2006-09-05 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-09-05 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 1 MISCELLANEOUS 1 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to say a few words about the tragic and untimely death of Steve Irwin. Steve Irwin’s death yesterday in bizarre, tragic, and in some respects quintessentially Australian circumstances has not only shocked and horrified the people of Australia; it has brought forth around the world an outpouring of grief and emotional expressions of regard for this remarkable man. As the Cinderella Man, Russell Crowe, put it so well, ‘The crocodile man Steve Irwin was the Australian many of us aspire to be.’ He was, to use that old expression, a larger than life character. What you saw was what you got. He was a talented showman. He used his massive talents to support causes and to achieve goals that he greatly believed in. It is easy when looking at the colour and showmanship of Steve Irwin’s life to overlook his extraordinary grasp and understanding of environmental and nature conservation issues. I had the opportunity of listening to the British environmentalist Professor David Bellamy on radio this morning. He paid a very high tribute indeed to Steve Irwin’s depth of detailed understanding of the creatures that inhabit this earth and of the environmental challenges that we all face. Steve Irwin was an indefatigable campaigner for things that were important, and are important, to Australia. His services to the tourism industry have been quite remarkable. He epitomised to so many people around the world what they saw to be uniquely Australian characteristics. For that we should be simultaneously proud and grateful. He also believed passionately in a strong, protected Australian environment. His willingness to front the high-profile ‘Quarantine Matters’ campaign was a great contribution to the quarantine cause and the clean green protected image that this country wants to continue and represent to the rest of the world. That successful campaign, which started in 2002, grew to be one of the nation’s most successful public awareness campaigns. His commitment to the cause of that campaign and the love he evinced for Australia in that campaign was evident. A few months ago he participated in the ‘G’day LA’ exhibition in Los Angeles to mark Australia Day, and it has become one of the showcases of our country to the United States and to the world. In February of this year he was the recipient of an award for services to the tourism industry. But the greatest reward that his memory can have has been the remarkable outpouring of affection for, and grief for the loss of, this remarkable individual. The joy he brought to millions of Australians and people around the world of all ages and the understanding he brought to young children of the importance of the creatures of this earth to our wellbeing and to what makes our lives amount to something has been amazing, and is deserving of immense tribute. He was a great Australian icon. I found him essentially a person of what you saw his what you got. There was nothing contrived about him. He was a genuine, one-off, remarkable Australian individual. I am distressed at his death, and I think I speak for millions of people around Australia in conveying the sense of distress and sadness that such a rich, active, energetic Australian life should have been so abruptly ended in such circumstances. To his wonderful wife, Terri, and to their children, Bindi and Bob, who must confront and deal with this awful tragedy, I extend on behalf of myself and my wife and the members of my government—and, I am sure, everyone in this place—our deep sorrow and sadness at his death. Steve Irwin was a wonderful Australian. We mourn his loss, we are devastated by the tragic circumstances in which he has been taken from us, and we send our love and prayers to his grieving family. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2 14:07:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —On indulgence, I echo the remarks made by the Prime Minister. I know they are heartfelt. We are all aware of the strong relationship that the Prime Minister had with Steve and his family. The Prime Minister in particular would have been hurt by the events of yesterday as he contemplated the words to say in this chamber today. The nation went to bed in shock last night at the death of Steve Irwin, and this morning it arose in sorrow, but we can only imagine the sorrow and despair felt by his family. I do know that the thoughts and prayers of millions of Australians are with them today. Steve’s pride in his family was on show as much as he was. They were his life, and he shared everything with them. He and his wife, Terri, spent their honeymoon trapping crocodiles. They went on to make almost 50 documentaries together. At the time of his death, Steve was working on a documentary with his eight-year-old daughter, Bindi. Steve was the quintessential Aussie larrikin. His infectious larger-than-life persona, his willingness to embrace any number of fierce and venomous creatures and his signature catchcry, ‘Crikey’, endeared him to the world. As somebody who loves language, I am sincerely grateful to him for reintroducing that marvellous word into common usage. It disappeared 30 or 40 years ago. Today we owe the popularity of that great Aussie expression ‘Crikey’ in no small measure—a small but nevertheless identifiable contribution—to Steve. Through the Crocodile Hunter documentaries Steve became a great ambassador for this country—that should not be underestimated—and for Aussie values, some of them somewhat larrikin values. Through those documentaries he showed his talent as an educator, a campaigner and a conservationist. He taught many Australians to love our own flora and fauna, tough though that flora and fauna may often be. He took that show to the world. His shows screened in more than 130 countries. It is estimated that he was known to an audience of 500 million people, which is an extraordinary spreading of his talent and contribution across the globe. He was particularly loved in the United States. I think it is probably fair to say that he had recognition in the United States before he had recognition here to the same extent. In the American mind, he came to stand for what Australians are. I must say we could have done a lot worse than him as the person who stood as an example of our nation in the minds of the average American citizen. He was obviously delighted with the recognition that he got in the United States. I loved the statement he made when he got back from one trip to the United States that he was ‘bigger than 10 bears’. He was comparing is success with American fauna, not Australian fauna. He did not say he was bigger than 10 crocodiles. It probably does not bear the same sort of comparison. According to the media I have seen, the talk shows in the United States have been full of reprises of chats that he has had with all the major talk show hosts in the United States over the years. There is a profound sense of regret and sorrow in the United States at his passing. As is my wont, every night at 11 o’clock I listen on News Radio to the BBC news. We do not often make it onto the BBC news at 11 o’clock at night, but we made it last night for the saddest of all possible reasons—the passing of this quintessential Australian icon. As Australians we have had an enormous love and affection for Steve but, now he has gone, we must remember the extraordinary contribution he made. He was not only a great Aussie bloke; he was determined to instil his passion for the environment and its inhabitants in everybody he met. And, it has to be said, in this he largely succeeded. From the small boy who was given his own scrub python on his sixth birthday to the man whose exploits captivated millions of people around the world, he was unique. He will be sorely missed. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party I join with the Prime Minister and members of the government in offering my deepest condolences to his wife, Terri, and their children, Bindi and Bob. 3 14:12:00 Questions Without Notice 3 14:12:00 3 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to reports today that motorists face delays of up to 12 months to get an LPG conversion. Is the Prime Minister aware that motor mechanics have been on the national skills shortage list every year for the last 10 years? Why won’t the government follow the lead of the Victorian Labor government, which has funded 500 extra training places—a program that takes only 115 hours and is delivered part-time over weekends and in the evenings—so mechanics can upgrade their skills and become licensed LPG installers? Prime Minister, why do you do nothing while your skills crisis and the petrol price pain hurt all Australians? 3 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Obviously the Leader of the Opposition and I read the same news report this morning. My take is totally different. I thought that story was good news. I thought what it demonstrated was that the policy of the government is working. The Leader of the Opposition is a very interesting man. You bring in a subsidy that has a dramatic effect on the conversion rate to LPG, and the Leader of the Opposition says: ‘This is terrible. We’ve got to do something about it.’ Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that the Australian LPG association estimates that it will take around six months for the industry’s capacity to meet demand. As a result of the measures introduced by the government, there will be about 105,000 conversions—that is their estimate—over the 12-month period from the introduction of the measure. That is significantly higher than the current rate of about 32,000 a year. Let me quote from the words in a letter to my colleague from Tony Chapman, one of the LPG spokesmen quoted in the Australian article. He said this, inter alia: ... my view is that this policy is a great initiative from the federal government to assist the consumer who are paying high petrol prices as well as benefiting Australian’s environment and energy diversification. There has been a huge response to this initiative. Of course, when you provide a subsidy for something that previously has not been subsidised you are going to have a short-term excess of demand over supply, and no skills policy, no technical education policy, is ever going to provide for it in advance. If you provided in advance for every subsidy that might be introduced, you would have a lot of idle capacity. It shows just how little the Leader of the Opposition knows about the ordinary laws of supply and demand. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Cook. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have called the honourable member for Cook. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Speaker, I know I caught your eye, and I would appreciate the opportunity. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cook will resume his seat. I call the member for Hunter. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Speaker, can I invite the Prime Minister to table the document from which he was quoting in the hope that it will demonstrate that only three per cent of motor vehicles in Australia will have access— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter will not debate his request. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I will table this letter. It concludes with the words: I once again confirm my wholehearted support for this program. It starts with the statement: I was disappointed to read an article in today’s Australian that stated that I had criticised the Government policy on providing a rebate for conversion to LPG for motorists. This could be no further from the truth, my view is that this policy is a great initiative from the federal government to assist the consumer who are paying high petrol prices ... I table with it with pleasure. 4 4 14:17:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 Mr BAIRD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the security situation and other developments in East Timor following his meetings in Dili yesterday? 4 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question and his interest. As I think some members of the House would know and the honourable member knows, I was in Dili, in East Timor, yesterday and I had the opportunity of meeting with President Gusmao, Prime Minister Jose Ramos Horta and foreign affairs minister Guterres, as well as Brigadier Slater, the commander of the international forces there, and the commander of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Lancaster. I also participated in a trilateral meeting with the Indonesian foreign affairs minister, Hassan Wirajuda. I spent time with Brigadier Slater and Mr Lancaster discussing in particular the level of violence in and around Dili. The advice that I received was that, in an overall sense, the level of violence had reduced in recent times. It was now mainly gang related rather than politically driven violence. Having said that, I must say personally—and I think they would agree with me—that we are very concerned about the significant number of weapons which are at large and about the volatile political environment that still exists in East Timor. The break-out of 57 criminals from jail last Thursday was a matter of particular concern, not only because Major Reinado is amongst them but the other 56 are hardened criminals, and many of them are murderers. I made the point to the East Timorese that, for all the international community can do to help East Timor and for all that this country in particular has done to help East Timor since 1999, the East Timorese—and that is all of them—must understand that they are responsible for their own country. There is a real issue here of the East Timorese assuming that others will always sort out their problems for them. They need to understand that, first and foremost, they must sort out their own problems and that the rest of the international community, particularly Australia, can come and help from time to time. It is important to understand that, as a matter of policy, we constantly emphasise this point. With that in mind, we have welcomed Security Council resolution 1704, which we assisted in assembling. Assistance with elections, justice reform and reconciliation as well as a very substantial United Nations policing presence will, I think, be effective and will assist East Timor very substantially. I have made the point that the proposal for a blue-helmeted military component is inadequate and ill considered and that it needs to be thought through again. The Security Council obviously shares that view. The matter is now being reconsidered and will be before the Security Council again next month. It remains our view that it is best to have an Australian led green-helmeted military component there. After all, the force that we offer will for the foreseeable future be substantially larger than the force proposed by the United Nations, which is only 350. There is also the issue of tasking. The proposal put forward by the United Nations was that the blue-helmeted military component would only protect, in particular, the United Nations police and that it would not deal with broader breakdowns in law and order that could not be handled by the police. Those problems would need to be dealt with over and above providing protection for the United Nations. Let me say on these matters that we listen very much to the advice of the military, and of Brigadier Slater in particular. I want to take this opportunity—and I know that the Minister for Defence will appreciate this—to pay tribute to Brigadier Slater. I think he has done an exceptional job in very trying and difficult circumstances, and he deserves the support of the parliament and the Australian people for the simply outstanding job he has done. I can pass on to the House that President Xanana Gusmao and Prime Minister Horta expressed their deepest appreciation to me for Australia’s assistance in East Timor. They know that, at the end of the day, the responsibility rests with them and their people to sort out their own problems and not just to look to the international community to solve all of their woes. 5 5 14:22:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and relates to the answer he just gave on the current security situation in East Timor. Does the minister recall stating only six weeks ago: [East Timor] is going to stabilise very substantially now. I think it will quieten down ... we can start thinking about ... downsizing our presence ... I think they have really worked through the political difficulties ... And does he recall stating two days later, on 12 July: ... I think things are looking much better in East Timor now. Will the minister now concede that the government has once again mismanaged Australia’s national security interests and misjudged the situation on the ground in East Timor, all to justify a premature withdrawal of Australian forces, repeating the mistake the government made only last year, just before the total collapse of security in Dili? 5 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, I appreciate the honourable member’s question and warmly thank him for the opportunity to deal with an issue that I notice he has raised in what I would have thought—if I may put forward the judgement—was an excessively partisan manner over recent times. If I may say so, it misjudges the Australian public. That is the mistake he makes: he misjudges the Australian public. I do stand by those statements that I made. We have of course reduced the number of military we have on the ground in East Timor quite substantially since that time. I think it would have been— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Griffith has asked his question. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —certainly the advice we had from Brigadier Slater, who—if I may be so bold as to suggest—I think is an even better adviser than the member for Griffith on these matters. Perhaps that is excessively bold, but that is my view. We have substantially reduced the numbers, and we will continue to take the advice of Brigadier Slater and others. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —I think the Australian people and the people of East Timor believe that this government has done an extraordinarily good job in assisting that country. As for the rhetorical and partisan flourish— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith is warned! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —at the end of the honourable member’s question, I do not think almost anybody outside of the hard core of the ALP would remotely believe it. 6 6 14:24:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House on how the government plans to simplify and streamline superannuation to help people provide for their retirement? Is the Treasurer aware of other views? 