannum Sands in the Calliope shire near Gladstone. It was celebrating the unveiling of a plaque to St Francis and the announcement of stage 2 of the school’s development. St Francis school is renowned for caring for students’ development, and it is fitting that St Francis of Assisi should be the school’s patron saint. The legacy of St Francis was his gift of sympathy and love of nature and animals, a motto which provides direction and inspiration to all who work at the school. From the very beginning of the planning of the school, for example, the example of Francis of Assisi, with his love of God and all creation, has been the guiding principle. The sculpture of St Francis and his beloved animals was a gift from the diocesan Catholic Education Office in Rockhampton and now sits proudly at the school’s entrance as a focal point for the school. The setting is also consistent with the spirit of St Francis, being built in rather thick bushland, complete with kangaroos and birds. I sometimes go to mass there. In the old days before the school was built the kangaroos used to come up to the windows of the church. It was quite a moving experience. In this redevelopment, which the Commonwealth is contributing $2.4 million to, we are going to put in a general learning area, provision for an interim library, a half-covered basketball court area, pupil amenities, a physical education amenity, preparatory amenities, car parking, furniture and equipment. St Francis School opened in 2005 with 124 students. Enrolments now stand at over 200. Stage 2 will enable the school to continue meeting the demands of quality Christian based education. It will also give the people of the Tannum Sands area a choice in the education of their children. There is a very real sense of community at the school, and I am very proud of its achievements over this first 12 months. I congratulate the parish priest, Seamus McMahon, one of my favourite pastors; Principal Andy Nicholls and his staff; the diocesan director of Catholic education, Leesa Jeffcoat; and all the parents who have provided unswerving support for the school. In this day and age it has never been more appropriate that children be brought up with the message of St Francis firmly implanted in their psyches: make me an instrument of your peace. 116 116 10:00:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —It was with a heavy heart that I read further reports this morning which only served to cast an overbearing shadow over hopes for immediate peace in Lebanon. More distressingly, there does not appear to be an end in sight to the appalling loss of innocent lives, which is concomitant with any war. To date, more than 960 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children, have been killed; thousands have been injured; hundreds remain trapped under the weight of their own homes; and 900,000 civilians have been displaced. These are innocent lives that did not seek or deserve the punishment that has visited them. I was dismayed to read a recent report in an Australian newspaper which suggested that civilian targets are a part of modern warfare and that we should somehow accept this reality and accept the notion of collateral damage. While it may be understandable, though not forgivable, for these comments to be made by armchair commentators from the comfort of their homes, there are many others who would understandably disagree. Perhaps these commentators could come and explain the concept to the thousands and thousands of proud Australians with Lebanese heritage who reside in my electorate of Lowe. Father Emmanuel Sakr, of St Joseph’s Maronite Church in Croydon, is one such person. Father Emmanuel’s parents are trapped in the Lebanese village of Debl. They are living without electricity or food. Father Pierre El-Khoury, also of St Joseph’s parish, has found himself stranded in Lebanon. Councillor John Faker, Mayor of Burwood, is waiting for his brother Chemel to return to Australia. We cannot be dismissive of their plight. The lessons of history have taught us well that an emphasis on military might, rather than on dogmatic diplomacy, can only generate an equal and opposite reaction. I would hope that the war in Lebanon has done nothing to endear the main protagonists to the majority of the civilians they purport to represent. Unfortunately, as each week passes, we are still only seeing actions which serve to compound the disaster. The Prime Minister was right to suggest that we should be addressing the root causes of this disaster. However, before doing so, he must make louder international calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities by both parties, call for a peacekeeping force and provide greater humanitarian and infrastructure assistance to Lebanon—a country which we should remember has relatively recently pulled itself out of the despair created by a civil war which was not entirely of its own creating. Only then can the world make serious attempts to address the underlying tensions the Prime Minister speaks of without resorting to religious and ideological corners. Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, who want nothing more than to live within secure borders without the constant threat of missile attacks, deserve nothing less from the international community—Australia included. 117 117 10:02:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —The education of our children is perhaps one of the most critical issues we face as a nation. Our children are the most important asset that we as parents and we as a community have. It is also said that, when we invest in the education of a child, no matter what happens to them in life it is the one thing that can never be taken away from them. I am concerned by comments by one of the state members in my electorate who says that the Howard government is dudding the schools in my electorate. Our government has invested in a program called Investing in Our Schools, and I have been very successful: of the 54 schools in my electorate, 43 schools have received around $2.57 million, supporting their P&Cs in acquiring what is most needed for their schools. A lot of these projects could not be achieved without the investment by the federal government of up to $150,000 per school for projects. This can be for shadecloths, musical instruments, computer upgrades or books in the libraries. Indeed, the Stroud school recently opened a library. They upgraded a classroom to make a new library—a library that will provide for quality education. One of the issues is that many of the schools, like Francis Greenway and Irrawang, have applied to put their money towards the air conditioning of their schools. However, the state education department will not pay for the electrical upgrades for the schools to be able to run the air conditioning. This is a serious situation because of some of the temperatures there. In New South Wales, the state government announced in the last budget $120 million for a big program of upgrade and maintenance of schools. But that is $120 million over four years, or $30 million a year, amongst the thousands of schools in New South Wales. I say to the state members of parliament in my electorate, ‘Just match what we do.’ We increased our budget for educational funding of capital works by 8.9 per cent. This goes to funding approximately 50 per cent of the development of school improvements and new programs. Recently, I was honoured to be able to open the new buildings and blocks at the Anna Bay and Soldiers Point public schools. That was a program worth around $7 million, towards which this government contributed $3.4 million. So it is not this government but the state government that is dudding the education of the most important assets of this nation by refusing to match our funding increases and refusing to meet the basic needs of education in our schools—things like computers, books and shade structures, when skin cancer is such a big issue. So I am glad that under our Investing in Our Schools program the schools in my electorate are active participants and are putting that money where it is needed. (Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 118 BILLS R2528 118 Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Mr Pyne: That this bill be now read a second time. 118 10:06:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —The opposition supports the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006. It is essentially designed to streamline the application-making process for medicines, blood products and tissue. The e-business portal will enable manufacturing applicants to monitor the passage of their applications and to make amendments as the need arises. Since taking over as the shadow minister with responsibility for the TGA, I have embarked on an extensive process of meeting key TGA stakeholders. These include consumer and industry groups. To date I have received significant feedback which has reiterated the perception of the competence of the TGA. Whilst it has its critics, the TGA commands widespread respect. The Medical Industry Association of Australia have, over the past few months, made a concerted effort to keep me fully informed of the key issues with which they have been dealing over the past few years. Given, as I say, that this bill is non-controversial and there is agreement to it from the opposition, I intend to make some broader comments. I recently had the pleasure of touring key medical devices manufacturing operations and distributors in my own and neighbouring electorates. During our meetings, the MIAA and their members raised numerous issues with regard to the industry and the TGA. According to the MIAA, the industry supported the 2002 revision of the Therapeutic Goods Act and regulations to provide a harmonised regulatory model for medical devices and in vitro diagnostics. Industry support was then based on three important factors: (1) the incorporation of a risk based approach to regulation; (2) harmonisation with the regulatory systems of Australia’s manufacturing suppliers, in terms of both the content of the legislation and the TGA’s interpretation and administration of the regulation; and (3) cost-effectiveness. The medical devices industry’s support for the proposals was based on an expectation that harmonisation of the system would reduce regulatory duplication and shorten the approval time to allow medical devices onto the Australian market. To date, the MIAA are reporting to me that their expectations are unmet. According to them: Australian manufacturers and importers face considerable difficulty and costs in moving to the new model. Transition of products has proved to be slow and there is a real risk of products (manufactured locally or imported) not being available to consumers in Australia. Industry had envisaged the TGA act would be consistent with the Australian government’s public commitment to the work of the Global Harmonisation Task Force, the GHTF. Their objectives focus on providing a forum for national regulatory authorities and industry representatives from the European Union, the United States of America, Japan, Canada and Australia to promote international convergence in regulatory requirements and practice and, in particular, to promote the safety, effectiveness, performance and quality of medical devices; to encourage technological innovation; and to foster international trade. It would also serve as an information exchange forum through which countries with medical devices regulatory systems under development could benefit from the experience of those with established systems. The MIAA have publicly stated: ... the majority of current problems for industry result from the regulations’ deviation from the European framework with which they were originally intended to be harmonized.  The resulting extra work for many Australian sponsors and their suppliers on top of regulatory work performed and approved elsewhere in the world, means the Australian system is currently duplicative, difficult and expensive.  Even though the new regulatory system is in its early days, MIAA believes that the signs are already becoming obvious that it will negatively impact the growth of the Australian industry and ultimately affect consumer access to state-of-the-art technology. From an industry perspective, the majority of the current problems arise as a result of losing sight of the European framework with which they were originally supposedly to be harmonised. Whilst lodging manufacturing applications may be a minor part of the delay, all the same it will aid in the process of creating greater efficiencies, especially given that the industry is looking to move more than 10,000 items into the new regulatory regime before the October 2007 deadline. Obviously, that is a mammoth task—10,000 items will be basically moved over and reauthorised, and the clock is certainly ticking. I turn to the complementary health sector. I recently had the opportunity to visit the Symbion vitamins manufacturing plant in Virginia, Brisbane. This is one of the country’s leading manufacturers of complementary medicines, also known as neutraceuticals. Again, I take this opportunity to highlight some of the key issues which are currently affecting this aspect of the industry and their dealings with the TGA. Treating this field as a type of drug is probably the right approach, so long as the nature of the products and the supply chain is properly allowed for. Raw material manufacturers are not subject to good manufacturing processes. This creates difficulties for the industry, as the companies involved in Australia are essentially unable to control the supply chain and guarantee product. Australian industry is relatively small, so there are limits to what we can expect overseas raw material manufacturers to undertake for the Australian companies. They are generally controlled by large US manufacturers. Australian companies report that the size of the Australian market means that they are unable to gain priority. Australian requirements and expectations tend to be a low priority for these companies. Natural variations in raw materials are to be expected, so pharmaceutical type tolerances are not achievable. To this end, greater margins for deviation are essentially to be allowed for. The margins are much tighter, so compliance costs must be reasonable. This is especially important given that the public health risk is generally much lower. A greater risk management approach by the TGA is sought by the manufacturers. Compliance should be linked to consumer risk. The TGA are more used to the nature of the pharmaceutical industry and prefer the greater certainties, and they tend to interpret the guidelines along pharmaceutical lines. Whilst industry recognises the need for institutionalising the highest possible standards, there is, nevertheless, a perception that these standards ought not necessarily to be those of the pharmaceutical industry. Enforcement of regulation lacks transparency and accountability in this field and is therefore often inconsistent—for example, between big and small or between Australia and overseas. Again, manufacturers require a universal standard applied to all manufacturers, regardless of the size of the operations. They also require greater transparency and consultation by the TGA. They take the view that the Pan calamity has created a very uneven relationship with the regulator, and yet the reality is that industry has moved on and now operates under a totally revised regime. Compliance costs are probably amongst the highest in the world. I ask: is this based on evidence of any specific problems? The process to debate audit issues does not seem to be in place or is ineffective, as communication is normally restricted to the lead auditor. Contacting auditors and seeking advice on and interpretation of issues is very difficult, and the time taken for resolution is often commercially damaging. Audits are becoming longer and more in-depth. Why is this set in stone for companies with a proven track record, as against those which are perceived to have more risk, either domestic or overseas owned? The issues raised above are contributing to a situation where domestic manufacturing is being replaced by overseas options, especially from India and China, where manufacturing is cheaper and audits are more difficult to conduct. And yet it is not likely that the standards in India and China are higher than or equivalent to the standards that we have here in Australia. Certainly, it is much more difficult to audit a plant in China or India, for that matter, than in Australia. Likewise, there is little evidence to suggest that there are any unannounced audits in places such as these countries. I turn to concerns of consumer groups in respect of the TGA and the broad field of pharmaceuticals. In a submission to the ACCC the Australian Consumers Association argued that the objective of the regulation of pharmaceutical marketing should be to achieve a balance between the interests of pharmaceutical companies in promoting their products, the need for consumers to receive accurate and comprehensive information about medicines, and minimising the risk of overprescription or incorrect prescription. Consumer groups have expressed concern about the manner in which pharmaceutical companies target both consumers and doctors in their marketing practices. Some pharmaceutical companies have circumvented the prohibition of direct consumer advertising by a number of means, and these have been internationally exposed in recent months. Advertising is masqueraded as educational campaigning. They place stories in the media that are presented as medical breakthroughs. They sponsor high-profile events. They subsidise academics to provide favourable expert opinion, and they sponsor prizes for journalism awards. Whilst the opposition supports the provisions of self-regulation in the pharmaceutical industry, it is also a reality that much of the abuse outlined above arises from a seemingly lax attitude to enforcement by the self-regulatory body. An example of this is the self-regulatory code sanctions, which are inadequate as they clearly pose very little deterrence to repeat offenders. The ACA argue that it is a fundamental requirement of any successful code that there be meaningful sanctions if the code is breached. Most fines imposed by the code committee are under $25,000 and only one was more than $100,000. I think we know how those sorts of penalties would be regarded in a very highly capitalised industry such as pharmaceuticals. Abuses of the current self-regulatory system are detrimental to consumers. Advertising inflates the prevalence of certain conditions and encourages consumers to take medication that they may not need. Increased demand for new products occurs when older versions with the same efficacy are available, and that inflates the cost to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The limitations of the self-regulatory regime extend much further than advertising. Advertising can take the form of insidious incentives, as revealed two weeks ago in the press, which point to a culture of handouts and expensive functions for physicians, fully paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Roche Pharmaceuticals were recently in the news for providing cancer specialists with a $200-a-head meal at the Opera House Bennelong restaurant. Roche argue that this dinner was simple, modest and appropriate given that it followed an education conference the company had organised and sponsored. For what purpose? For their own purposes. The Australian Medical Association raced to the defence of its members’ right to attend such functions. It even went so far as to argue that it is part of the process of ‘oiling the wheels’. This was clearly inconsistent with the standards set by the Medicines Australia code—that is, by the pharmaceutical companies themselves—which suggests that hospitality be simple, modest and reasonable. Whilst the AMA is unable to identify fault in the manner in which its members are wooed by industry, the ACCC has taken a more critical view by reauthorising the code with an added emphasis on monitoring and publishing details of hospitality received by AMA members. Whilst the views of the AMA are held in good faith, there is mounting evidence contradicting its sincerity and sense. The online journal New Matilda last week carried an article by Dr Ken Harvey, who stated: A large amount of research contradicts the view that no patient harm comes from such interactions between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry. Research shows that industry-doctor interaction correlates with doctors’ preferences for new products that hold no demonstrated advantage over existing ones, decreased prescribing of more cost-effective generic drugs and a rise in both and irrational and incautious prescribing. In conclusion, I have canvassed a number of other facets connected with the TGA and broader pharmaceutical industry. The bill is supported by the opposition. It is a step towards ensuring swiftness of operation, and we endorse the bill. 121 10:19:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the measures contained in the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006. It will allow the Therapeutic Goods Administration to conduct a modernisation of its procedures with regard to the issue of licences and to make a further response to the report of the National Audit Office in 2004. I would like to take the opportunity to dwell on the current pressures on the health service—in particular the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the demand for alternative or complementary medicines and the response to these pressures in regional areas. Currently, under section 37(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, manufacturers of medicines, blood and tissues have to apply in writing for the relevant licences. The passage of this bill will enable them to lodge such applications electronically. Manufacturers will be able to track easily the progress of their applications and to make necessary amendments. It should make the process rather more attractive to manufacturers and ease the passage of new products onto the market. No information additional to that required for the existing application process will be required, so there is no extra bureaucratic burden on the manufacturer. The measure will also enable the TGA to continue to address criticisms made by the Audit Office of its data management, documentation and record keeping. I mentioned pressure on the health service. One pressure is the public’s demand for medicines in general. We are encouraged to become more health conscious, to become more aware of health risks and to take early intervention and preventative action. That is fine as far as it goes. It is clearly better for the individual and for the finances of the health service for an ailment to be dealt with quickly and cheaply at an early stage than to be left until a lengthy, expensive treatment or surgery is required. This increased level of consciousness has led to a greater knowledge of what medicines are available and a greater demand for those medicines provided under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS. This is particularly true of expensive drugs that have proved far more effective than their competitors for a limited number of patients. However, with cost pressures, it is often hard to explain to a sufferer of, for example Crohn’s disease, why they may have to pay thousands of dollars for a drug treatment which provides them with great relief and which may remove the need for complex surgical intervention at a later date. I hope we will be able to provide improved pharmaceutical support for Crohn’s sufferers at some stage in the near future. But I acknowledge this is both a difficult area, in assessing the efficacy of drugs, and a political area. How do we administer a program such as the PBS for greatest benefit? It is also true that many drugs coming onto the market are expensive and may be suitable for a wide range of patients. This means great cost pressure, which needs to be managed carefully if we are going to ensure that our health budget delivers the maximum benefits. The current annual cost of the PBS is $6.2 billion. I would imagine there are a few who would argue that we should cap this cost and abandon our support for medicines. But I would also imagine there are a few who would argue that this process needs to be very efficiently managed so that we reduce costs wherever we can. There is a role for the public to play in this. I am not convinced that the increasing level of consciousness of the need for personal health has resulted in a sufficient commitment to greater personal responsibility. Prevention, after all, is better than cure. Prevention lies, in many cases, in our own hands. We all know that managing our diet, avoiding cigarettes and reducing our alcohol intake can have substantial personal benefits. However, sadly, in many cases people still overindulge and fail to manage adequately their own personal health. Let us consider the message on diet for a moment; it is clearly not getting through. Australia is one of the fattest developed nations. The percentage of Australian adults who are overweight or obese has doubled in the last two decades—that is, 67 per cent of men aged 25 to 64 are overweight or obese, and the equivalent figure for women is 52 per cent. It is a huge problem. More worryingly, 20 to 25 per cent of Australian children between five and 17 are overweight or obese. That is double the prevalence recorded in 1986. These children and adults are at greater risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and some forms of cancer. The cost of obesity is estimated to be some $1.2 billion a year. If we could eliminate that, we could spend that $1.2 billion in other areas. I welcome the setting up of the National Obesity Taskforce but, unless we accept personal responsibility for our own health, obesity may end up as an absolute epidemic. I know that not all obesity is self-induced, but I think it is fair to say that much of that $1.2 billion could be saved. It is one-fifth of the current annual cost of the PBS. There is another perhaps more easily attainable form of saving that will require if not personal responsibility then public acceptance, and that is the use of generic drugs. Many people are reluctant to accept the cheaper generic versions of a drug, particularly if they have been used to receiving the originally patented version for some length of time. As more patents expire, there will be more generics available. I believe we have to work hard to overcome this reluctance to use generic drugs so that the savings made in the area of generics can be put into new, innovative drugs that will potentially provide huge gains to people in our country. I noted in Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald a report that the Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy has secured listing of four of its low-cost generics on the PBS. Ranbaxy is the first Indian company to have its drugs listed, and the move is expected to generate increased price competition. There are clearly opportunities here not just to control the cost of the PBS but also to possibly help meet the cost of providing some of those innovative drugs I spoke of earlier. I should say that the cost is by no means the only criteria for listing on the PBS, but it would be unrealistic to operate on the basis that the PBS could be isolated from all cost pressures. I welcome the comments by the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, that savings from the introduction of generics can create headroom for spending on the newest, more expensive drugs. There are benefits here for patients, and we should grasp the opportunity. I should remind members that the government have increased health spending in the area of aged care. We have spent in total on health some $48 billion, $20 billion more than in 1996-97. We are currently increasing the availability of new drugs on the PBS by providing more than $750 million for new treatments for colon cancer, breast cancer, heart failure and high blood cholesterol. More than 350,000 Australians are expected to benefit from these drugs. It is worth noting that, while many express the view that the PBS should provide more and that they should pay less, the expert committee report Complementary medicines in the Australian health system, published in 2003, estimated that the annual turnover of complementary medicines was some $800 million. The total market in this area, including purchases made from overseas companies, is likely to be far higher than that. The same researchers reported that 52.1 per cent of the population surveyed had used at least one non-physician-prescribed alternative medicine, with an additional 20 per cent of Australian complementary medicines output being exported. This is clearly an area of medicine that holds a strong attraction for many people, who are prepared to spend a great deal of their own money. Without wishing to comment on the efficacy of the products, we need to ensure that the products of this apparently profitable industry are safe. It is right and proper that the TGA is active in this area. Insofar as this market represents an economic opportunity and provides choices the consumer clearly wants, the measure we are discussing today will make it easier for manufacturers to bring new products onto the market. There are those who say that we should remove all cost restraints from the PBS and that, if a drug is licensed by the TGA and prescribed by a doctor, it should be available. There are many, including the sufferer of Crohn’s disease whom I mentioned earlier, who would no doubt welcome an expansion of the drugs covered by the PBS. We do have to have cost control, but I certainly would welcome an extension of therapeutic assistance to Crohn’s sufferers in the near future. However, it is easy to forget that budgets are limited. It is easy to forget that extra money spent on the PBS might mean less money to subsidise bulk-billing, which covers almost seven out of 10 consultations in my electorate. It might also be easy to divert funds from one area of the health budget, such as the Medicare safety net. That is an example of the difficult choices in health that need to be made and the importance of ensuring that we tightly monitor the costs of the PBS to derive maximum benefit for the community at an affordable cost to the government. If we were to overspend in one area of health, it might mean that worthwhile projects might not go ahead. Some new, groundbreaking areas in the health system may be retarded by a failure to appropriately control costs in other areas. I would like to dwell for a moment on an important project, the Rural Palliative Care Program. It is currently supporting a number of pilot projects—one of which is in my electorate—and provides stakeholders with improved access to quality palliative care in a regional or rural setting. I think that is vitally important. I am pleased to have such a pilot in my electorate. Earlier this year, I was able to announce that Baringa Private Hospital in Coffs Harbour was to receive nearly half a million dollars to set up a palliative care service, increasing the number of palliative care beds and providing additional clinical and IT equipment. These measures will improve the quality of life of patients who have serious or life-threatening diseases, treating as soon as possible the symptoms of the disease and the side-effects of treatment and providing psychological, social and spiritual assistance as may be required during the time that that person and their family are dealing with that illness. These new and innovative programs are the sorts of programs that can go ahead because we focused in the area of health very much on economic efficiency and economic effectiveness, which provided the budget to do these more innovative programs. The Baringa hospital project will ease the pressure on existing facilities and so make those resources available to other patients, as well as support the sufferers and their families. The funding comes from the Rural Health Strategy, which is providing some $830 million over four years for health and aged care services and workforce measures. In June 2005, the Minister for Health and Ageing came to Coffs Harbour to open the $3 million Rural Clinical School, which is now training medical students through the University of New South Wales but substantially in rural and regional areas. The strategy behind the Rural Clinical School is that if we train our doctors in a regional setting they are more likely to practise there. The rural workforce is a major issue which needs to be addressed in rural and regional areas. It is one the government is very focused on. It is one that we are achieving in. It is one that the Rural Clinical School plays a major part in developing. Last month, Minister Abbott was in Coffs Harbour to open a $1.2 million nursing laboratory, which included two four-bed simulated wards. The training of nurses in a regional area is basically done on the same principle as the training of our doctors—that is, if we train our nurses in a regional setting they are more likely to stay there. I certainly welcome the commitment by the government, which was substantial funding of some $850,000 under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, to assist in the construction of this $1.2 million facility. This impressive project complements the government’s investment in 164 extra nursing places, which I announced some two years ago. These measures are all designed to address the issue of rural and regional workplace shortages and, as I said, train those health professionals in the area where we would like them to practise. Good health care is about planning. Good health care is about spending money efficiently. But, more than anything else, good health care is about the skills and empathy of the people working in our hospitals and clinics. In conclusion, I would like to mention five people who received certificates of appreciation for a lifetime commitment to health when Minister Abbott visited Coffs Harbour last month. Doctors Jerry Power and Michael Ridley and nurses Helen Jones, Gay Bowen and Carol Brewster received certificates from the minister to recognise a lifetime contribution to the health system. It is professionals like them, who not only contribute their skills but also repay the investment in their training many times over, who are the mainstay of our health service. Whilst often we spend much time in the area of health arguing over the issue of money, I think there is one thing that is inarguable, and that is the commitment and dedication of the many health professionals who are the backbone of our system and who make it work year in, year out. 125 10:33:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —We have had a broad-ranging debate so far on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006, based on what is fundamentally a very minor change. The amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Act in this bill allows those manufacturers of medicines, blood and tissues to make an application for a manufacturing licence electronically using the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s e-business system. That brings it into line not only with a number of other government departments which are using e-business but also with changes that have already occurred. I want to look at a couple of aspects of this. One is the broad question of e-business and the transition from the old paper forms across government to the new electronic model. The other is the effectiveness within the department itself and the fact that the manner in which the particular matters were carried out by the department has been heavily criticised. In the background paper put together by the Parliamentary Library, there is a section—which I will deal with a bit later—with regard to an audit report done by the Australian National Audit Office on the manner in which the department had been conducting itself. This is a tiny example of a change, but the implications are very great. The old system—one could say almost a 19th century approach but a very useful one, people just simply being able to write—specifically stated this, and that is why we actually require a specific change. That is section 37(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. It says: An application for a licence must: be made in writing in accordance with a form approved by the Secretary ... You can find that in just about any government documentation you can imagine. But specifically under the Therapeutic Goods Act in order to get the licence it had to be in writing and it had to be on the right form. The change here is to say that it does not have to be in writing on a bit of paper. It can be in text form and certified text form as part of the process being introduced in e-business, and that is as good as you will get. This would be of no surprise to the Japanese, who worked it out a very long time ago. The original fax machines were developed in the 19th century and used to transport a paper written piece of work. The first fax machines were not developed in Japan but the Japanese took them up more than anyone else. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —For the benefit of the member for Blair, the first fax machines in the world were developed in the late 1870s. They did not become a world standard. It took us about another 100 years before they became world standard very simply because there was a particular way of going about it. If you go back to about 1986, when I attempted to convince Voca Communications that it would be really smart to provide scanners to electorate offices by simply upping the dpi from 200 to 300 in the fax machines that they were providing us—it was possible to make a technological leap—Voca were able to supply the Department of Finance and Administration with fax machines at the time simply because there were worldwide standards. In the 1870s the first fax machines were put into place. The problem was that you had to have one fax machine from one manufacturer at one end and another fax machine at the other end that was exactly the same. But it was in the late 19th century that the first images passed from one end of the globe to the other by fax. The Japanese realised that you did not have to have a piece of paper to put an application in that had to be handed mechanically to someone. Because of the nature of the currency system that they have, you could write what you wanted and then send it electronically by fax machine, because it was a facsimile. In this legislation finally we get a realisation that it does not have to be on a bit of paper. You can send it. You can write it and then send it by fax. Legally you can do that in almost any transaction or contract in Australia and that is allowed. But we go a bit further, and in this legislation it says not just sending it by fax but sending a representation of what you originally did on paper. You can lodge it on an e-business basis. To get from there to here over time takes quite a great deal. People do this in halting steps. The government has been right, as have other governments around the world, that it is possible to do things better and to be assured that you can improve, in this case, licensing for medicines, blood products and tissue by making this change to facilitate it. If you set up your system in the right way you can be assured that people from outside are not participating in this process, as long as you get the right protocols, it is signed off and it is not people who are trying to subvert the system. You can do it in a more efficient way. If you look at the broader question of how we move goods around and the controls there are in Quarantine, Customs and so on, there has been a slow and deliberate process of changing over to these kinds of mechanisms. So people involved in shipping, companies that are heavily involved in goods forwarding and so on realised many years ago that it was a hell of a lot smarter to do it this way than it was to use the old paper forms. Even though we have a GST that is still fundamentally designed the same way as the GST was in the 1960s—and it was introduced in Europe and elsewhere as a paper based trail—you can in fact do all of that electronically. It is a case of: if you can do it, why wouldn’t you? In terms of the operations of the act, this simple amendment: ... will remove the requirement for an application for a manufacturing licence to be made in writing, and instead permit the electronic lodgement of an application. The amendments will make section 37 consistent with other provisions in the Act. Departments have all sorts of problems. Often they have problems with their ministers, with the people who work for them and with their systems. When there is a proposal to change the mode of work, there can be resistance from people within the department or simply due to the amount of time and effort it takes to make the changes. But it can be that sometimes there is a big impetus to get these things under way. If you look at the work that the library has done on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006, you can see that in the relevant department there was a bit of both here. There was some internal movement. They decided to bring in what was called a ‘manufacturer information system’ to provide for more efficient processing of the different types of applications made to the various areas of the TGA. The purpose of that, they outlined, was to eliminate paper forms and to allow electronic application for manufacturing licences for medicinal natural products, certification by audit of overseas medicines manufacturers, variations to each of the above and clearance certification of overseas medicines and manufacturers by assessment of GMP evidence provided by an overseas regulatory body. That process is fairly broad ranging. It looks like a simple thing here to say that it does not have to be on a bit of paper—even a bit of paper that can be lodged by fax—and that you can go to an electronic system. Anyone who has tried to introduce a system like this knows that it is not as simple as it might seem. It involves a great deal of reorganisation of the department. People who have done similar things at universities in trying to deal with new personnel systems and so on know that what used to be simple becomes more complex, particularly when you are dealing with a whole range of different manufacturers. Also, you have to educate people in how to use these systems, particularly if you have people using them overseas, but the benefits are clear and significant. If you can get everybody used to the new system, not only can you be quicker but you can be smarter. You can also track what has been done in a much more efficient way than previously. An example of what happens can be seen in this parliament with its move to using less paper. We still push out volumes of the stuff and overutilise it. We have photocopiers all over the place, including in our offices. The great idea—and this may even be taken as part of it—was that we would go to a paperless office. But people think we are using more paper than we did in the past. However, there is some light ahead—and the Deputy Speaker would agree with me on this—in terms of the amount of paper that is being pushed out because, at the practical level, departments are pushing to do this sort of thing and are making those sorts of changes. There is also some light ahead because of the capacity of current computers to churn through images and because we have a bigger and broader storage capacity than we had before. We have better scanners. We are trialling a program in the electorate offices that uses networked photocopiers, which we hope will work. We should be able to use those photocopiers as scanners, which I tried to get Voca to do in 1986. If they were used with Nuance software—which has changed its name to PaperPort—which is almost the industry standard, you could do away with most of the paperwork. Not only could you image your material and store it but you could use optical character recognition, which is now of a fairly high standard. You could make fully searchable electronic documents not only in electorate offices but also in Parliament House. The Parliamentary Library has done that. If you want to know about the therapeutic goods amendment bill 2003, it is available in electronic form. The Bills Digest is also available in that form from the library. Any material associated with this, including press releases in which people in the industry have made comment on this or any other bill, is imaged and made into a searchable, portable document format. That means you can have a greater control over what is happening, and for people in therapeutic goods it means you can have efficiencies in running the department and dealing with the mass of paper documentation because, having made it into an electronic business system, it is searchable and more available to you. The Bills Digest sums up the benefits in this way: The benefits associated with the electronic lodgement of manufacturing licence applications were highlighted in the second reading speech of the Bill; in particular, that the amendments will allow manufacturer’s to monitor progress with their licence applications and electronically submit requests for amendments to their licences. I note that, even though this came out of the library, they were not able to use an apostrophe in the way that they should have. It is in fact not ‘manufacturer’s’ but the plural. One day we might march through. The Australian National Audit Office in October 2004 brought down their report Regulation of non-prescription medicinal products. They were concerned about the whole process that had been undertaken under the Therapeutic Goods Act. The Bills Digest reads: The audit report was critical of the information management systems and processes employed by the TGA, including its data management, documentation and recordkeeping procedures, and recommended that these systems be improved. It is argued that, on this change we are giving legislative effect to, the message already got through to the Therapeutic Goods Administration and they brought in this system because of the investigation that the audit office had undertaken. So they have incorporated that. In the Department of Health and Ageing’s response to the audit they argued that many of the issues raised by the ANAO were being addressed and that they planned activities to address all the audit recommendations, but none had been fully implemented at that time. The challenges to a department in trying to deal with a world that is changing and with seemingly simple changes of this nature are fairly big, particularly where you are not just dealing with medicines. We have seen recent major changes in the government’s introduction of new regulations and new approaches to medicines that have gone off the protected patented areas. We have gone into generics with a major piece of legislation I spoke about in this chamber some time ago. Trying to facilitate—for both directly Australian owned and offshore multinationals in Australia, such as Pfizer and so on—the licensing of those products and streamlining them will be beneficial in terms of the major pharmaceutical area, but there are also the fundamental issues of blood, blood products, tissues and their trade within Australia and world wide. There has been a significant attempt by the Red Cross and the authorities that are still responsible for this in Australia to boost Australian participation in donating blood and to boost the attempt to make people understand that, if you are one of the one in 10 or so people who is going to do it, you should support it and give it as much of a run as you can. The alternative, if Australians do not do it in the numbers they have done it in historically, is that we will end up with blood products and tissue products coming in from overseas. They will add to our current account problems. They will also add to the question of whether or not those products have been effectively dealt with in terms of disease control and so on. The responsible Australian authorities in this regard are not afraid to change the licensing system to go to an e-business system, but I think they would be grateful to those members who in the past have dealt with the issues of the collection of Australian blood, its storage, the challenges in public health issues associated with our control of this. They would also be grateful that people freely and voluntarily have decided to help others in the community, that we do not trade blood as a good as other countries do and that it is one of the foundation stones of the way we see ourselves. In that area I think the most important things are (1) keeping local control, (2) ensuring that the voluntarism innate in our system is maintained and (3) that people get the message that it is very important that they join in and try to ensure this is the case. Broadly, this change has been a simple one legislatively, if not simple at the level of the organisation that has had to deal with it. It has made a response not only to the Australian National Audit Office but to pressures within the department itself to make those changes. But the story is that 10 years on from 1996, with a government that is all about auditing and benchmarking, you have to make some practical changes to give effect to the government’s e-business strategy. I applaud the fact that in this regard it has done that. The Bills Digest says at the end: According to the government, the amendments proposed in the Bill are expected to facilitate the speedy submission of licence applications from manufacturers and the efficient handling of these applications by the TGA. The amendments address the audit report recommendations that the TGA improve the integration of its information management systems, and strengthen its documentation procedures. The final sentence, however, raises an issue generally but it is one that I put directly to the responsible minister or parliamentary secretary in terms of dealing with this at the end of the debate. It says: However, in light of the Deloitte’s report, Parliament may want to confirm that implementation of all the ANAO’s recommendations has materially progressed since June 2005. So I would put that specific issue posed by the Parliamentary Library to the relevant minister, parliamentary secretary or whoever is dealing with this at the end. However slight this bill is in terms of the legislative change that is made, the actual application here goes to something broader and deeper. So you either front up and do what the ANAO say, wherever they are housed, or you only go part way to making the sorts of changes that can really make a dramatic and significant effect and haul Australia kicking and screaming into an electronically image based world—a world in which e-business is not only possible but certified by the government taking the lead in its implementations. It needs to ensure that not only in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Act and all that it entails but across all government departments the move towards e-business is facilitated and that the mechanical needs of computer capacity and imaging are available across all sites. I point out to those in the National Party and the Liberal Party who want to abolish my seat of Blaxland, arguing that regionally people have been affected badly, you can access an electorate office by fax or image. (Time expired) 129 10:53:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I rise to speak to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006. This bill proposes amendments to Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Basically, these amendments will allow for electronic lodgement by manufacturers and is therefore a fairly simple and non-contentious bill. But, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, knowing that you are a great champion for the parliament and the House, keeping the executive on their toes, I think it is apposite to mention that the matters in this bill arise out of an audit report. We see in this bill some application of the executive’s response to that audit report, but we are not quite clear whether there has been a full commitment to all the matters that have arisen as a result of the ANAO’s audit report on the Regulation of non-prescription medicinal Products by the TGA. Hopefully, in the summing up, if anybody is going to bother summing up on this very small debate, those matters might be addressed. As an aside, I think that it is quite interesting that, on this very simple, small, non-contentious bill, the House through the Main Committee is allowed to have a full debate. We have mustered I think four or five people to debate on it, whereas down in the main chamber on something of much greater moment the debate is going to be curtailed. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr JENKINS —The honourable member for Blair is in the Main Committee chamber at the moment. He had his opportunity on the migration bill. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —Get back to the bill. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Order! The member for Scullin has the call. HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr JENKINS —I will try to return to the bill. I was allowing myself to be provoked by the disorderly behaviour of others in the Main Committee, and I apologise. I thought that one should note the difference when it comes to these bills. To the officers of the department, the authority or whoever you are: I am not trying to belittle this bill; I am just making the comparison that sometimes we are allowed to have these full debates about minor matters whereas we have minor debates about the major matters. I think that is a little incongruous. Others in this debate have illustrated—I think, because they have been assisted by the Bills Digest—the technicalities of the bill. I want to make the observation that this is an important area, whether it is to do with therapeutic goods or any other good. Australian manufacturers and Australian government authorities should look to ways of using information technology and assisting in the electronic transfer of information as efficiently as possible. I regret that on other occasions I have had to observe that, if there were a manufacturer in the electorate of Scullin who was involved in therapeutic goods and they were looking to take up the opportunities that this amendment will provide with regard to the process of gaining licences et cetera not in a written application but by way of electronic transfer, regrettably the broadband infrastructure in my electorate would probably not be sufficient that these manufacturers could compete. In that context, we note the decision of Telstra to suspend or to do away with their intention to roll out high-speed optical fibre broadband, which would have allowed, whether in this area or other areas, Australian manufacturers to maximise their efforts. In many of the areas of therapeutic goods, we have allowed the manufacturers, in cooperation with the TGA, to set standards themselves. It is about a balance between the legislation regulation and what we see in other industries with self-determination practices and the like. Within the allowance of the standing orders, I want to draw attention to the front page of the Age of Monday of this week. The article is headed ‘Drug companies accused of manipulating trials’. When we have a piece of legislation like this bill before us, we have to be very careful in the area of therapeutic goods about the way we see the interconnect between the development, processing, licensing et cetera of the drug and then allowing it out into the market. This is one of the great challenges for government. The government has to use bodies like the TGA to carry this out. In the past, when it has come to therapeutic goods such as prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical companies have indicated that they believe that the processes that they have—particularly in the way they market—and the codes of conduct that they and the professions have are sufficient. Why should this be a question that continues year in and year out? I was the chair of the House of Representatives Community Affairs committee back in the mid-nineties, when we did a major inquiry into, mainly, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, in which we went from manufacturing right through to the delivery of drugs to the consumer by the prescribing and dispensing practices of the professionals involved. We have to have a flow of information that allows medical practitioners to be able to decide what drugs or therapeutic devices are appropriate and for the pharmacist to be able to give proper advice. In that, we rely on the pharmaceutical company representatives doing the right thing. The right thing is that, legitimately, they should ensure that those professionals are equipped with the information that enables them to be able to prescribe and dispense in a proper way and to give information to the consumer in a proper way. It is a form of ongoing education for those professionals. The problem is that there is a fine line; those practices can go beyond that information transfer into forms of incentive that move professionals to champion drugs only because of these incentives. That is why we have stories like this. It is not just a problem that Australia confronts. Anybody who has read the Guardian Weekly, in the British context, over the last few months will have seen that it has been running similar stories. A lot of the manufacturers that gain licences for therapeutic goods under this act are multinational companies. This is a global phenomenon, and we cannot isolate ourselves from it in Australia. I think that is why we have to have a proper regime not only for the way in which we give manufacturing licences for medicinal products but also so that we can certify the audits of overseas medical manufacturers and things like that, which is the intention, in part, of this amendment to the main act. That is why it is very important that all practices in the process should be before us—not just the narrow band that this bill allows. The main point that I wish to make is that the action being taken by the government by this amending legislation arises out of the audit report of December 2004. There is a suggestion that there are matters arising out of that report that may still need to be addressed, and that is of some importance. I welcome the opportunity to yet again speak on an amendment bill to the Therapeutic Goods Act. As I said, this may not be the most major bill that we have ever had before us, but it is important that Australia does have a regime of administering therapeutic goods that has its basis in safety and efficacy. They have been the issues that have always troubled legislators, because there are incidents where one has to decide: are these incidents just because of the actions of the manufacturer, or are they the result of us not being able to monitor and enforce the way in which the legislation operates? So, with those few remarks on this bill, I indicate my support for the legislation. 131 11:04:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the fact that the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006 makes only minor amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989—section 37, to be exact. It allows manufacturers of medicines, blood and tissues to apply for a manufacturing licence electronically, using the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s e-business system. The amendment will make section 37 consistent with other similar provisions of the act that permit or require applications lodged for various purposes to be done electronically. Given the broad-ranging nature of this debate to date, my contribution will be in a similar vein, although I would like to highlight a couple of aspects that this bill spends some time on. I will start with the fact that the TGA’s implementation of the new computerised system, called the manufacturer information system, to provide more efficient processing of different applications made to various areas of the TGA was introduced in 2004. It was designed to eliminate paperwork and to allow for electronic applications for manufacturing licences for medical products, certification by audit of overseas medicine manufacturers, variation to each of the above and clearance certificates of overseas medicines and manufacturers by assessment of GMP evidence provided by overseas regulatory bodies. I think that within Health generally we need to put a lot more emphasis on streamlining the use of electronic sharing of information. Across all areas in Health, there has been a call for a greater use of electronic transfer of information using electronic systems to create much more efficient and effective ways of sharing information. When you look at the information that is shared, GPs have in place a system where they electronically transfer information between themselves and hospitals. Unfortunately, it has some problems, and also it breaks down when the information comes back the other way. But, more importantly, there is a breakdown in the transferring of medical information when it relates to specialists. Specialists have not embraced the use of electronic transfer of information in the same way that GPs have. In an inquiry that I have been involved in with our House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing the fact that there needs to be a greater use of electronic transfer of data using electronic systems has been identified as an issue. This has been brought to the committee’s attention by a number of the health experts—people like Scotton and Menadue, who are very influential in the area of health. Doctors have pointed out to us that it benefits the patient. So, as in this area, I think that all areas of health should encompass electronic transfer of information because it benefits all Australians. All Australians use health and medical products and all Australians at some time or another have a need for information to be transferred from one health provider to another health provider. So in commenting on the electronic lodgement of manufacturing licences it is important to highlight that there needs to be a greater use of electronic transfer of medical information and data within Australia. The next issue I would like to touch on was raised by the shadow minister. It relates to pharmaceutical companies’ use of gifts and the influence that has on the price of pharmaceuticals and, I would argue, on the health outcomes in this country. On many occasions I have raised my concerns about this issue. It has been highlighted again very recently with reports of doctors being given expensive overseas trips and expensive meals and being entertained by the pharmaceutical companies. Roche is a company that has been in the news recently, but in all fairness I do not think we can say it is limited to Roche. I think there needs to be a much more transparent approach to dealings with pharmaceutical benefits and drug companies. The whip on the other side of the chamber, the member for Blair, pointed to the details of this legislation. I remind the whip that all other contributions to this debate have been broad ranging, even to the extent that the member for Cowper was discussing the minister presenting certificates within his electorate. This legislation does refer to medicines. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—I would remind the member for Shortland that she is ranging far too widely in her comments. I remind her to come back to the bill. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —The matter I am discussing relates to medicines, and it has a lot more relevance to this legislation than the minister presenting certificates in the electorate of Cowper, but I will continue. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would remind the member for Shortland I was not in the chair during that period. I have listened to the other contributions that have been made and I think it does help to mention the bill every now and again. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Thank you. As I was saying, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006 does look at certification by audit of overseas medicine manufacturers. When we look at the certification of overseas medicines manufacturers, it also brings to mind the fact that some of these overseas medicine manufacturers are engaged in the practice of providing medical practitioners with rewards for prescribing their medication. I believe that is something the government needs to address as a matter of urgency and that it needs to be much more transparent. It is in the interests of all Australians if the government goes down that track. Another issue this legislation deals with is blood products. It allows manufacturers of blood and tissues to apply for manufacturing licences electronically. That brings me to an issue I am very concerned about. The government is undermining what I believe is the safest blood supply system in the world. We have a number of blood donors. I am a blood donor. I understand that the member for Capricornia is also a donor. 83A Livermore, Kirsten, MP Ms Livermore interjecting— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —No? She was talking to me about becoming a blood donor. The member for Werriwa is a blood donor. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I am a blood donor. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —I am an electronic blood donor. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —The parliamentary secretary is also a blood donor. I think that we have the safest system in the world. Once we give our blood, the blood is then processed in Australia into blood products that people need. As well as having given blood, I have been the recipient of a donation, and I was confident of the quality of the blood that I was receiving. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I really hesitate to interrupt the member for Shortland in her address, but this is an electronic lodgements bill of an administrative nature. Ranging over the issue of whether the government is or is not abrogating the blood supply in Australia is, quite frankly, not relevant. Regardless of what other members did or did not do, I really think the member should limit herself to the precepts of this bill, and I would ask you to rule that way. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You make a valid point of order. I have reminded the honourable member on two occasions already to return to the substance of the bill. I think that, if she cannot do that, perhaps she could curtail her remarks. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Yes. As I was saying, applying for blood licensing will be done electronically. If it is processed overseas, it will happen that way. I was just expressing my concern that the electronic licensing system would not be able to be administered, and we could not be sure of the same safety with blood products that we have now if that system came into play. The Therapeutic Goods Administration has progressively implemented a major information system project in support of regulatory activities. The Department of Health and Ageing argued that many of the issues raised by the ANAO in its audit were being addressed. They were being addressed because it identified some problems. The audit report was particularly critical of information systems projects in support of regulatory activities. I need some assurance that this will be addressed. The department has said it will be addressed. Electronic data systems are very important to our health system. When it identifies issues such as data management, documentation and record-keeping procedures and recommends that these systems be improved, action needs to be taken immediately. Whilst my contributions to the debate have been pulled more into the parameters of the legislation than the contribution of any other speaker in the debate— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to resume her seat. That is a reflection on the chair which I will not accept. The member will either address her remarks specifically to the bill or curtail her remarks and sit down. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —I was saying that I would like to conclude my contribution to this debate. In doing so, I support the legislation that is before the parliament and all the comments made by members on this side of the House. I wish to associate myself with those comments. I will end my contribution at that point. 134 11:18:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I would like to thank the members of the House who have contributed to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2006—the members for Reid, Blaxland, Scullin and Shortland for the opposition and the member for Cowper for the government. This is a very straightforward amendment of an administrative nature which allows the electronic lodgement of applications to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for manufacturing licences, which previously have only been allowed to be lodged in writing—which had been deemed to be a rather archaic hindrance on industry. The legislation will allow a much easier and more streamlined approach to the administration of applications for manufacturing licences and other applications, which will benefit consumers in that products will get to the market quicker and will benefit industry in terms of saving costs. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, have a particular interest in the complementary medicines sector, and this will benefit people in the complementary medicines industry and in other areas, as well as consumers. It will cover a number of areas. Blood supply was mentioned by the member for Shortland. The only issue that the member for Shortland raised which I thought was relevant to the bill was the issue of the ANAO report concerning the TGA’s handling and administration of decisions. That report did not suggest for a moment that any of the decisions had ever been wrong but that they could be more efficiently handled. I am pleased to say to the House that the ANAO report’s recommendations were adopted by the TGA some time ago and have been evaluated. Private contractors have been in the TGA to determine whether the TGA has responded adequately. All the reports to me as the parliamentary secretary have indicated that the TGA has addressed all of those issues and put in place the systems that the ANAO would regard as appropriate. I can assure the member for Shortland, since she sought an assurance, that that has been the case. I am glad that somebody raised a matter relevant to this bill, albeit towards the end of the contributions by the four speakers from the opposition side. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 135 BILLS R2582 135 Debate resumed from 15 June, on motion by Ms Ley: That this bill be now read a second time. 135 11:21:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. The opposition supports the passage of this bill. While this bill is not controversial in any way, it is a significant piece of legislation because it concerns matters of vital importance to our food processing and export industries and therefore deserves serious consideration and the support of both parties. Basically the bill provides for technical improvements to Australia’s regime of export control and quarantine. It does that by closing some gaps that have been identified in the present system of export inspection and introducing a number of new offences to strengthen the integrity of the export chain. To appreciate the importance of maintaining the highest possible standards of export inspection and quarantine in this country, one only has to recall the potentially disastrous events of the early eighties which led to the enactment of the current Export Control Act 1982. In August 1981 discoveries were made in the United States of horse meat having been substituted for beef by an Australian meat export establishment. As a result of that, the reputation of the Australian meat industry was severely tarnished. In response to the meat substitution scandal the Customs (Unlawful Exportation of Food) Act 1982 and the Meat Export (Penalties) Act 1982 were enacted. These acts were replaced in 1983 by the present Export Control Act 1982. So, while the debate today is technical in nature, the changes proposed send a strong message that we take protection of our export industries very seriously indeed. We cannot afford to take any risks with Australia’s reputation for the highest quality food exports. Specifically the bill seeks to amend the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908 to create new offences that will apply to persons who are in control of the preparation of food products for export and who fail to ensure that the goods are prepared in accordance with legislated requirements, especially food safety legislation. The bill also seeks to provide a legal basis for the recovery of fees for quarantine services provided under the Quarantine Act to other Commonwealth bodies. It will extend the services for which fees may be charged under the Export Control Act to services provided by the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry or by the secretary’s delegate. It will clarify the use of certain terms and definitions in both the Quarantine Act and the Export Control Act and insert a new definition of ‘fish’. The definition of ‘preparation’ will also be extended to include the catching of fish. As I mentioned earlier, the Export Control Act dates back the early 1980s. It set up a regime for the export inspection of prescribed goods, including meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy produce and grains. Inspection is carried out by authorised officers of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in order to ensure that the goods that are to be exported meet the strict requirements set out in the regulations made pursuant to the Export Control Act. These requirements are aimed at ensuring fitness for human consumption, quality and accurate trade description of the goods. Members on both sides would agree that the officers of AQIS do a fine job and their ability to enforce high standards is central to maintaining the integrity of our food exports and allowing us to compete for premium markets. Australia enjoys a reputation for the high quality and safety of the food products it grows, processes and exports. That reputation has been hard-earned and must be protected against any poor practices, either negligent or wilful, that could harm our standing in the world market. I will digress for a minute to let the House know about a visit I made some years ago to Kailis Bros, a food processor in WA. It is a very successful operation, exporting all over the world. It gave me a real appreciation of the enormous competition out there in the food-processing sector and in the markets Australia is trying to break into. It highlighted to me the enormously high standards that have to be maintained by food processors wanting to export into that world market and wanting to compete effectively. Kailis Bros provide products to organisations such as airline caterers, education facilities and health care providers, among many others. They process all sorts of seafood products, dessert products, frozen fruits and vegetables, and pasta products. The day we visited this plant, we watched the processing of lasagne, which was being put into frozen packs and exported to Japan. The owners of this food processing plant were explaining to us the stringent requirements that their Japanese purchasers placed on the products that came out of their plant. They were making lasagne this day, and it actually came down to the diced onion having to meet the specified requirements and the fact that there could not be one shred of tomato skin going into these products. That was an example to me, and allowed me to appreciate what our food processors have to do and the high quality systems they have to have in place if they are going to compete in the international market. So, when you see the investment that was made by just one organisation, one business over there in Western Australia, to maintain their presence in the Japanese market, you understand the essential role that our food inspection service plays in maintaining those markets. If they could not let wrongly sized diced onion go into their product, we certainly have to make sure in Australia that we have the highest and most stringent standards of food quality and export control across the food processing sector. Ever since the scandals of the early eighties, successive governments have taken a serious view of malpractice in the export food industry. Consequently, there has always been in the Export Control Act measures to deal with any such malpractice that may endanger the reputation of Australia’s export industries and jeopardise overseas markets. Currently, there are penalties for false declarations and trade descriptions, but gaps have been identified that this bill seeks to address. This bill creates four new offences to deal with people who fail to ensure that goods are prepared for export in accordance with legislation. Two of those new provisions apply strict liability to some of the physical elements of those offences. These changes to strengthen and extend the reach of the legislation have come about because offences under the Export Control Act currently only apply to the persons actually exporting prescribed goods or to persons in possession of prescribed goods intended for export. So the focus up to now has been on persons involved in the post-production stage of the export chain. That left a gap—as the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out in her speech, a serious gap—when it came to the actions of those people actually in control of the facilities where food products are processed. This legislation creates new offences for persons in control of the preparation of food products for export who fail to ensure those goods meet legislative requirements, especially in relation to food safety. Two of the four new offences apply strict liability to some of the physical elements of the offence. ‘Strict liability’ means that the prosecution does not have to prove a fault element in relation to all or some of the physical elements of the offences, only that the defendant engaged in the relevant physical elements of the offence. This is necessary because otherwise persons in control of establishments preparing food for export could avoid the consequences of noncompliance by claiming that they were not aware of what was occurring in their establishment. This aspect of the bill sends a clear message that poor practices in the food-processing sector will not be tolerated. The stakes are too high to allow for any corner cutting when it comes to maintaining the standards of Australia’s food exports, even if it is unintentional on the part of the operator of the facility. The fact that the offences apply strict liability means that there is a heavy and appropriate responsibility on the operators in the food export sector to have the best possible systems in place to guarantee the safety and quality of the food they produce for export. I think back to that example in Western Australia, where Kailis Bros had invested enormous amounts of money in setting up their plant and in pursuing that market in Japan in this particular instance. We just cannot take risks when our processors rely on the confidence of consumers in those markets to keep buying Australian products; we cannot afford to let poor practices in one area of the industry or in one particular business undermine the efforts of all those other businesses who are making those investments and doing the right thing. The bill provides for penalties for the new offences, and the penalties are broadly consistent with existing penalties in the Export Control Act. The maximum penalty for the strict liability offences is 60 penalty units, and the other two new offences have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The legislation also clarifies the legal basis for the recovery of fees for quarantine services provided to other Commonwealth bodies and extends the range of services for which fees may be charged under the Export Control Act. Labor supports the inclusion of this measure in the bill. Labor has long supported full cost recovery for the provision of quarantine services and other services provided by government relating to the export of food products. The other provisions of this bill make a number of definitional changes and clarify the use of certain terms within the Export Control Act. The main one of these changes is the extension of the definition of preparation to include fish, and it clarifies that the Commonwealth has appropriate legal authority to regulate the sourcing of fish for export. This is an important addition to the act because the authority to regulate the sourcing of fish for export is necessary to ensure ongoing access for exported fisheries products into overseas markets and to protect consumers by ensuring that fish, including shellfish, are harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins and chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health. The whole issue of food security and consumer confidence in Australia’s food exports is one of vital importance to my electorate. As members have heard me say countless times in this place, Rockhampton is proud to be the beef capital of Australia and is at the heart of the large and very successful beef industry in Queensland. How many times has the member for Batman heard me— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Ram it down my throat? 