6 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. As he knows, in this year’s budget, the government handed down the most bold and visionary reform to superannuation that we have ever seen in Australia, to apply from 1 July 2007. We said we would consult in relation to transitional details, and we received 1,500 written submissions in August and 3,500 phone calls. Today I have announced the government’s transitional details so that the plan can now be enacted with legislation to be introduced before the end of the year. Members will know that the simplicity of the plan is as follows: there will be no tax on benefits paid out of a taxed superannuation fund for people who are aged 60 years or over—no tax on lump sums, no tax on pensions. We will wipe away the complexity of the taxation arrangements on end benefits in superannuation, and we will make superannuation the preferred savings vehicle for all Australians. We will wipe away reasonable benefits limits. We will wipe away age based contributions. We will have simple rules whereby employer contributions of $50,000 per annum will be allowed—and $150,000 of undeducted contributions. In relation to the transitionals, we announced that, between now and 1 July 2007, people who were intending to make large contributions will be able, subject to any applicable work test, to put into superannuation $1 million of post-tax contributions. That will allow people who had put in place a retirement strategy to do so, unaffected by these changes, before 1 July 2007. We have also announced for small business people that they will be able, on the sale of their business or a business asset which they have held for 15 years, to put $1 million into superannuation. Of course, where couples are involved in business, that will apply to both the husband and the wife. We announced indexation of contribution taxes. We announced changes in relation to lump sum benefits from untaxed sources and new arrangements in relation to tax file numbers. The detail of these superannuation changes can be found on the Treasury website SimplerSuper.treasury.gov.au. The submissions that we got in relation to super were overwhelmingly positive. For example, we had Susan Ryan, the former Labor senator, saying: Maybe faced with the Treasurer’s bold gazumping of Labor’s cherished but ... shabby super property, the Opposition will find the resolve to get another big picture worked out, and the wherewithal to let voters know about it. Maybe Labor will; maybe it won’t. Garry Weaven, the former ACTU officer, said: ‘The government’s recent budget initiatives have proved that the Liberal Party is now the official party for superannuation.’ There you have endorsements from ACTU officials, from former Labor senators and from the industry. The only person we are yet to hear from in relation to the reaction to this superannuation plan—the only person who is yet to announce a position—is the Leader of the Opposition. He still cannot make up his mind. As I think the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, who worked on this, said, it is a bit like the three mines policy: yes, no, or maybe is the position that the Leader of the Opposition currently has in relation to superannuation. The Labor Party ought to come to a decision. It ought to try and get its mind around policy for once. When it does, it ought to support the government and this bold initiative: the biggest reform to superannuation in the history of superannuation. 7 7 14:29:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Treasurer and relates to the Reserve Bank’s measure of debt servicing for households. Can the Treasurer confirm that increased household debt, coupled with the seven back-to-back interest rates rises since April 2002, has resulted in households paying a record share of their incomes in mortgage interest payments? Can the Treasurer identify any period previously where households were losing a greater share of income in mortgage interest repayments than today? 7 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —The truth of the matter is that Australians’ asset growth has far outstripped their borrowings. As the Reserve Bank notes, we now have $6 of assets for every dollar of borrowing. As a consequence, for every dollar of debt, households have $2 in financial assets. The nominal wealth of households has increased by 11 per cent per annum, compared with a growth of six per cent per annum over the last seven years of the previous Labor government. What has in fact happened is that the Australian household sector has had the greatest accumulation of wealth that we have seen in generations. In relation to that, because interest rates are low, Australians have felt confident to borrow and, notwithstanding the fact that they have borrowed, their net asset position is still stronger. Let me come back to one thing that would really interrupt this accumulation of wealth by Australians. One thing that would really, really interrupt it would be an Australian Labor Party government. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Answer the question! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Not only would they find that their assets would decline but in relation to their borrowings they would be at exposed levels as a consequence. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Answer the question! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Everybody in Australia knows this. Labor cannot be trusted with money. Everybody in Australia knows that you cannot trust your money to the Labor Party. You could not do it when they were last in government and you will not be able to do it in the future either. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Mr Speaker, earlier I invited the Prime Minister to table the documents from which he was quoting. I now have in my possession the document he tabled, but he tabled selectively. By making reference to the fact that only three per cent of vehicles will have access to this grant, I made it clear that I was seeking information about the take-up rates of the grant scheme which the Prime Minister was quoting. Again, I invite him to table the document from which he was reading. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter would be aware that the Prime Minister was asked to table the document from which he was quoting. The Prime Minister has tabled a document for which— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —He tabled the wrong document! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —No, I didn’t. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —With respect, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was quoting from more than one document. He was quoting figures from— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —One marked ‘Confidential’. Opposition members—Sprung! 8 8 14:34:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Trade, update the House on the government’s efforts to build citrus exports to China, a matter of some moment to me in the seat of Hinkler and to my colleague the member for Mallee? Are there any other impediments to these efforts? 8 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. As the member for Hinkler would be well aware, improving market access for Australia’s agricultural exports is not just about removing tariff barriers but also about negotiating quarantine protocols to get fresh produce into those markets across the world. China is a classic and recent example with huge potential for the Australian citrus industry—for citrus growers in the member for Hinkler’s electorate, in the member for Mallee’s electorate, in the member for Riverina’s electorate and probably in the member for Barker’s electorate. During Premier Wen’s visit here in April, we signed a quarantine protocol with the Chinese government to allow the export of all major varieties of Australian citrus into that rapidly growing market. The first consignment of Queensland mandarins from Mundubbera, in the member for Hinkler’s electorate, has cleared Chinese customs and will be on sale in local markets in Beijing today—Australian mandarins are for sale in Beijing today! Australian Citrus Growers have said that this represents ‘a real milestone, due to a strong export commitment in the industry and partnership with the Australian government’. The member for Hinkler would be pleased to know that a total of 48,600 kilos of mandarins were shipped from Mundubbera: 22,680 kilos have gone to Shanghai; 25,920 kilos have gone to Beijing. They expect an additional 300,000 kilos to go to China before October. Next year, the industry is hoping to further increase exports as oranges and other citrus fruits become more available to go into that market. This market could be worth in future over $50 million for Australia’s citrus growers, and we know the difficult circumstances they have been through over the years. Now that we have established that protocol on citrus, our priorities will turn to getting table grapes, summer fruit and cherries into the Chinese market. This is an example of working closely with our counterparts in the Chinese government to establish these protocols. While we have been doing that and establishing a reform process in Australia—reforming the waterfront, for example, one of the key industrial relations reforms that have helped this industry export its product more efficiently and competitively—what have the Labor Party been doing? They have been opposing our reforms. They opposed us on the waterfront; they have opposed our taxation reforms; they have opposed our workplace relations reforms. Lately they have been raving on—there has actually been scaremongering—about the issue of bananas, trying to help out their mate in Queensland. And they have sacked the only member of the frontbench that knows anything about agriculture. That is all the Labor Party cares about our agricultural industries. Meanwhile our government is getting on and getting access for the citrus growers across Australia, particularly in the seat of Hinkler. 9 9 14:38:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP 0 Mr BURKE —My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and refers to the granting of a further 21 temporary worker 457 visas to Sydney company ABC Tissue Products. Can the minister confirm that ABC Tissue Products was initially investigated by the department of immigration in August 2005, over a month before he attended the sod-turning ceremony last year? Minister, in light of the Prime Minister’s admission yesterday that this company has been issued with multiple infringement and compliance notices, including for immigration breaches, workplace and safety breaches and taxation breaches, will these 21 new visas be reconsidered or revoked? 9 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr RUDDOCK —Can I just say in relation to the question asked that I will check as to when any information was first received by the department of immigration in relation to ABC Tissue Products. I would note that there are two corporations involved in relation to the building of this factory—the company that is manufacturing on adjacent sites, ABC Tissue Products, and Hunan services, if that is the correct name, a company owned in China by the Chinese government. I think it is Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation. The advice I have is that on 28 July 2006 DIMA issued Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation with a notice of intention to sanction, on a number of grounds—including a failure to pay minimum salary levels, to comply with immigration laws, to comply with workplace relations laws, to ensure necessary licensing of workers and to notify Immigration of relevant changes of circumstances and deduction of tax instalments. A response was received on 4 September— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —We can’t hear you very well. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —A response was received on 4 September and the department is continuing to have discussions in relation to that matter in assessment of the claims that were given in response. Depending upon those findings, the department will decide whether or not sanctions might be applied. This could include barring Hunan from participation in the 457 program. The department will then contact visa holders to determine what their options might be. I am also advised that in relation to ABC Tissue Products, which was a separate matter, there were two visa holders who were found not to be carrying out duties in relation to a nominated position. A response was received which is being presently reviewed. Again, the situation is that, if there are matters that are not satisfactorily resolved, visas could be cancelled. In relation to the further question, there were, as I understand it, 21 visas granted on 22 and 23 May 2006, again following sponsorship by Hunan. The allegations were first raised by the AMWU in a letter to the minister on 23 May—that is, after the visa grants. No further visas or nominations have been approved for Hunan since that time. I would simply make the point that the Prime Minister made yesterday. If there are breaches of the law in relation to the way in which visas have been sought in these particular matters, they will be dealt with properly in accordance with the law, as you would expect. 10 10 14:42:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 Mr CIOBO —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of regional and global fora to promote economic stability across our region. How do these fora advance Australia’s interests? 10 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —The APEC finance ministers will be meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Thursday and Friday of this week. It is the 13th such annual meeting. Vietnam being a developing economy, the principal focus of the APEC Finance Ministers Meeting will be on how to promote capital flows in the region, particularly investment in developing countries. After the APEC meeting, at which I will be representing Australia, I will be going to South Africa to confer with finance minister Trevor Manuel, who will become the chairman of the Group of Twenty after Australia’s host year concludes at the end of this year. The Group of Twenty brings together the developed and the developing worlds to discuss matters of global international financial architecture. It will be meeting in November in Melbourne, because Australia is the chair. The issues that we have placed on the agenda for that meeting include energy security. We will be bringing together energy producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia and large global energy users such as China and the United States. We will also be engaging in discussion on demographic change and the effect on financial flows and trade. The G20 has also developed into an important forum for reform of the international financial institutions of the IMF and the World Bank. The IMF and World Bank meetings will be held in Singapore on 19 and 20 September and prospects are good for a proposal which has been put forward by the G20, but in particular by Australia, to be adopted at that meeting in Singapore. It is a proposal to increase voting shares of the most clearly underrepresented members of the IMF—China, Korea, Mexico and Turkey—with a second stage of additional reform to align shares with relative positions in the world economy. This will be an extremely significant reform of the International Monetary Fund in accordance with the development of the global economy. Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to see this adopted, particularly through our influence in the G20—probably the premier meeting of central bank governors and finance ministers in the world, which will be held in Australia in November of this year. 10 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10 14:45:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10 14:45:00 Questions Without Notice 10 14:45:00 10 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms MACKLIN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister again to ABC Tissue Products. Is the Prime Minister aware that fundamental workplace safety problems remain at the site, with unskilled foreign workers trying to make power tools fit a socket by stripping the cord and inserting the naked wires straight into the plug, as shown in this photo? Isn’t the real safety issue that this government has allowed 457 skilled visas to be abused by bringing in unskilled foreign workers with little or no English and who cannot follow basic safety instructions? 11 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am aware of the allegations that have been made and, as I indicated yesterday, proceedings have been taken. If there are breaches of the law, they will be dealt with in accordance with the law. But—while I am on my feet—given that this question and a number of questions are about 457 visas, I caused a little bit of research to be done on the subject of 457 visas. As I indicated yesterday, as of January this year the largest single user of 457 visas was the New South Wales Department of Health. Recently the New South Wales health minister issued a statement proudly declaring that almost three-quarters of the 1,000 nurses to join the New South Wales health system as a result of a 2005 overseas recruitment drive would be on 457 visas. The truth is that the eight state and territory Labor governments have facilitated this; they have been up to their armpits in these visas. Since 2002, South Australia has more than quadrupled its state sponsored skilled migration intake, Queensland has more than tripled it, Western Australia has nearly tripled it, and New South Wales and Victoria have almost doubled it. The ACT, Tasmania— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —and the Northern Territory have increased their skilled migrant intake by 70 per cent, 50 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. What these figures demonstrate is the truth of the statement often made by my colleague the Treasurer: hypocrisy. Labor, thy name is hypocrisy. They have been up to their armpits, bringing people in under these 457 visas, but all the while at a state and provincial level, as if they were some other organisation, Labor governments have been busily taking advantage. That is fundamentally a common-sense proposition. I also remind the Leader of the Opposition of something he said when he was addressing— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lalor is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He was addressing the ethnic communities breakfast. At least they let him speak, which was more than the Queensland Labor Party did at the Labor Party’s launch. This is what he had to say. He was talking about skilled migrants creating job opportunities for other Australians. This is what he said: Far from— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question is about whether or not these overseas workers— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —This is what he had to say when he addressed the ethnic communities breakfast on 24 July 1998. He said: I would say the Leader of the Opposition then was speaking the truth. The great problem that the Leader of the Opposition really has is that we have the lowest unemployment rate in this country for 30 years and he cannot come to terms with it. 12 12 14:50:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How does responsible management of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme deliver affordable medicines to those in need? What new medicines has the government recently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that will benefit constituents in my electorate of La Trobe? 