83A Livermore, Kirsten, MP Ms LIVERMORE —Exactly. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— 83A Livermore, Kirsten, MP Ms LIVERMORE —The member for New England and I will have that debate another day and I am sure I will win it on behalf of the good people of Rockhampton. The importance of the beef industry to our national economy cannot be overstated, and I am sure the member for New England will agree with me on that. Australia remains the largest exporter of beef in the world ahead of Brazil. The meat and livestock industries in Queensland contributed over $3 billion to the Queensland economy, and that represents 30 per cent of Queensland’s gross value of production from agriculture. So, when you look at that context and the significance of it to my electorate, you can see why I support the measures in this bill that strengthen our export inspection and control regime, because maintaining the quality and safety of all food products exported from Australia has an impact on what producers and processors in my electorate are trying to do. I want to talk briefly about where this bill fits into what is happening in the beef industry. As I said, this bill focuses on the processing sector—one of the end stages of the export chain. What is being talked about in this bill—that is, putting in more stringent requirements and enhancing the ability of AQIS and the export inspection regime to enforce standards in the processing sector—complements the work being done by the grazing industry and primary producers generally to meet those stringent standards of quality and safety being demanded by our export markets. The most obvious example of that in the beef industry is the National Livestock Identification Scheme, which has been put into practice over the last couple of years. The NLIS is a major investment by the beef industry to make sure that we can guarantee that we can track cattle through the whole production process and that we can export beef with the best possible guarantee of safety and biosecurity as a result of being able to track each animal through the chain. As I said, it is a major investment by the industry. The NLIS is estimated to cost the Queensland cattle industry $32.5 million per annum. The majority of that is actually borne by the production sector. This is where the industry itself is making sure that it does everything it can to protect its markets and to protect its reputation in those world markets. Of course, this has been forced on Australia and on the industry by things that are happening overseas. We need to be able to demonstrate that we have the highest standards of biosecurity and food safety to make sure that we can export products that meet the very highest standards that are being imposed on us by those overseas markets. We have seen what can happen overseas when disease outbreaks occur or when food security is compromised in some way. At the moment we are in a position where we have been able to capitalise on and take advantage of some of those outbreaks and things that have hit overseas markets, particularly in the US and Canada, and we have been able to take advantage of markets opening up as a result of disease outbreaks overseas. This is about an insurance policy for our local beef industry—that we are in a position to guarantee the quality of our products and to make sure that we have a system in place to minimise the impact of any disease outbreak that might occur. The Productivity Commission has estimated that a disease outbreak such as foot-and-mouth disease or BSE could cost the industry, through loss of export and domestic market revenue, between $5.7 and $13 billion and the impact could last for up to 10 years. You only have to look at what happened in Canada, which has a similar herd size to Australia, where after detection of a single BSE animal the livestock industry has lost an estimated $3.3 billion plus a flow-on loss to rural communities estimated at $1.8 billion. The total broader economic impact of the BSE case in Canada is estimated at $6.3 billion. They are such very sobering figures for people like me and the member for New England who represent communities that rely so heavily on our beef industry and primary industry sector. I highlight that to demonstrate to the House what is happening in the beef industry for two reasons—firstly, to show that the beef industry is certainly doing its bit to uphold Australia’s reputation in international markets. The reason I support this bill so strongly is because I see it as complementary to what is happening at that primary production phase, making sure that the processing part of the export chain is held to similarly high and stringent standards so that, overall, our reputation as an exporter of very high quality and safe food is maintained. It is important that Australia’s trading partners can be confident of the quality and safety of food products exported from this country. The amendments to the Export Control Act and the Quarantine Act are sensible and are consistent with the approach taken by both the government and the opposition in these areas in the past. As such, Labor supports the passage of this bill. 139 11:39:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. I listened to the speech by the member for Capricornia, and I was particularly impressed with the comments she made towards the end of it. I thought her speech was very good, in total. She highlighted a very important point about the broader issue of quarantine and biosecurity when she related the experiences of Canada when it had an outbreak of mad cow disease and the costs that were incurred by that economy through what was, in a sense, a lack of vigilance. The figure she cited was something like $6.6 billion having been lost to that economy and, essentially, to the beef industry, and that has had a multiplier effect on the broader economy. I have just spent some time in Canada looking at ethanol plants and some other things. One issue that was raised when I was there was the impact of the BSE outbreak on the Canadian economy. This highlights the point that we really do need to be vigilant in relation to quarantine and biosecurity. That may, from time to time, be seen as being a little protectionist by some who would rather just open the door to the free market and let the market flow. We are seeing that with a number of products at the moment—apples, cooked chicken meat and other variations of a similar theme. Because of various trading arrangements with others internationally and talks that are ongoing with the World Trade Organisation and others about trying to liberalise overseas markets for access of our products, in some cases there has to be a relaxation of the way in which we accept other products. I suggest that, once again, we need to be vigilant in how we go about those processes. If there are any risks at all, we should not give up our greatest agricultural advantage as a nation—that of being an island, of being a clean, green producer of food and of not being subject to some of the diseases that some of our competitors internationally are. We should not enter into an arrangement if there is any degree of risk. That leads me to the debate on today’s legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. I support the legislation, but you can see a number of issues across the agricultural spectrum at the moment. The New South Wales Farmers Association and the National Farmers Federation have some issues with AQIS and some biosecurity problems. We have seen in recent years the possibility of the importation of cooked chicken meat from parts of Asia. More recently, we have seen the outbreak of avian influenza and how that could possibly have an impact further down the track. A number of years ago—when I was still in the New South Wales parliament—it looked as though cooked chicken meat was going to come in from Thailand. A number of political players at the time were quite upset about that because of not only its impact on regional economies but also the possibility of disease coming in with the various heating arrangements. I cannot remember all the detail, but certain guarantees were given that the meat had been cooked to a certain temperature to prevent disease outbreaks in Australia. Then along came avian influenza. Thankfully that issue has gone away for the moment, but those continued pressures between global trade operators will return. As I said, we have to be very vigilant in how we go about addressing some of these issues. I am a member of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I am pleased to see that other very diligent members of that committee are here today. I look forward to their contributions. I would like to read from a few press releases. The New South Wales Farmers Association on Wednesday, 19 July, headlined a press release with: ‘Farmers call for Senate Inquiry into national quarantine system’. It reads: New South Wales Farmers’ Association today voted at their annual conference to call for an urgent Senate Inquiry into Australia’s Quarantine System, AQIS and Biosecurity Australia in order to stimulate public debate on how a better system could be established for all Australians. Chair of the New South Wales Farmers’ Association’s Quarantine and Exotic Diseases Committee, Peter Carter— who is a fairly quiet individual, as I am sure that those who know him would verify— says that an independent inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee is needed to ensure our disease and pest free status is not being compromised by a system that doesn’t work. They are fairly strong words. Mr Carter is a vet by profession. He has been involved with the New South Wales Farmers Association for many years and is a man whom I respect and who I believe has some knowledge of these issues. That that organisation and that committee chair are making those comments is something this House and the parliament should take on board. The press release went on: “Agriculture won’t stand for the government doing an internal review of the import risk analysis system—the architects of the system should not judge their own system,” Mr Carter said. “Getting the import protocols right is far too important to agriculture—if the bureaucrats get it wrong and disease comes in, it is the farmer who has to pay to clean up the pest or the disease mess, loses market opportunities or wear the higher production costs,” Mr Carter said. There is a hint of warning there. A similar document on 26 June has the National Farmers Federation expressing some concerns about AQIS’s operation and biosecurity, highlighting the fact that we have to make more than sure that there are no risks if we start to break down some of the boundaries and allow other product into our nation, particularly product that we can produce domestically. An issue I have raised in the parliament on a number of occasions—and there have been a number of meetings with ministers over the years—relates to a constituent of mine who runs a business called Angora City (Rabbits) Pty Ltd. The issue concerns the importation of rabbits into Australia and the dealings between different companies. In my view—and I have mentioned this before, so it is not news—Mr Warwick Grove, who is the director of Angora City (Rabbits) and who has established a plant, Guyra, in my electorate, has been appallingly treated by the system. He has not had the concerns that he has raised over a number of years dealt with sufficiently at a ministerial or a parliamentary level. I would ask that the issues that I am about to raise are considered. I also ask that this document be tabled so that others can look at it and give consideration to it. On 1 August, Mr Grave wrote to all members of parliament, so most members would have seen this. In his letter he wrote: Dear Member of Parliament I refer to my previous allegations of an “illegal” US Import into Australia on 4th November 1998 that had major ramifications for my company. The Independent Government Doolan Enquiry into this matter was “all sorted out” prior to the release of the Terms of Reference on 16 July 2003. I first met with the then Executive Director of AQIS on 30th May 2003 in Sydney. I understand she has been “dishonourably discharged” (to quote a Senator). As such, I restate, I will not be going to the Ombudsman. I think there had been suggestion that is Mr Graves should take his issues to the Ombudsman and whomever else. He went on: There has been no reply from the past three Minister of Agriculture, Hon J Anderson, Hon W Truss and currently Hon P McGauren. Thank you to all members of parliament and senators who took the time to reply. I enclose recent correspondence to Hon J Howard (Prime Minister) dated 18 April 2006—and 17 July 2006 ... I enclose letter to US Embassy dated 17 July 2006. I state there have been two distinct standards by AQIS re the same animal import— ‘animal import’ meaning rabbit— one from the USA and one from the EU. AQIS will be held to account as QUARANTINE DOES MATTER. The Quarantine Forum in Canberra (Old Parliament House) on Friday 14 July 2006 was by Invitation Only. I could have organised many people to tell the real story of quarantine—the total and absolute— I cannot pronounce the word he has here and it is probably best I do not try— ... disregard for due process. Also I was advised all agricultural groups were represented—regrettably the F.R.I.A. was excluded. I seek a fair and just resolution. I assure you all, Quarantine Does Matter. My allegations are factual and based on original government documents. Thank you for your time in considering this matter. Yours sincerely Warwick S Grave Director He is the director of Angora City Rabbits Pty Ltd. I ask that I be able to table these documents. Leave granted. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —The appropriate ministers would have seen these documents. But, if there are any members of parliament who have not seen the documents, they may find them extremely interesting in terms of an individual’s wrestle with the system—the way in which his application to import rabbits was treated, the trail of missing documents and the people who delayed things for a whole range of reasons, compared another company that was able to import rabbits at a similar time and its treatment—and also very much so that we can learn from any mistakes there may be in that process so that individuals and businesses such as Mr Grave’s who are trying to do the right thing in Australia are not treated in a shabby fashion. I will conclude my comments with the comment I started with. In terms of biosecurity we have to make sure we are ever vigilant, that we do not allow ourselves to be compromised in any way and that we do not allow ourselves to be pressured politically by international forces in our trading relations. We saw what happened in Canada, with the massive loss of potential income when they were an active trader in the beef market. We have seen what can happen in the other parts of the world with the outbreak of some of these diseases. The one comparative advantage we have, which is that we are quite distinct from any other nation in the world, is geared around our being a nation continent. We must maintain the integrity of our food supplies both within that continent and on our borders. We have a preoccupation to a certain extent with people coming here on leaky boats. We are debating legislation on that today and I think we will be voting on it in a very short time. At the same time we seem to be moving towards a process of relaxing our integrity in terms of biosecurity. We have to make sure that people who are involved on the ground—people like Peter Carter from the New South Wales Farmers Association—are involved in the decision-making process. It should not be left to a group of public servants. Well intentioned though they may be, they will be subjected to greater political pressure from other forces when the focus should be on the integrity of our national boundaries in terms of some of these diseases. 142 11:55:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise today in support of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006 and, in doing so, I endorse the remarks of the members for Capricornia and New England. We all appreciate this is an important bill, but it also goes to a wide-ranging debate—which was the case with the previous speakers. The intent of the bill is to ensure that our trading partners can continue to have complete confidence in the safety of our food exports. That is exceptionally important today in terms of our difficulties on the trade front. Offences under the Export Control Act currently only apply to those actually exporting proscribed goods or in possession of proscribed goods intended for export. This bill appropriately creates new offences for people in control of the preparation of food products for export. Importantly, offences will apply if those goods fail to meet legislative requirements, especially in relation to food safety. The bill clarifies the Commonwealth’s authority to regulate the sourcing of fish intended for export. In that context, I remind the House that this bill is not only important nationally; it is exceptionally important to regional economies around Australia. That authority is therefore necessary to ensure ongoing access for exported fisheries products to overseas markets and to protect consumers by ensuring that fish, including shellfish, are harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins or chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health. I am pleased to see that the Commonwealth is finally taking a lead with respect to protecting the sustainability and reputation of Australian fisheries in the international market. Obviously the opposition also believes we have to be more rigorous with respect to illegal fishing in Australia’s coastal waters, but that is another debate for another day. I also raise in the context of this bill a broader debate going to the forest industry. This debate is also about seeking forest industry sustainability in the same way we seek sustainability of the fishing industry. I would like to see the Commonwealth, in the context of what it intends to do by way of this bill, start exercising more authority with respect to protecting the sustainability and reputation of Australian forest industries as well. This is also important in terms of our exports and potentially important in terms of import replacement in the foreseeable future. I contend that no other industry is under as much pressure from our trading partners as the forest industry at the moment. I use this opportunity to remind the government of its responsibilities. Australia has 164 million hectares of native forests, four per cent of the world’s forests and 1.7 million hectares of plantations. About 10 per cent of our native forests are managed for wood production, with less than one per cent being harvested in any one year. That small proportion of forests harvested annually is regenerated so that a perpetual supply of native hardwood and softwood is maintained in this country. I know the Australian fishing industry is continuing to make the adjustments necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of its resources, as the forestry industry has done for many years. I therefore go to Australia’s rigorous forestry standards. AFS has global mutual recognition under the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, the largest international sustainability recognition framework for forestry in the world. But unfortunately the environmental movement, as the member for New England and the member for Lyons are aware, is at this point running an aggressive and duplicitous campaign around the globe to undermine the status of that standard and the sustainability of the Australian industry. At the same time as the environmentalists are decrying and seeking to discredit Australia’s forest industry, they are running a campaign about illegal logging, interestingly, in Third World countries—a problem I argue they are directly fuelling because of their failure to back responsible forest industries in places like Australia. Make no mistake: these are not environmental campaigns. They are political and they are commercial, and they are starting to hurt Australia economically. Increasingly, environmental non-government organisations around the world, with the complicity of some governments, are embedding themselves in policy and regulatory frameworks in which they have commercial interests, and they do so with no mandate from the people and with no accountability. The forest industry, I argue, represents a classic example. I will also use this debate to remind the fishing industry of similar pressures starting to emerge in our domestic and international fishing industry. Instead of endorsing the AFS, developed in accordance with the usual rigorous standards and processes used in Australia and New Zealand to govern all kinds of industries and products, green groups have been lobbying to discredit the standard internationally and to hurt Australia commercially, which goes to the issue of making sure that we have in place appropriate export controls to guarantee the future of Australia. Instead they favour accreditation under the Forest Stewardship Council, or FSC, an organisation, interestingly, created by the WWF, with the clear intention of sidelining elected governments when it comes to forest policy. Behind its foray into the forest certification process, the WWF has a history of establishing buyer groups that effectively boycott timber products that are not FSC certified. Consequently, producers and suppliers are pressured to obtain FSC certification to maintain their businesses and their market access. The FSC’s business interests are effectively protected by the environmental NGOs, who have mounted a concerted attack over recent years on other certification schemes. The AFS is just one of these schemes. It is instructive therefore to take a look at the membership and governance of the FSC, if there is any doubt about this. In Australia there are just 10 members, including five environmental NGOs—Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society, Friends of Gippsland Bush, the Western Australian Forest Alliance and WWF Australia. The executive director of the FSC hails from the WWF, and the members of the board are a very interesting group from Greenpeace, a cardboard manufacturer from Columbia, two members described as individuals from Bolivia and Argentina, and the list goes on. While there is some industry representation, it is severely limited. Multilateral organisations and governments are, interestingly, excluded, despite the fact that governments are major funding donors. Further, it is my view that the FSC certification does not provide the guarantee of sustainable forestry that is claimed. Fortunately, both suppliers and consumers seem to be recognising this, with over 190 million hectares of certified forests now falling under the program for the endorsement of forest certification, which encompasses the Australian forestry standard. By comparison, with less than 80 million hectares of certified forests, the FSC is clearly not the global standard. Over 40 per cent of the total area of forests certified by the FSC is certified without any approved standards and over 80 per cent of the countries with FSC certification do not have approved FSC standards. Despite the fact that 550,000 hectares of plantations in Australia are FSC certified, as of June this year there was no Australian FSC standard against which to certify. In 2003 Tim Cadman, the then FSC representative in Australia, issued a time line for 2005 for finalising national management standards so in 2006 interim certification could give way to accredited national standards. Those accredited national standards are nowhere to be seen. FSC certifications are often carried out against the requirements of a FSC draft standard or against a set of requirements developed by FSC certifiers themselves in preparation for their audit. They are not practices acceptable in any sector with international audit and certification rules. It is my contention that the vast majority of FSC national standards and forest certifications would simply not withstand scrutiny by an international accreditation forum or the International Organisation for Standardisation, which is recognised by the United Nations. The body which recognises FSC principles, the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance, has seven full members, none of whom are national or international standard bodies but two of whom are the Rainforest Alliance and the FSC itself. I also note that the Marine Stewardship Council is a third member, whose practices and affiliations are not unlike those of the FSC, which is very much related to the current debate. When I attended a Seafood Industry Council function in this place last night, I noted that an Australian fishery had become the first in the world to be certified by the MSC. I hope that the seafood industry is aware of the secondary boycott practices of organisations like the FSC and those behind the MSC. In addition, I sincerely hope that it does not suffer the fate of the Australian forest industry and the special impact that has had on regional communities, which very much depend on the forest industry for their economic sustainability. I also hope that the Australian government is closely monitoring artificial trade barriers in both the fishing and the forest industries of Australia. We, and especially Labor in government, took too many tough decisions not only to open up Australia to the impact of globalisation but also to seek to develop a freer trade world than to have it now undermined by an artificial set of trade barriers developed by some non-government organisations. Interestingly, therefore, I refer to the fact that the Australian Forestry Standard—we should be conscious of this because it is about rigorous assessment—is proceeding through the very rigorous processes of Standards Australia and the PEFC towards full recognition. However rocky the road may be towards consensus, the organisation’s members are to be congratulated for their perseverance against the odds. Equally, I would welcome the Australian FSC standard, were the FSC prepared to meet the same rigors of Standards Australia, the ISO and the IAF. I make it clear that I will not support it while it makes its own standards, accredits its own people as certifiers and switches hats to environmental NGO mode when it needs to protect its business from competition. The FSC logo can be used for woodchip and fibre products when only 17.5 per cent of the total wood fibre or 30 per cent of virgin wood fibre is FSC certified; it does not matter where the rest of the timber comes from. The FSC mixed label can be used on any wood product, even if only 10 per cent of the total material is FSC certified. Compare these low percentage requirements with the PEFC logo, which can be used on a product only if at least 70 per cent of the wood content is PEFC certified. If the FSC’s objective were truly to promote responsible management of the world’s forests, I believe that the organisation would be engaged more seriously with the forestry industry in Australia in trying to resolve some of the concerns I have highlighted today in order to protect our reputation and its reputation. The Australian government’s priorities should be to ensure that Australia’s forest industries and, indeed, its fishing industries are managed sustainably, both today and into the future, for future generations and that they have fair market access for their products, both in Australia and overseas. I would also like to see the Australian government doing more to pursue with our trading partners the very serious question of secondary boycotts and to draw to their attention the need for rigorous international standards to apply to labelling and product certification. The fact is that Australia is one of the few countries in the Asia-Pacific region with the land availability and capability to expand sustainable forestry through further plantation development over the coming decades. Because we are living in a historic era of global economic expansion, particularly on our doorstep in the Asia-Pacific region with China and India, demand for forest products, like other resources, is skyrocketing; therefore, the sustainable expansion of the Australian forest industry is very important to meet global demand and to contribute to our own economic prosperity. Most estimates are that already a third to a half of the world’s forests have been burnt or chopped down. That makes it more critical than ever for the world’s remaining forests to be managed sustainably for conservation, the world’s future forest product needs and the enormous environmental services they perform in maintaining global biodiversity and providing carbon sinks to manage climate change. I therefore note that recently the Indonesian forestry minister was quoted as saying that the level of forest destruction in Indonesia has reached serious levels. There are claims that illegal logging in Indonesia destroys about three million hectares of forests every year. That is about three times Australia’s legitimate forest harvest each year. It is not just squatters but legitimate forestry companies that are contributing to illegal logging, deforestation and poor forestry practices in Indonesia. Unfortunately, Indonesia is just the tip of the iceberg, including in our own backyard. The Solomons, Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala and a host of other developing countries feel under pressure to cut down their forests for timber or to make way for coffee plantations because this has been their only option to release their people from poverty and deliver a sense of economic future. It is estimated that almost 10 per cent of timber and wood products imported to Australia are of suspicious origin. That figure would be much higher for many of our trading partners. The trade in illegal and unsustainable timber distorts trade, suppresses prices and causes major irreversible damage to the environment, especially in less developed countries. Dubious importing practices are already contributing to job losses in Australia, where local producers are arguably being unfairly undercut—for example, in Tasmania. I believe we cannot continue to ignore this problem. Our own environmental and economic future is in jeopardy if we do not accept measures to control importation of illegal and unsustainable timber products and if we fail to set an example in world’s best forestry practices with our trading partners. I raise these issues because I think this is a debate that we have to become more rigorous about as a nation both domestically and internationally. If there are resources or industry or environmental policy issues to be addressed in our country, the place to address them in is our houses of parliament or through due process of our governments and institutions, including Standards Australia. The conservation movement is a legitimate stakeholder in the development of forestry policy and the implementation of forest management. But let us have an honest debate. They have always been welcome in Australia around the negotiating table, but I think it is time they declared their hand, just as the rest of us have to. Are they representing environmental NGOs or are they representing their business interests like the FSC? It is an interesting question. I say they cannot have it both ways. At the end of the day, like everyone else we expect them to abide by the decisions of elected governments and particularly to adhere to negotiated outcomes. The Australian Labor Party knows full well that the key to a better Australia is jobs and economic prosperity for all. Australia’s forest and fishing industries are part of achieving that. They are also importantly central to sustained economic prosperity in regional Australia. I say in conclusion, in supporting this bill and the government’s intent, that there is a lot of work still to be done in other areas encompassed by this bill. This government therefore needs to do more—a lot more—to provide fair access to export markets for those industries that are seeking to be covered by this bill. I have sought today to raise for further discussion and policy consideration an area of major weakness—the potential future sustainability of the timber products industry in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and ask the minister to take on board today the very serious issues that I have raised. 147 12:14:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —I rise to speak on the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006. They are very important issues that my colleague the member for Batman just spoke about: the certification of products and the enforcement of those certified products coming into our country. The objects of the federal quarantine and export services are to protect Australia’s animal, plant and human health status and maintain market access through the delivery of quarantine and export services. These services also have a vital role in implementing and administering strict quarantine control at Australian borders to minimise the risk of exotic pest and disease incursions. With the support of industry and the community, Quarantine responds to potential quarantine threats. Maintaining access for Australian agricultural and food products to hundreds of markets around the world is essential. Export inspection, auditing and certification services help generate over $26 billion in exports by the meat, horticulture, grain, fish, dairy, organic and live animal export industries. The Export Control Act sets up a regime for the export inspection of prescribed goods. These goods include meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy produce and grains. Inspection is conducted by authorised officers of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQIS. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the goods which are to be exported meet the strict requirements set out in the orders made pursuant to the regulations made under the Export Control Act. These requirements are aimed at ensuring fitness for human consumption, quality and accurate trade description of the goods. The current act arose out of events in the early 1980s which I remember well. In August 1981, discoveries were made in the United States that horse meat had been substituted for beef by an Australian meat export establishment. I had just left the Meat Workers Union and gone into the state parliament of Tasmania, so I know that this issue was a live issue in the meat industry at the time. The reputation of the Australian meat industry was severely tarnished. These amendments seek to ensure that our guidelines are strictly adhered to. Other speakers this morning have talked about the need to make sure that we do not give away the opportunities that we have of protecting our export markets. We are an island continent. That gives us the advantage of being free of many diseases that exist in other parts of the world. We need to make sure that we do not destroy that. I come from an island state of this island continent which has even fewer pests than the mainland of Australia, and we get criticised for trying to protect our export industries from disease. One prime example is the fire blight disease which occurs in New Zealand. New Zealanders would love to export their apples and pears into my lovely island. Because of fire blight it costs 30 to 40 per cent more to produce apples and pears in New Zealand than it does in Tasmania. So you can see the advantage we have by not having that pest with us. Successive governments have taken a serious view of malpractice in the export food industry. They have argued that any malpractice that may endanger the reputation of Australia’s export industries and jeopardise overseas markets for Australian goods must be strongly deterred. The Export Control Act includes penalties for false declarations and trade descriptions, and grants extensive regulation-making powers to the Governor-General, including penalties for offences against the regulations. This bill creates four new offences, including two strict liability offences, to deal with those people who fail to ensure that goods are prepared for export in accordance with the legislation. In her second reading speech, the parliamentary secretary said: The creation of four new offence provisions is in response to a serious gap in the Export Control Act. Currently, the offence provisions in the act focus on persons involved with goods in the post-preparation phase with the result that persons who are the occupiers of establishments where the preparation of the goods occurs are immune from the serious penalties that apply to other offenders under the act. The new offences focus on the person responsible for the preparation of the goods for export. Other amendments remove any doubt that the Commonwealth has a level of control over the sourcing of fish intended for export. To ensure ongoing access for exported product into overseas markets and consumer protection, fish, including shellfish, must be harvested from areas that do not contain pathogenic organisms, biotoxins and chemical contaminants at levels that may represent a threat to consumer health. I believe this is very important and that we should show that this is a part of our export regime so that those who import can be pushed to follow the strict guidelines we have here. I saw the Indonesian minister in Australia this week endeavouring to ask Australia to take more food products from Indonesia but also asking that maybe we could help bring them up to a standard where they could import into Australia. Maybe we can assist them through the aid programs we have to come to grips with the standards that will need to be met before they can import everything they want into Australia. This act also creates four new offences in the Export Control Act to enable the Commonwealth to prosecute those people who fail to prepare goods that are exported in accordance with the act. Labor believe the amendments are sensible, and we have long supported the full cost recovery of the provision of quarantine services and other services by government relating to the export of food products. It would be nice to think that similar provisions exist in other countries trading with Australia so that we could ensure products received were similarly scrutinised and that legislation existed to prosecute those who are not so careful. The member for New England mentioned this when he spoke in the debate about chicken meat in Australia. When we got the bottom line of that, it was discovered that some of the Asian countries that wanted to import chicken meat to Australia did not have the standard of heat cooking they were supposed to have—the standard which was needed to import into Australia. When we start to bring together and weaken standards from one country to another, where we say, ‘That’s been done there, there’s no need for it to be done here,’ or accept another country’s standards, we should be very careful and make sure those countries have the standards that we expect them to have, otherwise it will be a weakening of our biosecurity regime. In the world of multilateral trade, it is not only food items that travel between countries; it is all the pathogens that go with that particular food. Some we already have here, many we do not. The only means of control for some of these is at our borders, and that means we must be on the lookout at all times regarding the quality of our imports. Our quarantine laws are strict, and we must ensure that Australia remains free of some of the virulent diseases that are present on continents that cannot secure their borders from disease like we can. So legislation like this can give our growers and producers the edge over others as we ensure that our produce is as healthy as we can make it. The previous speaker, the member for Batman, spoke about certification in the forest industry. There were also some issues about biosecurity there. There have been some pilot programs set up around Australia at airports and seaports to collect bugs that come in through the air off ships. There is a new program starting up there, which I am very pleased to see, to protect the enormous forestry industry of Australia. We need to be vigilant there as well. I certainly support certification in that industry. In the fishing industry I have long advocated ensuring that we continue to do as much as we can in the world to certify fish that come from the international seas and that countries do not import fish that are not certified in a given way in a good world certification regime. This legislation goes some way to ensuring that we continue to have the safety margin we need during export and also gives us the opportunity to ensure strict guidelines are in place for foodstuffs entering this country. I support the legislation. 149 12:26:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Ms LEY —in reply—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006 amends the Export Control Act 1982 and the Quarantine Act 1908. Both of these acts are crucial to the regulation of Australia’s international trade in food and agricultural products. The key amendments to the Export Control Act create new offences relating to the preparation of goods for export and ensure that the act has sufficient authority to enable the regulation of the sourcing of fish intended for export. These amendments enhance the capacity of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to maintain market access for Australia’s agricultural and food exports. The amendment to the Quarantine Act clarifies the cost recovery arrangements from other Commonwealth bodies for quarantine services provided by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. I thank members who have spoken on this bill: the member for Capricornia, the member for New England, the member for Batman and the member for Lyons. The member for Capricornia certainly mentioned the need for the highest standards in food preparation along our supply chain and emphasised the importance of that. The member for New England—and I thank him for supporting the legislation—related many of his comments and remarks to the risks associated with imports. That is not what this bill is about, but they are important debates, I appreciate, in his own area. The member for Batman gave rousing support for the forest industry, and I thank him for that. The member for Lyons made the important point that this gives our producers confidence that in our own exports to other countries we are exporting food products that are all that we have declared them to be. This bill is about preserving the integrity of our export chain. Those are key and critical things that we need to be aware of and that this bill will strengthen and enhance. I will conclude with a good example. In today’s Land it was noted that we will now see an easing of the quarantine requirements for Australian tomatoes imported into New Zealand—two million of which were exported to New Zealand between 2002 and 2004—because during that time there were no shipments in which fruit fly was detected. So New Zealand has now decided to reduce the number of inspections, reduce dip-sampling requirements and remove the requirement to label individual pallets of tomatoes being inspected. I think that is a good example of how overseas countries can have confidence in AQIS and our own supply chain. That confidence will be further strengthened by the provisions of this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 150 ADJOURNMENT Mrs GASH (Gilmore) 12:29:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 150 150 12:29:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I rise to speak briefly on a sad anniversary—sad for me personally, sad for many people in my electorate, sad above all for the wider Roth family and sad in a more general sense as an example of what some of the evil forces currently at large in the world are capable of. Five years ago yesterday, on 9 August 2001, a suicide bomber killed 15 people and injured 130 in a crowded pizza restaurant—the Sbarro pizza shop—in Jerusalem. Among those killed were a 15-year-old girl, Malka Chana Roth, whose parents, Arnold and Frimet, have been friends of mine for many years. Malki was an intelligent, idealistic and highly gifted young woman with a very bright future in front of her. She cared for her younger sister, who has a disability. She was much loved by her family and her many friends both in Australia and in Israel. I take this opportunity of again expressing my condolences to her family on their terrible loss, which I know they still feel very deeply. I also congratulate them on the positive attitude they have had in establishing the Malki Roth Foundation—Keren Malki—which assists children with disabilities with all kinds of equipment which they may not be able to otherwise afford. Malki was the first Australian to be killed by a terrorist suicide bomber, but sadly she is far from the last. Only three weeks after her death, on September 11, terrorists struck again in New York and Washington, killing a number of Australians along with many others from many other nations amongst the 3,000 people killed in the twin towers. In October 2002 came the Bali bombing in which 88 Australians were killed. This was followed by the London underground bombings and the second Bali bombing in which more Australians died. Today, again, the Middle East is embroiled in armed conflict, with civilians in both Israel and Lebanon losing their lives following the decision by the terrorist organisation Hezbollah to launch an attack on Israel on 12 July. Once again people in my electorate are filled with apprehension about the safety of family and friends in Israel, and I know many Lebanese Australian families have similar fears. The responsibility for the situation lies in the same place that responsibility for the death of Malki Roth, along with the responsibility for September 11, the Bali bombings and many other crimes—for all these deaths and all this fear and grief—lies: it lies with those countries that sponsor, fund and train terrorist organisations like Hezbollah, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiah and al-Qaeda. Until the vast majority of moderate Muslims, who I am still encouraged constitute the vast majority of Muslim people in the world, particularly in our near neighbour Indonesia, can debilitate those organisations, until those countries stop supporting those organisations, families like the Roths and many others in many countries will continue to suffer and the world will have no peace. 150 150 12:32:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I wish to take this opportunity to draw attention to the state of affairs at the Lowanna Public School in my electorate, which is facing the removal of its library and a primary classroom—an action which will severely affect the school’s pupils. Lowanna is a small isolated town in the hinterland of Coffs Harbour, which is the nearest settlement of any size that can offer a full range of facilities. Lowanna is some 45 minutes drive from Coffs Harbour, much of it on steep narrow country roads. The school currently has 16 pupils aged between five and 12. As in many small country towns, the school is a focus for the community—not just educating the children but also bringing parents and members of the community together in social activities. The library and primary classroom are currently housed in two demountable buildings. The New South Wales government intends to remove these demountables on the grounds that pupil numbers have fallen. It is my contention that the crude link that is being made between numbers and the buildings takes no account of the educational consequences of these actions, which are particularly short sighted in an isolated community such as Lowanna. Let me start with the library. Schools not only equip our young pupils with the basic skills they need to lead their lives but they have a vital role to play in helping our children place themselves in the wider world. There is much to be said in favour of growing up in a small, secure rural community like Lowanna. There is also much to be said in favour of the learning that goes on in the broader sense beyond the hills and forests that surround Lowanna. We must ensure that our young children are not disadvantaged by having their early years of schooling in small country schools. Books can provide that sense of perspective that is needed in education. I shall come to the effect the state government’s proposal will have on the use of computers in the school shortly, but I believe books offer students a permanent, physical, extended form of another person’s views, experience or imagination in ways that computers cannot. A school without books is a school without a soul. If the demountables are removed the books will have to be stored, new shelving will have to be purchased, the books will be not on display and pupils will not be able to browse, to select what takes their fancy or to experiment with books. They will not have access to a public library or a bookshop in the small community of Lowanna. They will be deprived of part of their education. The library is also a space that is put to other uses which enhance the life of the school. It is the only sizeable space available for reading groups, choir lessons, teaching of sensitive topics such as sex education, assemblies involving the whole school and visitors, and visiting exhibitions to which the pupils would not otherwise have access. It is used for fundraising activities by both the P&C and the student council. It has been used until now for the annual combined Orama Valley schools great debate. If the two buildings are removed, the school will no longer be able to host the event at Lowanna. It has also been used for rehearsals by the school’s primary dance troop, which for the last two years has won its class at the Coffs Harbour and district eisteddfod and performed to acclaim at other cultural festivals. Those are the consequences of the loss of the library. The loss of the primary classroom will mean that the primary and infants classes will have to share a single room, though clearly they will not be sharing lessons, with obvious consequences for the learning experience and providing students with greater opportunities for distraction. This will limit discussion and it will limit personal growth. I am informed that the school’s computers will have to be removed to a separate room, being taken out of the children’s classroom. In the classroom they can be integrated with the lesson and used for specific purposes in a wider task—in short, used as a tool, as a means to an end. Taking them out of the classroom will, I believe, encourage the view that the computer is a plaything, a source of entertainment and an end in itself. Of course, a computer can be those things, but I think it is vital that the computer be used and integrated into the classroom situation. The decision by the state government is mean-spirited, small-minded and, I think, illogical. The figures available from the last census show that the population in the area around Lowanna is increasing, not decreasing. Of course, the latest census figures have yet to come out, but I am sure we will see a continuation of that growth. No doubt someone in the state government has looked at the probably minimal savings and running costs, and the costs particularly involved in removing the classrooms down a very steep and winding road. I would hope that they would have thought carefully about this decision, but it does not appear that they have. I have little confidence, unfortunately, that the state government will reverse that decision, but I am working very hard with the local state member, Andrew Fraser, to try and retain those classrooms to ensure that the children of Lowanna school have the very best possible educational experience. Taking away classroom resources from a small country school such as Lowanna is unacceptable in the 21st century. Those classrooms and the library should stay with the children of Lowanna. 152 152 12:37:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —We are living in difficult times when the prices of all essential goods are rising, petrol is becoming an item of luxury, we are hurting those on low and fixed incomes and those who have families, especially those who live in country areas. In the Lyons electorate people do not have the luxury of having a lot of public transport to their door. They do not have a selection of doctors or dentists to visit when needed. The phone system is a bit of a joke and the ABC TV reception is being stripped away as technology overtakes the country and leaves it behind. I am sure that you experience similar problems, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your vast electorate as well. On top of all this, the price of petrol is wearing away the small luxuries that many people in country areas enjoy—visiting their families, going boating or dropping into the local entertainment venue in the nearest town. Mortgage rates may not seem to be the most worried about item on the list of bills, according to some, but there are many young people in Tasmania who have just bought their first home and with the fourth interest rate rise this year they are stretched beyond the original cost of their homes. It is more than they had bargained for, and therefore the costs of servicing the bank loans is on the edge of their income limit. Petrol would not have been such a big deal if all those other costs had not started to insidiously move in on the family income. These days are bad for young people buying a home and are bad for many struggling small businesses out there as well. The Prime Minister has ruled over the third interest rate rise, since he took personal responsibility for interest rates 18 months ago. Eighteen months ago he promised to keep interest rates low. This is the third interest rate rise since he made that pledge to the Australian people. That pledge has been broken three times since it was made. There has been no action from this government to deal with the skills crisis and the infrastructure bottlenecks which are the underlying causes of inflationary pressures and rising interest rates. In Australia today we have debt at record levels. There is no such thing as a small interest rate rise when people have huge mortgages and are up to their eyeballs in debt. Since 2002, the cost of an average monthly repayment on a new mortgage has skyrocketed from $800 to $1,460. That is why, for middle-income families, there is no such thing as a small interest rate rise—because there is no such thing as a small mortgage. Interest rates in this country are among the highest in the developed world, and the Treasurer and the Prime Minister simply do not get it. They can blame the price of bananas, they can blame tropical cyclones or even tropical fruit, they can blame the price of petrol, which is a factor here of course. But the one thing that you do not do is put your hand up for someone else who is responsible for this outcome. They would prefer to hide behind the Reserve Bank and not admit their culpability for inflationary pressures and their impact on the economy. They gave away lots of money in the last budget, so they have to be held accountable. My electorate of Lyons is suffering difficulties from all of these pressures and the more so because of the highly dispersed population and the low average income. People cannot afford to live. I have seen houses being sold because of growing costs. People have to make a choice between food and paying bills. It is not a good look, and it is the price of living under a Liberal government. Mortgage rates, petrol prices and the regimes that have been put in place by this government have long-term effects on all Tasmanians and all Australians. It is a sad day. On top of this, all of our working conditions are being eroded and Tasmanians are being asked to do more work for less money and fewer conditions. (Time expired) A division having been called in the House of Representatives— 153 12:43:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.43 pm 154 Answers to Questions on Notice 154 154 3438 154 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Has the Australian Customs Service (ACS) or AQIS developed a profile of the animals, insects and marine pests that can be found on the illegal foreign fishing boats in Australia’s northern waters; if so, what are they; if not, why not. Have (a) parrots, (b) monkeys, (c) dogs, (e) poultry, and (f) mosquitos been found on board illegal foreign fishing boats. Can he explain the extent of the risks to Australia of (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies, and (d) striped mussel infestation as a consequence of the landing of illegal foreign fishing boats. Since the increase in the incidence of the landing of illegal foreign fishing boats, what additional testing has been undertaken to detect (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies, and (d) striped mussel infestation. Are contingency plans in place to combat an occurrence of (a) foot and mouth disease in the feral pig population, (b) rabies in the wild dingo population, (c) avian flu amongst the bird population, and (d) striped mussel infestation in the tidal creeks and rivers; if so, what are the details including the estimated cost of implementing each plan; if not, why not. What is the estimated cost to Australia of an occurrence of (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies, and (d) striped mussel infestation. 154 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. AQIS has analysed the pest and disease risks associated with these vessels and uses this analysis to target the biosecurity risks they pose. Yes. Parrots, dogs, poultry and mosquitoes have been found on illegal foreign fishing vessels. There has been one recorded incident of a monkey arriving into an Australia port on an illegal foreign fishing vessel in 1998. All seized animals have been destroyed under quarantine control. In a general sense the larger illegal foreign fishing vessels, such as ice boats and trawlers present the greatest quarantine risk because they routinely carry considerable provisions for crew and have cold storage facilities that enable quarantine risk materials such as unprocessed meats and eggs to be carried. Live animals such as birds and dogs may also be present on the larger illegal foreign fishing vessels. The majority of illegal foreign fishing vessels originate in Indonesia where avian influenza, rabies and black striped mussel are known to be present, but foot and mouth disease is not present.   In regard to the specific diseases and/or pests: Avian influenza. Waste materials (eg poultry meat and/or eggs food scraps) could potentially be a source of introduction of avian influenza into Australia. However, for this risk to be realised the scraps would have to have come from poultry that were infected at the time, be unprocessed (the virus is inactivated by proper cooking of meat and eggs), and be consumed by susceptible birds while the virus is still active (virus survival in carcase material at ambient temperatures is only a few days). Foot and mouth disease. Ingestion of contaminated waste material by pigs is a well-recognised method by which foot and mouth disease has been introduced to new areas. Thus, waste materials such as food scraps from pig meat that is contaminated with foot and mouth disease virus (and landed in a remote area of Australia, particularly where feral pigs may be present) poses a risk introducing this disease into Australia. Although the majority of illegal foreign fishing vessels originate from Indonesia, which is free from foot and mouth disease, in 2006 Australian authorities have seized three vessels that originated from elsewhere in Asia, where foot and mouth disease is known to occur. Rabies. If an infected dog is landed in a remote area of Australia and allowed to interact with local dogs (eg. in a remote community), there is a high risk that rabies could be introduced into the local dog population (through biting) and subsequently for infection to be transmitted to humans. Black striped mussel. If a foreign fishing vessel that is infested with black striped mussel lands by beaching in a remote area of Australia, there is considerable potential for biofouling assemblages, that may include black striped mussel, to be dislodged from the vessel’s hull and for the mussel to become established in that locality.   to (c) The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service undertakes ongoing surveillance and monitoring in northern Australia for targeted pests and diseases including avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and rabies. To date, highly pathogenic avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and rabies have not been detected in Australia during this surveillance. (d) Marine pest inspections are managed by the respective State and Territory Governments. Yes. Australia’s Veterinary Emergency Plan (AUSVETPLAN) includes detailed contingency plans for responding to a range of disease threats, including (a) foot and mouth disease in feral pigs, (b) rabies in wild animals (including dingos) and (c) avian influenza in birds. (d) Australia also has a national Emergency Marine Pest Plan (EMPPlan) that includes contingencies for incursion by marine pests, such as black striped mussel, in tidal creeks and rivers. For incursions by animal diseases, the response plan is implemented by agreement through a National Management Group (NMG) that comprises representation by the Chief Executive Officers of Commonwealth and State Departments of Agriculture/Primary Industries along with CEOs of relevant industry sectors. The cost of implementing each plan is shared by Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments and industry and varies on a case-by-case basis determined by the scale and extent of a disease outbreak and the relevant action plan agreed by the National Management Group. A national Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) was established in 2004 that formalises beneficiary cost-sharing arrangements for emergency animal diseases including foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and rabies. For marine pests, the national contingency plan is implemented through agreement by a National Management Group (NMG) that comprises representation for each jurisdiction by Natural Resource Management Standing Committee members. The cost of implementing national contingency arrangements for an incursion by black-striped mussel would vary on a case-by-case basis determined by the scale and extent of an incursion and the relevant action plan agreed by the NMG. The estimated cost would vary according to the scale and extent of an incursion. For avian influenza the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) is currently working on a study to estimate the costs of a highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak. The report is expected to be completed by the end of June 2006. Australian animal health authorities have previously eradicated avian influenza on five separate occasions with costs ranging between $400 000 and $3 million. For foot and mouth disease, the Productivity Commission completed a report in 2002 that provides estimates for socio-economic costs associated with three disease scenarios; (i) a 3 month outbreak (ii) a 6 month outbreak and (iii) a 12 month outbreak. - For a 3 month outbreak a total reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) over 10 years is estimated between $2 000-3 000 million. - For a 6 month outbreak a total reduction in GDP (over 10 years) is estimated between $3 000-5 000 million. - For a 12 month outbreak a total reduction in GDP (over 10 years) is estimated between $8 000-13 000 million. For an incursion of rabies, formal cost estimates have not been established. Cost implications would be expected to lie primarily in the area of public health rather than GDP/trade. For black-striped mussel, formal cost estimates have not been established. The incursion in Darwin marinas in 1999 provides an indicative cost estimate of $2.2 million to achieve eradication in that situation. 156 156 3509 156 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 22 May 2006: How many applications for funding under the Regional Partnerships Program, or its predecessor, were submitted from the electoral division of Scullin in 2005-2006 and what are the details of each application. How many applications for funding under the Regional Partnerships Program submitted from the electoral division of Scullin are awaiting determination and what are the details of each application. For 2005-2006, what are the details of the grants (a) applied for and (b) received under the Regional Partnerships Program, or its predecessor, in the electoral division of Scullin. In respect of each application under the Regional Partnerships Program, or its predecessor, which was approved in the electoral division of Scullin in 2005-2006, (a) what date was the project approved, (b) on what date did the Area Consultative Committee recommend funding the project, (c) which Regional Partnerships eligibility criteria did the project satisfy, (d) what are the expected employment outcomes for the project, (e) what sum was contributed to the project by the applicant, (f) when did the project satisfy due diligence requirements, and (g) what supporting documentation was supplied with the application. 156 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: One application for funding was received under the Regional Partnerships Program from the electoral division of Scullin in 2005-06 as at 31 May 2006. There are no applications for funding under the Regional Partnerships Program from the electoral division of Scullin that are awaiting Ministerial decisions. Organisation Name Project Name Approved Amount Origin Training Solutions Pty Ltd Freight Train – delivering $242,548 The project was approved on 9 May 2006. The Area Consultative Committee provided comments on this project on 1 September 2005. This project was assessed as eligible for Regional Partnerships funding. The employment outcomes for the project are expected to be 238 employment placements (full and part time) in the first 18 months. The applicant is providing $773,600 cash contribution. All due diligence checks were completed by the Department in accordance with the Regional Partnerships guidelines on 21 September 2005. The following supporting documentation were supplied: a detailed business plan; a SWOT analysis; three year profit/loss and cash flow projections; Etheridge Family Trust – Statement of Financial Performance 30 June 2005; Etheridge Family Trust – Statement of Financial Position 30 June 2005; Etheridge Family Trust – Depreciation Schedule and notes on Financial Statement 30 June 2005; Independent Audit report on Etheridge Family Trust trading as Origin Training Solutions Pty Ltd for 30 June 2004; and letters of support from: the Member for McEwan; the Member for Scullin; the Director/CEO, Kangan Batman TAFE; the National Manager, Strategic Planning and Business Development TDT Australia; and letter from a number of industry and business groups supporting the concept and agreeing to participate on a project reference group. 157 157 3510 157 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Workforce Participation, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What are the (a) names, (b) addresses, and (c) hours of operation of organisations that are part of the Job Network in the postcode area (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, (x) 3091, and (xi) 3752. 157 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 Dr Stone —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The postcodes listed are covered by Employment Service Area (ESA) North Melbourne. Job Network members are contractually required to deliver services to job seekers across the entirety of a contracted ESA. Job Network Services (JNS) are therefore delivered to job seekers who reside in all of the listed postcodes in the given ESA of North Melbourne. There are five providers who have site locations delivering JNS in the ESA North Melbourne. Name of Job Network Service Site Address Days/Hours of Operation Interact Australia (Victoria) Suite 4, 763 High Street EPPING, VIC 3076 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm Level 1, 92 Main Street GREENSBOROUGH VIC 3088 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm Job Futures Ltd 748-760 High Street EPPING, VIC 3076 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm Northern Migrant Resource Centre Inc 727 High Street EPPING, VIC 3076 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm 271 Para Road GREENSBOROUGH VIC 3088 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm Sarina Russo Job Access (Australia) Pty Ltd 763 High Street EPPING, VIC 3076 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm 9-13 Flintoff Street GREENSBOROUGH VIC 3088 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm The Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust Suite 2, 763 High Street EPPING, VIC 3076 Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm 158 158 3514 158 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 22 May 2006: How many Child Support Agency clients reside in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode area (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, (x) 3091, and (xi) 3752. 158 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of active payers and payees in Victoria at June 2005 is approximately 335,000. Postcode Payees Payers Total 3074 609 650 1,259 3075 625 544 1,169 3076 745 589 1,334 3082 891 674 1,565 3083 565 469 1,034 3087 236 182 418 3088 628 464 1,092 3089 257 188 445 3090 19 18 37 3091 20 26 46 3752 259 220 479 To prepare this response it has taken approximately 4 hours and 45 minutes at an estimated cost of $290. 158 158 3521 158 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What is the incidence of reported crime by type in (a) Victoria and (b) the postcode area (i) 3074, (ii) 3075, (iii) 3076, (iv) 3082, (v) 3083, (vi) 3087, (vii) 3088, (viii) 3089, (ix) 3090, (x) 3091, and (xi) 3752. 158 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: According to the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of          victims of offences recorded by police in Victoria in 2005, by each offence category, was as follows: Homicide and related offences – 185 victims. These statistics can be broken down as follows: i.      Murder – 72 ii.     Attempted murder – 51 iii.    Manslaughter – 4 iv.    Driving causing death - 58 Assault – 19,399 victims Sexual Assault – 2,686 victims Kidnapping/abduction – 118 victims Robbery – 2,465 victims. These can be broken down as follows: i.      Armed Robbery – 1,223 ii.     Unarmed Robbery – 1,242 Blackmail/extortion – 94 victims Unlawful entry with intent – 51,944 victims. These can be broken down as follows: i.      Involving the taking of property – 37,215 ii.     Other – 14,729 Motor vehicle theft – 18,869 victims Other theft – 116,577 victims Source: Recorded Crime – Victims, Australia 2005. I am advised that the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not produce data on incidence of recorded crime by local area in Victoria, including postcode. However, I am advised that such information may be available from the Victorian Police. 159 159 3524 159 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 22 May 2006: How many companies in the electoral division of Scullin have received export assistance in 2006. In each case, what was the (a) name of the company, (b) sum received and (c) purpose of each grant. 159 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Four businesses in the electorate of Scullin received grants under the Export Market Development Grants scheme between 1 January 2006 and 31 May 2006. The name of each grant recipient and the sum received in the electorate of Scullin is provided in the attached table. Export Market Development Grants paid in the electorate of Scullin between 1 January and 31 May 2006 Recipient Name Street Suburb State Pcode Grant Amount Industry Calendar Year Grant Paid Analytical Platinum Supplies Pty Ltd 19 Yale Drive EPPING VIC 3076 $7,775 Metal and Mineral Wholesaling 2006 Cat Design Australia Pty Ltd 17/350 Settlement Road THOMASTOWN VIC 3074 $70,000 Cosmetic and Toiletry Preparation Manufacturing 2006 FM Facility Management Group Pty Ltd 326 Settlement Road THOMASTOWN VIC 3074 $10,132 Clothing Wholesaling 2006 Selectrix Industries Pty Ltd 2 Merchant Avenue THOMASTOWN VIC 3074 $8,363 Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling 2006 Total Grants Paid: 4         $96,270     Notes: Businesses have been determined to be located in the electorate of Scullin using Australian Electoral Commission information and, where necessary, advice from relevant electorate offices. Information sourced from Austrade EMDG database, May 2006. Where the ‘grant amount’ column shows an amount of $70,000, this generally indicates that the firm may be eligible for a further (second tranche) payment by 30 June 2006. 160 160 3526 160 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 Mr Jenkins asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 22 May 2006: How many easyclaim or other Medicare claiming facilities are there. What is the (a) name of each participating pharmacy/agency, (b) its address and (c) the federal electoral division in which it is located. What are the eligibility requirements for the installation of a Medicare easyclaim facility. 160 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 23 May 2006, there were 1,053 operational Medicare Australia Access Points (previously known as Medicare Easyclaim sites). Refer to Attachment A for a list of Medicare Australia Access Points containing their address and the federal electoral division in which they are located. The list is sorted by state. Medicare Australia considers a number of factors when determining if a locality is eligible to have Medicare Australia Access Point installed. Medicare Australia assesses potential localities using the following criteria: the volume of claims lodged by customers from the potential catchment area; population and demographics; the availability of other Medicare Claiming channels; the level of bulk billing in the area; establishment and ongoing costs; health services in the area such as health centres, pharmacies and medical practices; and suitable site to host the Medicare Australia Access Point. If an area is considered to have met the above criteria (1-6), a suitable site must then be selected. A Medicare Australia field officer usually visits the locality to investigate potential sites. The following criteria are then considered: convenient location (in close proximity to medical centres/ doctors surgeries; easily accessible by public transport users and adequate car parking); adequate space; adequate privacy; good site presentation; adequate access to building; disabled / wheelchair access; provision of aggregated services, particularly Government services; and business opening hours. To prepare this answer, it has taken approximately 8 hours at an estimated cost of $399. Medicare Australia Access Point list as at 2 June 2006 Site Name Site Address Town State Postcode Electorate Aberdeen Pharmacy 1 Segenhoe Street ABERDEEN NSW 2336 GWYDIR Adaminaby Licensed Post Office and Newsagency Denison Street ADAMINABY NSW 2630 EDEN-MONARO The Swinging Bridge Café 70 Tumut Street ADELONG NSW 2729 FARRER Main Street Pharmacy Shop 3, 83 Main Street ALSTONVILLE NSW 2477 RICHMOND Terry White Chemist Shop 10, Alstonville Plaza, Robertson Street ALSTONVILLE NSW 2477 RICHMOND Appin Pharmacy 2/75 Appin Road APPIN NSW 2560 HUME Ardlethan Fashion and Leisure 32A Ariah Street ARDLETHAN NSW 2665 RIVERINA Ariah Park Rural Transaction Centre 44-46 Coolamon Street ARIAH PARK NSW 2665 RIVERINA Ashford Business Council Incorporated Albury Street ASHFORD NSW 2361 NEW ENGLAND Avoca Beach Pharmacy 174 Avoca Drive AVOCA BEACH NSW 2251 ROBERTSON Balranald Pharmacy 107 Market Street BALRANALD NSW 2715 FARRER Bangalow Pharmacy 23 Byron Street BANGALOW NSW 2479 RICHMOND Barellan Post Office 108 Yapunyah Street BARELLAN NSW 2665 RIVERINA Bargo Village Pharmacy Lot 400 Hume Highway BARGO NSW 2574 HUME Barham Pharmacy 16 Murray Street BARHAM NSW 2732 FARRER Basin View Pharmacy Shop 2, Village Shopping Centre 1 Tallyan Point Road BASIN VIEW NSW 2540 GILMORE Batlow Rural Transaction Centre Batlow Library Pioneer Street BATLOW NSW 2730 FARRER Bawley Point Newsagency Shop 3, Bawley Point Shopping Centre Murramarang Road BAWLEY POINT NSW 2539 GILMORE Beechwood Post Office 733 Beechwood Road BEECHWOOD NSW 2446 LYNE Bellbrook General Store 29 Main Street BELLBROOK NSW 2440 COWPER Bellingen Pharmacy 70 Hyde Street BELLINGEN NSW 2454 COWPER Belmont Amcal Pharmacy Shop 25, Belmont Citi Centre, Macquarie Street BELMONT NSW 2280 SHORTLAND Belmont Soul Pattinson 556-558 Pacific Highway BELMONT NSW 2280 SHORTLAND Bemboka Licensed Post Office & RTC 68 Loftus Street BEMBOKA NSW 2550 EDEN-MONARO Bendalong General Store 20 Waratah Street BENDALONG NSW 2539 GILMORE Beresfield Pharmacy Shop 13, Avenue Plaza Newton Street BERESFIELD NSW 2322 NEWCASTLE Bermagui Pharmacy 22 Lamont Street BERMAGUI NSW 2546 EDEN-MONARO Berowra Heights Pharmacy Shop 2a, 15-19 Turner Road BEROWRA HEIGHTS NSW 2082 BEROWRA Berowra Soul Pattinsons Chemists Shop 7-8, Village Centre Turner Road BEROWRA HEIGHTS NSW 2082 BEROWRA Berrigan Newsagency 24-26 Chanter Street BERRIGAN NSW 2712 FARRER Berry Licensed Post Office 1/109 Queen Street BERRY NSW 2535 GILMORE Binnaway Rural Transaction Centre 15 Renshaw Street BINNAWAY NSW 2395 GWYDIR Blackheath Newsagency 245 Great Western Highway BLACKHEATH NSW 2785 MACQUARIE Blacksmiths Pharmacy 97 Turea Street BLACKSMITHS NSW 2281 SHORTLAND Blayney Pharmacy 112 Adelaide Street BLAYNEY NSW 2799 CALARE Bombala Post Office 109a Maybe Street BOMBALA NSW 2632 EDEN-MONARO Bonalbo Pharmacy Lot 10, Sandiland Street BONALBO NSW 2469 PAGE Bonnells Bay Pharmacy Shop 7, The Bay Shopping Square Fishery Point Road BONNELLS BAY NSW 2264 CHARLTON Bonny Hills Post Office Shop 3, Bonny Hills Shopping Centre Corner Ocean Drive and Jungarra Crescent BONNY HILLS NSW 2445 LYNE Boolaroo Pharmacy 31 Main Road BOOLAROO NSW 2284 CHARLTON Booligal Post Office Lot 8, Lachlan Street BOOLIGAL NSW 2711 RIVERINA Boorowa Pharmacy 11 Marsden Street BOOROWA NSW 2586 HUME Towers Drug co 34 Oxley Street BOURKE NSW 2840 GWYDIR Bowning Garage and General Store Leake Street BOWNING NSW 2582 HUME Bowraville Technology and Community Centre 39 High Street BOWRAVILLE NSW 2449 COWPER Braidwood Rural Transaction Centre Palerang Council 144 Wallace Street BRAIDWOOD NSW 2622 EDEN-MONARO St Mary Pharmacy 47 Bathurst St BREWARRINA NSW 2839 GWYDIR Bringelly Pharmacy Shop 4-21 Northern Road BRINGELLY NSW 2171 MACARTHUR Brunswick Heads Pharmacy 14-16 Mullumbimbi Street BRUNSWICK HEADS NSW 2483 RICHMOND Bulahdelah Rural Transaction Centre 63 Stroud Street BULAHDELAH NSW 2423 PATERSON Bulli Pharmacy 251 Princes Hwy BULLI NSW 2516 CUNNINGHAM Bundanoon Post Office 5-9 Church Street BUNDANOON NSW 2578 GILMORE Bundarra General Store RTC 30-32 Bendemeer Street BUNDARRA NSW 2359 NEW ENGLAND Bundeena Pharmacy Shop 3, 32-34 Brighton Street BUNDEENA NSW 2230 COOK Bungendore Pharmacy Unit A, 40 Ellendon Street BUNGENDORE NSW 2621 EDEN-MONARO Burraga Village Store RTC Main Street Lot 2 + 3 Section 18 Village of Burraga BURRAGA NSW 2795 CALARE Burringbar Licensed Post Office 23 The Broadway BURRINGBAR NSW 2483 RICHMOND Byron Bay Amcal Plaza Pharmacy Shop 4 Jonson Street BYRON BAY NSW 2481 RICHMOND Bob Lane Soul Pattinson 34a Jonson Street BYRON BAY NSW 2481 RICHMOND Callala Bay Pharmacy Bayview Plaza Shop 2 55 Emmett Street CALLALA BAY NSW 2540 GILMORE Canowindra Pharmacy 79 Gaskill Street CANOWINDRA NSW 2804 CALARE Caragabal General Store and Post Office Post Office Wyalong Street CARAGABAL NSW 2810 PARKES Cassilis General Store 11 Branscombe Street CASSILIS NSW 2329 GWYDIR Cobar Paper Chase Pty Ltd Corner Marshall & Barton Street COBAR NSW 2835 PARKES Cobargo Pharmacy 62 Princes Highway COBARGO NSW 2550 EDEN-MONARO Polacks Newsagency 13 Harbour Drive COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450 COWPER Marilyn’s Pharmacy 112 Brolga Place COLEAMBALLY NSW 2707 RIVERINA Comboyne Rural Transaction Centre 36 Main Street COMBOYNE NSW 2429 LYNE Conargo Junction Store Jerilderie Road CONARGO NSW 2710 FARRER Shortis & Timmins Pharmacy 81 Bathurst Street CONDOBOLIN NSW 2877 PARKES Bill Gaffey’s Mitchell Highway COOLABAH NSW 2831 GWYDIR Coolah Pharmacy 55 Binnia Street COOLAH NSW 2843 GWYDIR Wagga Mutual Credit Union Ltd 120 Cowabbie Street COOLAMON NSW 2701 RIVERINA Coolongolook General Store Lot 1-2, Bengal Street COOLONGOLOOK NSW 2423 PATERSON Coonabarabran Rural Transaction Centre 71 John Street COONABARABRAN NSW 2357 GWYDIR Coonamble RTC 26 Castlereagh Street COONAMBLE NSW 2829 GWYDIR Cooranbong Pharmacy Shop 2, Avondale Shopping Centre 563 Freemans Drv COORANBONG NSW 2265 CHARLTON Beddies Pharmacy 105-107 Wallendoon Street COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2590 RIVERINA Braybrook’s Pharmacy 200 Parker Street COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2590 RIVERINA Philip Davies Chemist 214 Parker Street COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2590 RIVERINA Miegel’s Pharmacy 54 Sanger Street COROWA NSW 2646 FARRER Corrimal Court Pharmacy 10a Corrimal Court Princes Highway CORRIMAL NSW 2518 CUNNINGHAM Martin’s Pharmacy 256 Princes Highway CORRIMAL NSW 2518 CUNNINGHAM Corrimal Night & Day Pharmacy 191 Princes Highway CORRIMAL NSW 2518 CUNNINGHAM Crescent Head Post Office 3 Scott Street CRESCENT HEAD NSW 2440 LYNE Harts Pharmacy 78 Goulburn Street CROOKWELL NSW 2583 HUME Croppa Creek General Store Buckie Road CROPPA CREEK NSW 2411 GWYDIR Culburra Pharmacy 187 Prince Edward Ave CULBURRA BEACH NSW 2540 GILMORE Culcairn Rural Transaction Centre 40 Balfour Street CULCAIRN NSW 2660 FARRER Cullen Bullen General Store 35 Castlereagh Highway CULLEN BULLEN NSW 2790 CALARE Currarong General Store 1 Piscator Avenue CURRARONG NSW 2540 GILMORE Deepwater News and General Store Tenterfield Street DEEPWATER NSW 2371 NEW ENGLAND Delegate Rural Transaction Centre 66A Bombala Street DELEGATE NSW 2633 EDEN-MONARO Deniliquin Pharmacy 289 Cressy Street DENILIQUIN NSW 2710 FARRER Barlow & Weller Pharmacy 17-21 Napier Street DENILIQUIN NSW 2710 FARRER Denman Pharmacy 32 Ogilvie Street DENMAN NSW 2328 HUNTER Dorrigo Plateau Pharmacy 67 Hickory Street DORRIGO NSW 2453 COWPER Drake Village Resource Centre Lot 9, DP 758359 Bruxner Highway DRAKE NSW 2469 NEW ENGLAND The Dunedoo Pharmacy 86 Bolaro Street DUNEDOO NSW 2844 GWYDIR Dungog IGA Everyday 184 Dowling Street DUNGOG NSW 2420 PATERSON Dunoon Licensed Post Office 107B James St DUNOON NSW 2480 PAGE Duri Post Office Store Railway Avenue DURI NSW 2344 NEW ENGLAND East Gresford Post Office 64 Park Street EAST GRESFORD NSW 2311 PATERSON Eden Community Access Centre 116 Imlay Street EDEN NSW 2551 EDEN-MONARO New England Area Health Vegetable Creek Health Service Glen Innes Rd EMMAVILLE NSW 2371 NEW ENGLAND Eugowra Rural Transaction Centre 45 Broad Street EUGOWRA NSW 2806 CALARE Evans Head Pharmacy 2 Oak Street EVANS HEAD NSW 2473 PAGE Finley Pharmacy 122-124 Murray Street FINLEY NSW 2713 FARRER Winstanley’s Pharmacy 111 Lachlan Street FORBES NSW 2871 PARKES Flannery’s Pharmacy 97-101 Rankin Street FORBES NSW 2871 PARKES Forster Amcal Chemist 49 Wharf Street FORSTER NSW 2428 PATERSON Ganmain Rural Transaction Centre 90 Ford Street GANMAIN NSW 2702 RIVERINA Gerringong Pharmacy 113 Fern Street GERRINGONG NSW 2534 GILMORE Gilgandra Pharmacy 49 Miller Street GILGANDRA NSW 2827 GWYDIR Girilambone Auto Service Centre Mitchell Highway GIRILAMBONE NSW 2831 GWYDIR Timbs Pharmacy 240 Grey Street GLEN INNES NSW 2370 NEW ENGLAND Glenorie Pharmacy Shop 11, 930 Old Northern Road GLENORIE NSW 2157 BEROWRA Glenreagh Licensed Post Office 46 Coramba Street GLENREAGH NSW 2450 COWPER Gloucester Pharmacy 43 Church Street GLOUCESTER NSW 2422 PATERSON Goolgowi General Store 1 Stipa Street GOOLGOWI NSW 2652 RIVERINA Gooloogong Post Office King Street GOOLOOGONG NSW 2805 CALARE Green Point Trading Post 111 Green Point Drive GREEN POINT NSW 2428 PATERSON Greenwell Point Newsagency General Store 89 Greenwell Point Road GREENWELL POINT NSW 2540 GILMORE Grenfell Pharmacy 105 Main Street GRENFELL NSW 2810 PARKES Gulargambone Rural Transaction Centre 39 Bourbah GULARGAMBONE NSW 2828 GWYDIR Gulgong Licenced Post Office 94 Herbert Street GULGONG NSW 2852 GWYDIR Gundagai Chemist 114 Sheridan Street GUNDAGAI NSW 2722 RIVERINA Gundy General Store 4 Riley Street GUNDY NSW 2337 GWYDIR Guyra Rural Transaction Centre Guyra Pharmacy 106 Bradley Street GUYRA NSW 2365 NEW ENGLAND Gwandalan Pharmacy 65 Gamban Road GWANDALAN NSW 2259 SHORTLAND Hallidays Point Rural Transaction Centre - 3 Beaches Chemist Shop 2, Village Centre HALLIDAYS POINT NSW 2430 LYNE Harrington Gifts & Crafts 4 Pilot Street HARRINGTON NSW 2427 LYNE Hat Head General Store 24 Straight Street HAT HEAD NSW 2440 COWPER Myall Pharmacy 47 Yamba Street HAWKS NEST NSW 2324 PATERSON Japp’s Pharmacy 129 Lachlan Street HAY NSW 2711 RIVERINA Hazelbrook Pharmacy 192 Great Western Highway HAZELBROOK NSW 2779 MACQUARIE Lowcocks Pharmacy 121 Parkes Street HELENSBURGH NSW 2508 CUNNINGHAM The Henty Pharmacy 26 Sladen Street HENTY NSW 2658 FARRER Hill Top Village Store 11 West Parade HILL TOP NSW 2575 HUME Hillston Rural Transaction Centre 175 High Street HILLSTON NSW 2675 PARKES Holbrook Pharmacy 119 Albury Street HOLBROOK NSW 2644 FARRER Iluka Pharmacy Shop 1, 6 Young Street ILUKA NSW 2466 PAGE Health & Beauty Shop 54 Jerilderie Street JERILDERIE NSW 2716 FARRER Jindabyne Pharmacy Nuggets Crossing Snowy River Avenue JINDABYNE NSW 2627 EDEN-MONARO Shannon’s Fine Foods 97 Urana Road JINDERA NSW 2642 FARRER Junee Capital Chemist 82-84 Lorne Street JUNEE NSW 2663 RIVERINA Kanwal Pharmacist Advice 654 Pacific Highway KANWAL NSW 2259 DOBELL Karuah Pharmacy 20 Tarean Road KARUAH NSW 2324 PATERSON Kendall Post Office 8 Comboyne Street KENDALL NSW 2439 LYNE Kentucky General Store Noalimba Avenue KENTUCKY NSW 2354 NEW ENGLAND Khancoban General Store Lot 13, Mitchell Avenue KHANCOBAN NSW 2642 FARRER Soul Pattinson Chemist 68 Terralong Street KIAMA NSW 2533 GILMORE The Kincumber Village Amcal Pharmacy Shop 4, Kincumber Village Avoca Drive KINCUMBER NSW 2251 ROBERTSON Kootingal Pharmacy 12 Gate Street KOOTINGAL NSW 2352 NEW ENGLAND Krambach Post Office 3733 Bucketts Way KRAMBACH NSW 2429 LYNE Ken Wilson Amcal Chemist Shop 12, Kingsway Plaza 174-178 Lang Street KURRI KURRI NSW 2327 HUNTER Kurri Soul Pattison Chemist 169-173 Lang Street KURRI KURRI NSW 2327 HUNTER Kyogle Pharmacy 111-113 Sumerland Way KYOGLE NSW 2474 PAGE Lower Lachlan Community Service 30 Foster Street LAKE CARGELLIGO NSW 2672 PARKES Laurieton Pharmacy 74 Bold Street LAURIETON NSW 2443 LYNE Camden Haven Pharmacy Shop 5, Haven Plaza Bold Street LAURIETON NSW 2443 LYNE Lawrence General Store 1 Richmond Street LAWRENCE NSW 2460 PAGE Len Wade Pharmacy 76 Pine Avenue LEETON NSW 2705 RIVERINA Dowley’s Pharmacy 113 Pine Avenue LEETON NSW 2705 RIVERINA Lennox Head Pharmacy 2/64 Ballina Street LENNOX HEAD NSW 2478 RICHMOND White’s Pharmacy 19 Morilla Street LIGHTNING RIDGE NSW 2834 GWYDIR Lockhart Pharmacy 118-120 Green Street LOCKHART NSW 2656 FARRER Gower Wilson Memorial Hospital Lagoon Road LORD HOWE ISLAND NSW 2898 SYDNEY Stanford’s Pharmacy 253 River Street MACLEAN NSW 2463 COWPER Mallanganee General Store and Post Office 111 Sandilands Street MALLANGANEE NSW 2469 PAGE The Manilla Pharmacy 161 Manilla Street MANILLA NSW 2346 NEW ENGLAND Michael’s Pharmacy 297 Marrickville Road MARRICKVILLE NSW 2204 GRAYNDLER Marrickville Chem Mart Pharmacy 288 Marrickville Road MARRICKVILLE NSW 2204 GRAYNDLER Vinapharm Chemist 306 Illawarra Road MARRICKVILLE NSW 2204 GRAYNDLER Wallace’s Blooms Pharmacy 251 Marrickville Road MARRICKVILLE NSW 2204 GRAYNDLER Marulan Post Office 68 George St MARULAN NSW 2579 HUME Mathoura RTC Lot 212 DP 1040544 Moama Street MATHOURA NSW 2710 FARRER Mendooran Rural Transaction Centre and Post Office Australian Post Office 55 Bundulla Street MENDOORAN NSW 2842 GWYDIR Merriwa Pharmacy 106 Bettington Street MERRIWA NSW 2329 GWYDIR The Molong Pharmacy 43-45 Bank Street MOLONG NSW 2866 CALARE Moonee Beach Pharmacy Shop 1, Moonee Beach Shops 2 Moonee Beach Road MOONEE BEACH NSW 2450 COWPER Vulcan Street Pharmacy Shop 4, 4 Ford Street MORUYA NSW 2537 EDEN-MONARO Moruya Pharmacy 48 Vulcan Street MORUYA NSW 2537 EDEN-MONARO Moss Vale Soul Pattinson Chemist 410-412 Argyle Street MOSS VALE NSW 2577 GILMORE Frank Streater Pharmacy Shop 3, Woodville House Clarence Street MOSS VALE NSW 2577 GILMORE Moss Vale Village Pharmacy Shop 2, 12 Clarence Street MOSS VALE NSW 2577 GILMORE Mt Druitt Pharmacy 7 Mt Druitt Road MOUNT DRUITT NSW 2770 CHIFLEY Blooms the Chemist Shop 110-111, Westfield Shopping Centre Carlisle Ave & Luxford Drive MOUNT DRUITT NSW 2770 CHIFLEY Ross Trewin Soul Pattison Chemist Shop 19, Westfield Shopping Centre Cnr Carlislie Ave & Cuxford Road MOUNT DRUITT NSW 2770 CHIFLEY Mullaley General Store and Post Office Lot 2, Nombi Street MULLALEY NSW 2379 GWYDIR Mullumbimby Health Care Pharmacy 60 Burringbar Street MULLUMBIMBY NSW 2482 RICHMOND Jean Davies Pharmacy 73 Mayne Street MURRURUNDI NSW 2338 GWYDIR Murwillumbah Pharmacy 108 Main Street MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484 RICHMOND Con Varela’s Pharmacy 80 Main Street MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484 RICHMOND Shortis and Daley Pharmacy 72 Main Street MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484 RICHMOND Sunnyside Pharmacy Shop 14, Sunnyside Shopping Centre Corner Wollumbin And Brisbane Streets MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484 RICHMOND Mapp & Hession Pharmacy 14-16 King Street MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484 RICHMOND Mylestom General Store 16-18 George Street MYLESTOM NSW 2454 COWPER Nabiac Pharmacy Shop 1, Village Green Nabiac Street NABIAC NSW 2312 PATERSON Nambucca Heads Pharmacy Chemworld Chemist Shop 9, Seascape Mall 38 Ridge Street NAMBUCCA HEADS NSW 2448 COWPER Nambucca Heads Guardian Pharmacy 28 Bowra Street NAMBUCCA HEADS NSW 2448 COWPER Nambucca Plaza Pharmacy Shop 15, Nambucca Plaza Pacific Highway NAMBUCCA HEADS NSW 2448 COWPER Soul Pattinson Nambucca Heads 24 Ridge Street NAMBUCCA HEADS NSW 2448 COWPER Nangus General Store, Licensed Post Office & Bottle Shop Kimo Street NANGUS NSW 2722 RIVERINA Narranderra Newsagency 115 East Street NARRANDERA NSW 2700 RIVERINA Narromine Pharmacy 53 Dandaloo Street NARROMINE NSW 2821 PARKES Nelson Bay Soul Pattinson Pharmacy 18 Stockton Road NELSON BAY NSW 2315 PATERSON Nelson Bay Pharmacy 71 Magnus Street NELSON BAY NSW 2315 PATERSON New Lambton Pharmacy 83 Regent Street NEW LAMBTON NSW 2305 NEWCASTLE Ian Gilmour Chemist 56 Cullen Street NIMBIN NSW 2480 PAGE North Haven Pharmacy Shop 4, 615 Ocean Drive NORTH HAVEN NSW 2443 LYNE Nundle Shire Council Chambers 72 Jenkins Street Cnr Jenkins & Innes Streets NUNDLE NSW 2340 NEW ENGLAND Western District Supported Employment Service 22 Dandallo Street NYNGAN NSW 2825 PARKES Oaklands Post Office 36 Milthorpe Street OAKLANDS NSW 2646 FARRER Bearup’s Pharmacy 135 Oberon Street OBERON NSW 2787 CALARE John Geddes Pharmacy Shop 20, Ocean Village Shopping Centre Rajah Road OCEAN SHORES NSW 2483 RICHMOND Old Bar Pharmacy Shop 1, 48 Old Bar Road OLD BAR NSW 2430 LYNE Old Bonalbo Post Office and General Store Corner Main Road and Upper Duck Creek Road OLD BONALBO NSW 2469 PAGE Picton Pharmacy 147 Argyle Street PICTON NSW 2571 HUME RH & MH Wooldridge Dangar Street PILLIGA NSW 2388 GWYDIR Quirindi Library George Street QUIRINDI NSW 2343 GWYDIR Donovan’s 629 Convenience Store Boomerang Street RANKINS SPRINGS NSW 2669 PARKES Robertson General Store 91 Hoddle Street ROBERTSON NSW 2577 GILMORE Rosewood Store Kyeamba Street ROSEWOOD NSW 2652 FARRER Wanda Beach Pharmacy Shop 2/261 Soldiers Point Road SALAMANDER BAY NSW 2317 PATERSON Sanctuary Point Pharmacy 1/195 Kerry Street SANCTUARY POINT NSW 2540 GILMORE Saratoga Pharmacy Shop 11, Saratoga Shopping Village Village Road SARATOGA NSW 2251 ROBERTSON McDermid’s Pharmacy 37 First Avenue SAWTELL NSW 2452 COWPER Scone Soul Pattinson Chemist 153 Kelly Street SCONE NSW 2337 GWYDIR Shoal Bay Pharmacy 57 Shoal Bay Road SHOAL BAY NSW 2315 PATERSON Shoalhaven Heads Pharmacy 3/121 Shoalhaven Heads Road SHOALHAVEN HEADS NSW 2535 GILMORE Smiths Lake News & Supa Mart Shop 2-3, Village Centre Macwood Road SMITHS LAKE NSW 2428 PATERSON Peter Needs Health Sense Pharmacy 11 Memorial Avenue SOUTH WEST ROCKS NSW 2431 COWPER Blooms the Chemist Shop 9-10 The Rocks Shopping Fair SOUTH WEST ROCKS NSW 2431 COWPER Spring Hill Post Office & General Store 12 Seaton Street SPRING HILL NSW 2800 CALARE St Georges Basin Pharmacy 1/134 Island Point Road ST GEORGES BASIN NSW 2540 GILMORE O’Loughlins Medical Pharmacy Shop 126, St Ives Village Shopping Centre 166 Mona Vale Road ST IVES NSW 2075 BRADFIELD Stock Up 36 Hibernia Street STOCKINBINGAL NSW 2725 RIVERINA Stroud Newsagency 54 Cowper Street STROUD NSW 2425 PATERSON Stuarts Point Newsagency 2/16 Marine Parade STUARTS POINT NSW 2441 COWPER Suffolk Park Pharmacy Shop 8, Suffolk Park Plaza Clifford Street SUFFOLK PARK NSW 2481 RICHMOND Sussex Inlet Pharmacy Shop 1, 192 Jacobs Drive SUSSEX INLET NSW 2540 GILMORE Swansea Amcal Chemist Shops 5, 6 & 7, Swansea Centre Lake Road SWANSEA NSW 2281 SHORTLAND Swansea Pharmacy 148 Pacific Highway SWANSEA NSW 2281 SHORTLAND Tabulam Café Court Street TABULAM NSW 2469 PAGE Talbingo Supermarket Shop 12, Talbingo Shopping Centre TALBINGO NSW 2720 FARRER Taralga Community Service Centre 29 Orchard Street TARALGA NSW 2580 HUME Tathra Pharmacy 61a Andy Poole Drive TATHRA NSW 2550 EDEN-MONARO Telepoint Café 101 Mooney Street TELEGRAPH POINT NSW 2441 LYNE Temora Capital Chemist 204 Hoskins Street TEMORA NSW 2666 RIVERINA G.E. Brooks Chemist 268 Rouse Street TENTERFIELD NSW 2372 NEW ENGLAND Tenterfield Chemworld Chemist 226-228 Rouse Street TENTERFIELD NSW 2372 NEW ENGLAND The Rock Post Office Cnr Urana and Ford Streets THE ROCK NSW 2655 RIVERINA Smiths Pharmacy Thirroul Shop 17 Thirroul Plaza THIRROUL NSW 2515 CUNNINGHAM Thirroul Soul Pattinson Chemist 285 Lawrence Hargrave Drive THIRROUL NSW 2515 CUNNINGHAM Convenient Chemist Thirroul 355 Lawrence Hargrave Drive THIRROUL NSW 2515 CUNNINGHAM Thornton Pharmacy Shop 6, Thornton Mall THORNTON NSW 2322 PATERSON TJ’s Outback Trading Silver City Highway TIBOOBURRA NSW 2880 PARKES Tintenbar Pharmacy 12 George Street TINTENBAR NSW 2478 RICHMOND The Tocumwal Pharmacy 34-36 Deniliquin Street TOCUMWAL NSW 2714 FARRER Blooms the Chemist Toormina Shop 23, Toormina Gardens Shopping Centre Toormina Road TOORMINA NSW 2452 COWPER Hopes Pharmacy Shop 4, 219 Main Road Toukley Shopping Plaza TOUKLEY NSW 2263 SHORTLAND Donald Stewart Pharmacy 254A Main Road TOUKLEY NSW 2263 SHORTLAND Toukley Pharmacy 237 Main Road TOUKLEY NSW 2263 SHORTLAND Beachcomber Pharmacy 4/45 Canton Beach Road TOUKLEY NSW 2263 SHORTLAND Aldous Pharmacy 368 Main Road TOUKLEY NSW 2263 SHORTLAND Tucabia Village Store 12 Cordini Street TUCABIA NSW 2462 COWPER Tumbarumba Pharmacy 23b The Parade TUMBARUMBA NSW 2653 FARRER Tumut Plus Pharmacy 66 Wynyard Street TUMUT NSW 2720 FARRER Tuross Head Pharmacy Shop 12, Evans Road TUROSS HEAD NSW 2537 EDEN-MONARO Tyalgum General Store 29 Coolman Street TYALGUM NSW 2484 RICHMOND Ulmarra Newsagency 12 Coldstream Street ULMARRA NSW 2462 COWPER Ulong Rural Transaction Centre Ulong Post Office & General Store 72 Pine Avenue ULONG NSW 2450 COWPER Ungarie Post Office 39 Wollowgough Street UNGARIE NSW 2669 PARKES Urana Rural Transaction Centre William Street URANA NSW 2645 FARRER Uranquinty General Store 28 Morgan Street URANQUINTY NSW 2652 RIVERINA Urunga Newsagency 17 Bonville Street URUNGA NSW 2455 COWPER Vincentia Pharmacy Shop 18, Burton Street VINCENTIA NSW 2540 GILMORE Walbundrie Co Operative Ltd Billabong Street WALBUNDRIE NSW 2642 FARRER Kings Pharmacy Walcha Shopping Centre 10n Derby Street WALCHA NSW 2354 NEW ENGLAND Walla Walla RTC 74 Commerical Street WALLA WALLA NSW 2659 FARRER Wallabadah General Store 19 Coach Street WALLABADAH NSW 2343 GWYDIR Wallendbeen Service Station 27 Young Street WALLENDBEEN NSW 2588 HUME Wanganella General Store & Post Office Lang Street WANGANELLA NSW 2710 FARRER Warragamba Post Office 29 Fourteenth Street WARRAGAMBA NSW 2752 HUME Warrawong Health Pharmacy Shop 111, Westfield Shoppingtown 54 King Street WARRAWONG NSW 2502 THROSBY Night & Day Amcal Chemist 45 King Street WARRAWONG NSW 2502 THROSBY Bayview Medical Centre Pharmacy Shop 1,166 Cowper Street WARRAWONG NSW 2502 THROSBY Anderson Pharmacy 128 Dubbo Street WARREN NSW 2824 GWYDIR Wattle Flat General Store 3815 Sofala Road WATTLE FLAT NSW 2795 CALARE Wauchope Pharmacy 26 High Street WAUCHOPE NSW 2446 LYNE Wee Waa Pharmacy 93 Rose Street WEE WAA NSW 2388 GWYDIR Weethalle Whistle Stop Arts & Crafts Railway Street WEETHALLE NSW 2669 PARKES Keirle’s Pharmacy 31 Nanima Crescent WELLINGTON NSW 2820 GWYDIR Wentworth Post Office 60 Darling Street WENTWORTH NSW 2648 FARRER Werris Creek Rural Transaction Centre Peel Valley Credit Union Building Single Street WERRIS CREEK NSW 2341 NEW ENGLAND West Wyalong Pharmacy 115 Main Street WEST WYALONG NSW 2671 PARKES Whitton Licensed Post Office 1 Hulong Street WHITTON NSW 2705 RIVERINA Willawarrin Post Office and General Store 44 Main Street WILLAWARRIN NSW 2440 COWPER Willow Tree General Store 20 New England Highway WILLOW TREE NSW 2339 GWYDIR Burning Mountain Antiques New England Highway WINGEN NSW 2337 GWYDIR Chapman & Wood Amcal Chemist 103 Isabella Street WINGHAM NSW 2429 LYNE Wisemans Ferry Local Supermarket Shop 8 2 Old Northern Road WISEMANS FERRY NSW 2775 BEROWRA Chem World Chemist Wollongbar Shop 14 54 Simpson Avenue WOLLONGBAR NSW 2477 RICHMOND Woolgoolga Amcal Pharmacy Shops 5 & 6, Woolgoolga Plaza Cnr Beach & Nightingale Streets WOOLGOOLGA NSW 2456 COWPER Wooli Post Office 89 Carraboi Street WOOLI NSW 2462 COWPER Blooms the Chemist 74 Pacific Hwy WYONG NSW 2259 DOBELL Yamba Soul Pattinson Pharmacy 17 Yamba Street YAMBA NSW 2464 COWPER The Yass Pharmacy 104 Comur Street YASS NSW 2582 HUME Millers Pharmacy Yass 112-114 Comur Street YASS NSW 2582 HUME Yeoval Rural Transaction Centre Yeoval Licensed Post Office Cnr Forbes and Obley Streets YEOVAL NSW 2868 CALARE Yerrinbool General Store 40 Old Hume Highway YERRINBOOL NSW 2575 HUME Large Chemmart Chemists Shops 12-13, Humpty Doo Shopping Centre Challoner Circuit HUMPTY DOO NT 0836 LINGIARI Terrace Emporium Lot 1847 Katherine Terrace KATHERINE NT 0851 LINGIARI Mataranka Rural Transaction Centre 66 Roper Terrace MATARANKA NT 0852 LINGIARI Tennant Creek Pharmacy 123 Paterson Street TENNANT CREEK NT 0860 LINGIARI Agnes Water Rural Transaction Centre Lot 100 3 Captain Cook Drive AGNES WATER QLD 4677 HINKLER Airlie Beach Day & Night Chemist 366 Shute Harbour Road AIRLIE BEACH QLD 4802 DAWSON Airlie Pharmacy 277a Shute Harbour Road AIRLIE BEACH QLD 4802 DAWSON Allora Pharmacy 42 Herbert Street ALLORA QLD 4362 MARANOA Amamoor General Store and Post Office 4 Busby Street AMAMOOR QLD 4570 WIDE BAY Aramac Rural Transaction Centre 44 Gordon Street ARAMAC QLD 4726 MARANOA Augathella Rural Transaction Centre Main Street AUGATHELLA QLD 4477 MARANOA Babinda QGAP 91 Munro Street BABINDA QLD 4861 KENNEDY Ballandean Post Office New England Highway BALLANDEAN QLD 4382 MARANOA Banana Post Office Dawson Highway BANANA QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Baralaba Post Office 28 Stopford Street BARALABA QLD 4702 WIDE BAY Barcaldine Pharmacy 91 Oak Street BARCALDINE QLD 4725 MARANOA Bargara Soul Pattinson Shop 5, Bargara Central Shopping Village 699 Bargara Road BARGARA QLD 4670 HINKLER Beaudesert Prescription Centre Beaudesert Fair William Street BEAUDESERT QLD 4285 FORDE Shay’s Pharmacy 4 William Street BEAUDESERT QLD 4285 FORDE Beaudesert Medical Centre Pharmacy Shop 3, Beaudesert Medical Centre 47 William Street BEAUDESERT QLD 4285 FORDE Bell Rural Transaction Centre 8 Ensor Street BELL QLD 4408 MARANOA Bellara Chemworld Chemist Shop 9, Bribie Island Shopping Goodwin Drive BELLARA QLD 4507 LONGMAN Biggenden Pharmacy 37 Edward Street BIGGENDEN QLD 4621 WIDE BAY Biloela Amcal Pharmacy Shop 3, Biloela Square Shopping Centre Kariboe Street BILOELA QLD 4715 CAPRICORNIA Blackall Pharmacy 107-109 Shamrock Street BLACKALL QLD 4472 MARANOA Blackbutt Rural Transaction Centre Archie Muir Council Building 69 Hart Street BLACKBUTT QLD 4306 BLAIR Blackwater Chemworld Chemist Shop 8, Town Centre Blain Street BLACKWATER QLD 4717 CAPRICORNIA Boonah Pharmacy 82 High Street BOONAH QLD 4310 FORDE Loose Goose Village Store 63 Laguna Street BOREEN POINT QLD 4565 FAIRFAX Boyne Plaza Pharmacy Shop 5, Boyne Plaza BOYNE ISLAND QLD 4680 HINKLER Terry White Chemists Browns Plains Shop 33, Grand Plaza Shopping Centre BROWNS PLAINS QLD 4118 RANKIN Browns Plains Day and Night Pharmacy Shop 1, Westpoint Shopping Centre BROWNS PLAINS QLD 4118 RANKIN Thistle Pharmacies Shop 13, Hibiscus Shopping Centre 44 Downie Avenue BUCASIA QLD 4750 DAWSON Buderim Pharmacy Shop 13, Buderim Marketplace 67 Burnett St BUDERIM QLD 4556 FISHER Burnett Heads Post and News 39 Zunker Street BURNETT HEADS QLD 4670 HINKLER Calliope Store & News 46 Stirrat Street CALLIOPE QLD 4680 HINKLER Lyndon Davis Amcal Chemist Shop 11, Cannon Hill Shopping Plaza 1145 Wynnum Road CANNON HILL QLD 4170 GRIFFITH Whitsunday Pharmacy Shop 11c, Whitsunday Shopping Centre Shute Harbour Road CANNONVALE QLD 4802 DAWSON Capella Agencies 69 Peak Downs Street CAPELLA QLD 4723 CAPRICORNIA Charleville Pharmacy 20-22 Wills Street CHARLEVILLE QLD 4470 MARANOA Collins Pharmacy 54 Gill Street CHARTERS TOWERS QLD 4820 KENNEDY Griffiths Pharmacy 24 Gill Street CHARTERS TOWERS QLD 4820 KENNEDY Isis Pharmacy & Camera Centre 60 Churchill Street CHILDERS QLD 4660 HINKLER Cunnington’s Pharmacy 58 Middle Street CHINCHILLA QLD 4413 MARANOA Gath’s Pharmacy Shop 1, Currajong Court 32 Middle Street CHINCHILLA QLD 4413 MARANOA Clermont Pharmacy 48 Daintree Street CLERMONT QLD 4721 CAPRICORNIA Collinsville QGAP 64 Sonoma Street COLLINSVILLE QLD 4804 CAPRICORNIA Condamine Post Office Blyth Street CONDAMINE QLD 4416 MARANOA Cooktown QGAP Court House 172 Charlotte Street COOKTOWN QLD 4871 LEICHHARDT Coolangatta Amcal Chemist 2 Griffith Street COOLANGATTA QLD 4225 MCPHERSON Coolum Village Pharmacy Shop J, 10 Birtwill Street COOLUM BEACH QLD 4573 FAIRFAX Coominya Post Office 2 Railway Street COOMINYA QLD 4311 BLAIR Cooran General Store and LPO 12 King Street COORAN QLD 4569 FAIRFAX Cooroy Amcal Pharmacy 3 Emerald Street COOROY QLD 4563 FAIRFAX Cooroy Central Guardian Pharmacy 26 Maple Street COOROY QLD 4563 FAIRFAX Crows Nest Pharmacy 33 Toowoomba Road CROWS NEST QLD 4355 BLAIR Cunnamulla Pharmacy 14 Stockyard St CUNNAMULLA QLD 4490 MARANOA Dalveen Post Office McCosker Drive DALVEEN QLD 4374 MARANOA Dayboro Pharmacy 3b McKenzie Street DAYBORO QLD 4521 DICKSON Bailey Road Medical Centre Pharmacy 75 Bailey Rd DECEPTION BAY QLD 4508 LONGMAN Woodlands Pharmacy Shop G, Woodlands Shopping Centre 28 Palm Drive DEERAGUN QLD 4818 HERBERT Dimbulah Post Office 31 Raleigh Street DIMBULAH QLD 4872 KENNEDY Dingo Post Store Normanby Street DINGO QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Dirranbandi Rural Transaction Centre 35-37 Railway Street DIRRANBANDI QLD 4486 MARANOA Donnybrook Jetty Store 10 Alice Street DONNYBROOK QLD 4510 LONGMAN Drillham Licensed Post Office 1 Sturt Street DRILLHAM QLD 4424 MARANOA Dululu Store Burnett Highway DULULU QLD 4702 WIDE BAY Dysart Administration Office Broadsound Shire Council Shannon Crescent DYSART QLD 4745 CAPRICORNIA Chris Boyle’s Payless Chemist Stockland Shop 1, Stocklands Mulgrave Rd EARLVILLE QLD 4870 LEICHHARDT Ken Hart Amcal Chemist Shop 13, Market Plaza Egerton Street EMERALD QLD 4720 MARANOA Highlands Amcal Chemist Shop 2, Emerald Village Shopping Centre Hospital Road EMERALD QLD 4720 MARANOA The Esk Pharmacy 113 Ipswich Street ESK QLD 4312 BLAIR Eumundi Village Pharmacy Shop 1, 2-6 Etheridge Street EUMUNDI QLD 4562 FAIRFAX Finch Hatton General Store 3 Eungella Road FINCH HATTON QLD 4756 DAWSON Angelo Bertoni Chemist Shop 4/5 Forest Fair 120 Woogaroo Street FOREST LAKE QLD 4078 OXLEY Gayndah Shire Council 36 Capper Street GAYNDAH QLD 4625 HINKLER Etheridge Shire Council Offices St George Street GEORGETOWN QLD 4871 KENNEDY Gin Gin Pharmacy 48 Mulgrave Street GIN GIN QLD 4671 HINKLER Giru Rural Transaction Centre 9 - 11 Drysdale Street GIRU QLD 4809 DAWSON Glass House Mountains Pharmacy 9 Bruce Parade GLASS HOUSE MOUNTAINS QLD 4518 LONGMAN Glenden Rural Transaction Centre Glenden Licensed Post Office Shop 14 Town Centre GLENDEN QLD 4743 CAPRICORNIA Goomeri Post Office 8 Boonara Street GOOMERI QLD 4601 WIDE BAY Lees Pharmacy 95 Marshall Street GOONDIWINDI QLD 4390 MARANOA Allens Pharmacy 66-68 Marshall Street GOONDIWINDI QLD 4390 MARANOA Gordonvale Pharmacy 54 Norman Street GORDONVALE QLD 4865 KENNEDY Amcal Gracemere 17 Laurie Street GRACEMERE QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Devantier’s Prescription Pharmacy Greenslopes Shopping Mall 720 Logan Rd GREENSLOPES QLD 4120 GRIFFITH Guluguba Gums General Store Leichhardt Highway GULUGUBA QLD 4418 MARANOA Half Tide Rural Transaction Centre Coalport Newsagency 4 Valroy Street HALF TIDE BEACH QLD 4740 DAWSON Halifax Newsagency 16 Macrossan Street HALIFAX QLD 4850 KENNEDY Harrisville Licensed Post Office 26 Queen Street HARRISVILLE QLD 4307 BLAIR Helensvale Plaza Pharmacy Shop 3, Helensvale Plaza 12 Sir John Overall Drive HELENSVALE QLD 4212 FADDEN Herberton QGAP 56 Grace Street HERBERTON QLD 4872 KENNEDY Home Hill Post Office 58 Eight Avenue HOME HILL QLD 4806 DAWSON Community Centre Howard 56 Steley Street HOWARD QLD 4659 WIDE BAY Imbil Dispensary 118 Yabba Road IMBIL QLD 4570 WIDE BAY Inglewood Pharmacy 65 Albert Street INGLEWOOD QLD 4387 MARANOA Injune QGAP Hutton Street INJUNE QLD 4454 MARANOA Jandowae Pharmacy 36 High Street JANDOWAE QLD 4410 MARANOA Jericho Rural Transaction Centre Lot 319-320 Pasteur Street JERICHO QLD 4702 MARANOA Jimboomba Pharmacy Shop 39, Jimboomba Shopping Centre Mount Lindsay Highway JIMBOOMBA QLD 4280 FORDE Jondaryan Licensed Post Office 16 Duke Street JONDARYAN QLD 4403 GROOM Julia Creek QGAP Court House 14 Burke Street JULIA CREEK QLD 4823 KENNEDY Kalbar Rural Transaction Centre Electricity Credit Union 78 George Street KALBAR QLD 4309 FORDE Keppel Sands Licensed Post Office 14 Roden Street KEPPEL SANDS QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Kilcoy Newsagency 55 Mary Street KILCOY QLD 4515 BLAIR Killarney Pharmacy Warwick Credit Union Building 23 Willow Street KILLARNEY QLD 4373 MARANOA Chris Boyle’s Payless Chemists Shop 8 Willows Shoppingtown KIRWAN QLD 4817 HERBERT Bamford Lane Amcal 2/375 Charles Street KIRWAN QLD 4817 HERBERT Koumala Store 19 Brown Street KOUMALA QLD 4738 DAWSON Kuranda Pharmacy Shop 1, Kuranda Village Shopping Centre 5 Coondoo Street KURANDA QLD 4872 LEICHHARDT Laidley QGAP Shire Council Spicer Street LAIDLEY QLD 4341 BLAIR Landsborough Amcal Chemist Maleny Road LANDSBOROUGH QLD 4550 LONGMAN Leyburn Post Office 3 Dove Street LEYBURN QLD 4365 MARANOA Guardian Longreach Pharmacy 109 Eagle Street LONGREACH QLD 4730 MARANOA Speir’s Pharmacy 112b Eagle Street LONGREACH QLD 4730 MARANOA Lowood Pharmacy 6 Michel Street LOWOOD QLD 4311 BLAIR Bay Islands Community Services Inc Community Centre Southside Terrace MACLEAY ISLAND QLD 4184 BOWMAN Malanda QGAP 21 James Street MALANDA QLD 4885 KENNEDY Hinterland Business Centre 38a Coral Street MALENY QLD 4552 FISHER Raintrees Soul Pattinson Chemist Shop 30B & 31 Raintrees Shopping Centre 1 Koch Street MANUNDA QLD 4870 LEICHHARDT Amantes Pharmacy 171 Byrnes Street MAREEBA QLD 4880 KENNEDY Battiatos Amcal Chemist 139 Byrnes Street MAREEBA QLD 4880 KENNEDY Mareeba Soul Pattinson Chemist 241 Byrnes Street MAREEBA QLD 4880 KENNEDY Meandarra Post Office 14 Sara Street MEANDARRA QLD 4422 MARANOA Middlemount QGAP Broadsound Shire Council Middlemount Shopping Centre MIDDLEMOUNT QLD 4746 CAPRICORNIA Miles Pharmacy 63 Murilla Street MILES QLD 4415 MARANOA Millmerran Pharmacist Advice 43 Campbell Street MILLMERRAN QLD 4357 MARANOA Mirani QGAP 20 Victoria Street MIRANI QLD 4754 DAWSON Miriam Vale Post Office 25 Blomfield Street MIRIAM VALE QLD 4677 HINKLER Mitchell QGAP Corner Mary & Dublin Streets MITCHELL QLD 4465 MARANOA Monterey Keys Pharmacy Shop 5, Monterey Keys Village Shopping Centre Corner Monterey Keys & Helensvale Road MONTEREY KEYS QLD 4212 FADDEN Monto Pharmacy 44 Newton Street MONTO QLD 4630 HINKLER Moranbah Pharmacy Civic Square Griffin Street MORANBAH QLD 4744 CAPRICORNIA Morven Rural Transaction Centre Post Office Albert St MORVEN QLD 4468 MARANOA Mt Demi Pharmacy 51 Front Street MOSSMAN QLD 4873 LEICHHARDT Anich’s Mossman Pharmacy Shop 3, 8 Front Street MOSSMAN QLD 4873 LEICHHARDT Mount Garnet QGAP Garnet Street MOUNT GARNET QLD 4872 KENNEDY Mt Larcom RTC 47 Raglan Street MOUNT LARCOM QLD 4695 HINKLER Mount Morgan QGAP 38 Morgan Street MOUNT MORGAN QLD 4714 HINKLER Mount Perry General Store Heusman Street MOUNT PERRY QLD 4671 HINKLER Moura Pharmacy Marshall Street MOURA QLD 4718 CAPRICORNIA Mudgeeraba Soul Pattinson Chemist Shops 16-19, Mudgeeraba Market Swan Lane MUDGEERABA QLD 4213 MCPHERSON Mundubbera Pharmacy 24 Lyons Street MUNDUBBERA QLD 4626 HINKLER Murgon Soul Pattinson Chemist 89 Lamb Street MURGON QLD 4605 WIDE BAY Nanango Pharmacy 86 Drayton Street NANANGO QLD 4615 BLAIR Narangba Pharmacy 30 Main Street NARANGBA QLD 4504 LONGMAN Hinterland Medical Centre Chemist 1/5 Price Street NERANG QLD 4211 FADDEN Nerang Amcal Chemist Shop 15, Centro Nerang Station St NERANG QLD 4211 MONCRIEFF Nerang Fair Soul Pattinson Chemist Shop 8, Nerang Fair Nerang - Beaudesert Road NERANG QLD 4211 MONCRIEFF Ningi Pharmacy 1224 Bribie Island Road NINGI QLD 4511 LONGMAN Terry White Chemists Shop 20, Noosa Junction Plaza Sunshine Beach Road NOOSA HEADS QLD 4567 FAIRFAX Mount Tamborine Pharmacy 18 Main Western Road North Tamborine NORTH TAMBORINE QLD 4272 FORDE Oakey Pharmacy 108 Campbell Street OAKEY QLD 4401 GROOM Ormeau Day & Night Pharmacy Shop 2, Ormeau Centre 3 Vaughan Drive ORMEAU QLD 4208 FORDE Pascoe Road Prescription Centre Chemist Ormeau Central Shop 7 Pascoe Rd ORMEAU QLD 4208 FORDE Hamptons Pharmacy 7/5 Michigan Drive OXENFORD QLD 4210 FADDEN Pacific Paradise Pharmacy Shop 5, North Shore Plaza 722-724 David Low Way PACIFIC PARADISE QLD 4564 FAIRFAX Peachester Store 24 Coochin Street PEACHESTER QLD 4519 LONGMAN Peak Crossing Community Postal Agency Shop 2A, 21 Fassifern Street PEAK CROSSING QLD 4306 BLAIR Cains Pharmacy 63 Yandilla Street PITTSWORTH QLD 4356 GROOM Pomona Pharmacy 8 Memorial Avenue POMONA QLD 4568 FAIRFAX Port Douglas Community Services Network Inc 6-10 Mowbary Street PORT DOUGLAS QLD 4871 LEICHHARDT Proserpine Pharmacy 39 Main Street PROSERPINE QLD 4800 DAWSON Proston Health & Beauty 23 Blake Street PROSTON QLD 4613 WIDE BAY Upper Ross Pharmacy Shop 4, 1199 Ross River Road RASMUSSEN QLD 4815 HERBERT Rathdowney Post Office 3 Running Creek Road RATHDOWNEY QLD 4287 FORDE Ravenshoe QGAP 27 Grigg Street RAVENSHOE QLD 4888 KENNEDY Richmond QGAP Court House Goldring Street RICHMOND QLD 4822 KENNEDY Terry White Chemists Robina Shop MH 4.13 Market Hall Robina Town Centre ROBINA TOWN CENTRE QLD 4230 MCPHERSON Chemworld Chemist Robina Arbour Lane Opposite Target 58 Robina Town Centre ROBINA TOWN CENTRE QLD 4230 MCPHERSON Rolleston Rural Transaction Centre Cnr Warrijo Street and Planet Street ROLLESTON QLD 4702 MARANOA Rural Transaction Centre Rollingstone and District Community Association Inc Lot 1 off Mystic Ave ROLLINGSTONE QLD 4816 KENNEDY Barry McCabe Chemist 84 McDowall Street ROMA QLD 4455 MARANOA Westlands Plaza Sunshine Pharmacy Shop 8, Westlands Plaza Wyndham Street ROMA QLD 4455 MARANOA Samford Pharmacy Shop 3, Corner Main & Station Streets SAMFORD QLD 4520 DICKSON Craig Lawless Guardian Pharmacy Shop 17 Sarina Beach Road SARINA QLD 4737 DAWSON Centre Pharmacy Sarina Shop 1, 15 Central Street SARINA QLD 4737 DAWSON Silkwood Rural Transaction Centre 78 Victoria Street SILKWOOD QLD 4856 KENNEDY Springsure Pharmacy Lot 1, Eclipse Street SPRINGSURE QLD 4722 MARANOA Springwood Pharmacy Shop 22, Arndale Shopping Centre 17 Cinderella Dr SPRINGWOOD QLD 4127 RANKIN St George Pharmacy Cnr Victoria & Henry Street ST GEORGE QLD 4487 MARANOA Stanthorpe QGAP Court House 51 Marsh Street STANTHORPE QLD 4380 MARANOA Stanwell Convenience Store 5 Main Street STANWELL QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Studio Village Pharmacy Studio Village Shopping Centre Corner Studio Drive & Monroe Court STUDIO VILLAGE QLD 4210 FADDEN Surat Rural Transaction Centre 70 Burrows Street SURAT QLD 4417 MARANOA Tara QGAP 19 Fry Street TARA QLD 4421 MARANOA Taroom Pharmacy Yaldwyn Street TAROOM QLD 4420 MARANOA Tewantin Guardian Pharmacy 112 Poinciana Avenue TEWANTIN QLD 4565 FAIRFAX Macreadie’s Tewantin Amcal Day & Night Pharmacy 3/99 Poinciana Ave TEWANTIN QLD 4565 FAIRFAX Texas Pharmacy 28 High Street TEXAS QLD 4385 MARANOA Theodore District Health Council The Boulevard THEODORE QLD 4719 CAPRICORNIA Sterns Pharmacy Tieri Shopping Centre Talagai Street TIERI QLD 4709 MARANOA Cooloola Pharmacy 7 Dolphin Avenue TIN CAN BAY QLD 4580 WIDE BAY Toogoolawah Pharmacy 89 Cressbrook Street TOOGOOLAWAH QLD 4313 BLAIR Tully Day & Night Pharmacy 8 Butler Street TULLY QLD 4854 KENNEDY Tully Raycare Family Pharmacy 34 Butler Street TULLY QLD 4854 KENNEDY Fullife Victoria Point Shopping Centre Pharmacy MM4, Victoria Point Shopping Centre Cnr Cleveland and Redland Bay Rd VICTORIA POINT QLD 4165 BOWMAN Victoria Point Pharmacy 149 Colburn Ave VICTORIA POINT QLD 4165 BOWMAN Healthpoint Walkerston 1/6 Dutton Street WALKERSTON QLD 4751 DAWSON Wallumbilla Post Office Chadford Road WALLUMBILLA QLD 4428 MARANOA Wandoan Pharmacy 34 Royds Street WANDOAN QLD 4419 MARANOA Weipa QGAP Court House Central Avenue WEIPA QLD 4874 LEICHHARDT Winton Pharmacy 73a Elderslie Street WINTON QLD 4735 MARANOA Wondai Pharmacy 64 Mackenzie Street WONDAI QLD 4606 WIDE BAY Mission Beach Pharmacy Shop 1, Mission Beach Resort Shopping Centre WONGALING BEACH QLD 4852 KENNEDY Woodford Pharmacy 93 Archer Street WOODFORD QLD 4514 LONGMAN Taylor Centre Pharmacy 40 Annerley Rd WOOLLOONGABBA QLD 4102 GRIFFITH Worongary Soul Pattinson Chemist Shop 3, Worongary Village 1 Mudgeeraba Road WORONGARY QLD 4213 MONCRIEFF Wowan Licenced Post Office 9 Pheasant Creek Road WOWAN QLD 4702 CAPRICORNIA Wynnum Central Pharmacy 97 Edith Street WYNNUM QLD 4178 BONNER Ferlazzo’s Bluewater Pharmacy Shop 2, 2 Purono Parkway YABULU QLD 4818 KENNEDY Yarwun-Targinnie Fruitgrowers Co-operative Assn. Ltd. 40 Butler Street YARWUN QLD 4694 HINKLER Yelarbon Post Office Taloom Street YELARBON QLD 4388 MARANOA Yeppoon Chemmart Pharmacy 4 James Street YEPPOON QLD 4703 CAPRICORNIA Keppel Plaza Amcal Pharmacy Shops 31, Keppel Bay Plaza James Street YEPPOON QLD 4703 CAPRICORNIA Hill Street Pharmacy 27 Hill Street YEPPOON QLD 4703 CAPRICORNIA Yungaburra Licensed Post Office 17 Cedar Street YUNGABURRA QLD 4872 KENNEDY Neil Kildare Pharmacy Shop 12A Aldinga Central