12 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for his question and I certainly acknowledge his vigorous lobbying on behalf of people with cancer in his electorate. I can tell the House that, thanks to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australians have affordable access to life-saving and life-enhancing drugs. We all know that PBS spending had been growing at an average rate of about 10 per cent a year since 1996. But, thanks to cost control measures put in place by this government, particularly the 12½ per cent mandatory price cut for the new generics measure, that growth slowed to under three per cent last year. This has meant that there has been some headroom to allow new drugs into the system—in particular, to allow three expensive new listings from 1 October. The first listing is of the drug Herceptin, which will be available to about 2,000 women with breast cancer at a cost of well over $100 million a year. The second listing is of two drugs, Lantus and Levemir, which will be available to over 100,000 people with diabetes at a cost of up to $40 million a year. The third listing is of cholesterol-reducing drugs known as statins, which will be available to an additional 250,000 people at risk of heart disease at a cost of up to $40 million a year. These new listings will add 0.8 per cent to estimated PBS growth rates over the forward estimates period, but the government is confident that this additional spending is more than justified because of the health outcomes that it will secure. This is just more evidence that you can trust the Howard government with your health care and that the Howard government is more assuredly than ever the best friend that Medicare has ever had. 12 12 14:53:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling this House, from behind that dispatch box, on 22 June this year: ... if there are adequate numbers of Australians available to fill skilled trades positions, then they should get the jobs ... Is the Prime Minister aware that up to 50 Australian tradespeople working on site at ABC Tissues were stood down without pay in the week of 18 August but that the foreign workers continued to be paid? Does the Prime Minister now think it is acceptable for local tradespeople to be stood down without pay— 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Blair is warned! PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —while foreign unskilled workers on 457 visas continue to be paid and to retain job security? 12 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am quite sure that I would have said something like that on 22 June 2006—and, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I would have consistently said it on 22 June in the nine previous years, because I have always had the view that you only bring people into these situations where there is clearly a shortage of Australian workers. What I find strange is that, every second time somebody from the Labor Party gets up, they start talking about the skills shortage but, when you bring people in to fix it, they say, ‘Oh, that’s bad.’ If there has been any breach by this company, then this company deserves to be punished. But that in no way alters the general proposition that I have maintained. That general proposition is that, where there is a demonstrated shortage of Australian workers, we do need to bring in overseas workers. As I pointed out in my previous answer, that is uniformly the attitude of every state and territory Labor government in this country. It is complete hypocrisy for the Labor Party, on the one hand, at a state level, to bring in foreign workers to fill the gaps and yet, on the other hand, at a federal level, to try to run some kind of scare campaign in relation to the bringing in of foreign workers. If the ABC company has broken the law, it ought to have the book thrown at it. But that does not alter the validity of the current situation. 13 13 14:56:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 Dr JENSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on the progress of the government’s reform of the building industry? Is the minister aware of recent comments that promote industrial conflict and unlawful behaviour; what is the minister’s response? 13 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 Tangney for his question. I can report to him and to the House that the government has made significant progress in bringing about much reform in Australia’s $50 billion building and construction industry. Indeed, in the March 2006 quarter, there was a record low rate of disputation recorded in the commercial construction industry. Regrettably, this progress has not stopped the pattern of thuggery and intimidation by the CFMEU. Last week CFMEU members made threatening and profane comments to legal counsel in court in Perth. Worse than that, in the same week, CFMEU members made quite distasteful and inappropriate comments to a female journalist covering a rally in Perth. So here we have two more instances of the pattern of behaviour of these thugs in the CFMEU seeking, in one instance, to intimidate the courts in Western Australia and, in the other instance, seeking to intimidate a female journalist from the media within Perth. All of this was condoned by the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, who both was in the court at the time the comments were made and also addressed the rally where these quite inappropriate comments were made to a female journalist. On top of that, we hear absolutely nothing from the Leader of the Opposition, who has not said one word to condemn this intimidation. This is a pattern of behaviour by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, he will not support the reforms to clean up the thuggery and the intimidation in the building and construction industry in Australia and then he will not condemn this intimidation which was going on as recently as last week—and why? Because the CFMEU has paid some $5 million to the Australian Labor Party over the last 10 years. This is unacceptable behaviour. We had the Leader of the Opposition in August speak in support of unionists who took unlawful industrial action on a Perth construction site in defiance of an Australian Industrial Relations Commission order that they return to work. During this rally the Leader of the Opposition made a quite extraordinary claim when he said that this was ‘an authorised piece of industrial action going on’. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler is warned! HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —This is despite the fact that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission clearly ruled that the industrial action was unlawful and unauthorised and that it should cease in that circumstance. In one statement the Leader of the Opposition has shown, firstly, that he is not across the facts when it comes to these issues and, secondly, that he is prepared to undermine the authority and the reputation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Building Construction Commission—two independent bodies. He has shown that he supports unionists taking damaging economic action, as they have done with irresponsible, unlawful industrial action. He has shown that he would rather do the bidding of the union bosses for their $5 million than stand up for the $50 billion Australian building and construction industry. He suggested that people should only obey the law if they respect that law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition suggested last week. It is quite shameful. It shows once again that he is weakly prepared to put vested interests ahead of the national interest. 14 14 15:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. You never know, we might get an answer. Has the minister seen a media release issued today by the Australian Medical Association about its submission to the ACCC on the sale of Medibank Private? Is the minister aware the media release is entitled ‘Medibank Private sale will drive up premiums’ and states: The AMA, while not wishing to comment on the legality of the situation, doubts the morality of the sale … Minister, is the AMA right? 14 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I have a lot of respect for the AMA, but I respectfully disagree with them on this issue. 14 14 15:02:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 Mr FAWCETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister inform the House how the government intends to strengthen the Australian Army? How will our security benefit from these measures? In particular, how will these measures benefit the community in Wakefield? 14 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Wakefield for his question and for his long pre-parliamentary career in service to the Australian Army. The future of defence and security for our country is going to be most influenced not by what we know today but by what we do not. Based on a broad strategic assessment of the outline for the future in defence, the political will of the government to continually invest in Australia’s Defence Force and also a strong economy, the government has decided to increase the size of the Australian Army by two battalions, or 2,600 more soldiers, over the next 10 years. At a cost of some $10 billion, this means the Australian Defence Force will be, by the end of this further growth from six to eight battalions, the largest that it will have been for almost 30 years. The 5/7 battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment in Darwin will be split into two battalions, and the 7th will go to Adelaide where it will be based in the electorate of Wakefield. Both battalions will be equipped with armoured personnel carriers. The 3rd Battalion RAR will move from Sydney to Townsville, which means there will be another battalion in Townsville. The 8/9 battalion will be reraised in south-east Queensland, at either Enoggera or Amberley. It is extremely important Australians appreciate that we must not look only at our borders and the defence and security of Australia’s people, our interest and values. If you look through the south-west Pacific from East Timor through to the Pacific island state nations, it is clear that for the foreseeable future the Australian Defence Force is likely to be called upon not only to provide security, stabilisation and border protection and to assist in humanitarian disasters but also to support counterterrorism across our region. It is also very clear, from the point of view of the Australian government, that security and defence of this country will rely for the foreseeable future also on us appreciating the need to support actions in other parts of the world. What happens in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Middle East has everything to do with a secure Australia. It should also be remembered that when it was in government, the Australian Labor Party, for seven years from 1989, stripped 6½ thousand soldiers from the Australian Army. This government is about replacing them and strengthening the Australian Army. This decision and this investment in Australia’s future and security is not about this year and it is not about next year; it is about the kind of Australia we want a decade from now, and the kind of security we want for our country and its place in the world. This is an important investment in people and equipment and the long-term security of our country. 15 15 15:05:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, radio commentator Alan Jones— Government members—James? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Alan Jones. Government members interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —No, I said Alan Jones said the following— Government members interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —And you know him well! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Government members interjecting— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —It’s called an Australian accent! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Ballarat then left the chamber. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —You’ve got McGauran interjecting all the time! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —And the member for Wills will too. The Leader of the Opposition will be heard! The member for Wills then left the chamber. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —It seems they are having difficulty hearing me, Mr Speaker, which is fair enough. Is the Prime Minister aware that, yesterday, radio commentator Alan Jones said the following about the sale of Medibank Private: So surely, if the thing is to be sold, its members are morally entitled to the assets of the fund. …            …            … Worse, if you are a member … and you think you own it, you are now going to be asked to pay for a slice of it when it’s sold. That’s … financially unjust … Prime Minister, is Alan Jones right? 15 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —It is well known that I know Alan Jones, I like Alan Jones and I think Alan Jones is an outstanding broadcaster. But I do not on every single issue agree with everything that Mr Jones says, and on this particular issue, rather like the health minister’s response to the President of the Australian Medical Association, I very respectfully have another view. 16 16 15:07:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 Mr LINDSAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House how basing a new emergency vessel in North Queensland will help to ensure the protection of Australia’s maritime environment? 16 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr TRUSS —The honourable member for Herbert will remember that last year he and I announced that the Australian government would be locating an emergency towage vessel permanently in North Queensland. That is an important announcement and an important step forward, because these are increasingly busy waters to our north and, of course, it is a very fragile and important environmental area for Australia. So last week it was a particular pleasure for my wife and me to be in Cairns to commission the ETV, Pacific Responder. This vessel will provide an emergency towage capability in our northern waters for the first time. Whilst there are important shipping lanes in that region, there are actually no tugs in that area capable of undertaking emergency towage work and when there have been incidents in the past—fortunately, not too often—it has been necessary to bring in a vessel from southern Queensland or the southern states or even Singapore. But now there will be a vessel permanently located in the region—and what a fine vessel it is. It will be the biggest tug in Australia, so it has enormous capacity to help, to respond promptly in the event of there ever being an incident in North Queensland. Obviously, it will be called out only occasionally, and in the interim it will do work tending the various navigational aids and other vital facilities in northern waters. It will spend considerable time cruising in that area to make sure that all of the important navigational aids and other maritime facilities are effectively maintained and cared for. So the presence of this vessel adds a new mantle of safety to that region. For the first time we will have emergency towage capabilities in our northern waters, and it will add to a network of vessels all the way around the coast which will be on a first-call basis in the event of there being an emergency maritime incident anywhere around Australia. This important gap is being filled. Our pristine environmental areas, such as the Great Barrier Reef, are much safer as a result of this initiative, and it adds a new dimension to Australia’s capacity to respond to maritime incidents in our environment. 16 16 15:10:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 Mr ANDREN —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Given the urgent demands of fruit growers in Queensland and New South Wales, the National Farmers Federation and the Horticulture Australia Council that the government honour its election promise to enact a mandatory code of conduct for the horticulture industry—including growers, wholesalers and the major supermarket chains—will the minister implement the mandatory code of conduct immediately or is the minister no longer responsible for its implementation? 16 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a matter under continuing consideration by the government and when a position is reached and concluded and announced I am sure the member will be amongst the first to know. 16 16 15:11:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House how the federal government is supporting public hospitals in Queensland? Is the government confident that the Commonwealth’s investment is being matched by that of the state government? 