Shopping Centre ALDINGA BEACH SA 5173 KINGSTON Becker’s IGA 9 Main North Road AUBURN SA 5451 WAKEFIELD Avenue Range General Store Railway Terrace AVENUE RANGE SA 5273 BARKER Balaklava Chemplus Pharmacy 1 Wallace Street BALAKLAVA SA 5461 WAKEFIELD Balhannah Junction Pharmacy Shop 3/88 Balhannah Junction Shopping Centre Main Road BALHANNAH SA 5242 MAYO Barmera Pharmacy 20 Barwell Avenue BARMERA SA 5345 BARKER Beachport Rural Transaction Centre Beachport Post Office 2 Foster Street BEACHPORT SA 5280 BARKER John Spick’s Pharmacy 376 Shepherds Hill Road BLACKWOOD SA 5051 BOOTHBY Blanchetown RTC 2-3 Shaw Street BLANCHETOWN SA 5357 BARKER Page’s Deli Harley Street BLYTH SA 5462 GREY Booborowie IGA Friendly Grocer 25 Sixth Street BOOBOROWIE SA 5417 GREY Fast n Fresh Booleroo Centre Stephens Street BOOLEROO CENTRE SA 5482 GREY Bordertown Pharmacy 100 De Courcey Street BORDERTOWN SA 5268 BARKER Bridgewater Pharmacy Shop 1, Bridgewater Village Cnr Carey Gully & Mt Barker Road BRIDGEWATER SA 5155 MAYO Bute IGA Friendly Grocer 9 High Street BUTE SA 5560 GREY Ceduna Pharmacy 33 Poynton Street CEDUNA SA 5690 GREY Clare Chemplus Pharmacy 1/260 Main North Road CLARE SA 5453 WAKEFIELD Cleve Pharmacy 23 Main Street CLEVE SA 5640 GREY Coober Pedy Hospital & Health Services Inc McDougal Street COOBER PEDY SA 5723 GREY Coonalpyn IGA Friendly 33 Poyntz Terrace COONALPYN SA 5265 BARKER Cowell Deli 18 Main Street COWELL SA 5602 GREY Ramsey Pharmacy Bowman Street CRYSTAL BROOK SA 5523 GREY Peter Arbery’s Cummins Chemist 56 Bruce Terace CUMMINS SA 5631 GREY Elliston Community Information Centre 6 Memorial Drive ELLISTON SA 5670 GREY Frances General Store 1 Second Street FRANCES SA 5262 BARKER Gladstone IGA Friendly Grocer 46 Gladstone Street GLADSTONE SA 5473 GREY Glencoe General Store Main Road GLENCOE SA 5291 BARKER Stevens Pharmacy 95 Jetty Road GLENELG SA 5045 HINDMARSH Goolwa Chemmart Extra Shop 9-11 Hutchinson Street GOOLWA SA 5214 MAYO Jamestown Pharmacy 53 Ayr Street JAMESTOWN SA 5491 GREY Newberry Chemists 24 Graves Street KADINA SA 5554 GREY Kalangadoo Rural Transaction Centre Kalangadoo Post Office 6 Railway Terrace KALANGADOO SA 5278 BARKER Kapunda Chem Plus 41 Main Street KAPUNDA SA 5373 WAKEFIELD Mallee Financial and Information Service 11 Railway Terrace KAROONDA SA 5307 BARKER Keith Pharmacy 26 Hender Street KEITH SA 5267 BARKER Carrig Chemists Shop 79-80 Centro Armdale Torrens Rd KILKENNY SA 5009 PORT ADELAIDE Kimba Learning and Business Centre 49 High Street KIMBA SA 5641 GREY Kingscote Public Library 43 Dauncey Street KINGSCOTE SA 5223 MAYO Kingston Pharmacy 17 Agnes Street KINGSTON SE SA 5275 BARKER Kongorong 1 Stop 1 Aslins Road KONGORONG SA 5291 BARKER Country Electrical and Newsagency 31-35 Herbert Street LAURA SA 5480 GREY Wardell Pty Ltd Town Centre LEIGH CREEK SA 5731 GREY Lucindale RTC Lucindale Post Office and Newsagency Musgrave Ave LUCINDALE SA 5272 BARKER Manoora Takeaway Food Barrier Highway MANOORA SA 5414 WAKEFIELD Milang Licensed Post Office 18 Luard Street MILANG SA 5256 MAYO Newbery Chemists 8 George Street MOONTA SA 5558 GREY Morgan IGA Friendly Grocer and Hardware 5 First Street MORGAN SA 5320 BARKER Mount Pleasant Post Office 57 Melrose Street MOUNT PLEASANT SA 5235 BARKER Mundulla General Store 3 Kennedy Street MUNDULLA SA 5270 BARKER Southside Village Chem-plus 159 Swanport Road MURRAY BRIDGE SA 5253 BARKER Nairne Pharmacy 64 Main Street NAIRNE SA 5252 MAYO Warwick Greves Chemmart 110 Smith Street NARACOORTE SA 5271 BARKER Naracoorte Pharmacy 100 Smith Street NARACOORTE SA 5271 BARKER Nildottie I and G Brown Pty Ltd 1 Main Road NILDOTTIE SA 5238 BARKER John Jelfs Chemist 85 Main Street NORMANVILLE SA 5204 MAYO Chemplus Northgate Northgate Village Shopping Centre Shop 5A Corner Folland Ave and Fosters Road NORTHGATE SA 5085 ADELAIDE Orroroo Newsagency 16 Second Street ORROROO SA 5431 GREY Owen Post Office Cnr Main Street and Railway Terrace OWEN SA 5460 WAKEFIELD Padthaway Deli 20 Memorial Drive PADTHAWAY SA 5271 BARKER Penneshaw Rural Transaction Centre 99 Middle Terrace PENNESHAW SA 5222 MAYO M G Williams Pharmacy 38 Church Street PENOLA SA 5277 BARKER Peterborough Pharmacy P/L 211 Main St PETERBOROUGH SA 5422 GREY Southern Mallee District Council Lot 17, Day St PINNAROO SA 5304 BARKER Port Broughton Rural Transaction Centre 11 Bay Street PORT BROUGHTON SA 5522 GREY Port Clinton General Store 21 Cumberland Road PORT CLINTON SA 5570 GREY Port MacDonnell Rural Transaction Centre 5 Charles Street PORT MACDONNELL SA 5291 BARKER Port Wakefield Post Office 32 Edward Street PORT WAKEFIELD SA 5550 WAKEFIELD Quorn Newsagency 5 Sixth Street QUORN SA 5433 GREY Renmark Paringa Community Centre 86 Nineteenth Street RENMARK SA 5341 BARKER Riverton Pharmacy 26 Torrens Road RIVERTON SA 5412 WAKEFIELD Robe Pharmacy 14 Victoria Street ROBE SA 5276 BARKER Saddleworth IGA 18 Belvidere Street SADDLEWORTH SA 5413 WAKEFIELD Northwest Pharmacy 1 Park Tce SALISBURY SA 5108 WAKEFIELD Salisbury Chemplus Shop 8, Parabanks Shopping Centre John Street SALISBURY SA 5108 WAKEFIELD Potger Pharmacy 18 John Street SALISBURY SA 5108 WAKEFIELD Sedan Collectables & Secondhand 9 Swan Reach Road SEDAN SA 5353 BARKER Snowtown IGA Everyday 36 Railway Terrace SNOWTOWN SA 5520 GREY Spalding Post Office 39 Government Road SPALDING SA 5454 GREY Springton General Store 105 Miller Street SPRINGTON SA 5235 MAYO The Green Dispensary 10/28 Mount Barker Road STIRLING SA 5152 MAYO The Strathalbyn Pharmacies 21 High Street STRATHALBYN SA 5255 MAYO The Strathalbyn Pharmacies 10 Dawson Street STRATHALBYN SA 5255 MAYO Streaky Bay Information Centre 21 Bay Road STREAKY BAY SA 5680 GREY Tailem Bend Licensed Post Office 109 Railway Terrace TAILEM BEND SA 5260 BARKER Tantanoola Rural Transaction Centre Tantanoola Post Office 3 Lane Street TANTANOOLA SA 5280 BARKER Tarpeena Rural Transaction Centre 15 Morphett Terrace TARPEENA SA 5277 BARKER Tintinara IGA 47 Becker Terrace TINTINARA SA 5266 BARKER Tumby Bay Post Office 4 North Terrace TUMBY BAY SA 5605 GREY Two Wells Chemplus 86 Old Port Wakefield Road TWO WELLS SA 5501 WAKEFIELD Harbor Pharmacy 60 Victoria Street VICTOR HARBOR SA 5211 MAYO Watervale General Store & Post Office Lot 132 Main North Road WATERVALE SA 5452 WAKEFIELD Willunga Pharmacy 9 High Street WILLUNGA SA 5172 MAYO AMPOL Garage,Hardware,Garden & Auto Supplies 48 Main North Road WILMINGTON SA 5485 GREY Wirrabara IGA Friendly Grocer 33 High Street WIRRABARA SA 5481 GREY Woodside Community Pharmacy 48 Main Street WOODSIDE SA 5244 MAYO Wudinna and Districts Telecentre Inc (Rural Transaction Centre) 44 Eyre Highway WUDINNA SA 5652 GREY Yorketown Pharmacy 36 Warooka Road YORKETOWN SA 5576 GREY Bruny Island Service Centre Main Road ALONNAH TAS 7150 FRANKLIN BP Bagdad Service Station 1853 Midlands Highway BAGDAD TAS 7030 LYONS Beaconsfield Service Tasmania West Tamar Council Chambers West Street BEACONSFIELD TAS 7270 LYONS Bicheno & Districts Health & Resource Centre 94 Foster Street BICHENO TAS 7215 LYONS Boat Harbour Enterprises 17382 Bass Hwy BOAT HARBOUR TAS 7321 BRADDON Elders Webster Limited Corner Patrick and Queen Streets BOTHWELL TAS 7030 LYONS Bracknell Roadhouse 23 Elizabeth Street BRACKNELL TAS 7302 LYONS Bridport Friendly Supermarket 83 Main Street BRIDPORT TAS 7262 BASS Bushy Park Roadhouse 525 Gordon River Road BUSHY PARK TAS 7140 LYONS Southern Belle Post and Craft 27 Climie Street CAMPANIA TAS 7026 LYONS Campbell Town Service Tasmania Council Chambers High Street CAMPBELL TOWN TAS 7210 LYONS Iluka Supermarket The Esplanade COLES BAY TAS 7215 LYONS Cressy Newsagency 89 Main Street CRESSY TAS 7302 LYONS Currie Service Tasmania 15 George Street CURRIE TAS 7256 BRADDON Deloraine Service Tasmania Council Chambers 8 Emu Bay Road DELORAINE TAS 7304 LYONS Derby Community Centre Main Road DERBY TAS 7264 BASS Dodges Ferry Post Office and Newsagency 60 Carlton Beach Road DODGES FERRY TAS 7173 LYONS Far South Community Association Inc. Dover’s Old Schoolhouse Main Road DOVER TAS 7117 FRANKLIN Exeter Pharmacy 51 Main Road EXETER TAS 7275 LYONS Holder Brothers General Store 31-33 Talbot Street FINGAL TAS 7214 LYONS Forest General Store Road Access: 526 Mengha Road FOREST TAS 7330 BRADDON Geeveston Pharmacy 19 Church Street GEEVESTON TAS 7116 FRANKLIN Mike Moss Georgetown Pharmacy 91 Macquarie Street GEORGE TOWN TAS 7253 BASS Your Pharmacy 76 Macquarie Street GEORGE TOWN TAS 7253 BASS Huonville Chemmart Pharmacy 59 Main Road HUONVILLE TAS 7109 FRANKLIN Irishtown Store & Newsagency Main Road IRISHTOWN TAS 7330 BRADDON Southern Midlands Council Council Chambers 85 Main Road KEMPTON TAS 7030 LYONS Latrobe Online Access Centre Latrobe Library Gilbert Street LATROBE TAS 7307 BRADDON Lauderdale Pharmacy Lauderdale Shopping Centre 476 South Arm Road LAUDERDALE TAS 7021 FRANKLIN Bardenhagen’s Supermarket Main Road LILYDALE TAS 7268 BASS Longford Pharmacy 19 Marlborough Street LONGFORD TAS 7301 LYONS Armstrongs Pharmacy 65 Wellington Street LONGFORD TAS 7301 LYONS Maydena General Store & Post Office Corner Kalarsta & Junee Road MAYDENA TAS 7140 LYONS Chemists Own New Norfolk 6 High Street NEW NORFOLK TAS 7140 LYONS Healthsense Derwent Valley Pharmacy 53 High Street NEW NORFOLK TAS 7140 LYONS Tasman MPS 1614 Nubeena Road NUBEENA TAS 7184 LYONS Service Tasmania Shop 71 High Street OATLANDS TAS 7120 LYONS Orford Island Foodmart 37 Aubin Court ORFORD TAS 7190 LYONS Ouse District Hospital 6896 Lyell Highway OUSE TAS 7140 LYONS Penguin Pharmacy 105 Main Street PENGUIN TAS 7316 BRADDON Primrose Sands Store 129 Primrose Sands Road PRIMROSE SANDS TAS 7173 LYONS Queenstown Service Tasmania 2 Sticht Street QUEENSTOWN TAS 7467 LYONS Redpa General Store Bass Highway REDPA TAS 7330 BRADDON Richmond Pharmacy 37 Bridge Street RICHMOND TAS 7025 LYONS General Store and Newsagency 27 Main Street RINGAROOMA TAS 7263 BASS Rosebery Community Council 12 Agnes Street ROSEBERY TAS 7470 LYONS Scamander Rural Transaction Centre 172 Scamander Avenue SCAMANDER TAS 7215 LYONS Scottsdale Service Tasmania Dorset Council Chambers 3 Ellenor Street SCOTTSDALE TAS 7260 BASS Sheffield Service Tasmania 64 High Street SHEFFIELD TAS 7306 LYONS Wraggs Pharmacy 142 Nelson Street SMITHTON TAS 7330 BRADDON Fabulous Snug Pty Ltd 2215 Channel Highway SNUG TAS 7054 FRANKLIN Sorell Amcal Pharmacy 2 Gordon Street SORELL TAS 7172 LYONS Sorell Chemmart 31 Gordon Street SORELL TAS 7172 LYONS Southport Settlement 8777 Huon Highway SOUTHPORT TAS 7109 FRANKLIN St Helens Service Tasmania 23 Quail Street ST HELENS TAS 7216 LYONS St Mary’s Rural Transaction Centre and Post Office 36 Main Street ST MARYS TAS 7215 LYONS Stanley Newsagency 17 Church Street STANLEY TAS 7331 BRADDON Strahan Supermarket Newsagency 1 Reid Street STRAHAN TAS 7468 LYONS Swansea Pharmacy 28 Franklin Street SWANSEA TAS 7190 LYONS Spring Bay Pharmacy 20 Vicary Street TRIABUNNA TAS 7190 LYONS Ulverstone Service Tasmania 54-56 King Edward Street ULVERSTONE TAS 7315 BRADDON Waratah Council Office & Postal Agency RTC Smith St WARATAH TAS 7321 BRADDON Westbury Pharmacy 82 Bass Highway WESTBURY TAS 7303 LYONS Whitemark Service Tasmania DPIWE, Main Road WHITEMARK TAS 7255 BASS Dixons Pharmacy 112 Goldie Street WYNYARD TAS 7325 BRADDON Yolla General Store 1586 Murchison Highway YOLLA TAS 7325 BRADDON Zeehan Medical Centre 89 Main Street ZEEHAN TAS 7469 LYONS Alexandra Community Pharmacy 101 Grant Street ALEXANDRA VIC 3714 MCEWEN Anglesea Pharmacy 93 Great Ocean Road ANGLESEA VIC 3230 CORANGAMITE Apollo Bay Pharmacy 121 Great Ocean Road APOLLO BAY VIC 3233 CORANGAMITE Apsley Café Wallace Street APSLEY VIC 3319 MALLEE Avenel Newsagency 2 Longwood Road AVENEL VIC 3664 MCEWEN Avoca Community Enterprise Centre The Mill 122 High Street AVOCA VIC 3467 WANNON Adam Remboulis Pharmacy Shop 5, Darley Plaza Gisborne Road BACCHUS MARSH VIC 3340 BALLARAT Bacchus Marsh UFS Dispensary 25 Grant Street BACCHUS MARSH VIC 3340 BALLARAT Harrison’s Health and Beauty Pharmacy Shop 66, Bacchus Marsh Village Shoppng Cntr 160 -198 Main St BACCHUS MARSH VIC 3340 BALLARAT Balnarring Village Pharmacy Shop 3, 3000 Frankston-Flinders Road BALNARRING VIC 3926 FLINDERS Bannockburn Pharmacy 6 High Street BANNOCKBURN VIC 3331 CORANGAMITE Upper Beaconsfield Pharmacy 53 Emerald Road BEACONSFIELD UPPER VIC 3808 LA TROBE Beaufort Community Resource Centre 72 Neill Street BEAUFORT VIC 3373 WANNON Beeac Rural Transaction Centre 65 Main Street BEEAC VIC 3251 CORANGAMITE Beechworth Pharmacy 82 Ford Street BEECHWORTH VIC 3747 INDI Bellbridge Lakeview Milkbar 7 Murray Place BELLBRIDGE VIC 3691 INDI Jenny Milner Pharmacy 54 Carrier Street BENALLA VIC 3672 INDI Ashtons Pharmacy 83 Bridge Street BENALLA VIC 3672 INDI Bridgland’s Pharmacy 55 Bridge Street BENALLA VIC 3672 INDI Messenger’s Pharmacy 27-29 Bridge Street BENALLA VIC 3672 INDI Berwick Pharmacy 51 High Street BERWICK VIC 3806 LA TROBE Berwick Guardian Pharmacy Shop 1, Berwick Market Place Wilson Street BERWICK VIC 3806 LA TROBE Beulah Primary Care & Community Centre 2 Bell Street BEULAH VIC 3395 MALLEE Birchip Community Pharmacy 49-51 Cumming Avenue BIRCHIP VIC 3483 MALLEE Birregurra Rural Transaction Centre 65 Main Street BIRREGURRA VIC 3242 CORANGAMITE Tatts General Store 18 Main Street BOISDALE VIC 3860 GIPPSLAND Boolarra Post Office 7 Tarwin Street BOOLARRA VIC 3870 GIPPSLAND Boort Community Pharmacy 114 Godfrey Street BOORT VIC 3537 MURRAY Williams & Goldby Pharmacy Shop 49, Boronia Mall Shopping Centre 25 Dorset Square BORONIA VIC 3155 ASTON Boronia Pharmacy 104 Boronia Road BORONIA VIC 3155 ASTON Boyall’s Pharmacy 202 Dorset Road BORONIA VIC 3155 ASTON Boronia Village Pharmacy 157 Boronia Road BORONIA VIC 3155 ASTON Boronia Junction Amcal Pharmacy Shop 9, 123 Boronia Road BORONIA VIC 3155 ASTON Murray River Caravan Park Murray Valley Highway BOUNDARY BEND VIC 3599 MALLEE Briagolong Post Office & General Store 6 Avon Street BRIAGOLONG VIC 3860 GIPPSLAND Mitchell Community Health Services Inc. 72 Ferguson Street BROADFORD VIC 3658 MCEWEN Bunyip Pharmacy 19 High Street BUNYIP VIC 3815 MCMILLAN Murray Fry Amcal Pharmacy 135 Manifold Street CAMPERDOWN VIC 3260 WANNON Pepin’s Pharmacy 2 -6 Caroline Springs Blv CAROLINE SPRINGS VIC 3023 GORTON Casterton Pharmacy 93 Henty Street CASTERTON VIC 3311 WANNON Thomas & Chong Pharmacy 31 Mostyn Street CASTLEMAINE VIC 3450 BENDIGO Ian McKenzie Pharmacy 195 Barker Street CASTLEMAINE VIC 3450 BENDIGO The Charlton Pharmacy 23-25 High Street CHARLTON VIC 3525 MALLEE Chiltern Newsagency 56 Conners Street CHILTERN VIC 3683 INDI Clunes Pharmacy 54 Fraser Street CLUNES VIC 3370 BALLARAT Cobden Pharmacy 43 Curdie Street COBDEN VIC 3266 WANNON Tozer Pharmacy 69-71 Punt Road COBRAM VIC 3643 MURRAY Paul Ukich Pharmacy 28 Punt Road COBRAM VIC 3643 MURRAY Cohuna Amcal Pharmacy 63 -67 King George Street. COHUNA VIC 3568 MALLEE Reeds Pharmacy 81 Whyte Street COLERAINE VIC 3315 WANNON Coronet Bay General Store 100 Cutty Sark Road CORONET BAY VIC 3984 FLINDERS Corryong Pharmacy 55 Hanson Street CORRYONG VIC 3707 INDI Cowes Pharmacy 24 Thompson Avenue COWES VIC 3922 FLINDERS Cranbourne Park Pharmore Pharmacy Shop T84, Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre CRANBOURNE VIC 3977 HOLT Creswick Pharmacy 56 Albert Street CRESWICK VIC 3363 BALLARAT D G Grey & Burns 161 Main Street CROYDON VIC 3136 CASEY Croydon Health Care Pharmacy 138 Main Street CROYDON VIC 3136 CASEY Croydon Amcal Pharmacy 94-98 Main Street CROYDON VIC 3136 CASEY Croydon Market Pharmacy Shop 20, Croydon Market Centre 5-15 Kent Avenue CROYDON VIC 3136 CASEY Dartmoor General Store 81 Greenham Street DARTMOOR VIC 3304 WANNON Daylesford Pharmacy 39 Vincent Street DAYLESFORD VIC 3460 BALLARAT Brimbank Amcal Pharmacy Shop T51, Brimbank Central Shopping Centre DEER PARK VIC 3023 GORTON Wimmera Health Care Group Alister Hinchley Centre Lloyd Street DIMBOOLA VIC 3414 MALLEE Donald Pharmacy 62 Woods Street DONALD VIC 3480 MALLEE Drysdale Pharmacy 1/19 Clifton Springs Road DRYSDALE VIC 3222 CORIO Chris Walsh’s Pharmacy Shop 5, 3 Wyndham Street DRYSDALE VIC 3222 CORIO Dunolly Rural Transaction Centre 109 Broadway Street DUNOLLY VIC 3472 BENDIGO Edenhope Pharmacy 69 Elizabeth Street EDENHOPE VIC 3318 MALLEE Eildon Medicine Depot 5 Main Street EILDON VIC 3713 MCEWEN Elmore Pharmacy Depot 74 Railway Place ELMORE VIC 3558 BENDIGO Emerald Village Pharmacy 8 Kilvington Drive EMERALD VIC 3782 LA TROBE The Euroa Pharmacy 26 Binney Street EUROA VIC 3666 INDI Falls Creek Resort Management Cnr of Slalom Street & Bogong High Plains Road FALLS CREEK VIC 3699 INDI Fish Creek Supermarket & Newsagency 25 Falls Road FISH CREEK VIC 3959 MCMILLAN Flinders Licensed Post Office 51 Cook Street FLINDERS VIC 3929 FLINDERS Foster Pharmacy 2 Station Road FOSTER VIC 3960 MCMILLAN Girgarre Newsagency 6 Morgan Crescent GIRGARRE VIC 3624 MURRAY Raju’s Pharmacy Shop 12 Gisborne Village, Brantome Street GISBORNE VIC 3437 MCEWEN Gisborne Pharmacy Shops 1 & 2, 25 Hamilton Street GISBORNE VIC 3437 MCEWEN Goornong General Store 40 Railway Place GOORNONG VIC 3557 BENDIGO Mitchell’s Newsagency 18-20 Main Street GOROKE VIC 3412 MALLEE Grantville Customer Service Centre 1504 - 1510 Bass Highway GRANTVILLE VIC 3984 FLINDERS Great Western General Store 93 Main Street GREAT WESTERN VIC 3377 WANNON Gunbower General Store 23 Main Street GUNBOWER VIC 3566 MURRAY Harrietville General Store 291 Great Alpine Road HARRIETVILLE VIC 3741 INDI Bayne and Friend Pharmacy 47 High Street HASTINGS VIC 3915 FLINDERS Hastings Amcal Pharmacy 40 High Street HASTINGS VIC 3915 FLINDERS Health Sense Pharmacy Shop 3, Healesville Walk Shopping Centre HEALESVILLE VIC 3777 MCEWEN Healesville Pharmacy 215 Maroondah Highway HEALESVILLE VIC 3777 MCEWEN Warringal Shopping Centre -My Chemist Shop 28 Warringal Village Shopping Centre 56 Burgundy Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 JAGAJAGA Peter Rush Pharmacy Shop 10, 101-111 Burgundy Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 JAGAJAGA Grace Pharmacy 110 Burgundy Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 JAGAJAGA Yu Pharmacy 47 Burgundy Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 JAGAJAGA Heidelberg Central Pharmacy 119 Burgundy Street HEIDELBERG VIC 3084 JAGAJAGA Heyfield Pharmacy 16 George Street HEYFIELD VIC 3858 GIPPSLAND Togram Enterprises 28 Edgar Street HEYWOOD VIC 3304 WANNON Mallee Pharmacy 18 Austin St HOPETOUN VIC 3396 MALLEE Hurstbridge Pharmacy 7/912 Main Road HURSTBRIDGE VIC 3099 MCEWEN Inglewood Pharmacy 54 Brooke Street INGLEWOOD VIC 3517 MURRAY Inverloch Chemmart Pharmacy 1/12 A’ Beckett Street INVERLOCH VIC 3996 MCMILLAN Kaniva Country Chemist 34 Commercial Street KANIVA VIC 3419 MALLEE Katamatite General Store 25 Beek Street KATAMATITE VIC 3649 MURRAY Kerang Amcal Pharmacy 28-30 Victoria Street KERANG VIC 3579 MALLEE Kerang Chemmart Pharmacy 54 Victoria Street KERANG VIC 3579 MALLEE Simon Yu Pharmacy 20 Sydney Street KILMORE VIC 3764 MCEWEN Kinglake Rural Transaction Centre 19 Whittlesea-Kinglake Road KINGLAKE VIC 3763 MCEWEN Korumburra Pharmacy 9/43-49 Commercial Street KORUMBURRA VIC 3950 MCMILLAN Ian Collie Pharmacy 174 Allan Street KYABRAM VIC 3620 MURRAY Kerr’s Amcal Pharmacy 155 Allan Street KYABRAM VIC 3620 MURRAY R Kennedy’s Amcal Pharmacy 97 Mollison Street KYNETON VIC 3444 BENDIGO Well’s Kyneton Pharmacy 107 Mollison Street KYNETON VIC 3444 BENDIGO Lake Bolac Information and Business Centre 2110 Glenelg Hwy LAKE BOLAC VIC 3351 WANNON Lakes Post & Printing 505 Esplanade LAKES ENTRANCE VIC 3909 GIPPSLAND Lancefield Newsagency 18 High Street LANCEFIELD VIC 3435 MCEWEN Lang Lang Pharmacy Shop 3 14-16 Westernport Road LANG LANG VIC 3984 FLINDERS Leitchville Rural Transaction Centre Corner of King Albert Avenue and King Georges Street LEITCHVILLE VIC 3567 MURRAY Nagel’s Pharmacy 10-14 Bair Street LEONGATHA VIC 3953 MCMILLAN Hines Pharmacy 32 Bair Street LEONGATHA VIC 3953 MCMILLAN Pyrenees Store Co-operative Ltd Post Office Goldsmith Street LEXTON VIC 3352 WANNON Licola General Store & Caravan Park Jamieson Road LICOLA VIC 3858 GIPPSLAND Linton Post Office 59 Sussex Street LINTON VIC 3360 WANNON Lismore Newsagency & Post Office 35 High Street LISMORE VIC 3324 WANNON Loch Post Office Cnr Smith Street and South Gippslands Highway LOCH VIC 3945 MCMILLAN Loch Sport Post Office Government Road LOCH SPORT VIC 3851 GIPPSLAND Lockington Newsagency 11 Hopetoun Street LOCKINGTON VIC 3563 MURRAY Lorne Pharmacy 138 Mountjoy Parade LORNE VIC 3232 CORANGAMITE Maffra Amcal Chemist 110 Johnson Street MAFFRA VIC 3860 GIPPSLAND Maldon Pharmacy 33 Main Street MALDON VIC 3463 BENDIGO Manangatang Rural Transaction Centre & Post Office 39 Wattle Street MANANGATANG VIC 3546 MALLEE Amcal Mansfield Pharmacy 37 High Street MANSFIELD VIC 3722 INDI Eisner’s Pharmacy 79-81 High Street MANSFIELD VIC 3722 INDI Marlo General Store - Newbiz P/L 14-16 Argyle Parade MARLO VIC 3888 GIPPSLAND Millikan’s Pharmacy 131 High Street MARYBOROUGH VIC 3465 BENDIGO Haywood’s & Robinson Pharmacy 101-103 High Street MARYBOROUGH VIC 3465 BENDIGO Bloch’s Pharmacy 118 Whitelaw Street MEENIYAN VIC 3956 MCMILLAN Keen’s Pharmacy 81 Commercial Street MERBEIN VIC 3505 MALLEE Merrigum Post Office & Newsagency 130 Waverley Avenue MERRIGUM VIC 3618 MURRAY Mirboo North Pharmacy 84 Ridgway MIRBOO NORTH VIC 3871 MCMILLAN Lloyd Street Pharmacy 11-15 Lloyd Street MOE VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Federation Pharmacy 30 George Street MOE VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Monbulk Pharmacy 98 Main Street MONBULK VIC 3793 CASEY Mooroopna Education and Activity Centre Inc. 23 Alexandra Street MOOROOPNA VIC 3629 MURRAY Mortlake Pharmacy 110 Dunlop Street MORTLAKE VIC 3272 WANNON Mount Beauty Pharmacy 11 Hollonds Street MOUNT BEAUTY VIC 3699 INDI Mullers Murchison Health Depot 15 Stevenson Street MURCHISON VIC 3610 MURRAY Murrayville Newsagency Corner Reed & Gray Streets MURRAYVILLE VIC 3512 MALLEE Murtoa Post Office and Newsagency 58 McDonald Street MURTOA VIC 3390 MALLEE Sue Jones Pharmacy 43 Clyde Street MYRTLEFORD VIC 3737 INDI Greg Robbins Chemmart Pharmacy 61 Clyde Street MYRTLEFORD VIC 3736 INDI Nagambie Pharmacy 304 High Street NAGAMBIE VIC 3608 INDI Andrews Pharmacy 10 Blake Street NATHALIA VIC 3638 MURRAY Federation Pharmacy 27 Boolara Avenue NEWBOROUGH VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Odlum’s Pharmacy 28 Rutherglen Road NEWBOROUGH VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Newstead Rural Transaction Centre 45 Lyons Street NEWSTEAD VIC 3462 BENDIGO West Wimmera Health Service - Nhill Hospital 45 Nelson Street NHILL VIC 3418 MALLEE Louis Hamon Pharmacy 80 Melville Street NUMURKAH VIC 3636 MURRAY Ocean Grove Pharmacy 1/76 The Terrace OCEAN GROVE VIC 3226 CORANGAMITE East Gippsland Shire Council 179 Day Avenue OMEO VIC 3898 GIPPSLAND Orbost Pharmacy 125 Nicholson Street ORBOST VIC 3888 GIPPSLAND Ouyen Pharmacy 27 Oke Street OUYEN VIC 3490 MALLEE Oxley Shop 1152 Snow Road OXLEY VIC 3678 INDI Pakenham Pharmore Pharmacy Shop 31-33 Pakenham Place 69 Main Street PAKENHAM VIC 3810 MCMILLAN Andrew Rewell Pharmacy Shop 1, Pakenham Shopping Centre John Street PAKENHAM VIC 3810 MCMILLAN Coastcare Pharmacies 65 The Esplanade PAYNESVILLE VIC 3880 GIPPSLAND Ron Witney Pharmacy Shop 2, Pearcedale Village Shopping Centre PEARCEDALE VIC 3912 FLINDERS Penshurst Newsagency & Take Away 86 Bell Street PENSHURST VIC 3289 WANNON Grampians Store Halls Gap Road POMONAL VIC 3381 WANNON Poowong Post Office 10 Ranceby Road POOWONG VIC 3988 MCMILLAN McLean’s Pharmacy 35-37 Sackville Street PORT FAIRY VIC 3284 WANNON Portarlington Pharmacy 90 Newcombe Street PORTARLINGTON VIC 3223 CORANGAMITE Pyramid Hill Store 2 Kelly Street PYRAMID HILL VIC 3575 MURRAY Quambatook Post Office and Newsagency 24 Guthrie Street QUAMBATOOK VIC 3540 MURRAY Pardeys Pharmacy 52 Hesse Street QUEENSCLIFF VIC 3225 CORANGAMITE Rainbow Community Pharmacy 6 Federal Street RAINBOW VIC 3424 MALLEE West Gippsland Healthcare Group Pinnacle Drive RAWSON VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Raywood General Store 47 Inglewood Street RAYWOOD VIC 3570 BENDIGO R J Dean 33 Indi Ave RED CLIFFS VIC 3496 MALLEE Flanagan & Poole Pharmacy 53-55 Ilex Street RED CLIFFS VIC 3496 MALLEE Red Hill Pharmacy Shop 7 Red Hill Village Redhill Shoreham Road RED HILL VIC 3937 FLINDERS Riddells Creek Pharmacy 7 Station Street RIDDELLS CREEK VIC 3431 MCEWEN Pisasale’s Robinvale Pharmacy 21 Perrin Street ROBINVALE VIC 3549 MALLEE Rochester Post Office 38 Moore Street ROCHESTER VIC 3561 MURRAY Bayne & Friend Pharmacy 3 Boneo Road ROSEBUD VIC 3939 FLINDERS Waterfall Gully Pharmacy 79 Old Cape Schanck Road ROSEBUD VIC 3939 FLINDERS Rosedale Pharmacy 9 Prince Street ROSEDALE VIC 3847 GIPPSLAND Rushworth Pharmacy 11 High Street RUSHWORTH VIC 3612 MURRAY Miegels Pharmacy 134 Main Street RUTHERGLEN VIC 3685 INDI Wilson and Clavin Pharmacy Shop 2, 2185 Point Nepean Road RYE VIC 3941 FLINDERS San Remo Pharmacy 123 Marine Parade SAN REMO VIC 3925 FLINDERS Sea Lake Pharmacy 100 Best Street SEA LAKE VIC 3533 MALLEE Seville Village Pharmacy 658 Warburton Highway SEVILLE VIC 3139 CASEY Seymour Spectacle Site Shop 8 The Mall SEYMOUR VIC 3660 MCEWEN Simpson Post Office and Newsagency 1 Barramul Street SIMPSON VIC 3266 WANNON Skipton Gift & Health Care 17 Montgomery Street SKIPTON VIC 3361 WANNON Snake Valley General Store Main Road SNAKE VALLEY VIC 3351 WANNON Somerville Pharmacy Shop 23, Somerville Plaza Shopping Centre Eramosa Rd SOMERVILLE VIC 3912 FLINDERS Marc Clavin Pharmacy 61-63 Ocean Beach Road SORRENTO VIC 3943 FLINDERS Springhurst Post Office 1 Silo Road SPRINGHURST VIC 3682 INDI St Arnaud Pharmacy 88 Napier Street ST ARNAUD VIC 3478 MALLEE Kerr’s Stanhope Depot 29 Birdwood Avenue STANHOPE VIC 3623 MURRAY Stratford Pharmacy 48 Tyler Street STRATFORD VIC 3862 GIPPSLAND Strathmerton Hot Bread Shop 41 Main Street STRATHMERTON VIC 3641 MURRAY Streatham General Store Campbell Street STREATHAM VIC 3351 WANNON Walsh & Baird Pharmacy (Soul Pattinson) Sunbury Square 2/24 Evans Street SUNBURY VIC 3429 CALWELL Walsh & Baird Pharmacy(Amcal) 79 Evans Street SUNBURY VIC 3429 CALWELL Swanpool General Store Midland Highway SWANPOOL VIC 3673 INDI Crisps Newsagency 65 Towong Street TALLANGATTA VIC 3700 INDI Tangambalanga General Store 56 Kiewa East Road TANGAMBALANGA VIC 3691 INDI Tarwin Lower Licensed Post Office Shop 4, 47 River Drive, TARWIN LOWER VIC 3956 MCMILLAN La Peyre’s Pharmacy 146 Hogan Street TATURA VIC 3616 MURRAY Tatura Pharmacy 151 Hogan Street TATURA VIC 3616 MURRAY Grant Picone’s Pharmacy 86-88 High Street TERANG VIC 3264 WANNON Timboon Pharmacy Shop 2, 15 Main Street TIMBOON VIC 3268 WANNON Kerr’s Tongala Pharmacy 46 Mangen Street TONGALA VIC 3621 MURRAY Toora Pharmacy Depot 38 Stanley Street TOORA VIC 3962 MCMILLAN Trafalgar Pharmacy 75 Princes Highway TRAFALGAR VIC 3824 MCMILLAN Trentham Newsagency 41 High Street TRENTHAM VIC 3458 BALLARAT Ultima General Store RTC 6 Dillon Street ULTIMA VIC 3544 MALLEE Upwey Pharmacy 38 Main Street UPWEY VIC 3158 LA TROBE Simon Yu Pharmacy Shop 1, 65 High Street WALLAN VIC 3756 MCEWEN Wandin North Pharmacy Lot 9 Union Road WANDIN NORTH VIC 3139 CASEY Warburton Pharmacy 3468 Warburton Highway WARBURTON VIC 3799 MCEWEN Warracknabeal Pharmacy 106 Scott Street WARRACKNABEAL VIC 3393 MALLEE Wedderburn Health & Beauty 73 High Street WEDDERBURN VIC 3518 MURRAY Welshpool Rural Transaction Centre 14 Main Street WELSHPOOL VIC 3966 MCMILLAN Whittlesea Pharmacy 69-71 Church Street WHITTLESEA VIC 3757 MCEWEN Winchelsea Pharmacy 17 Main Road WINCHELSEA VIC 3241 CORANGAMITE Wonthaggi MFS Dispensary 169 Graham Street WONTHAGGI VIC 3995 MCMILLAN Woodend Pharmacy 116-118 High Street WOODEND VIC 3442 BENDIGO Woomelang Licensed Post Office 43 Brook Street WOOMELANG VIC 3485 MALLEE James Kwok Pharmacy Shop 6 - 7 The Shopping Centre 1585 Warburton Highway WOORI YALLOCK VIC 3139 MCEWEN Wycheproof Newsagency 310 Broadway WYCHEPROOF VIC 3527 MALLEE Yackandandah PC’S and Copying 14 High Street YACKANDANDAH VIC 3749 INDI Yallourn North Newsagency 8 Reserve Street YALLOURN NORTH VIC 3825 MCMILLAN Yarram Pharmacy 199 Commercial Road YARRAM VIC 3971 GIPPSLAND Neilson’s Pharmacy 247 Commercial Road YARRAM VIC 3971 GIPPSLAND Brian Nicholls Chemist 77-79 Belmore Street YARRAWONGA VIC 3730 MURRAY Yarrawonga Pharmacy 54 Belmore Street YARRAWONGA VIC 3730 MURRAY Alexander Heights Superchem Pharmacy Shop 43 Alexander Heights Shopping Centre Mirrabooka Ave ALEXANDER HEIGHTS WA 6064 COWAN Augusta Pharmacy 81 Blackwood Avenue AUGUSTA WA 6290 FORREST Beacon WA Telecentre 11 Rowlands Street BEACON WA 6472 O’CONNOR Bencubbin Telecentre Lot 45, Monger Street BENCUBBIN WA 6477 O’CONNOR Beverley WA Telecentre 115 Vincent Street BEVERLEY WA 6304 PEARCE Supa Valu Bindoon Lot 7 Binda Place BINDOON WA 6502 PEARCE Boddington Store 53 Bannister Road BODDINGTON WA 6390 PEARCE Boyup Brook Pharmacy 83 Abel Street BOYUP BROOK WA 6244 O’CONNOR Bremer Bay WA Telecentre Mary Street BREMER BAY WA 6338 O’CONNOR Bridgetown Pharmacy 127 Hampton Street BRIDGETOWN WA 6255 FORREST Brookton Community Telecentre 89 Robinson Rd BROOKTON WA 6306 PEARCE China Town Newsagency Shop 14, Pasparley Shopping Centre Carnarvon Street BROOME WA 6725 KALGOORLIE Bruce Rock Telecentre 40-42 Johnson St BRUCE ROCK WA 6418 O’CONNOR Amcal Chemist Busselton Shop 2, Boulevard Shopping Centre Prince Street BUSSELTON WA 6280 FORREST Broadwater Pharmacy Shop 8, Broadwater Shopping Village Corner Holgate Road & Bussell Higway BUSSELTON WA 6280 FORREST Capel Pharmacy 21 Properjohn Road CAPEL WA 6271 FORREST Wallaces News and Drapery 2 MacPherson Street CARNAMAH WA 6517 O’CONNOR Carnarvon Amcal Chemist Shop M, Boulevard Shopping Centre 14 Robinson Street CARNARVON WA 6701 KALGOORLIE Coolgardie WA Telecentre 76 Bayley Street COOLGARDIE WA 6429 KALGOORLIE Coorow WA Telecentre Coorow Hall Corner Bristol & Main Street COOROW WA 6515 O’CONNOR Corrigin Community Resource Centre 55 Larke Crescent CORRIGIN WA 6375 O’CONNOR Cunderdin WA Telecentre Old Bakery Building Main Street CUNDERDIN WA 6407 O’CONNOR Dalwallinu WA Telecentre 3 Myers Street DALWALLINU WA 6609 O’CONNOR Dowerin WA Telecentre 12 Stewart Street DOWERIN WA 6461 O’CONNOR Dumbleyung Newsagency 28 Absolon Street DUMBLEYUNG WA 6350 O’CONNOR Dunsborough Pharmacy Shop 16-17 Dunsborough Centrepoint Shopping Centre 55 Dunnbay Rd DUNSBOROUGH WA 6281 FORREST Guardian Pharmacy East Victoria Park 734 Albany Highway EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6101 SWAN Park Centre Pharmacy Shop 19, The Park Centre 789 Albany Highway EAST VICTORIA PARK WA 6101 SWAN Bradshaw’s Pharmacy 94e Dempster Street ESPERANCE WA 6450 KALGOORLIE Terry White Chemist Shop 6, The Boulevard Forrest Street ESPERANCE WA 6450 KALGOORLIE Exmouth District Hospital Lyons Street EXMOUTH WA 6707 KALGOORLIE Gin Gin Pharmacy 8 Brockman Street GINGIN WA 6503 PEARCE Gnowangerup WA Telecentre Lot 87 Aylmore Street GNOWANGERUP WA 6335 O’CONNOR Goomalling WA Telecentre 55 Railway Terrace GOOMALLING WA 6460 O’CONNOR Harvey Telecentre Shop 4 5 Hayward Street HARVEY WA 6220 FORREST Hopetoun WA Telecentre 90 Veal Street HOPETOUN WA 6348 O’CONNOR Hyden WA Telecentre 40 Naughton Street HYDEN WA 6359 O’CONNOR Innaloo 7 Day Pharmacy Shop 6, Innaloo Shoppers Village 386 Scarborough Beach Road INNALOO WA 6018 STIRLING L & G Gianatti 674 Jarrahdale Road JARRAHDALE WA 6124 CANNING Jerramungup WA Telecentre Lot 15-16 House 8-10 JERRAMUNGUP WA 6337 O’CONNOR Jurien Bay Pharmacy Shop 3 - 4, Jurien Shopping Centre Murray Street JURIEN BAY WA 6516 O’CONNOR O’Hara’s Pharmacy 39 Haynes St KALAMUNDA WA 6076 PEARCE Kalannie WA Telecentre Lot 4 Roche Street KALANNIE WA 6468 O’CONNOR Kalbarri Pharmacy Lot 37, Kalbarri Lane Grey Street KALBARRI WA 6536 KALGOORLIE Kambalda West Pharmacy 28 Salmon Gum Rd KAMBALDA WA 6442 KALGOORLIE Pharmacy Help Karratha Shop 19 Centro Karratha City Shopping Centre Welcome Road KARRATHA WA 6714 KALGOORLIE Katanning Pharmacy 92 Clive Street KATANNING WA 6317 O’CONNOR Kellerberrin Pharmacy 92-94 Massingham Street KELLERBERRIN WA 6410 O’CONNOR Kojonup Telecentre Incorporated 109 Albany Highway KOJONUP WA 6395 O’CONNOR Kondinin WA Telecentre Lot 3-5 Gordon Street KONDININ WA 6367 O’CONNOR Koorda WA Telecentre 43 Railway Street KOORDA WA 6475 O’CONNOR Kukerin Health Centre 65 Manser Street KUKERIN WA 6352 O’CONNOR Kulin WA Resource Centre (Telecentre) Johnstone Street KULIN WA 6365 O’CONNOR Lake Grace WA Telecentre Lot 65, Absolon Street LAKE GRACE WA 6353 O’CONNOR Lancelin WA Telecentre 1/107 Vins Way LANCELIN WA 6044 PEARCE Leeman WA Telecentre Lot 207 Spencer Street LEEMAN WA 6514 O’CONNOR Leinster WA Telecentre Shop 3, Leinster Shopping Centre LEINSTER WA 6437 KALGOORLIE Leonora WA Telecentre Lot 25 Tower Street LEONORA WA 6438 KALGOORLIE Metro Maddington Amcal Chemist Shop 27, Metro Maddington Attfield Street MADDINGTON WA 6109 HASLUCK Kingsway Medical Centre Pharmacy 168 Wanneroo Road MADELEY WA 6065 COWAN Ambassadors Pharmacy 32a Rose Street MANJIMUP WA 6258 FORREST Margaret River Pharmacy 146 Bussell Highway MARGARET RIVER WA 6285 FORREST Savings Plus Soul Pattinson Chemist 102 Barrack Street MERREDIN WA 6415 KALGOORLIE Mingenew WA Telecentre 50 Midlands Road MINGENEW WA 6522 O’CONNOR Savings Plus Soul Pattinson Chemist Shop 100, Mirrabooka Square Yirrigan Drive MIRRABOOKA WA 6061 STIRLING Pharmacy Help Mirrabooka 22 Chesterfield Avenue MIRRABOOKA WA 6061 STIRLING Morawa WA Telecentre 46 Winfield Street MORAWA WA 6623 O’CONNOR Mt Barker Soul Pattinson Chemist 23 Lowood Road MOUNT BARKER WA 6324 O’CONNOR Mukinbudin WA Telecentre 2 Calder Street MUKINBUDIN WA 6479 O’CONNOR Mullewa WA Telecentre 8 Jose Street MULLEWA WA 6630 KALGOORLIE Mundaring Pharmacy Shop 4, Mundaring Medical Centre 5 Nichol Street MUNDARING WA 6073 PEARCE Serpentine Jarrahdale Telecentre 10 Paterson Street MUNDIJONG WA 6123 CANNING Munglinup Roadhouse Tubada Street MUNGLINUP WA 6450 KALGOORLIE Nannup WA Telecentre Lot 31, Warren Road NANNUP WA 6275 FORREST Narembeen Telecentre Unit 2 19 Churchill Street NAREMBEEN WA 6369 O’CONNOR Maxwells Pharmacy 74 Federal Street NARROGIN WA 6312 PEARCE Newdegate WA Telecentre Collier Street NEWDEGATE WA 6355 O’CONNOR Boulevard Pharmacy Shop 2 & 3, Boulevard Shopping Centre Newman Drive NEWMAN WA 6753 KALGOORLIE Norseman WA Telecentre Lot 43-46 Prinsep Street NORSEMAN WA 6443 KALGOORLIE Stewarts Pharmacy 124 Fitzgerald Street NORTHAM WA 6401 PEARCE Northam Pharmacy Shop 17, Boulevard Fitzgerald Street NORTHAM WA 6401 PEARCE Northcliffe Postal Services and Agencies 72 Wheatley Coast Road NORTHCLIFFE WA 6262 FORREST Nungarin Telecentre Railway Avenue NUNGARIN WA 6490 O’CONNOR Ongerup WA Telecentre Lot 49 Eldridge Street ONGERUP WA 6336 O’CONNOR Paraburdoo Health, Beauty & Gifts Coles Shopping Centre Ashburton Drive PARABURDOO WA 6754 KALGOORLIE Perenjori Community Resource Centre Lot 2, Fowler Street PERENJORI WA 6620 O’CONNOR Pingelly Telecentre and Resource Centre 23 Parade Street PINGELLY WA 6308 PEARCE Pingrup WA Telecentre Sanderson Street PINGRUP WA 6343 O’CONNOR Murray Community Policing 22 George Street PINJARRA WA 6208 CANNING Hedland Pharmacy Shop 9, Boulevard Shopping Centre Wilson Street PORT HEDLAND WA 6721 KALGOORLIE Wedge Street Pharmacy Shop 12 Wedge Street PORT HEDLAND WA 6721 KALGOORLIE Quairading Pharmacy 29 Heal Street QUAIRADING WA 6383 O’CONNOR Quinns Centre Pharmacy Shop 11, Quinns Rock Shopping Cntr Cnr Quinns Rd & Tapping Way QUINNS ROCKS WA 6030 PEARCE Ravensthorpe District Telecentre Inc Lot 6 Dunn Street “Fitzgerald Building” RAVENSTHORPE WA 6346 O’CONNOR Salmon Gums Corner Store 25 Hicks Street SALMON GUMS WA 6445 KALGOORLIE South Hedland Pharmacy Shop 5, South Hedland Shopping Centre SOUTH HEDLAND WA 6722 KALGOORLIE Southern Day & Night Amcal Chemist 11a Antares Street SOUTHERN CROSS WA 6426 KALGOORLIE Tambellup WA Telecentre 34 Norrish Street TAMBELLUP WA 6320 O’CONNOR Tammin Roadhouse Lot 2, Great Eastern Highway TAMMIN WA 6409 O’CONNOR Three Springs LPO 58 Railway Road THREE SPRINGS WA 6519 O’CONNOR Amcal Tom Price Shop 4 & 5, Tom Price Shopping Centre Jacaranda Avenue TOM PRICE WA 6751 KALGOORLIE Toodyay Chemmart 110 Stirling Terrace TOODYAY WA 6566 PEARCE Varley Store Lot 53, Pitt Street VARLEY WA 6355 O’CONNOR Friendly Society Chemist of Victoria Park 553 Albany Highway VICTORIA PARK WA 6100 SWAN Wagin Pharmacy 52 Tudhoe Street WAGIN WA 6315 O’CONNOR Walpole Telecentre Lot 44 Latham Avenue WALPOLE WA 6398 FORREST Wandering WA Telecentre 18 Watts Street WANDERING WA 6308 PEARCE Fullife Pharmacy Wanneroo Shop 13, Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre Wanneroo Road WANNEROO WA 6065 COWAN Waroona WA Telecentre 10 Henning Street WAROONA WA 6215 CANNING Warwick Amcal Chemist Shop 16, Centro Warwick Cnr Beach Road & Erindale Dr WARWICK WA 6024 COWAN Westonia Rural Transaction Centre Lot 425 Wolfram Street WESTONIA WA 6423 KALGOORLIE Wickepin WA Telecentre 24 Wogolin Road WICKEPIN WA 6370 O’CONNOR Wickham District Hospital Mulga Way WICKHAM WA 6720 KALGOORLIE Williams WA Telecentre 5 Brooking Street. WILLIAMS WA 6391 PEARCE Wongan Hills Pharmacy 15 Fenton Place WONGAN HILLS WA 6603 O’CONNOR Wundowie One Stop 46 - 48 Boronia Avenue WUNDOWIE WA 6560 PEARCE Wyalkatchem WA Telecentre 3 Honour Avenue WYALKATCHEM WA 6485 O’CONNOR Yanchep Community Centre 7 Lagoon Drive YANCHEP WA 6035 PEARCE Shire of York Administration Centre 1 Joaquina Street YORK WA 6302 PEARCE 185 185 3527 185 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 22 May 2006: In respect of the $1.5 million allocated in 2005-2006 to upgrade security at (a) Burnie, (b) Devonport, (c) Groote Eylandt, (d) Mildura, and (e) Weipa Airports, (i) for what specifically is the expenditure proposed, (ii) who owns and operates each airport, and (iii) what sum will each airport owner/operator contribute to the proposed projects to upgrade security. 185 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: In respect of the $1.5 million allocated in 2005-2006 to upgrade security at (a) Burnie, (b) Devonport, (c) Groote Eylandt, (d) Mildura, and (e) Weipa Airports: The $1.5 million in funding is an Australian Government initiative that will provide assistance to airports in meeting new security requirements under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. This funding will enable the five airports to enhance basic physical security measures such as signage, fencing, surveillance, lighting, alarm systems and access control measures. Burnie Airport is owned and operated by Burnie Airport Corporation Pty Ltd. Devonport Airport is owned and operated by Tasmania Ports Corporation. Groote Eylandt is owned and operated by Groote Eylandt Mining Corporation Pty Ltd, also known as GEMCO. Mildura Airport is owned and operated by Mildura City Council. Weipa Airport is owned by Comalco Aluminium Limited and operated by Weipa Air. Airport owners/operators are not required to contribute money to implement approved basic security measures. 185 185 3528 185 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 22 May 2006: What was the cost of a passport at 1 March 1996. What increases have occurred in the cost of passports since 1 March 1996 and for each financial year since 1995-1996. What sum was received from the issue of passports for each financial year since 1995-1996. What sum has been spent on consular services provided to Australian passport holders overseas each financial year since 1995-1996. 185 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Adult:                             $106 Child/Senior                  $55 Frequent                        $159 1996-97 Adult:                             $120 Child                               $60 Frequent                        $180 1997-98 Adult:                             $126 Child                               $63 Frequent                        $188 1998-99 Adult:                             $126 Child                               $63 Frequent                        $188 1999-00 Adult:                             $128 Child                               $64 Frequent                        $192 2000-01 Adult:                             $132 Child                               $66 Frequent                        $198 2001-02 Adult:                             $136 Child/Senior                  $68 Frequent                        $204 2002-03 Adult:                             $144 Child/Senior                  $72 Frequent                        $216 2003-04 Adult:                             $148 Child/Senior                  $74 Frequent                        $222 2004-05 Adult:                             $150 Child/Senior                  $75 Frequent                        $226 2005-06 Adult:                             $153 Child/Senior                  $77 Frequent                        $230 2005-06 (24 October - e-passport introduced) Adult:                             $172 Child/Senior                  $86 Frequent                        $258 In July 2002 I made the decision to offer a five-year passport to Australians aged 75 years and over, in response to considerable feedback from people in that particular age group.  The decision recognised the needs of this group of senior Australians who wished to travel overseas at this time of their life. In relation to passport applications, the term “senior” is a definition used by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to refer specifically to Australians who are 75 years or over.  The term is not associated with the varying definitions used by other organisations in Australia. 1995-96                           $57.655 million 1996-97                           $61.481 million 1997-98                           $91.053 million 1998-99                           $119.457 million 1999-00                           $126.731 million 2000-01                           $121.943 million 2001-02                           $114.010 million 2002-03                           $116.360 million 2003-04                           $145.671 million 2004-05                           $170.810 million Information on resources for DFAT’s program Outcome 2 (Australians informed about and provided access to consular and passport services in Australia and overseas) is publicly available in the department’s annual reports.  However, DFAT does not deploy Australia-based staff overseas or maintain Australian posts overseas to work exclusively on consular issues.  Consular work is an integral part of the responsibilities of Australia-based staff and Australian posts overseas.  As such, other than the broad measure under Outcome 2, it is not possible to fully quantify the specific sum that has been spent annually on consular services for Australian passport holders overseas. 187 187 3529 187 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 22 May 2006: In respect of the $7.3 million over four years to rehabilitate abandoned uranium mines sites and to securely contain waste in Kakadu National Park, what projects will be funded in each of the four years. 187 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: The Australian Government has allocated $7.3 million, over four years, to rehabilitate old uranium mines and related sites in the Gunlom Aboriginal Land Trust area in the south of Kakadu National Park. This $7.3 million provides a historic opportunity to rehabilitate these areas to a standard befitting a World Heritage listed national park. Planning for this work has been underway for some years and the following activities are scheduled over the next four years: In 2006-07: finalise environmental assessment and planning for the non-radiologically contaminated sites; rehabilitate two of the larger non-radiologically contaminated sites (Sleisbeck and Guratba); and develop an advanced draft rehabilitation plan for the radiologically contaminated sites. In 2007-08, the program will rehabilitate the remaining non- radiologically contaminated sites. In 2008-09, the program will finalise planning for rehabilitation of the radiologically contaminated sites, and commence rehabilitation of these sites. In 2009-10, the program will finalise rehabilitation of the radiologically contaminated sites. 188 188 3531 188 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What is the current price of gold. When did the Government sell the Australian gold reserves, what quantity was sold and what sum was received at that time. Has he received advice after the gold reserves were sold that selling the gold reserves was a mistake; if so, what was the advice. 188 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: At the London fix on 29 June 2006, the gold price was 1 troy ounce = US$ 589.25 and (3) The Australian Government did not sell gold reserves. The RBA, an independent statutory body made a decision to change its mix of assets. The RBA regularly responds to questions on this issue, the most recent occasion being the hearing of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration (see pages 28-29 of 17 February 2006). 188 188 3532 188 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: Why has he given approximately 50 interviews to Alan Jones. Will he explain why he refuses to be interviewed by radio station Triple J. 188 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) I am regularly interviewed by a wide range of commercial and public media outlets. 188 188 3553 188 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 22 May 2006: Further to the answers to question Nos 2785 and 2819 (Hansard, 9 February 2006, pp 193 & 195), when was the possible visit to Australia of United States B-1, B-2 or B-52 aircraft first raised in exchanges between Australia and United States officials and/or Ministers. Which officials and/or Ministers participated in these initial exchanges and which side, Australia or the United States, first raised the issue. What subsequent exchanges took place between Australian and United States officials and/or Ministers prior to the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations in Adelaide in 2005. When was the ‘Statement of Principles between the US Pacific Air Forces and the Australian Defence Organisation regarding the conduct of the United States Pacific Air Forces Bomber Training in Australia’ signed or agreed and who signed or otherwise endorsed the text on behalf of the Australian and United States Governments. What is the text of the ‘Statement of Principles’. Why is the ‘Statement of Principles’ not a treaty level agreement between the Australian and United States Governments. 189 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The United States Pacific Air Forces Bomber Training in Australia was first formally raised when the Defence Attaché at the United States Embassy wrote to the Chief of the Defence Force on 29 March 2004 requesting the program. Working-level exchanges between the Royal Australian Air Force and US Pacific Air Force personnel and officers of the International Policy Division took place prior to the AUSMIN 2005 talks, principally in the form of planning meetings in Canberra, Sydney and Darwin in the week 19-26 June 2004. In Canberra, discussions were led by Director of the International Policy Division’s US Section, and included representatives from Air Force International Engagement and Strategic Operations Division. Officials from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Prime Minister and Cabinet also attended these discussions. The program was also further discussed by the then-Chief of Air Force Houston, and US Generals Jumper, Moseley and Hester, at the Pacific Air Chiefs’ Conference in Guam on 21‑22 September 2004. The Statement of Principles was signed for Australia by the former Deputy Secretary Strategy, Mr Carmody, on 9 June 2005, and by the former Chief Joint Operations Vice Admiral Shalders on 11 June 2005, and for the US by Pacific Command Director of Air and Space Operations, Major General Deptula on 19 July 2005. The text of the Statement of Principles is classified and, therefore, cannot be released. The Statement of Principles is not intended to be an agreement binding under international law. It is a written record of mutually determined policy and operational guidelines for the management and implementation of the training program. 189 189 3558 189 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Did the Minister read the article titled “Coonan gives ground on media reform” in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 May 2006. Can the Minister confirm the report that the Minister has flagged the possibility that not all of the Government’s proposed media reforms will survive the public consultation process; if so, which reforms proposed by the Government has the Minister identified as ones that might not survive the public consultation process and can the Minister explain why they may not survive the consultation process. In respect of the report that the Government has repeatedly said it wants broad consensus among industry players but that that could be difficult because of competing agendas, does this mean that the Government will not allow further concentration of media ownership in Australia; if not, why not and can the Minister explain how further concentration of media ownership is in the public interest and good for Australia’s democracy. 190 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: Yes. No. The Government is currently considering submissions on the media reform discussion paper released in March 2006. I have nothing to add to my answers to previous questions on this issue from the honourable member. 190 190 3560 190 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Is the Federal Government pursuing a policy of ensuring all Australians have access to equivalent (a) pensioner and (b) age pensioner concessions irrespective of the State or Territory in which they (i) reside and (ii) purchase services. What mechanisms are available to the Federal Government to ensure that the concessions available to (a) pensioners and (b) age pensioners are based on their pensioner status and not on the State or Territory in which they reside. What has the Federal Government done to ensure that the concessions available to (a) pensioners and (b) age pensioners are based on their pensioner status and not on the State or Territory in which they reside. 190 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: Centrelink and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs issue a number of different types of concession cards, depending on the person’s circumstances. The Australian Government’s main purpose in issuing these cards is to provide access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescription items, and certain Medicare services, at a cheaper rate. These concessions are provided irrespective of a person’s state of residence. Australian Government concession cards are also used by state, territory and local governments and some private providers, to target a range of other discounts on services that they provide, to selected groups of people. The concession providers themselves decide what concessions will be made available, and who can receive them. The Australian Government has provided funding to state and territory governments since 1993 to ensure that certain ‘core’ concessions are provided to all pensioners. The ‘core’ concessions to which this payment relates are those for energy, municipal and water rates, public transport and motor vehicle registration. Payments to state and territory governments are made through the Specific Purpose Payment (SPP) Compensation for the Extension of Fringe Benefits to Pensioners and Older Long-term Allowees and Beneficiaries. This payment was made as compensation to the states for the cost of the extension of the Pensioner Concession card to part rate pensioners. Before this payment was introduced the full cost of funding these concessions was borne by the states. The agreement for the payment ensures that States do not discriminate between PCC holders in terms of their eligibility for the core concessions defined above. The level of the concession is at the discretion of the provider. 191 191 3562 191 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Was she correctly quoted in the AAP report on 18 May 2006 which reported that she said “My staff and I received professional training and I make no apology for it”. Can she confirm that her staff received public speaking and voice projection training as well as herself. What was the additional cost of this training. How many staff members received it. 191 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. I refer the Member to my response to his previous questions – Question No 2185  and Question No 3375. There was no additional cost. Three. 191 191 3563 191 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Further to the answer to question No. 3191 (Hansard, 11 May 2006, page 120) in which he indicated that he has delegated powers for project approval under s.23AF of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to Austrade, is it the case that final responsibility to approve projects remains with the Minister; if so, has he, through his delegate, approved any contracts under s. 23AF since 1 July 1999 which involved Mr Trevor Flugge. 191 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As my delegate for the purposes of section 23 AF of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, Austrade considers applications for approval of projects in certain overseas locations. No project involving Mr Trevor Flugge has been approved under section 23 AF of the Act by me or by Austrade. 191 191 3566 191 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 23 May 2006: Has the Office of the Employment Advocate been objecting to workplace agreements that include union-backed safety courses on the grounds that they are ‘prohibited content’ under the Government’s Work Choices legislation. Did the Office of the Employment Advocate write on 19 April to Newlands Coal in Queensland objecting to an agreement containing a reference which allowed workers to attend union-backed safety courses. Do the Work Choices regulations provide for fines of up to $33,000 for including prohibited content in agreements or trying to include prohibited content in agreements. Has the mine collapse at Beaconsfield in northern Tasmania drawn attention to the need for occupational safety courses to be included in workplace agreements, particularly in dangerous occupations such as mining. Will the Government ask the Employment Advocate to cease objecting to workplace agreements which include occupational health and safety courses. 192 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: Pursuant to section 357(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act) it is a defence to the offence of lodging a workplace agreement or a variation to a workplace agreement that contains prohibited content, with the Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA), if the Employment Advocate (EA) has issued an advice that the agreement (or the agreement as varied) did not contain prohibited content. Prohibited content is set out in the Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 (Cth) (Regulations). Chapter 2, Part 8, Division 7.1, Regulation 8.5(1)(d) provides that a term of a workplace agreement is prohibited content “to the extent it deals with employees bound by the agreement receiving leave to attend training (however described) provided by a trade union”. The EA has issued notices under section 357(2) to the effect that a term of workplace agreement is prohibited because it deals with employees receiving leave to attend training provided by a trade union. No, the EA did not “object” to the Newlands Coal Pty Ltd Agreement because it contained “a reference which allowed workers to attend union-backed safety courses”. The EA advised Newlands Coal Pty Ltd by letter dated 19 April 2006, that one of the clauses in their workplace agreement fell within the scope of Regulation 8.5(1)(d). The clause enabled union representatives to be provided with a leave of absence to attend to “bona fide union business”. An employer contravenes the WR Act if the employer lodges a workplace agreement (or variation to a workplace agreement) with the EA that contains prohibited content and the employer is reckless as to whether the agreement contains prohibited content. A person contravenes the WR Act if the person seeks to include prohibited content in negotiations for a workplace agreement (or a variation to a workplace agreement) and the person is reckless as to whether the term contains prohibited content. If a body corporate contravenes these requirements, the maximum penalty they may receive is $33,000. If a person contravenes these requirements, the maximum penalty they may receive is $6,600. The WR Act does not preclude parties from including provisions in their workplace agreement that enable and/or encourage employees to attend occupational safety courses. The EA is not “objecting” to agreements which include occupational health and safety clauses. 192 192 3569 192 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 24 May 2006: In respect of each of the eight airport lessees which have opted to join the Federal Government’s parking infringements arrangements under the ‘Payments to the airport lessees-parking fines’ program administered by the Aviation and Airports Business Division of his department, (a) how many parking infringements notices were issued each month from January 2005 until May 2006, (b) how many parking infringement notices were withdrawn or cancelled each month from January 2005 until May 2006, (c) how many vehicles were towed each month from January 2005 until May 2006,(d) what sum was received for the disposal of towed vehicles in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005, (e) what sum was received from parking infringements in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005, and (f) what sum was remitted by the department to each airport under the arrangements in 2004-2005. 193 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: , (b) & (c) see attachment. Money received for the disposal of towed vehicles in (i) 2003-2004 was $1,590 and 2004-2005 was $5,410. see attachment. see attachment. Answers to (a), (b) & (c) Sydney Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 1032 176 6 February 2208 144 7 March 1035 183 12 April 1567 0 7 May 1410 754 15 June 1612 0 11 July 1643 748 12 August 1643 292 14 September 1164 161 14 October 1303 122 1 November 1361 242 14 December 1146 139 15 January 2006 1620 151 14 February 918 0 8 March 1149 0 8 April 946 0 9 May 820 326 19 Melbourne Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 1328 272 0 February 950 225 0 March 965 256 0 April 972 155 0 May 918 117 0 June 1114 293 0 July 897 0 0 August 801 0 0 September 670 347 0 October 676 95 0 November 659 0 0 December 725 192 9 January 2006 821 141 6 February 513 0 3 March 765 279 2 April 585 36 6 May 529 18 0 Perth Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 123 10 1 February 77 13 1 March 74 16 0 April 65 9 2 May 37 13 0 June 60 5 2 July 65 9 0 August 46 13 1 September 73 7 0 October 73 7 0 November 81 7 2 December 181 9 2 January 2006 100 0 0 February 88 113 0 March 85 191 0 April 70 20 0 May 55 11 0 Hobart Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 15 9 0 February 18 5 0 March 47 11 0 April 116 26 0 May 31 8 0 June 17 3 0 July 29 22 0 August 32 22 0 September 11 7 0 October 17 13 0 November 33 5 0 December 35 13 0 January 2006 55 11 0 February 36 21 0 March 46 14 0 April 86 18 0 May 76 18 0 Coolangatta Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 184 4 0 February 306 53 1 March 306 53 1 April 192 27 0 May 188 75 0 June 70 0 0 July 85 34 2 August 179 72 0 September 139 39 2 October 134 48 0 November 216 92 0 December 111 32 0 January 2006 82 9 0 February 128 56 0 March 90 13 0 April 91 109 2 May 64 0 0 Townsville Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 71 10 0 February 63 0 0 March 34 0 0 April 21 0 0 May 66 0 0 June 55 0 0 July 68 0 0 August 32 1 0 September 54 2 0 October 35 0 0 November 50 0 0 December 24 0 0 January 2006 43 5 0 February 26 0 0 March 40 0 0 April 54 2 0 May 16 3 0 Brisbane Airport Months – January 2005 until May 2006 Parking Infringement notices issued Parking Infringement notices withdrawn/Cancelled Vehicles towed for each month January 2005 181 52 4 February 144 37 0 March 183 21 0 April 225 40 0 May 577 76 0 June 526 105 0 July 464 79 2 August 316 117 6 September 444 88 11 October 442 101 0 November 336 69 0 December 447 50 0 January 2006 515 107 10 February 414 49 0 March 357 49 0 April 346 50 0 May 368 71 0 Answers to (e) & (f) Sydney Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 47982 49500 August 56364 205853 September 68772 42504 235565 October 102366 21516 November 67332 86062 December 34196 23628 123576 January 43962 27984 February 98869 24486 March 77616 118932 134401 April 56826 41118 May 42570 96348 June 55430 94775 183072 Total Amounts 752,285 832,706 676,614 Melbourne Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 56487 60721 August 77533 105436 September 80535 96070 207061 October 92899 99437 November 99538 88711 December 74832 107880 234103 January 77200 104642 February 86784 99643 March 63807 90349 232987 April 89416 0 May 103915 175776 June 0 79097 201178 Total Amounts 903,307 1,107,762 875,329 Perth Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 10472 0 August 4884 0 September 0 29647 18375 October 0 7546 November 0 2838 December 29173 2464 10180 January 0 5676 February 0 1870 March 0 4554 6960 April 0 4905 May 0 2222 June 0 40480 6220 Total Amount 44,529 65,770 41,735 Coolangatta Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 7176 3968 August 4834 4292 September 4310 4826 7748 October 7182 6308 November 7028 4718 December 3284 3305 8745 January 4378 6322 February 10451 3462 March 5511 4338 8578 April 6754 9851 May 4467 4689 June 5456 5149 13031 Total Amounts 70,831 61,228 38,102 Brisbane Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 26584 22641 August 27282 21067 September 28954 14263 43657 October 28132 9627 November 30546 23025 December 17317 12336 33270 January 30071 12817 February 22365 12448 March 22951 9042 24408 April 19014 15952 May 25586 12287 June 27777 7573 25929 Total Amounts 306,579 173,078 127,264 Hobart Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 - 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 1430 44 August 1276 88 September 968 132 5600 October 660 0 November 748 396 December 440 2490 5600 January 968 660 February 880 264 March 748 616 5600 April 484 792 May 132 1496 June 44 1144 5600 Total Amounts 8,778 8,122 22,400 Townsville Airport Month Parking Infringement sum received 2003-2004 Parking Infringement sum received 2004 – 2005 Sum remitted by the Department to the airport 2004-2005 July 1452 1760 August 858 1808 September 658 1386 5600 October 682 462 November 550 898 December 1364 1188 5600 January 1320 704 February 1870 1342 March 1958 726 5600 April 1474 638 May 1606 0 June 2024 1254 5600 Total Amounts 15,816 12, 166 22,400 198 198 3574 198 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 25 May 2006: In respect of each of the eight federal airport lessees which have opted to join the Federal Government’s parking infringement arrangements under regulation 114 of the Airport (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations1997, how many ‘authorised persons’ who were (a) employees of an airport-operator company, or (b) employees of a contractor to an airport-operator company have been used by each of the airport-operators for parking patrol and the issuing of parking infringements as at (i) March 2005 and (ii) March 2006. 199 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: Airport (a) - March 2005 (b) - March 2005 (a) - March 2006 (b) - March 2006 Sydney 2 65 2 65 Melbourne 0 38 0 40 Perth 41 50 42 49 Coolangatta 1 20 9 23 Townsville 3 0 3 0 Hobart 14 7 15 10 Brisbane 0 21 0 21 Launceston Airport was included in the Regulations for the purposes of landside vehicle parking in May 2005. There are no authorised officers at this stage. 199 199 3575 199 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 25 May 2006: What are the details of the parking infringement arrangements applied by each of the 14 airport lessees which have not opted to participate in the Federal Government’s parking infringement arrangements. 199 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: The Commonwealth offered the parking infringement arrangements under the Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997 for the major regular public transport airports at the time of privatisation of the airports. The other federal airports have the option of negotiating a local arrangement with their local council(s). These arrangements are a matter for those airports and the Department is not privy to the details. 199 199 3576 199 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 25 May 2006: Were funds provided under the Regional Partnerships Program to the Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce around August 2004; if so, (a) what sum and (b) for what purpose. Were the funds used to employ people; if so, (a) in what capacity, (b) what procedures were followed in advertising and selecting the employees, and (c) what evaluation of the funding has occurred, in particular, (i) what new businesses have resulted, (ii) what employment opportunities have resulted. Were the funds provided in response to a submission; if so, (a) in whose name was the submission made and (b) what sum was sought in the submission. 199 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: Funds were provided under the Regional Partnerships program to the Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce for the Brisbane North Regional Advancement project. The Funding Agreement for this project was executed in September 2004. $99,827 (GST exclusive) was paid. Regional Partnerships funds were used to partially fund the costs of employing a project officer to coordinate and direct the development of geographically based industry cluster groups in the Brisbane North region. Regional Partnership funds also contributed to marketing and communication costs and office costs, including rent and equipment. The funds were used to employ people. The Regional Partnerships grant included funds to partially fund the employment of a project officer. The selection of a suitably qualified project officer was the responsibility of the Chamber of Commerce. Three industry clusters were developed covering printing, environmental and heavy engineering industries. The printing cluster formed a legal business entity called SEAM solutions which began operation in September 2005. SEAM Solutions employs four people. The environmental and heavy industry clusters have not reported employment outcomes but are cooperating to manage skills shortages and provide mentoring for school students. Funds were provided in response to an application to the Regional Partnerships program. The applicant was the Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce Inc. The amount sought from Regional Partnerships was $99,827 (GST exclusive). 200 200 3577 200 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 25 May 2006: How many applications for funding of projects were received by the Greater Brisbane Area Consultative Committee in (a) 2001-2002, (b) 2002-2003, (c) 2003-2004, (d) 2004-2005, and (e) 2005-2006. In respect of each application, (a) who or which organisations applied, (b) what sum was sought, (c) what was the Area Consultative Committee’s decision or recommendation, and (d) what was the Government’s decision. 200 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: Applications for funding from organisations in the region covered by the Greater Brisbane Area Consultative Committee have been received under two regional programs, Regional Assistance Program and Regional Partnerships program since 2001-02 as follows: 10 applications for Regional Assistance program funding were received by the Greater Brisbane ACC in 2001-2002. 8 applications for Regional Assistance program funding were received by the Greater Brisbane ACC in 2002-2003. 13 applications for Regional Partnerships funding were received by the Greater Brisbane ACC in 2003-2004. 8 applications for Regional Partnerships funding were received by the Greater Brisbane ACC in 2004-2005. 7 applications for Regional Partnerships funding were received by the Greater Brisbane ACC in 2005-2006. , (b) and (d) Attached is a list, as at 31 May 2006, of all applications for Regional Assistance Program and Regional Partnerships funding received by the Greater Brisbane Area Consultative Committee. The list also provides the Government decision on each project and where relevant, the approved amount. It would be difficult for Area Consultative Committees to provide an honest assessment of projects if their advice was made public. Program Organisation Name Project Name Government’s Decision Approved Amount RAP Manly Chamber of Commerce Wynnum Manly regional Economic Development Projects Approved $137,500 RAP Help Enterprises Incite Solutions Approved $14,278 RAP Retailers Association Of Queensland RAQ Australian Fashion Design Awards National Initiative Approved $165,000 RAP Redland Shire Council Redlands Film Capacity Audit Approved $11,000 RAP The Rotary Club of Forrest Lake Inc Business Plan Inala Employment Co-operatives Not Approved N/A RAP Housing Industry Association Ltd HIA Construction Cadets Not Approved N/A RAP Boys Town Linkup Logan Jobs Plus Initiative Not Approved N/A RAP Redland Shire Council Redland Horticultural Business Cluster Not Approved N/A RAP Department of State Development Queensland Queensland Tourism Enterprise Implementation Not Approved N/A RAP Coordinators Of education and Training Inc Brisbane Cabbage Tree Creek catchment development Withdrawn N/A RAP Help Enterprises Special Schools Horticulture Enterprise Approved $237,824 RAP Nunukal Nguhi Cultural Heritage Corporation Marine Based Processing Facility Approved $181,170 RAP Redlands Tourism North Stradbroke Island Sustainable Tourism Project Approved $45,540 RAP Logan Regional Economic Development Board Ltd Benchmarking Logan City as an Investment Location Approved $44,680 RAP Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce Brisbane North Industry Mapping and Targeted Business Development Project Approved $71,472 RAP Brisbane City Council Brisbane Tourism Infrastructure and Product Development Approved $110,000 RAP Logan Regional Economic Development Board Ltd Business Growth in Logan through Improved Manufacturing Effectiveness Not Approved N/A RAP Redland Chamber of Commerce Redlands Business Grow Not Approved N/A RP Sunshine Soup Incorporated Enhancement of the ICT Industry Clusters in the Brisbane Region Approved $180,000 RP Help Enterprises Happy Tails Approved $125,700 RP Jobs Association Inc. Redlands Retail Services Audit and Promotion - `Redlands RSAP` Approved $29,500 RP HELP Enterprises Community Lifestyle Village for People with disabilities Approved $50,000 RP Fly Archerfield Inc Archerfield Aerospace Business Infrastructure Development Project Approved $75,000 RP Self Help Queensland Inc 2005 Directory of Self Help and Support Groups Approved $39,625 RP BoysTown Carole Park Youth Futures Project Approved $69,950 RP Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce Inc Brisbane North Regional Advancement Approved $99,827 RP Marsden Education Association Inc. Student and Community Service Centre Approved $80,000 RP The Spot Community Services Ltd LEAN Electronic Network Project Approved $55,000 RP Wynnum Manly Regional Development partnership Inc Brisbane Bayside South Industry Supply Chain and Cluster Identification Project Approved $15,000 RP Food Q Inc. Food Q - Food Manufacturing cluster and supply chain and business development project Approved $25,000 RP Wynnum Manly Regional Development Partnership Brisbane Bayside South Business Employment Initiative Not Approved N/A RP Redland Chamber of Commerce Film@Redland Not Approved N/A RP Redland Chamber of Commerce Redland Sustainable Business Not Approved N/A RP Local Government Association of Queensland Inc. Statewide Data Management System fro the Queensland Road Alliance Not Approved N/A RP New Farm Neighbourhood Centre Inc. Urban LINC (Leadership Inclusion Networks Community) Not Approved N/A RP Brisbane North Development Forum Inc. Brisbane North Airport City Infrastructure Development Under Review N/A RP Ridge Hills United Football Club Inc Development of Amenities/training block Application Withdrawn N/A RP Australian Centre for Lifestyle Horticulture Inc Lifestyle Horticulture Industry and Export Development project Application Withdrawn N/A RP BoysTown Redlands Youth Choices Application Withdrawn N/A RP BoysTown Youth Choices Redlands Under Review N/A RP Viking Industries Limited Brisbane Marine Industry Park Infrastructure Project Under Review N/A RP Brisbane City Council Richlands Community Zone Application Withdrawn N/A RP Netherlands Retirement Village Association of Queensland Inc Redlands multicultural aged care and respite infrastructure project Application Withdrawn N/A RP Musgrave Park Culture Centre Incororpated MPCCI Application Withdrawn N/A RP Queensland Tourism Industry Council Limited Queensland Rural and Remote Sustainable Tourism Project Application Withdrawn N/A RP Australian Centre for Lifestyle Horticulture Inc Strategic Lifestyle Horticulture Industry Development Pending Ministerial Decision N/A 202 202 3579 202 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 25 May 2006: Is he aware of the most recent United States General Accounting Office report which puts a value of $US125 million per unit on each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) unit bought this year. Will he explain why the RAAF JSF Project Director-General’s figure of $100 million for its JSF variant is so much less than the US figure. What is the Government’s current assessment of the upward pressure on JSF prices caused by downscaling in orders from other partners. Are escalating price issues being raised in the negotiations for the Memorandum of Understanding on the JSF project due to be signed in December this year. Is he aware of the US Department of Defense selected acquisition report which suggests that a Raptor unit could be purchased for $US127 million. Apart from the lower original projected cost, what other significant advantages has the Government identified for the JSF program over the Raptor program. Will the comparative prices of the Raptor and JSF programs be taken into account by the Government when deciding whether to commit to the JSF project. 203 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 figure of US$125 million per aircraft appears to have been derived from the General Accounting Office (GAO) report 06-356 referring to aircraft bought by the US in 2012. This figure would be referred to as an Average Unit Procurement Cost (AUPC) and includes not only the cost of the aircraft, but a broad range of other ‘system’ elements, such as spares and support systems. It should be noted that this figure also comprises an average across all three Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) variants, that is, it includes the more expensive Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) and Carrier (CV) variants, whereas Australia is only looking to purchase the considerably less expensive Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant. Apart from the figure above being a composite figure of multiple variants, it is also for aircraft quite early in the production run. The A$100 million is an average unit cost across the entire Australian fleet inclusive of spares, facilities, weapons etc, but excluding contingency. There has been no proposed reduction in JSF numbers by any of the JSF partners. If there were a reduction in numbers by a JSF partner, the only case in which that could potentially have a significant impact on Australia is if the reduction were by the US. Even then, the reduction would be dependent on where the reduction was made: if the reduction was made at the end of the Program (that is, after Australia had bought its aircraft) it would have almost no impact on Australia. Further, any prospective reduction in aircraft numbers by any partner is likely to be offset, to at least some extent, by expected sales to third parties. Maximising affordability of the entire JSF Air System, not just the aircraft, throughout its entire life cycle is a pillar of the JSF Program. As a partner in the JSF Program, Australia has detailed insight into JSF costs and is working with all other partners to maximise affordability. This is just one of many issues under discussion during negotiations. The US$127 million or A$172 million quoted in the December 2005 Selected Acquisition Report is for the aircraft only. It does not include broader system costs and a range of necessary upgrades and associated acquisition costs. These costs are more than double the cost of the JSF. The JSF has the following additional advantages over the F-22: The JSF has true multi-role capabilities, the F-22 is optimised for air-to-air. Acquisition of the more modern JSF avoids obsolescence issues associated with the F-22. Partnership in the JSF Program has given Australia unique insights into aircraft capabilities. Partnership in the JSF has provided considerable opportunities for Australian industry. Partnership in the JSF provides Australia the opportunity to shape the global sustainment system for the aircraft and to be part of the follow-on development program. Partnership in the JSF has ensured waiver of non-recurring development costs and avoidance of Foreign Military Sales levies. Defence has been tasked to keep a watching brief on other fighter platforms, including the F-22. Given the F-22 does not meet Australia’s full capability requirements and is at least twice as expensive as the JSF, further evaluation of the F-22 is not considered necessary. 204 204 3587 204 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr Windsor asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 30 May 2006: Will he provide an assurance that the search for a Managing Director of AWB Ltd is a fair and transparent process for all candidates who are offering themselves for the position. Will he also provide an assurance that, if any members of the AWB Ltd Board or AWB International Ltd Board apply for the position of Managing Director, the recruiting process will be made public to ensure fairness and transparency. Who will conduct the final round of interviews for the position of Managing Director of AWB Ltd. Will all candidates for the position of Managing Director of AWB Ltd be interviewed prior to the short-listing of candidates for the interview panel, or will selection be based on written applications. Does he acknowledge that, whilst the Government has no statutory control over the selection process for the position of Managing Director of AWB Ltd, it would wish the process to be of a standard that is of the highest order and fair and transparent to all, including Australian wheat growers. 204 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: It is a matter for AWB Ltd to determine. It is a matter for AWB Ltd to determine. It is a matter for AWB Ltd to determine. It is a matter for AWB Ltd to determine. I would expect that the Board of AWB Ltd would conduct a process that ensures the best possible candidate is identified for the position. 204 204 3593 204 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 Mrs Irwin asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 31 May 2006: Has your Department outsourced the assessment and despatch of certain Defence medals. Will any assessment and despatch functions be carried out overseas. Will the performance of assessment and despatch functions require the disclosure to overseas contractors of personal and service information relating to serving and former members of the Australian Defence Force. 204 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. Defence has outsourced the manufacturing, engraving and dispatch of a number of medals including the Anniversary of National Service 1951-1972 Medal, Australian Defence Medal, Afghanistan and Iraq Campaign Medals and several other awards issued to current serving personnel. Defence has recently signed a contract for the provision of research and assessment services associated with the Australian Defence Medal. and (3) No. 205 205 3597 205 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 1 June 2006: Is he aware of the deaths in detention in Myanmar of (a) Aung Myint Thein, after being held in Insein Prison during July, (b) Min Tun Wai from Kyaikmayaw Township, during a seven day sentence in Moulmein Prison, (c) Aung Hiaing Win from Mayanggone Township, who was held for investigation during May, and (d) Saw Stanford from Taguseik Village. Will he ask the Myanmar authorities about these deaths, and ensure that the high death rate of political detainees in Myanmar is pursued through diplomatic channels by Australian authorities. 205 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Government regularly makes representations, including at the most senior levels, urging the Rangoon authorities to respect the human rights of all Burmese citizens and to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners in Burma. 205 205 3598 205 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 1 June 2006: Is he aware that on 28 May 2006, at celebrations for the Anniversary of Italian Republican Day, the Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs read the Prime Minister’s address to a large audience at Federation Square, Melbourne. Is he aware that the speech referred to in part (1) contained references to the Parliamentary Secretary’s pleasure at being present at the Marconi Club, which is in Sydney, for the occasion. What measures exist to ensure that further errors of this type are avoided. 205 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. and (3) No, the Prime Minister’s message made no reference to the Parliamentary Secretary. However, it was the wrong message. This was an administration error, which has been rectified. 205 205 3606 205 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 1 June 2006: In respect of parking costs incurred by Members and Senators visiting their capital cities on parliamentary business, what sum has been claimed by Members and Senators in each State and Territory for the financial years (a) 2000‑2001, (b) 2001‑2002, (c) 2002‑2003, (d) 2003‑2004, (e) 2004‑2005, and (f) 2005‑2006. 205 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: $6,233.38 $4,185.42 $5,622.49 $6,960.34 $6,362.78 $5,045.70 Please note: The amounts reported are exclusive of GST. In addition, the costs provided are for all car parking by Senators and Members, including at airports. 206 206 3615 206 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 13 June 2006: What is the Government doing to eliminate the immediate shortage of 287 nursing home beds in Adelaide’s western and southern regions. Will the Government guarantee that the shortage of nursing home beds in Adelaide’s western and southern regions will be alleviated as soon as possible. What were the shortages, or surpluses, of nursing home beds in Adelaide’s (a) western region, and (b) southern region for each year from 1996 to present. 206 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The Minister for Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: In the 2004 Budget, the Australian Government announced an increase in the national aged care planning benchmark from 100 to 108 aged care places for every 1,000 persons of the population aged 70 and over. These 108 places comprise 88 residential aged care places and 20 community care places. As at 31 December 2005, the operational residential aged care ratio in the Metropolitan West (South Australia) aged care planning region was 83.6 places for every 1,000 persons of the population aged 70 and over and the allocated ratio was 87.2. For the Metropolitan South (South Australia) aged care planning region the operational ratio was 83.9 places for every 1,000 persons of the population aged 70 and over and the allocated ratio was 92.0. Once all the allocated, but not yet operational residential places become operational, many more aged care places will be available in both aged care planning regions. To assist in reaching and maintaining the national benchmark operational ratio, up to 210 additional residential aged care places are available for allocation in the Metropolitan West, Metropolitan South and Metropolitan North (South Australia) aged care planning regions in the 2006 Aged Care Approvals Round. Additional residential places have been allocated to the Metropolitan West and Metropolitan South (South Australia) aged care planning regions in recent years and more places are available in the 2006 Aged Care Approvals Round. The Department of Health and Ageing monitors providers to ensure they bring allocated aged care places ‘on line’ as soon as practical, in accordance with the Aged Care Act 1997. and (b) The aged care operational ratios (per 1,000 persons aged 70 years or over), as at 30 June each year, from 1998 for the Metropolitan West and Metropolitan South (South Australia) aged care planning regions is contained in the following table. Metropolitan West - Operational Ratio Metropolitan South - Operational Ratio Year Residential Community Total Residential Community Total 1998 84.2 5.0 89.2 85.9 6.0 91.9 1999 79.3 5.4 84.7 83.3 7.2 90.5 2000 79.6 6.5 86.0 81.6 8.1 89.7 2001 73.9 16.6 90.5 81.8 13.6 95.4 2002 73.3 16.8 90.1 81.3 14.6 95.8 2003 76.0 16.0 92.0 80.9 15.8 96.7 2004 81.5 17.1 98.6 81.2 17.3 98.6 2005 82.2 18.3 100.5 82.9 17.9 100.8                 NB Operational ratio data for individual aged care planning regions was not reported before 1998. 207 207 3616 207 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 13 June 2006: In accordance with its responsibility under section 51 of the Australian Constitution, will the Government reinstate the Commonwealth Dental Scheme, or introduce a comparable scheme; if not, why not. 207 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: Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution permits the Parliament of the Commonwealth to make laws relating to dental benefits. It does not impose any responsibility on the Government in relation to dental services. As state and territory governments are solely responsible for public dental services, the Commonwealth Government has no plans to assume extra responsibility in this area. 207 207 3620 207 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 13 June 2006: In respect of the alleged sexual assault and forced signed confession of one of Iran’s leading pro-democracy and women’s rights activists, Roya Tolouee, is he aware of reports (a) of the incident, (b) that Roya Tolouee confessed after receiving threats that her children would be burned to death, (c) that sexual assault of female dissidents by Iran’s intelligence agency is commonplace and, (d) that sexual assault is a tactic employed by the Iranian regime; if not, why not. What is the Government’s position in relation to reports that incidents similar to those described in part (1) are occurring in Egypt. In respect of the reports referred to in part (1), has he raised objections or held discussions with (a) the Iranian Government, (b) Iran’s ambassador to Australia, and (c) Australia’s ambassador to Iran; if so (i) has the Iranian Government been made aware of his concerns and (ii) what response has been received from the Iranian Government. Are Australia and Iran currently engaged in dialogue in respect of human rights; if so (a) what is the status of the dialogue, (b) who is involved in the dialogue, (c) what issues are under discussion, and (d) what progress has been made in improving Iran’s record on human rights. Will he provide details of recent human rights dialogue between Australia and Iran. 207 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. and (d) Beyond the reports on Ms Tolouee’s detention I have not seen evidence that the sexual assault of female dissidents by Iran’s intelligence agency is commonplace or that sexual assault is a tactic employed by the Iranian regime. I would be deeply concerned should such evidence emerge. The Government notes reports of sexual assault perpetrated against female dissidents in Egypt. The Government strongly condemns the use of sexual violence and torture. Australia supports the promotion and protection of internationally recognised standards of human rights including international efforts to eliminate violence against women. to (c) Australia has urged the Iranian Government to stop the violation of rights of detainees in Iran. Our concerns over the human rights situation in Iran, including the treatment of detainees, were highlighted by our co-sponsoring a United Nations General Assembly Resolution in December 2005. The resolution called upon the Iranian Government to eliminate, in law and practice, the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. and (ii) The Iranian Government has not taken any action sufficient to alleviate our concerns over these human rights issues. Australia and Iran held the first round of a human rights dialogue in December 2002. It was agreed at the first round of human rights dialogue with Iran (December 2002) to hold a second round in Canberra at a time to be determined. A second round has not yet been scheduled. At the first round of the dialogue, the Australian delegation was led by then First Assistant Secretary of the International Organisations and Legal Division, Caroline Millar, and included Justice Catherine Branson of the Federal Court of Australia, Australia’s Ambassador to Iran, Jeremy Newman, and officials from the Attorney-General’s Department, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Iranian delegation was led by Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Director General for International Legal Affairs, Danesh Yazdi, and included officials from the MFA, the Justice Department, the judiciary, and the Islamic Human Rights Commission as well as academics. The first round of the dialogue involved an exchange of views covering a broad range of themes: international human rights issues; our respective constitutional, judicial and legal systems; the position of minorities (including Baha'is and Jews); the position of women; freedom of expression and the role of national human rights institutions; and the death penalty. The Australian delegation also had separate meetings with senior figures from the Iranian judiciary, the clergy, women parliamentarians and prison officials. Following the first round of dialogue, a delegation from the Islamic Human Rights Commission of Iran visited Australia in 2003 to study the roles and functioning of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Australia remains seriously concerned by the human rights situation in Iran. Since the election of President Ahmadinejad, Iran’s human rights record has deteriorated. Issues of the execution of minors, freedom of expression, lack of legal due process and systematic discrimination against women, girls and religious and ethnic groups are of particular concern. Iran has shown no sign of taking international concerns into account on human rights. Iran’s disregard for international opinion was evident in President Ahmadinejad’s comments last year calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. As per (4) (b) and (c). 208 208 3621 208 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 13 June 2006: Is he aware of recent reports of the arrest in Egypt of democracy activists, including 39 year old Ahmed Salah, for congregating publicly in a group comprising more than five persons; if so (i) what is the Government’s position on this matter and (ii) what steps has he taken to promote democracy in Egypt. 209 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. (i) The Government takes an ongoing interest in the human rights situation in Egypt, especially in light of reported crackdowns on pro-democracy reformers and urges an increased commitment to the promotion and protection of internationally recognised standards of human rights. (ii) Our Ambassador in Cairo has outlined Australia’s support for Egypt’s political reform with local media and government officials. Australia also made joint representations with the US, UK, Canada and the Republic of Ireland in 2004 to promote the rights of Egyptian religious minorities, specifically the Baha’is. 209 209 3622 209 Sercombe, Bob, MP QK6 Maribyrnong ALP 0 Mr Sercombe asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 June 2006: What action, or actions, has the Government undertaken to implement its 2004 election commitment to “work with major Australian timber wholesalers and retailers to examine options, consistent with our international obligations, to encourage wholesalers and retailers to ensure the timbers they sell are sourced from sustainable forest practices”. In support of the commitment referred to in part (1), what action, or actions, have been, or will be, undertaken by the Government to assist developing countries in the Asia-Pacific with the sustainable management of their forests. 209 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government has undertaken extensive consultations with industry, state and territory government departments and other stakeholders regarding the impact of illegal logging on imports of forest products into Australia. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has also commissioned a review of the volume, value and origin of illegal and suspected illegal forest products imported into Australia and a report ascertaining the policies and mechanisms utilised by Australian timber importers to determine the legality and sustainability of timber imports. Senator Abetz, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, recently announced that a draft policy paper is to be completed by the end of August 2006 for consultation with stakeholders. The Australian Government is currently undertaking forestry programmes within Asia-Pacific nations, such as the Forestry Management Project in the Solomon Islands and the Support to the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Forestry Authority under the Advisory Support Facility in PNG, to improve the governance and law enforcement of the forestry sector in these nations. The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) is the agency responsible for developing and undertaking assistance programmes for developing countries. 209 209 3623 209 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 June 2006: For the financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, on what dates did United States Air Force (USAF) aircraft visit Alice Springs Airport, and what USAF unit and type of aircraft were involved on each occasion. 209 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Specific information regarding the USAF unit operating the aircraft for each visit is not available. This information was not collected by airport operating authorities, and is not required by Royal Australian Air Force for the issuance of a military diplomatic clearance. Alice Springs Airport – USAF Aircraft Movements for financial year 2004-05 Arrival Date Departure Date Aircraft type 6 July 2004 6 July 2004 KC-10 13 July 2004 13 July 2004 KC-10 27 July 2004 27 July 2004 KC-10 3 August 2004 3 August 2004 KC-10 24 August 2004 24 August 2004 KC-10 1 September 2004 1 September 2004 KC-10 4 November 2004 4 November 2004 KC-10 22 November 2004 22 November 2004 KC-10 11 January 2005 11 January 2005 KC-10 18 January 2005 18 January 2005 KC-10 25 January 2005 25 January 2005 KC-10 1 February 2005 1 February 2005 KC-10 8 February 2005 8 February 2005 KC-10 1 March 2005 1 March 2005 KC-10 29 March 2005 29 March 2005 KC-10 12 April 2005 12 April 2005 KC-10 20 April 2005 20 April 2005 KC-10 26 April 2005 26 April 2005 KC-10 3 May 2005 3 May 2005 KC-10 10 May 2005 10 May 2005 KC-10 18 May 2005 18 May 2005 KC-10 24 May 2005 24 May 2005 KC-10 31 May 2005 31 May 2005 KC-10 7 June 2005 7 June 2005 KC-10 22 June 2005 22 June 2005 KC-10 28 June 2005 28 June 2005 KC-10 Alice Springs Airport – USAF Aircraft Movements for financial year 2005-06 Arrival Date Departure Date Aircraft type 6 July 2005 6 July 2005 C17 19 July 2005 19 July 2005 KC-10 26 July 2005 26 July 2005 KC-10 2 August 2005 2 August 2005 KC-10 16 August 2005 16 August 2005 KC-10 23 August 2005 23 August 2005 KC-10 31 August 2005 31 August 2005 KC-10 6 September 2005 6 September 2005 KC-10 13 September 2005 13 September 2005 KC-10 20 September 2005 20 September 2005 KC-10 27 September 2005 27 September 2005 KC-10 5 October 2005 5 October 2005 KC-10 11 October 2005 11 October 2005 KC-10 18 October 2005 18 October 2005 KC-10 26 October 2005 26 October 2005 KC-10 27 October 2005 28 October 2005 GULFSTREAM 5 1 November 2005 1 November 2005 KC-10 8 November 2005 8 November 2005 KC-10 15 November 2005 15 November 2005 KC-10 17 November 2005 17 November 2005 C40 21 November 2005 21 November 2005 KC-10 29 November 2005 29 November 2005 KC-10 5 December 2005 6 December 2005 C17 6 December 2005 6 December 2005 KC-10 13 December 2005 13 December 2005 KC-10 20 December 2005 20 December 2005 KC-10 10 January 2006 10 January 2006 KC-10 17 January 2006 17 January 2006 KC-10 25 January 2006 25 January 2006 KC-10 31 January 2006 31 January 2006 KC-10 14 February 2006 14 February 2006 KC-10 21 February 2006 21 February 2006 KC-10 1 March 2006 1 March 2006 C17 7 March 2006 7 March 2006 KC-10 14 March 2006 14 March 2006 KC-10 21 March 2006 21 March 2006 KC-10 4 April 2006 4 April 2006 KC-10 11 April 2006 11 April 2006 KC-10 18 April 2006 18 April 2006 KC-10 9 May 2006 9 May 2006 KC-10 17 May 2006 17 May 2006 KC-10 23 May 2006 23 May 2006 KC-10 30 May 2006 30 May 2006 KC-10 8 June 2006 8 June 2006 KC-10 13 June 2006 13 June 2006 KC-10 20 June 2006 20 June 2006 KC-10 211 211 3625 211 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 13 June 2006: Further to the Minister’s answer to question 1686 (Hansard, 10 August 2005, page 250) how many Australian Protective Service Officers (PSOs) were stationed, or otherwise deployed, at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap on 9 December 2005, and how many PSOs are now stationed at the facility. 211 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: On 9 December 2005 there were 44 PSOs deployed to Pine Gap. On 13 June 2006 there were 43 PSOs stationed at Pine Gap. 211 211 3626 211 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 June 2006: Since October 2004, what visits have been made to Australian Department of Defence facilities or establishments by members of the (a) Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (formerly the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD), (b) Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and (c) Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References and Legislation Committees. In respect of each visit referred to in part (1), (a) when did the visit take place, (b) which members of the Committee and Committee staff participated, and (c) were members and/or staff given a classified briefing on the purpose and/or operations of the facility. 212 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 Committees made the following visits to Defence Signals Directorate facilities and establishments: On 7 March 2006, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) visited the Shoal Bay Receiving Station in the Northern Territory. On 8 March 2006, the PJCIS visited the Australian Defence Satellite Communication Station in Western Australia. For Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade visits to Defence facilities or establishment please refer to Table 1. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References and Legislation Committee did not conduct any site visits to Defence facilities from October 2004 to the present time. , (b) and (c) Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security The following PJCIS members and staff participated in both the 7 March 2006 visit to the Shoal Bay Receiving Station, and the 8 March 2006 visit to the Australian Defence Satellite Communication Station: Mr Steven Ciobo MP, Member for Moncrieff; Mr Alan Ferguson, Senator for South Australia; The Hon Duncan Kerr SC MP, Member for Denison; Mr Stewart McArthur MP, Member for Corangamite; Mr Julian McGauran, Senator for Victoria; Ms Margaret Swieringa (committee staff member); and Dr Cathryn Ollif (committee staff member). The members and staff received a classified briefing on the purpose and operations of the facilities during both visits. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Please refer to Table 1. Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References and Legislation Committees. Not applicable. Table 1 – Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Visits to Defence Establishments since October 2004 Date Unit/location Members Staff Classification 7 March 2005 Strategic Operations Division, Russell Offices, Canberra Senator the Hon J. Macdonald Senator M. Payne Senator D. Johnston The Hon B. Scott MP The Hon W. Snowdon MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mrs T. Draper MP Mr B. Haase MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Mr S. Boyd Ms J. Cochran Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Unclassified 14 March 2005 Defence Strategy Group, Russell Offices, Canberra Senator the Hon J. Macdonald Senator D. Johnston The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mr B. Haase MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Mr K. Wilkie MP Mr S. Boyd Ms J. Cochran Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Unclassified 13 May 2005 HMAS Kuttabul: Headquarters Joint Operations command and Headquarters Special Operations Command, Sydney, NSW Holsworthy Barracks, NSW Senator M. Payne The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP The Hon G. Edwards MP Mr B. Haase MP Mrs J. Gash MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Mr P. Jeanroy Unclassified 16-17 June 2005 Army Aviation Centre, Oakey, QLD The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP Mr C. Thompson MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mr K. Wilkie MP The Hon G. Edwards MP Mr B. Haase MP Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Mr P. Jeanroy Unclassified 20 June 2005 Defence Intelligence Organisation, Russell Offices, Canberra Senator the Hon J. Macdonald Senator M. Payne Senator D. Johnston Senator S. Hutchins The Hon B. Scott MP The Hon W. Snowdon MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mrs T. Draper MP The Hon G. Edwards MP Mr B. Haase MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Mr M. Hatton MP The Hon R. Baldwin MP Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Secret level briefing on Defence Intelligence Organisation roles, responsibilities and current activities 22-26 August 2005 Headquarters Northern Command, Darwin, NT (incl Joint Offshore Protection Command) Headquarters NORFORCE, Darwin (DAR) & NORFORCE Field activity, Nhulunbuy (NBY), NT Headquarters 1 st Brigade, Palmerston, NT Senator A. Ferguson - DAR Senator M. Payne - DAR The Hon G. Edwards MP - DAR The Hon W. Snowdon MP - DAR & NBY Mr S. Gibbons MP - DAR & NBY Mr K. Wilkie MP - DAR & NBY Mr C. Thompson MP - NBY Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Mr P. Jeanroy Dr M. Kerley - DAR Unclassified 5 September 2005 Royal Military College Duntroon, Canberra Senator S. Hutchins Senator D. Johnston Senator M. Payne The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP Mrs T. Draper MP The Hon G. Edwards MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mr B. Haase MP The Hon W. Snowdon MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Lieutenant Colonel F. McLachlan Unclassified 16 September 2005 ASC (formerly Australian Submarine Corporation) Adelaide, SA Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Edinburgh, SA Senator A. Ferguson Senator D. Johnston The Hon G. Edwards MP Mrs T. Draper MP Mr B. Wakelin MP Mr K. Wilkie MP Lieutenant F. McLachlan Mr P. Jeanroy Unclassified 23 February 2006 Operation Acolyte Inspection, Victoria Barracks, Melbourne The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP The Hon G. Edwards MP Mr S. Gibbons Mp Wing Commander A. Borzycki Unclassified 27 February 2006 Strategic Operations Division, Russell Offices, Canberra Senator A. Ferguson Senator D. Johnston Senator M Payne The Hon B. Scott MP Mr M. Hatton MP The Hon W. Snowdon MP Mr C. Thompson MP Wing Commander A. Borzycki Mr P. Jeanroy Unclassified 2 May 2006 Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown, NSW (Australian Defence Force Peacekeeping Centre incl brief by Air Combat Group) Senator M. Payne Senator A. Ferguson Senator C. Moore Mr C. Thompson MP Mr K. Wilkie MP Wing Commander A. Borzycki Ms S. Edson Unclassified 19 June 2006 Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, Russell Offices, Canberra Senator A. Ferguson Senator S. Hutchins Senator D. Johnston Senator M. Payne The Hon B. Scott MP Mr S. Gibbons MP Mr C. Thompson MP Wing Commander A. Borzycki Secret level briefing on roles, responsibilities and current operational support activities 214 214 3634 214 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr Garrett asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 13 June 2006: Has his department reviewed the Government’s progress in implementing the recommendations of the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation; if so, will the Government adopt any of the report’s recommendations. Has he, or his department, considered endorsing and supporting a National Reconciliation Convention for 2007. What measures, if any, has the Government taken to develop effective performance monitoring regimes in the area of reconciliation. Will he introduce legislative measures to ensure regular reporting of the progress of the reconciliation process. Will he make it a statutory requirement that (a) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, or (b) any other independent body, report publicly on the state of reconciliation. Has the Government considered establishing a Joint Parliamentary Committee with responsibility for consulting, reporting and examining public reports on reconciliation and the Government’s response to the same. Has he considered instigating changes to the Constitution to advance the process of reconciliation. Has he, or his department, provided the Attorney-General’s Department with advice on the issue of indigenous intellectual property; if so, what was the substance of that advice; if not, will he ask his department to provide such advice to the Attorney-General’s Department. Was there any communication between himself, or his department, and the Attorney-General on the Government’s decision not to implement a resale royalty scheme for artists; if so, what was the content of that communication. Will he confirm that no funding was provided in this year’s Budget to support local and community based reconciliation groups. Is the Government considering the provision of on-going funding for a national clearing house of research, data and publications on Indigenous issues. 215 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 Australian Government responded fully to the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) in September 2002. The Government’s response, which indicated which recommendations were adopted, is available at my website (www.atsia.gov.au) under “Responses and Reports”. Although a National Reconciliation Convention was not recommended by CAR, the Government has funded Reconciliation Australia to hold a convention in the form of a leaders’ forum and other national events in 2007. The current framework for pursuing reconciliation, adopted at the November 2000 meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), identifies three priorities for governments’ action: investment in community leadership initiatives; reviewing and re-engineering government programmes and services to ensure they deliver practical support to Indigenous Australians; and the forging of closer links between the business sector and Indigenous communities to help promote economic independence. Performance monitoring of these priorities is now undertaken via the two-yearly Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (OID) report, a comprehensive suite of statistical indicators on key areas including life expectancy, education outcomes, labour force participation and hospitalisation. Also, since 2004, States, Territories and the Commonwealth have reported to COAG annually on progress against the Framework for Reconciliation that COAG adopted in 2000. Further, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is able to report on reconciliation and has done so publicly within its legislative powers since 1999. Currently, Reconciliation Australia which the Government has funded since its inception in 2001, is examining the option of creating a “reconciliation barometer” that would provide a regular assessment of the attitudes of the Australian community to the reconciliation process. The Government considers these reporting mechanisms to be adequate and no additional layer of reporting (including from a Joint Parliamentary Committee) is required. Also, the Government does not consider it necessary to change the Constitution to progress its reconciliation agenda. Responsibility for Indigenous intellectual property issues lies with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. There has been no communication between me or my Department and the Attorney-General or his Department about the Government’s consideration of a resale royalty rights scheme. Australian Government funding, specifically for other aspects of reconciliation, has been allocated to the development of Reconciliation Place in Canberra and for grants to Reconciliation Australia which is charged with promoting reconciliation at local and community levels. A number of clearing houses for research, data and publications on Indigenous issues already exist and are supported by Government funding. They include the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University. 216 216 3636 216 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 13 June 2006: Is Australia a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Under the CBD, was a de facto ban placed on Terminator (seed sterilisation) Technology in 2000. Have there been recent meetings to discuss the de facto ban referred to in part (2); if so, (a) when, and (b) did Australia participate; and if so, (i) which Australian departments and agencies participated, and (ii) what instructions, if any, were given to Australian representatives. Has Australia responded to the de facto ban on Terminator Technology; if not why not; if so, in what way. Has Australia placed a permanent ban on the research, development and use of Terminator seeds; if not, why not. 216 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, Australia is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Minister for the Environment’s portfolio has lead responsibility for implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. to (5) The matter of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies falls more directly within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Environment and Heritage, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Department of Health and Ageing. These questions should be directed to relevant parliamentary colleagues. 216 216 3640 216 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 June 2006: What sum has been expended by the Department of Defence on legal costs, including litigation and advice costs, in relation to the former Australian Defence Force member, Mary-Anne Martinek. 216 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: As at 30 June 2006, Defence has spent a total of $378,868 (inclusive of GST). Ms Martinek has been unsuccessful in all these legal proceedings and was ordered in each case to pay the Army’s costs in respect of these proceedings. As at 30 June 2006, two Federal Court cost orders for a total sum of $80,330 have been enforced against Ms Martinek, who has paid those costs in full. 217 217 3653 217 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: When was his most recent meeting with (a) a member of the Government of Burma, and (b) the Burmese Ambassador to Australia. For the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, what representations has the Australian Government made to the Burmese Government in respect of human rights. Does his Department receive reports on human rights issues from the Australian Embassy in Burma. Has he raised concerns about Burma in discussions with any of his regional counterparts; if so, when. 217 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 10 December 2005. (b) 11 August 2005. The Government regularly makes representations to the Burmese regime, including at the highest level, on human rights. Yes. Yes. It would not be appropriate to provide details of confidential discussions with other governments. 217 217 3655 217 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: What are the departmental or administered costs to AusAid of the Iraq engagement, in terms of (a) capital and recurrent expenditure and (b) funding, identifying any rollovers, for each of the forward years to 2009-10. 217 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Estimated administered expenditure for 2006-07 is $22.5m and does not include any capital expenditure. The Iraq, Middle East and Afghanistan team within AusAID comprises six officers who manage the aid programme to this area and are funded from the agency’s departmental appropriation. There is no funding nor rollovers identified for the forward years beyond 2006‑07. 217 217 3657 217 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: What are the departmental or administered costs to AusAid of the Afghanistan engagement, in terms of (a) capital and recurrent expenditure and (b) funding, identifying any rollovers, for each of the forward years to 2009‑10. 217 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Estimated administered expenditure for 2006-07 is $25.8m and does not include any capital expenditure. The Iraq, Middle East and Afghanistan team within AusAID comprises six officers who manage the aid programme to this area and are funded from the agency’s departmental appropriation. There are currently no estimates for administered expenditure past 2006‑07 as funding beyond mid‑2007 will depend on Afghanistan’s performance against benchmarks contained in the Compact. There is no funding nor rollovers identified for the forward years beyond 2006‑07. 218 218 3660 218 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: When did he most recently speak to his Japanese counterpart about Iraq. On the occasion referred to in part (1), did he discuss (a) the deployment of Australian troops to Iraq’s Al Muthana province and (b) plans for the withdrawal of Australian and/or Japanese troops. 218 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My discussions on these matters with my foreign counterparts, which occur very frequently, are treated as confidential and not a matter for the public record. 218 218 3661 218 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: When did he most recently speak to his US counterpart about Iraq. On the occasion referred to in part (1), did he discuss (a) the deployment of Australian troops to Iraq and (b) plans for the withdrawal of Australian and/or US troops. 218 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My discussions on these matters with my foreign counterparts, which occur very frequently, are treated as confidential and not a matter for the public record. 218 218 3662 218 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: When did the Minister most recently speak to his British counterpart about Iraq. On the occasion referred to in part (1), did he discuss (a) the deployment of Australian troops to Iraq and (b) plans for the withdrawal of Australian and/or British troops. 218 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My discussions on these matters with my foreign counterparts, which occur very frequently, are treated as confidential and not a matter for the public record. 218 218 3664 218 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: What is the current status of the Enhanced Cooperation Program with Papua New Guinea. 218 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 30 June 2006, forty-four Australian civilian officials were working in Papua New Guinea (PNG) Government agencies under the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) as advisers in the areas of economic and financial management, public sector reform, law and justice, border management and transport security. The Government has been discussing with PNG authorities options for a revised policing component of the ECP that would be consistent with a ruling of the PNG Supreme Court on the PNG legislation to implement the ECP Treaty. The Government has offered to provide a number of Australian police as advisers to assist in key roles related to police reform, organised crime, terrorism and corruption. Discussions are also continuing on further assistance in the law and justice sector, including a proposal to fill the position of PNG Solicitor-General with an ECP deployee. At the 2005 Australia-PNG Ministerial Forum, Ministers from both sides agreed that ECP deployees were making a valuable contribution to a range of priority areas in PNG and were helping to build the capacities of PNG government systems, strengthen governance and reduce corruption. 219 219 3670 219 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: In respect of his office’s expenditure on media monitoring, what proportion is spent on transcripts, audio and visual recordings, and media alerts of Opposition members. 219 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Media monitoring in relation to Opposition members is not listed separately in the department’s electronic payment records. 219 219 3695 219 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 19 June 2006: How many senior officials in the Minister’s Department have a personal leadership coach or trainer. In each of the cases identified in part (1), what is the cost per hour of the leadership coach. What sum has been expended on leadership coaching in the Minister’s Department during the 2005-06 financial year. 219 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: No senior officials within the Department of Transport and Regional Services currently receive services from personal leadership coaches or trainers. Nil Nil