17 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I do thank the member for his question. I can inform the House that over the life of the current healthcare agreements the Commonwealth will give Queensland more than $8 billion towards the running of public hospitals in that state. In addition, Queensland will receive more than $8 billion in GST revenue this year, including a $700 million windfall that was not anticipated when the GST agreement was made. Despite these rivers of gold, the Beattie government is spending 25 per cent less per head on public hospitals than the other states. We are all aware of the problem of inadequately trained overseas doctors in Queensland, including one whose treatment caused the death of a woman in the area of the member for Blair. We are all aware of inadequate bed numbers in Queensland, including the secret shutdown last week of mental health beds at Ipswich hospital. But there is more evidence today of the continuing crisis in Queensland public hospitals. Figures just out show that in the last 12 months the number of people waiting longer than the medically recommended time for treatment in Queensland public hospitals has increased to almost 10,000. At Royal Brisbane Hospital there are now 3,700 people waiting to see an ear, nose or throat specialist, there are 2,000 people waiting to see eye specialists and, according to Queensland health insiders, these people can wait up to four years to see a doctor. At Townsville hospital and Princess Alexandra Hospital patients with aggressive cancers are waiting double and triple the recommended times for treatment. The Queensland election should be a referendum on the state of Queensland’s public hospitals. Whatever Premier Beattie says, Labor now officially believes that there is no such thing as answers to the problems of Australia’s public hospitals. I came across a speech by the member for Lalor just the other day. Listen to what the member for Lalor thinks. She says: The one thing you can be sure of is that anyone who has already made up their mind about exactly what Governments should do in this area just hasn’t thought through all the difficult issues. So, if you know what you are doing, by definition you are wrong! That is what the member for Lalor says; that is what she thinks. Is it any wonder that Labor is now officially a policy-free zone in health? 17 17 15:15:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and it follows the reply to the member for Calare. Is the minister aware of reports that cabinet has made a final decision to renege on the coalition’s clear election promise to introduce a mandatory code of conduct for the fruit and vegetable industry within 100 days of the 2004 election? Is the reason that the fruit and vegetable growers have not been told of this decision that you are holding back the bad news until after the Queensland state election, just as the government did during the previous Queensland election with the decision to dump sugar from the United States free trade agreement? Minister, why won’t you tell Queensland’s fruit and vegetable growers that there will be no mandatory code? 17 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —I got my hopes up when the honourable member rose to his feet; I thought I might have got a banana question, and at long last I could tap all the great Labor lies, which are continuing even to this day and which are being broadcast throughout Queensland by Premier Beattie, once and for all. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Pledge loyalty! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hunter! XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member even speaks about the latest import going into restaurants, which is another of Labor’s great lies. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: notwithstanding the minister’s obsession with bananas, this is a very clear question under standing order 104. I ask you to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grandler will resume his seat. The minister has only begun his answer. I call the minister. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon —Are you for the National Party or for bananas? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter is warned! XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —This matter, as I say, is under continuing deliberation within the cabinet and within the government; I have nothing further to add to my previous answer. 18 18 15:17:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 Mrs ELSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister advise the House how the government is assisting schools, especially in my state of Queensland? Is the minister confident that state governments are matching the increased effort by the Commonwealth? 18 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 Forde for her question. It is worth reminding the House that state governments are in fact primarily responsible for funding state government schools. They own and operate schools and ought to be primarily responsible for funding state government schools. But increasingly the Australian government has been called upon to fund state government schools where there are failures on the part of state governments. In every budget since 1996 the Australian government has increased the funding for state government schools, even though over that period the enrolments have remained static and are in fact predicted to decline. In the period 1996 to the current date the Australian government has increased funding to Queensland state government schools by some 137 per cent, so there has been a massive increase by the Australian government. But, if we take this year as an example, we see that this year the Australian government’s increase in funding for Queensland government schools is 11 per cent. If the Queensland government had matched the Australian government’s percentage increase, that would have meant an extra $218 million from the Queensland government for Queensland school students in Queensland government schools. What we are seeing here is a failure on the part of the Queensland government to match the Australian government percentage increases. They are already failing Queensland school students, because if they had matched our funding it would be an extra $218 million. Now the spend per student in a Queensland government school is some $280 less than the average of all other states. In addition, under the Australian government’s $1 billion Investing in Our Schools program, we have now invested a further $57 million in Queensland state government schools. In rounds 1 and 2 of the Investing in Our Schools program we have awarded over 1,000 applications for schools requiring such basic infrastructure items as support for their ovals, libraries, computers and carpets. In round 3, which has just closed, there are over 2,000 applications from Queensland state government schools. There are only 1,280 Queensland state government schools, so essentially every government school in Queensland is turning to the Australian government for help. So I call upon the Queensland education minister to use some of the $8 billion that Queensland gets under the GST and invest in Queensland government schools, match the percentage increase that the Australian government provides for Queensland state government schools and support Queensland schoolchildren. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 19 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 19 15:20:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Serially, so there are a couple of misrepresentations I want to get to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —The first was by the Prime Minister, who quoted from a speech I made in 1998 on migrants and then linked that speech to my argument against temporary entry visas under 457. Can I say that if he had listened to any of a dozen speeches I have made in workplaces in the last couple of months he would have heard me strongly defend the skilled migration program. I believe in skilled migrants; what I do not believe in is rorted, tenured, indentured labour— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has made his point. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —which is what, effectively, you do with 457 visas. Secondly, the minister for workplace relations suggested that my support for the 107 workers who have been fined $28,000 for participating in a piece of industrial action that was endorsed by their union was based on some direction to me by the CFMEU. Can I assure you, Mr Speaker, my position on that is based on simple human decency— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will not debate his point. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —for ordinary Australian families; something he is totally bereft of. 19 15:22:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I also wish to make a personal explanation under standing order 68. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Yes, I certainly do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —In question time today the Minister for Health and Ageing referred to and completely misrepresented the content of a speech I gave at the Earl Page lecture this year in Armidale. He claimed that that speech said that I believed public hospitals could not see reform. This is not the contents of the speech. I gave the speech on health reform that the minister for health does not have the guts to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member has made her point. 19 Questions to the Speaker 19 19 15:22:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —Mr Speaker, I seek your assistance under standing order 105. I have four outstanding questions from December last year that the government still refuses to answer with respect to the Bali nine. The question numbers are 2927 through to 2930. I have already asked for your assistance once and you have written to the ministers, but I have still received no answer from the four ministers to which those questions are directed. 20 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Gellibrand. I will follow up her request. 20 20 15:23:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Mr Speaker, my question goes to the standing orders—namely, standing order 105(b). It goes to the accountability of ministers to the House and the requirement to answer, within 60 days, questions placed on notice. I seek your assistance in pursuing the following ministers with respect to questions placed on notice by me. Firstly, from 17 November 2004, there is question No. 48, to the Prime Minister; question No. 51, to the Prime Minister; question No. 52, to the Prime Minister; and question No. 53, to the Prime Minister. I then go to 7 March 2005: question No. 644, to the Prime Minister. From 10 March 2005 there is question No. 782, to the Prime Minister. I then go to 10 May 2005: question No. 1166, to the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, it continues, Mr Speaker. I take you to 9 February 2006: question No. 2986, to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I then go to a range of other outstanding questions which, frankly, it is about time we were given some assistance with because these are questions raised not only in relation to our own portfolios but also on behalf of constituents and their best interests. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will come to the questions. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I go to 27 March 2006, and I seek an answer to question No. 3180. Finally, I go to 22 May 2006 and question No. 3530, to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Mr Speaker, in accordance with the standing orders, I seek your assistance in enabling me to carry out my duties as a member of the House. 20 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Batman. I will follow up his request. 20 20 15:25:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, I wish to ask you a question about a report and an associated cartoon entitled ‘Farmer Bill has a sharp advantage’ which appeared on page 40, in the Rear Window segment, of today’s Australian Financial Review. Inter alia, Rear Window reports: We spotted Farmer Bill around the corridors of power in Canberra yesterday, sporting a knife neatly tucked inside a leather pouch. The senator from Junee, who does his fair share of backroom haggling, told us it’s always handy to have a knife at your disposal. We couldn’t argue with this, but wondered how he got it past security? Not a problem it seems. Never stuck for words— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will come to his question. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —It went on: 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will come to his question. He does not have to read the whole article. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —The article said: 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will come to his question or resume his seat. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —It went on: 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member have a question? 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —Yes, I do. I in no way wish to reflect on Senator Heffernan but I am sure we would all be concerned if a person were, in bad faith, able to bring a knife into Parliament House undetected by security. I ask you: would you make inquiries into this matter and report back to the House at your earliest convenience? 21 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Lowe and I will follow up his request and report back as appropriate. 21 AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS 21 21 15:26:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER ——I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 1 of 2006-07 entitled Administration of the native title respondents funding scheme—Attorney-General’s Department. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 21 DOCUMENTS Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:27:00 —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: Gene Technology Regulator—Quarterly report for the period 1 January to 31 March 2006. Department of the Environment and Heritage—Report—Energy use in the Australian government’s operations—2004-05 Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 21 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 21 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s incompetent handling of the privatisation of Telstra. 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— 21 15:28:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —Most of us in politics spend a lot of time and energy seeking win-win situations. Sadly, all too often we are not successful in that and occasionally we manage win-lose situations and, unfortunately, every now and then we end up with lose-lose situations. You may recall that the Leader of the Opposition described the outcome of the government’s latest Telstra privatisation plan as a lose-lose situation. As can sometimes be the case, the Leader of the Opposition was being a little bit generous in describing the government’s handling of the Telstra privatisation as lose-lose because in fact it is lose-lose-lose-lose. The Howard government is on the verge of a unique political achievement—a four-loss register: lose-lose-lose-lose. The source of this achievement, of course, is John Howard’s you-beaut Telstra share sale scheme with the aid of his own person salesman, Slick Nick, the man with the gold-plated cufflinks, the designer glasses, the shiny patent leather shoes and those beautiful clipped consonants and rounded vowels. Have you ever noticed them? Probably you do not know him; I am not sure whether you know him well. But he is a guy who has all the attributes required for the job: the gold-plated cufflinks and the rounded vowels. In John Howard’s you-beaut Telstra sale, everyone is a loser. This is a unique political achievement—four losses: everyone is a loser. Let us start with the hundreds of thousands of existing Telstra shareholders, many of whom purchased their Telstra shares for $7.40 in T2, some of them who even purchased Telstra shares at a higher price subsequently. How are they faring? They are already losing because the government’s plans are already putting substantial downward pressure on the share price and have been doing so for several months. The institutions, the institutional investors, are not silly. They could see this coming. They have been selling their Telstra shareholdings for months because they plan to buy back in, later down the track, to T3 at a lower price. Already Telstra shareholders are suffering a depressed price as a result of John Howard selling Telstra shares at a highly inappropriate time into an already depressed market. Slick Nick says Telstra shares are doing fine. In the Senate yesterday he said, ‘Don’t worry. There’s no problem because, if they haven’t sold those shares, they haven’t made a loss. If you bought a share at $7.40 six or seven years ago and you have not sold it, and it is now only worth $3.50, it does not matter—you are not out of pocket. You have not made a loss. Everything is fine.’ Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I am sure you would be aware that Terry McCrann is not a Labor acolyte. Terry McCrann is not renowned for pulling his punches where Labor is concerned. He is one of Australia’s premier business commentators, if not the premier business commentator. I draw to your attention some of his observations about Slick Nick in this morning’s Telegraph and Herald Sun— XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —He is not a member of the House. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —I request that the honourable member address senators by their correct title. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The standing orders do require the member to address members of parliament by their title or by their seat. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —No class at all. Senator Minchin is referred to by Terry McCrann in his article as ‘idiotic’. McCrann describes Senator Minchin’s statement as ‘words of astonishing stupidity’. He says: Minchin ... “announced” he was not competent to be finance minister ... the nation’s finances should not be entrusted to his care. They are pretty damning words from the nation’s, if not premier business commentator—and certainly no friend of Labor—then one of its premier business commentators. The government is tricking up the Telstra sale to paper over the huge downward pressure it is putting on the share price and the huge negative impact that is having on existing shareholders. Firstly, they are giving people access to the full dividend for the share in this financial year, even though the people who purchase shares in T3 will only have to pay for part of the share. They will not have to pay for the other part until, perhaps, 18 months later—John Howard’s buy now, pay later scheme, straight out of Harvey Norman. Secondly, the government has forced Telstra, only weeks after Telstra had said they did not want to do this, to commit to paying a 28c dividend in the next year. That requires Telstra to borrow further to cover that dividend, an outcome which is unsustainable—Terry McCrann has said it is unsustainable, Standard and Poor’s has said it is unsustainable and Moody’s has said it is unsustainable. The government has also muzzled the Telstra board and management in an agreement which is designed to stop them from speaking out in the debate about regulatory issues. Finally, we are waiting for the details of the preferential arrangements the government are going to offer existing Telstra shareholders. In spite of all the gimmicks and the tricks the government still will not reiterate its claim in 1999 that ‘Telstra shares are an extremely good deal’. Remember John Howard in 1999 telling prospective investors, ‘These shares are an extremely good deal—you should sign up now’? Nothing like that is happening now. The government’s alibi for not doing that now is that legislation has changed and they cannot present themselves as financial advisors. That is a very thin fig leaf indeed. The reality is the government know they would be laughed at by investors, particularly those who have lost a lot of money on T2. What is keeping the share price relatively stable at the moment is the fact that the details for T3 have not been finalised. The shares are obviously not yet on the market. The real negative impact is not going to be felt for a couple of years because the artificial dividend arrangement that the government has entered into will prevail for a while. But once that dividend arrangement is finished, the negative impact on the shares will manifest. If the government wins the next election, once the Future Fund is free to sell down its holdings that will also have a big impact on the share price. For the last time I will quote Terry McCrann—to illustrate what is really happening with this share offering and its true impact on the existing shareholders: ... the Government is quite deliberately setting out to artificially entice you to invest. It is doing so by giving you an unsustainable supercharged dividend income. That says it all. So the first losers are the existing Telstra shareholders. What about taxpayers? What about the people who ultimately own the asset and who are seeing that asset sold? How are they faring out of T3? The government is selling its shares in a falling market and contributing to the decline in that market. It is giving away free dividends. So while it is still part-owning shares, it is giving away the dividends, at the cost of several hundred million dollars to the budget. It is preparing other sweeteners which are yet to be announced. In the middle of huge regulatory uncertainty and debate about the stalling of high-speed broadband in this country and the absence of any strategy on the part of the government to address this, the end result is a substantially lower return to taxpayers for the sale than otherwise would have been the case. Is this a good time for a vendor? Is this a good time for owners of large numbers of Telstra shares to be selling to the market? I don’t think so. The government suggest that it is Labor’s fault that the value of Telstra’s shares has gone down, and that it is Labor’s fault that the government were not able to sell the shares earlier—in other words, Labor has prevented them from ripping off Australian investors to the tune of billions and billions of dollars that the government otherwise would have taken out of their pockets had they been able to sell all the Telstra shares at $7.40. It is Labor’s fault for preventing that. All of the incompetence, all of the mismanagement of Telstra since that time—whether it was for allowing line rental fees to go up to $30 a month and pushing more people over to mobile phones or whether it was for wasting billions of dollars in losses in Asian investments—is somehow our fault. Somehow the mismanagement of Telstra under the auspices of the government is Labor’s fault; in other words, Labor is responsible for the government’s incompetence. There are two losers so far: shareholders and taxpayers. But what about consumers? What about the people who ultimately matter most—the 20-odd million Australians, businesses, families and individuals who rely on Telstra, still nearly two-thirds of the entire telecommunications sector, to get high-quality, high-class telecommunications services? What about consumers? First, they are going to lose on accountability. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! Minister! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Will the government still have Telstra fronting up to Senate estimates to be questioned about their policies and activities? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Grayndler should remember he is also on a warning. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Will Telstra still be susceptible to FOI? No. What we will have is de facto public ownership through the Future Fund but without the public accountability that used to prevail. Broadband is still on the never-never; the government has no strategy to tackle the No. 1 infrastructure issue in this country. Way more important than the question of who owns Telstra shares is how Australia is going to get amongst the world-leading countries such as Canada, the United States and Korea and the countries of Western Europe and have high-speed, high-class broadband services that are the basis for future economic activities in this country. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The minister will be removed if he is not careful. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Finally, how will consumers go when a privately owned Telstra exercises its huge financial muscle and buys up half the Australian media? How will consumers fare when a giant, privately owned company controls two-thirds of telecommunications and half of Australia’s media—electronic and print? The repeal of the cross-media ownership laws the government has announced and the privatisation of Telstra mean that that possibility is now sitting there, waiting for a private Telstra to be put in place. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Hunter has been warned too. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —The third losers are consumers. Any way you look at it, they will be losers. What is happening to Telstra workers? The superannuation entitlements for Telstra workers—for existing employees, not new starters—are being sent backwards because they are being forced out of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme—a defined benefits scheme that Telstra puts 21 per cent on average into on their behalf. Those employees will be forced out of that scheme into a scheme where 12 per cent will be contributed. They take a risk because it will be an accumulation scheme. Over time, they will be substantially worse off than they would otherwise have been had they remained in that existing scheme. Why are the government doing this? What is their argument? What is their reason? The primary argument they put forward is the alleged conflict of interest between owning shares in Telstra and regulating telecommunications. They also own Australia Post and regulate postal services. That does not mean that they will therefore privatise Australia Post—although if they get re-elected perhaps that will be on the agenda. I had a look at the Future Fund legislation the other day, and there is a very interesting set of provisions that have not had much coverage so far, in section 6 and section 8. Section 6 enables the government to transfer shares and financial assets into the Future Fund. Fair enough. Section 8 says that the nominated minister may give the board of the Future Fund written directions about the financial assets. Those directions can relate to how long they hold those assets, how they vote, the rights that are associated with those shares in the company and any other matter. Most significantly, they are not bound by the requirement that otherwise applies to the Future Fund to put the maximisation of returns ahead of all other objectives. So, in other words, within only months, the government has placed provisions in the Future Fund legislation that are specifically designed for Telstra to still be effectively controlled by the government through the power of ministers to give directions to the Future Fund on how they will utilise those Telstra shares. Where does this leave the claim that the government are removing an iterative conflict of interest? Where is the evidence that that conflict of interest has been taken away? The government still owns the shares, it still needs the dividends, it is still relying on share price and it has specifically put provisions in the legislation regarding the Future Fund to enable it to exercise a degree of control over those shares that will not apply in any other case with respect to the Future Fund. If, as the government say, they have no intention of being anything other than a passive investor, why did they put these provisions into the Future Fund Act? What other conceivable situation could those provisions relate to? They must have very short arms indeed if this is an ‘arm’s-length arrangement’. There is an alternative. The alternative for this country is to focus on the real problems in telecommunications—the disgraceful performance in broadband that is holding Australia back economically—to retain public ownership of Telstra and to use it in the interests of the nation; to develop high-class infrastructure instead of the dilapidated and declining infrastructure we currently have; and to give Telstra shareholders the certainty and stability that their investment is worth while into the future. Instead of the fiasco the government has created with T3, let us get onto moving to build the arteries of the future economy of the 21st century. (Time expired) 25 15:43:00 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr McGAURAN —The Labor Party have two fundamental problems when they criticise and attack the government for its privatisation proposal for Telstra. The first is that the government has gone to the last four elections committed to selling Telstra. We have faced the voters of Australia openly, transparently and totally accountably in regard to our policy of privatisation. Each time we have been returned. This is not electorally popular. There is nobody on my side of politics who believes that privatisation policies at large, and Telstra in particular, are a net vote winner amongst all Australian voters. Of course there is a strong constituency for economic reform of this kind that believes it is in the nation’s best interest. I do not believe it is a vote loser for the government, but it does mean we have to stand our ground—to argue it. I have stood in some drafty halls in outback Australia justifying and explaining the government’s decisions. You do win people over when you go through it sequentially and weigh up the benefits against what might be philosophical or ideological concerns and objections; people will agree to the selling of Telstra. The point is that you have to get to a lot of people more directly than is physically possible. So the government believe that we have a right to put these matters before the Australian people, as we have done at election times. There is no ducking and weaving to avoid the issue, which is a trait of the character of the modern Labor Party. It fails to take a stand. It lacks intestinal fortitude. It is lazy. It will not do the hard work. What we have heard from the shadow minister for communications, who is amongst the brightest thinkers in the opposition, is just a jumbled, garbled attack on the government. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I request that the minister refer to me by my correct title, which is shadow minister for finance. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will ignore that point of order. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —I stand suitably admonished, but he was shadow minister for communications for a very long time. I had not noticed that he had switched portfolios, such is his lack of impact on the government. In any event, whilst he is credited as one of the opposition’s best thinkers, he is not one of their best doers. They are very short on thinkers, but they are even shorter on doers and achievers. That is the problem with the Labor Party, so it is very hard to take them seriously. We do, of course, because we do not regard government as an entitlement or an inheritance. So we do tend to take the Labor Party seriously, or at least more seriously than the general public does. The second problem that the Labor Party have is that they were rabid privatisers when they were in government. The Australian people do not believe for a moment that the Labor Party would not privatise Telstra or any other government business that they could possibly get their hands on if they were in government. Indeed, some pollsters have said that, despite the government’s wearing the political pain and cost of arguing for the privatisation of Telstra before each of the last four elections, there were no surprises afterwards that it has not been a vote switcher. According to the pollsters, people believe overwhelmingly that the Labor Party would do the same in government. And why wouldn’t they? They are now led by a former minister for finance himself. The now Leader of the Opposition addressed the Commonwealth seminar on the future direction for the Commonwealth public sector on 14 July 1994. How is this for chest beating and boasting! He said inter alia: The government today— the Labor government— has completed a number of sales, including the Tokyo embassy land, the Defence Service Home Loans Scheme, the Moomba Sydney pipeline system, a large share of the Commonwealth Bank and CSL. Total net proceeds are up to about $5 billion. Sales of Qantas, ANL, AIDC Ltd amongst others are being planned. We now know that the Labor Party went through with most of those privatisations. There he is, parading his credentials as a privatiser of note and of historical proportions. Soon afterwards, on 1 February 1995, he actually criticised a previous Liberal government for not privatising enough. Why don’t we let the Leader of the Opposition’s words speak for themselves? He said: We as a government have a considerable rate of success in relation to privatisation. …            …            … We have two airlines undergoing privatisation. One is completed and the other is going through. We are getting the airports in place. You did not; we had to get the airports in place. But let me continue. The now Leader of the Opposition also said: We have privatised nearly 50 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank. They went on to privatise 100 per cent soon after. We have privatised the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the bulk of defence industries. When you were in office— referring to the Liberal Party— there was one effort and that was with the Belconnen Mall. The total number of privatisation projects under the Fraser-Howard government amounted to the Belconnen Mall, and you did not succeed in delivery on that. Here he is in the parliament on 1 February 1995, abusing the Liberal-National coalition for not privatising enough. He is accusing the Fraser-Howard government between 1975 and 1983 of being spectacular failures on privatisation. Now, really, does a leopard change its spots? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —No. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —Or does an old dog learn new tricks? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —No. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —Let me resort to more cliches. On the one hand— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to draw the minister back to the question, which is T3 and the government’s incompetent handling of it and not a history lesson about stuff that has nothing to do with Telstra. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne would be well aware that a matter of public importance is a wide-ranging debate. The minister is in order. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —This is a debate about the privatisation of government business, and I feel that we should establish our credentials. The government’s credentials are on full show, having been consistent and considered over a long period of time, and the opposition have been hiding their credentials on privatisation. I just want to remind them that their leader has been up to his neck in the privatisation of Commonwealth government businesses over the years. He was proud of it and was actually abusive of previous coalition governments that did not reach his lofty standard and record number of privatisations. Forgive me if I have embarrassed the opposition by quoting the words of their now leader. The Labor Party therefore comes to this debate without conviction or credibility. We believe that the government has had a massive conflict of interest as both the industry regulator and the owner of Australia’s largest telecommunications company. There is no getting away from that. Of course, so much of the debate and public controversy which has been generated in recent months by the current management of Telstra—it is in conflict with the regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—highlights the fact that the government, on the one hand as a majority owner of a telecommunications giant which is in a not too private nor too polite conflict with the regulator, cannot go on. It is unfair to Telstra’s competitors; it is unfair to the company; it is unfair to the shareholders; and it is most certainly unfair to consumers. It lacks certainty and transparency. The simple fact is that governments should not be in the business of running businesses; businesses should be running businesses. The government’s role is to regulate appropriate consumer protections and to encourage a competitive marketplace, which we have done. Remember: the government does not have to own Telstra in order to regulate it. The government regulates all participants in the telecommunications industry, and this would continue regardless of the ownership structure of Telstra. The safeguards include, by way of regulation, the universal service obligation, the customer service guarantee, price controls and other important consumer protections. As a result, our strong regulatory regime has ensured fairer prices; untimed local calls; minimum service standards; mandated repair times; reasonable, improved mobile phone coverage; encouragement of competition; and an increasing rollout of broadband across Australia. These consumer protections remain in place as the government moves forward on the sale of Telstra. At the same time, the government is investing an additional $3.1 billion in telecommunications through the Connect Australia package and the $2 billion Communications Fund. These investments will help roll out affordable broadband across Australia, improve mobile coverage, roll out high-capacity networks for health and education initiatives and provide affordable telecommunications services to many more remote Indigenous communities. So the government has a strong record of achievement in telecommunications. We do not believe the job is anywhere near done. There is a great deal more to be achieved. We have a heavy responsibility to provide an equivalence of service between non-metropolitan consumers and communities and to bridge the telecommunications gap between urban and rural Australia, and we will live up to that responsibility. All of these commitments, policies and safeguards of the government, proven over our time in office, will continue to apply to Telstra and all carriers, regardless of ownership, because they are all provided for in regulation. There have been enormous benefits from the government’s oversight and stewardship of Telstra in our 10 years in office. As we have moved towards the full privatisation of Telstra, the reliability and availability of telephone services have improved while the cost of services has reduced. Let us look at some of the facts and figures, so that even the Labor Party— 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Bendigo will have an opportunity if he remains quiet. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —cannot contest or argue against them. And the Labor Party might very well—if they were to be objective, fair and balanced about this—give the government credit. Since 1997, the average price of telecommunications services has fallen by more than a quarter, by some 26.2 per cent. It has fallen by a quarter. For instance, a three-minute call to China in 1997 would have cost $7; the same call today can be made for as little as 56c. On average, households are $717 better off than they would have been without the government’s competition and privatisation policy, and the economy is some $12½ billion dollars larger today than it would have been. So the Labor Party may want to take those facts on notice, give them a considered examination and reply—and give credit where credit is due. There is no doubt at all that consumers believe that the government’s policies, which include privatisation, have been of material and calculable benefit to them. Governments all around the world, of all political persuasions, from the Left to the Right of the political spectrum, recognise that there is little point in owning telecommunication carriers. There is a whole list of countries in Europe—Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Denmark; the list goes on—or our near neighbours such as New Zealand, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. The governments in all of these countries are getting out of telecommunications ownership. Even the Chinese Communist Party is selling its shares in China Telecom. So it would seem that the Labor Party are the last of the planned economists and that they believe that the government should still be the majority or whole owner of telecommunication carriers such as Telstra. It just lacks credibility in the constituency. I believe the Labor Party are underestimating the judgement and, may I say, the economic nous of the Australian electorate. The Australian electorate have moved on a great deal since 1997, when we began the part privatisation, and they have experienced the benefits of the government’s policies. I believe they are broadly supportive—and, I even confidently predict, by a majority—of the government’s full privatisation, because they know that privatisations are a vital part of liberalising and strengthening an economy. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Why didn’t you sell the lot of it then? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for New England! XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —The government, after closely studying Telstra and the share market for the past 18 months, believes its offer in the order of $8 billion in shares will result in a fair price for those shares. Our public commitment has always been that we would not sell Telstra until we could receive an appropriate return for taxpayers. We believe we can get a fair price at this time in this way. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for New England is warned! 29 15:57:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 0 Mr GIBBONS —Let there be no doubt that the political interests of the Howard government are dictating the agenda on the Telstra sale decision based on the short-term political gain for the government rather than the national interests of Australia. The Howard government’s T3 sale is already putting downward pressure on share prices, as institutions have sold existing shares to enable them to buy in at cheaper rates in the T3 offer. The government has loaded the sale with the sweetener of a full dividend even when you have only paid for part of the share. But, once that runs out and the Future Fund is allowed to sell its shares, the pressures on share prices will be enormous. The timing of the sale could not be worse, even under the Howard government’s poor record: fibre rollout stalled and regulatory conflict went unresolved—in fact, Telstra’s Phil Burgess had the audacity to tell a meeting in Bendigo recently that the Australian telecommunications regulations are holding back the country’s economic progress. Telstra’s current American-styled national leadership have to understand that the American way of running big corporations is just not applicable to our culture. The regulations in place are there in Australia’s national interest on behalf of Australian consumers, something that Mr Trujillo and Mr Burgess do not and will not understand. And, of course, adding to the appalling timing of the T3 sale, we have the share price falling. The Howard government would have us believe that a conflict of interest exists under the current arrangements. What absolute rubbish. The government still owns and regulates the ABC and Australia Post. It will still own one-third of Telstra, so there will still be an alleged conflict; and the Future Fund legislation, specifically sections 6 and 8, allows it to direct the fund regarding its Telstra shareholding, including to act non-commercially. The government would also have us believe that it is Labor’s fault that we are in this situation. If all of Telstra had been sold at $7.40 in 1999, as per the Howard government’s preferred position, shareholders would have been in a far worse situation. The government cannot blame Labor for its incompetence in allowing Telstra to lose billions in Asia, chase Fairfax and Channel 9, and jack up line rentals to $30.00. This is a politically driven fire sale that hurts shareholders, taxpayers, consumers and Telstra staff. It is a shambles and it is being done to suit the Prime Minister’s political interests. Whilst Telstra appears to be concentrating its efforts in the capital cities, it has failed to adequately provide broadband services across all metropolitan areas. Even with existing facilities attempting to provide reliable, efficient and cost-effective services from regional areas, there is an increasing push to centralise and so remove the benefits of regional employment from the bush. The move to full private ownership would effectively stop any future government with genuine concerns for the bush having any say in how services are delivered. ‘Commercial viability’ will always be available to protect all telecommunications companies from their responsibility to the Australian people. Labor is committed to maintaining a strong influence on telecommunications to ensure the needs of country people are met and to keep Telstra connected to regional Australia’s future. Most regional Australians slammed the proposed $3.1 billion Telstra deal announced in September 2005, designed to sweeten the Nationals to guarantee the telco is fully privatised. The decision to press on with the sale through this bill represented a ‘dirty deal done dirt cheap’, and the National Party stands condemned for agreeing to it. In fact, I stand in awe of National Party ministers especially, and backbenchers, when they defend the full sale of Telstra. It is a courageous act for them because I know just how unpopular the sale of Telstra is in their own electorates. As I have said before, the Nationals continue to remind me of a flock of frightened and bewildered sheep being kept in a small and tight bunch by the Liberal dogs running around them, barking and snapping at their heels. Every now and then, one of these frightened and bewildered sheep gets spooked and hares off in the other direction—this sheep’s name is ‘Barnaby’—only to be run down and turned around by the Liberal Party dogs, usually ‘Heffo’, the blue-blooded heeler, and of course always followed by ‘Cossie’ the cowardly cocker spaniel, who aspires to lead the pack but is always let down by his inaudible bark and the fact that he has no teeth, hence his timid and almost non-existent bite. The Nationals have never been anything but sheep in wolves’ clothing. When they are in their electorates they growl like wolves as though they are going to bare their fangs and rip into anyone who laid a hand on the country. Then, from 1996 they signed up as the country branch of the Howard Liberal government, dropping the pretence of being wolves and now they just bleat like sheep. The Howard government has stated repeatedly that it would not sell its remaining shares in Telstra until services in rural and regional Australia were up to scratch. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I have been very patient, but the member for Bendigo is making a number of offensive remarks about colleagues and not addressing them by their proper names. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Minister, the references are very broad and, while you may not like them, I think the member is in order. 3X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr GIBBONS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was referring to sheep, not whales! The Howard government has stated repeatedly that it would not sell its remaining shares in Telstra until services in rural and regional Australia were up to scratch. Anybody who lives in or visits rural and regional Australia will tell you that Telstra services are nowhere near adequate and in some areas are getting worse. To add insult to the people of the bush, the Howard-Costello government have not only reneged on their commitment not to proceed with a sale until services are up to scratch but also announced the $3 billion dollar taxpayer funded bribe to get Telstra to do what it is already supposed to do under its charter. The Howard government has thrown in the towel in directing Telstra to lift its game and is using taxpayer funds to attempt to improve the very services that Telstra should already be providing. The only way that services for rural and regional Australia can be improved is for Telstra to remain in public ownership and for the Howard government to direct the telco to carry out its charter and deliver the services it is supposed to provide. Most Australians do not want Telstra privatised. Telstra returned profits of around $3.2 billion this financial year, so what is the rationale behind the sale? Obviously sheer ideological obsession by the Howard government has driven this ridiculous policy, and rural and regional Australians will suffer the consequences. The Howard government should direct Telstra to honour its charter and provide the same opportunities for services in rural and regional Australia as in the capital cities. Selling Telstra will only worsen services in remote areas because a fully privatised Telstra will concentrate its resources in the big-volume metropolitan areas. Country people had every right to demand the truth about Telstra in the wake of the telecommunication giant’s posting of $3.2 billion profit. People in rural and regional centres are demanding answers to questions such as: why are the Australian taxpayers being asked to flog off an operation which clearly delivers enormous profits back to the major shareholder—the government of the people of Australia? Why, if Telstra is so obscenely good at sucking money from the accounts of ordinary men and women, is it better to have this organisation under full private ownership? Why is it that parts of Bendigo—even some very urban parts—cannot be connected to modern basic communications, such as broadband, yet Telstra itself can cream off such eye-popping profits? And why does Telstra forecast that it will not be able to continue to service regional Australia, yet its profits bloat boardrooms around the world? Telstra’s profit statement is a sad indictment of 10 years of Howard government complacency. Under the Howard-Costello government, Telstra has been allowed to continue to cold-shoulder regional Australia while gorging itself on a captive market. The coalition has seen this obscenity as a reasonable way to set up an Australian communications service to be sacrificed on the altar of the Prime Minister’s free market ideology. Why anyone—let alone the government—should be happy at this rip-off of the Australian people and country people in particular is beyond me. Whose $3.2 billion do they think it was in the first place? We tend to get bamboozled by the big numbers. However, the latest Telstra profit represents taking around $230 from every man, woman and child in Australia. It represents sucking more than $28 million per year out of the Bendigo electorate alone. The whole Telstra scenario is coming apart at the seams for the current government. Telstra’s new American boss, Sol Trujillo, is demanding more freedom from the government to make even more money, while admitting he has a multibillion dollar problem meeting his country commitments. I am proud to say that Labor will continue to oppose the full sale of Telstra and is committed to retaining Telstra in public ownership. We believe that the rationale for the privatisation of Telstra is fundamentally flawed because of the government’s own incompetence. We are concerned about the impact of privatisation on services and employment, especially in regional centres like Bendigo. Labor believes that the government must take the lead in implementing a national strategy for the adoption of new information and communications technologies and services, especially access to broadband. The ability to take such a lead will be far greater if Telstra remains in public ownership. The government, the major shareholder, is able to direct Telstra to make investment decisions which may be justified on broader terms rather than on purely commercial criteria. Labor is concerned that the interests of private shareholders will dictate investment decisions based on short-term financial gains, rather than on the national interests of Australia. Labor firmly believes we should keep Telstra connected to regional Australia’s future. 32 16:07:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —Perhaps the truest words in this debate were spoken by the member for Gippsland when he said that Labor lacks conviction and credibility. If there is one key message that we hear from Australians about the high level of cynicism that they have towards the political process, it is the fact that so often the rhetoric does not match the action. What do we see from the member for Bendigo and the member for Melbourne? They like to make the talk. The Australian Labor Party will say how committed it is. Just a moment ago we heard from the member for Bendigo that the Australian Labor Party is apparently committed to Telstra remaining in public ownership. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will note that the member for Melbourne was remarkably silent about the ALP’s proposal with respect to the future ownership structure of Telstra. The member for Melbourne, the shadow finance minister, made no comment about what the Australian Labor Party would be doing with the balance of Telstra. We know from the shadow communications minister, Senator Conroy, that the Australian Labor Party would be looking at retaining the 30 per cent or so of equities that would be going into the Future Fund. Is that going to be the benchmark level of future ownership that the Australian Labor Party has? Or perhaps we can go to what the member for Bendigo said. The member for Bendigo basically said that the Australian Labor Party’s view is that Telstra should have either majority public ownership of some 50 per cent and over or ownership in the vicinity of 100 per cent. That is what the member for Bendigo was saying about Telstra ownership, with his traditional Labor Left approach and ideology. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Labor is unrepresented in the chamber. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —The Minister for Human Services, who is at the table, makes a very good point. The Australian Labor Party launched this MPI today. The Australian Labor Party came into the chamber and claimed that it is very concerned about the future of Telstra. At present there is not a single representative of the Australian Labor Party in the chamber for this debate. The Australian Labor Party, which says it is so concerned about the future of Telstra, is so unable to legitimise this rhetoric that it cannot even have a member sitting at the table for this debate. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Oh! 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —Oh, finally we get a representative of the Australian Labor Party coming into the chamber. It is a delight to have a representative of the Australian Labor Party here to actually match the rhetoric. As I said from the outset, the whole thrust is that time and time again we see that Labor’s actions do not match the rhetoric. The member for Melbourne said that the major problem is that the government is selling shares when the share price is falling. But let us turn that on its head, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you for one moment imagine the Australian Labor Party’s reaction if the government was selling shares at a time when shares were increasing? If the government had a situation where we were actually putting equities into the marketplace when we thought we could get a higher price in 12 months or 24 months time, you can imagine the Labor Party’s reaction. It would be a little odd for them to say, ‘Well, now’s a good time to sell because in two years time you’ll be able to get more money for them.’ I do not know what the Telstra share price is going to do. I am not one of those who come into the chamber and profess to have some crystal ball and know where the share price is going. But I do know that on four separate occasions this government has been to the Australian people indicating our desire to privatise Telstra fully. The reason is the same reason we have heard from the Australian Labor Party, the same arguments that have been advanced by the Leader of the Opposition on privatisations: we know that privatisations are good for the Australian economy because governments should not be in business. It is that simple. What we see as a result of the partial privatisation, and what we know will be the case through the full privatisation, of Telstra is that the Australian people will continue to benefit from a much more competitive, robust telecommunications sector than they ever would have under a monopoly telecommunications company like the old Telecom. Despite the rhetoric—and this is the reason why the member for Melbourne is completely silent on what Labor’s policy is with respect to the ownership of Telstra—we know that the Labor Party would do exactly the same thing as the government: the Labor Party would privatise the remaining equity in Telstra. Despite the talk, the action does not match Labor’s words. That is the reason why people become so cynical about politicians and why they should be so cynical about the Australian Labor Party. There can be no doubt that if Labor were in government their actual policy would be to privatise the remaining equity in Telstra. That is very clear. With respect to the way in which Australians have benefited from the privatisation of Telstra, what we see is that the average price of telecommunications services has fallen by more than a quarter—some 26.2 per cent. Mobile phone prices have fallen by 36 per cent and mobile phone subscriptions have risen from around four million to 18½ million. Through a more deregulated telecommunications sector, the number of carriers in this country has increased from three to 153 telecommunications companies. There are now more than 600 internet service providers. All of these service providers—new entrants into the marketplace—come from a more deregulated telecommunications industry. When we go back and look at the GDP growth that is attributable to this more deregulated industry, it is very clear that there is some $12.4 billion of value added to the Australian economy as a result of this government’s commitment to the liberalisation, increased competitiveness and full privatisation of Telstra—money which would otherwise not be there if Telstra had been left in public ownership. In addition to that, I was interested in comments that the member for Bendigo made. These are weasel words, if ever I have heard them, because the member for Bendigo made the remark: ‘Labor is committed to maintaining a strong influence on Telstra.’ What does that mean? Does that actually indicate in some way that the Labor Party is going to retain public ownership of Telstra? As I said, the member for Melbourne made no remark on it. Does that mean that the Labor Party is committed to retaining 30 per cent equity in Telstra? Or is the Labor Party’s position a commitment to 51 per cent ownership of Telstra? Or is the Labor Party’s commitment to actually nationalising Telstra again and taking 100 per cent? Which one is it? What do the words ‘Labor is committed to maintaining a strong influence’ actually mean? They are weasel words. They mean nothing. It is rhetoric. We see from the Australian Labor Party that their actions do not match their rhetoric. The Australian people have every right to be exceptionally cynical about an opposition that lacks conviction and that lacks credibility. When the Australian Labor Party stand up and say, ‘We’re committed to maintaining a strong influence on Telstra,’ they know that those words ring hollow and that they mean nothing. It is this government that has put in place the regulatory framework to ensure that we have a universal service obligation. It is this government that has put in place a Communications Fund. It is this government that has put in place the Connect Australia fund to ensure that we have regional communities with access to broadband. It is this government which actually moves beyond the rhetoric. It has invested billions of dollars in improving telecommunications and establishing a more competitive communications market in this country. One of the key reasons that we have seen a decline in Telstra’s share price is because of the inherent conflict that exists between a former monopoly that is highly regulated and the situation where, through that regulation, we are delivering the services that the Australian people desire. What is very clear is that had this government not been thwarted by the Australian Labor Party but had actually been able to sell off the balance of Telstra years ago, when we first sought to do it, there would not be a problem with respect to the share price. One could only speculate on what the share price would be. If there is anybody that T1 and T2 shareholders should be concerned with, let it be the Australian Labor Party, because the Australian Labor Party have kept in place and exacerbated this fundamental conflict between regulation and shareholder value. It is the Australian Labor Party that have kept that position entrenched. So the decline in the share value should be sheeted home to where it belongs, and that is the Australian Labor Party, who have stood in blanket opposition to this full privatisation. I urge the Australian people to cut through the rhetoric and actually seek some kind of commitment as to what the Labor Party’s position really is. They will attempt to weasel out of it, but they know a fully privatised Telstra represents a more competitive telecommunications market in the future. I am very, very pleased to support the full privatisation of Telstra. 34 16:17:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I think we just saw a very good example of why people are very cynical about parliamentary processes and representation. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I was interested to see that you did not remove the member for Bendigo a moment ago for using the word ‘bribe’. I remember you took offence at that word when I used it. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—I have to admit I did not hear it, I am sorry, member for New England. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I believe you have used it in the past yourself in relation to speeches in this particular place. The debate that we are having today relates to the future of Telstra, and government members have spoken very strongly in favour of privatisation and the full sale of Telstra. What they have not mentioned is that they are not selling it. Thirty per cent of the business is going to be hived off into the so-called Future Fund, which is still public ownership. It is still owned by the people of Australia. Just because David Murray and a few friends of the Prime Minister are going to be the so-called custodians of the people’s asset does not mean it is sold. If the government was serious about this spiritual guidance that it follows in terms of privatisation being good for everything, why didn’t it sell the lot? If the government was serious about this spiritual divine guidance in terms of privatisation, why did it reverse its stand on the sale of Snowy Hydro? I will tell you why it reversed its stand on the sale of Snowy Hydro: because the Prime Minister started to listen to the people. This government has not listened to the people on this issue. The National Party has been referred to on a number of occasions, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry made probably the worst speech I have ever heard him make in trying to defend something that is indefensible in terms of his own party. No-one from the National Party was in the chamber, other than the Deputy Speaker. There was no-one from the National Party here to represent their communities, who are obviously opposed to the full sale of Telstra. Any surveys that have been done by National Party members themselves, by Independents, by members of the Labor Party or by members of the Liberal Party—the member for Hume, for instance—have all demonstrated that country people in particular, but all Australians in general, do not want this sold. Is it any wonder people are cynical about the political process when the people they put into this parliament do not represent the basic views that they themselves have made representations about; when their representatives do not represent their views in the parliament? I will tell you something, Mr Deputy Speaker. A lot of country people will have a choice at the next election, and this will be one of the issues at stake because there will still be 30 per cent of Telstra owned by the public. The Future Fund, as I understand it, has a two-year period before it can sell any more of our assets. I am not an expert in corporate law; maybe the minister at the table, the Minister for Human Services, is and he might like to speak about this. But my understanding of corporate law is that 30 per cent is a controlling majority. So the people will still have a say on this particular issue. I urge country people and Australians generally: when they vote at the next election, look very closely at whom they are voting for, particularly those in the country who will have real choice in their members of parliament at the next election. They will be able to determine who represents them instead of those who turn up every three years or so and wander about, saying, ‘We are here to represent you,’ as the National squad often say. ‘We are here to represent you; we are here to represent you.’ We have seen what has happened with that sort of depopulation representation in the seat of Gwydir. Gwydir and Parkes have lost the greatest numbers in population of any region in Australia. Tasmania was in front of Gwydir a few years ago, but it has picked up in recent years. Then those people wonder why this is being brought upon them. Why are these dreadful people from the Electoral Commission perpetrating this dreadful event? I do not agree with it either, but one does not have to be Einstein to work out that the massive depopulation of some of these areas in country Australia is related to the policy of the people who are purporting to represent those people in the parliament—and they have failed. The other word that I picked up on, other than the term ‘bribe’—which apparently you overlooked, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley—was ‘scratch’. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the member for New England wants to reflect on the chair, I will deal with him. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —It is the word ‘scratch’. This term seems to have been deleted from parliamentary language as well. It is not so long ago—I am sure you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the National Party in particular and government members in general were not going to sell Telstra until it was up to scratch. It is not all that long ago that the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Peter Corish—in fact, it was on the day that the sale bill went through the Senate and I happened to attend the press conference outside the Senate doors—said the words that I am about to recall and that persuaded Senator Barnaby Joyce to support the sale. I agree with Barnaby Joyce on some things, but I think he will carry to his grave the day he voted on this issue. I understand he was new to the parliament at the time and probably under enormous pressure. I fully understand that, but so will the people he purported to represent, when this operation is fully privatised at some time in the future. The President of the National Farmers Federation said he had a guarantee in writing that would guarantee country people equity of access and pricing levels of basic telephone services and internet services, and it was called ‘up to scratch’ at the time. Here today, we still have this argument between Telstra and the ACCC—and the government, for that matter, who are putting their little wheel in there in relation to de-averaging the pricing regimes between city and country customers. I will give some examples. Loomberah is in my electorate—not in the bush, not stuck out in the middle of Australia—15 kilometres from Tamworth. Telstra Country Wide did the appropriate thing: they conducted a survey to find whether there were a number of customers who would be available for connection to ADSL. That was done over six months ago. The numbers were obtained. Since then, customers in that area have been told a number of times that there would be a date when they would be connected to ADSL. They have been told that the firm from which Telstra gets its enabling devices to hook up ADSL in that particular exchange has been on strike. Then they were not on strike and now apparently they are back on strike. Apparently these people are in Spain. The same crisis is happening in other exchanges in my electorate and many other electorates, but the Dumaresq exchange, the Dangarsleigh exchange and the Loomberah exchange in my electorate have been told they cannot get the equipment. Even though all the processes that Telstra Country Wide put in place have been met, they cannot get the equipment to enable the exchange to give internet services to these people. In conclusion, many people speak about how good it is where telecommunications have been privatised overseas. I was recently in the mid-west country area of the United States. The mobile phone service there is absolutely appalling. There are so many competitors that they cannot speak to each other. For three days I could not get service while travelling. One day, when I had to get a message to someone that I was running late for a particular engagement, I went through four medium-sized towns and I could not find a phone. I went to a post office and they said: ‘A public phone? A public phone? No, we do not have public phones.’ In the end I booked into a motel to access a telephone. For people to come here and say that in the American experience the consumer is much better off—go and look at what is happening in country areas. It may well be in the city, but the sale of Telstra is—(Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is concluded. 36 COMMITTEES 36 36 36 NaN:NaN:00 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 11 September 2006. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 11 September 2006 Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 11 September 2006.   The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows: COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1       AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION VISIT TO THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE OFFICIAL VISIT TO CANADA BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America 11 —23 July 2006 and Report on the Official visit to Canada by the President of the Senate 23 —28 July 2006 The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:35pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 2       PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Annual report of Committee Activities 2005-2006 The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:45pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3       JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION Negotiating the maze: Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 12:55pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Order of precedence Notices 1       Mr Bartlett to move: That this House: recognises the vital importance of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system for Sydney’s population and the New South Wales economy; expresses its concern at the degradation of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment and the poor health of the river; recognises that the Hawkesbury-Nepean bears the brunt of the State Government’s failure to adequately plan for Sydney’s water needs; and calls on the New South Wales Government as a matter of urgency to address the issues facing the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river. (Notice given 14 August 2006) Time allotted —30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2       Dr Lawrence to move: That this House: notes that, on 7 September 2001, the United Nations General Assembly declared that the International Day of Peace should be observed annually on the fixed date of 21 September, as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence; notes that United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has repeatedly urged member states of the United Nations to support the observance of global ceasefire on the day, arguing that a global ceasefire would: provide a pause for reflection by the international community on the threats and challenges we face; offer mediators a building block towards a wider truce, as has been seen in nations such as Ghana and Zambia; encourage those involved in violent conflict to reconsider the wisdom of further violence; provide relief workers with a safe interlude for the provision of vital services and the supply of essential goods; allow freedom of movement and information, which is particularly beneficial to refugees and internally displaced persons; and relieve those embroiled in violent conflict of the daily burden of fear for one’s own safety and the safety of others; supports the Australian organisations that intend to hold vigils, concerts and walks on 21 September this year, in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Darwin and Brisbane; calls on the Australian Government to actively support the observance of a ceasefire in Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq and the Solomon Islands on 21 September of this year by ensuring that Australia’s armed forces: do not engage in hostilities for the duration of 21 September, unless provoked to do so in self-defence; promote the observance of a global ceasefire for the duration of 21 September; and promote the practice of non-violence for the duration of 21 September; and requests that the Australian Government encourage other nation-states to follow its lead. (Notice given 8 August 2006) Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 1.45 pm Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Government Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3       Mr Cadman to move: That the House acknowledges that: the cost of housing in Australia is often more than double what it should be; the high cost is mainly due to the huge increase in the price of land and, as a result, land affordability is a problem in Australia, and especially in Sydney; Sydney is the most penalised city in the country, with affordability being worse than in London or New York; the main causes are State and local government planning restrictions and taxes; and State and local governments must play their part to reduce the cost of housing so the great Australian dream remains a reality, especially for future generations. (Notice given 17 August 2006) Time allotted —30 minutes. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4       Ms Livermore to move: That the House: notes with concern the low rate of organ donation in Australia; acknowledges the plight of the more than 1,700 Australians currently on the organ transplant waiting list; recognises the crucial role of public education in encouraging people to register as organ donors and discuss their choice with family members; welcomes the announcement from the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference of the National Reform Agenda on organ and tissue donation; and calls on the Federal Government to investigate the experience of other countries that have adopted an ‘opt-out’ system of organ donor registration. (Notice given 17 August 2006.) Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time. Speech time limits — Mover of motion —5 minutes. First Government Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 39 BILLS R2386 39 BILLS R2570 39 BILLS R2594 39 Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 16:28:00 —I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 39 BILLS R2530 39 BILLS R2478 39 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 39 BILLS S471 39 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 39 BILLS R2519 39 Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Mr Truss: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Bevis moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Howard Government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and protect Australians, including: the Howard Government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews; the Government’s continued failure to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port; the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports; the failure of the Howard Government to examine or x-ray 90% of shipping containers; the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline”. 40 16:30:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —In the two minutes in which I spoke previously on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006, I indicated that it is a slight bill with minor amendments. There is a reduction in the number of days—from 90 down to 60—during which the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services can look at applications made by shipowners or the controllers of ports or of offshore facilities for variation of security plans. In addition, there is a possible extension of that time by up to 45 days or so where more information is required. The connected matter is that a series of consequential amendments need to be made across a range of different bills to bring this legislation up to date. I had also referred to our amendments and to the broader question of maritime security in Australia as it relates to shipping and ports and to offshore facilities. Mr Deputy Speaker, looking at the Notice Paper and at the order of presentation, you will note that only one government member will be speaking on this bill. If you take it simply that the bill itself is slight and that most of the changes are procedural—they are directed towards making it easier for those involved in maritime security, ports, offshore facilities and ships to cope with the administrative burden and towards creating a more efficient situation than where you have to put into place a five-year plan every time you want to make a variation or where a major change must be made when one of the contact people no longer remains with the company or the entity—you can understand why the government might not put up many speakers. However, where a series of amendments go to the very core of what Australia’s problems are in maritime transport and offshore facility security, you might expect more than one government member—no doubt the member for Fairfax will directly enter this debate, and I hope that he does—to speak to the bill and engage in a real debate here. I believe that part of the reason that only one government member will speak in this debate is that the government has actually done very little at all about maritime security. So far, most of its concentration has been on areas where there is an expectation of terrorist attacks, according to where they have happened in the past. That has created a pattern of response both here and overseas. Such attacks have occurred by road, by rail and by air and they have impacted not just facilities and infrastructure but also the thousands of people who have been killed. There have been the events in the United States in September 2001; the train incidents in Madrid, where so many people died; and the bombings in Britain, on a bus and on the underground system. Just recently we had brought to our notice the planning of another series of attacks in Britain—again, a series of air attacks—and an announcement has just been made about another planned attack. None of those elements goes to the question of maritime security, and that probably conditions the response of governments and agencies when looking at what they might have as a hierarchy of probabilities. However, two significant episodes have occurred over the last five years or so. One was the maritime attack on the MV Limerick and the other was the attack on the USS Cole. The attack on the USS Cole could have been worse if the terrorists had known where to hit it. Luckily, they did not. They hit it amidships. The impact was significant and resulted in some American naval officers being killed. But the terrorists did not hit the vessel where the most damage could have been inflicted. Attempts are made with US and Australian warships to contain ammunition and flammable materials so that, if these ships are attacked in such a way, major explosions do not occur. But those attacks are a precursor of what might happen. They are also a precursor of what the intent could be and what Australia’s particular problems are in dealing with maritime security. We can look at the length of our coastline, at our dependence on trade by sea, at our close regional concerns with major shipping lanes through—as the member for Brisbane pointed out—the greatest area of piracy in the world, the Malacca Straits, and at our direct intersection with Asia and how difficult it is for us to actually maintain a security presence along that great expanse of water and coastline. Our fundamental approaches have been in relation to, firstly, illegal fishing in the north and, secondly, refugee problems that occurred after the Australian government supported the freeing of East Timor—just prior to the 2001 election, when 11,500 people came to our country in just 2½ years and the government completely lost control of our border security. That is where the emphasis has been. There has been very little planning with regard to maritime security. We should have substantial legislation before us that does a great deal more than effectively ask people to make administrative changes. It should allow them to make it easier to present a maritime security plan, tick it off and say: ‘That’s terrific. That’ll be looked after. People have done that. It can be regulated and it’s not as hard as we thought it might be.’ We need to pay more attention to this and have a far closer reading of it. The former minister for transport, the member for Gwydir, had a response to an ASPI—the Australian Strategic Policy Institute—document. ASPI is funded by the Australian government, but it is set up as an independent think tank. It put out a document in April 2005. That document is called Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. It has an excellent first page introduction from the director of that organisation and an executive summary which goes to the key problems in Australian maritime security. In the series of recommendations that it made—which is extensive; it covers a number of pages—its underlying point is that we have not done enough and the planning is not there. There have been investments made by the Australian government and by Australian industry, particularly the transport industry, to try to better secure ourselves, but they have largely been directed towards road and rail, particularly into airports, but not into the maritime area. ASPI quite sensibly points out that if you are dealing with airports—even though there is a variation between general aviation airports and the major domestic and international airports—there is a commonality amongst airports throughout Australia and wherever they are in the world. There has been a huge volume of people going through them and there has been a concentration on that in an attempt to improve airport security, but there has been very little attention paid to maritime security or to looking at it as a whole. The government announced in December 2004, I think, a plan to try to secure Australia’s situation off Western Australia. It would provide vessels, which are passing there at the moment from the Northern Command, to try to secure our fundamental resources on the North West Shelf. That is immensely important. Just one of those trains run by Woodside at the North West Shelf is responsible for billions of dollars worth of exports of liquid natural gas. We know that the major contract signed with Guangdong Province was for a 25-year program with $25 billion worth of export. I was there when Woodside was putting together its fourth train. It is in the process of doing a fifth train. Over on Barrow Island, where the petroleum resources are running down, one of the provisions Chevron is putting into place so it can continue exploration for gas resources is to do geosequestration of CO. Chevron is putting together the biggest liquid natural gas program Australia has ever seen. There is a minimum of 60 years worth of production for Australia, and the probability is that, in Gorgon and its associated field, there is 100 years or so of capacity. Chevron has got a broader and possibly even more productive field under view. Those resources—our offshore oil platforms, our offshore gas platforms, what we are developing in the Greater Sunrise area, our intersection with East Timor and what is being developed through there—is enormously important to Australia’s economic future. One single maritime attack on those offshore facilities would do immense economic damage to Australia. And yet we have the protocols that have been put into place and the efforts that have been made by the government. Just look at this bill. What is it about? A bit of auditing and a bit of benchmarking. Luckily we have got an Australian Defence Force who understand the critical nature of this. I know they understand it, because I have discussed these issues with them directly and taken them up on it in committee and on site. I have spoken to people in the command, and they assure me that they understand the critical nature of that infrastructure and that Australia’s defence resources need to be directed to that. If you look at what the government has done and the approaches it has taken, though, it is just not on the job with regard to this. The member for Brisbane made a comment when he was speaking with Mr Beazley, the opposition leader, about Australia’s maritime security and the need for a coastguard—which is one of the amendments we have here; in fact, that has not been put into place—and also the need for a department of homeland security. At the very time they were making the announcement, there was a major, high-risk ship full of ammonium nitrate steaming to Australia with foreign crew. There had been virtually no coverage in relation to that ship to determine what risk there would be to Australia. If a ship like that ran into one of the ports in Queensland, into Gladstone for instance, and blew up there, it could do immense damage. A ship full of ammonium nitrate coming into Sydney Harbour would blast Sydney’s CBD to pieces. I have spoken to our Defence personnel, who are responsible for our maritime security within Sydney Harbour, and they say that they have the plans in place to deal with those kinds of incidents. I trust that they have. I do not trust this government has, because there is not the same focus on our fundamental maritime security needs. It is possible that because of what has happened so far, and I think this is highly likely, there is a projection forward, which is normal in human affairs. Whatever has happened, people project into the future. When we had high interest rates, people projected we would always have high interest rates. They go up and down—the cycle is indicative of the changes in economic conditions. You had the same sort of operation on the subject of terrorist attacks. But the problem is people get fixated on what has happened already. The key problem is the attacks they have not yet made. ASPI deals at length with the idea as to why there has not yet been a major maritime security incident in Australia—at a port or with a ship or indeed with our offshore facilities. There may be a range of reasons, and that may include the fact that bin Laden and al-Qaeda have such an investment in shipping—that is, they utilise shipping to do the rest of their terrorist activities—that they have not concentrated on the area yet. It may be that the degree of difficulty is such that it is significantly harder or that there just will not be enough bodies destroyed, enough lives lost, in this kind of incident. They would like to blast us back into the Middle Ages. They want to bring down our whole economic superstructure—the fundamental infrastructure that girds the modern world. The intersections between us and Asia and the sources of our wealth are their fundamental targets. The attacks we have seen so far have been more iconic in the aircraft that have come down, the railways that have been attacked and the people who have been killed. A much more massive impact could be made by destroying the very heart of our economic capacity. That is where the Australian government, not the Defence Force, needs to be measured. The Defence Force take directions from the government, and the government does not have clear direction with regard to this. There is no real perception within the government of airport security. There are a whole range of areas where it has been extremely poorly handled. There is no perception that, if you scan only 10 per cent of containers coming into Australia, the 90 per cent you leave out probably have the terrorists in them. The member for Brisbane pointed that out. They found one bloke who had the plans and all the rest of the stuff he was going to do. He wanted a bit of extra air, and he just happened to be seen. He was pulled out. It is the area that is not covered where the most significant and difficult problems are. If you look at all of the planning, where is the indication that the government understands that port security, for instance, is not just horizontal? You have a much more difficult problem with ports than you do at airports, because you have to look at the seaborne approaches to that port, at the underwater approaches and at the land approaches and you have to secure the air approaches and the activities that are occurring within it. I do not think it is enough to just tick off the list that people have put their plans in and to then rely upon that to secure us. We are dealing in these amendments with Australian regulated ships. We have had difficulties with the question of those having foreign crews, but also we have high-risk ships coming into Australia and—apart from US defence vessels—we do not know who the crews on those are. We do not know whether or not they are subcontracted to al-Qaeda. We have a radar capacity to pick up that shipping and we can travel it, but we do not really know as much as we should about the manifests in those ships or the manner in which the threat could be much greater than it is already perceived to be. I stand by every one of the amendments that we put forward and underline this fundamental and key fact: it is no good projecting from the past onto the future. You have to look into the areas that have been explored or covered already. Our fundamental area of difficulty is our continental size and reach. One of our great weaknesses is in the capacity of a terrorist organisation to hit at our trade and do fundamental damage. I commend the amendments to the House. 44 16:48:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 0 Mr SOMLYAY —I rise to speak on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006. On many of the things he said, I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Blaxland. It is essential regarding terrorism that we look into the future and not back to the past. It is important that any legislation enacted by this parliament is flexible in its nature so as to anticipate some of the things I think it is our sad duty to acknowledge are going to happen. You would be a very brave person if you were to predict when the war on terror, as we call it, was going to end. My fear is that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I think we will see more and more bills coming before this House to address issues that many of us have not even thought of yet. The actions of terrorists have no bounds, the extent of the terror has no bounds and we have to be prepared for any contingency. We must remember the reference in our history to the importance of eternal vigilance. The bill is aimed at enhancing the capacity of maritime industry participants to deter and deal with unauthorised incursions into maritime security zones. Following a comprehensive review of Australia’s maritime security policy settings conducted by the Secretaries Committee on National Security, the government decided to enhance the powers of maritime security guards under the act by providing them with limited move-on powers. These powers acknowledge a key difference between maintaining security at our airports and maintaining security at our ports. We have heard a lot about airport security in recent times, but with airports people can be prevented from unauthorised access by the use of fences and monitored gates. The area is easier to contain. Ports are different by their very nature, being open on at least one side—that is, the water side. By providing maritime security guards with the means to request that waterside intruders move on, the bill addresses this natural weakness in our port security. Under the existing act, maritime security guards may restrain an unauthorised person in a maritime security zone and detain him or her until law enforcement officers arrive, but they do not have the power to request identification, to ask the person why he or she is in the zone or to request that the person moves on. These are simple, basic security powers to prevent crime, threat and sabotage. Neither do maritime security guards currently have power to remove unauthorised vehicles or vessels. They have to call the police to do that. The government believes that a faster and more convenient solution is needed to remove potential threats from a maritime security zone. To ensure this faster reaction to a potential threat, the key provisions of the bill are as follows. Firstly, that a maritime security guard may request that a person found within a security zone provides identification and a reason for being in the zone. Secondly, that a maritime security guard may request a person found in such a security zone without authority to move out of the secure zone; if they do not, the guard is empowered to remove the person. Thirdly, that a maritime security guard may remove or have removed any vehicles or vessels found in a maritime security zone without authorisation. Fourthly, to balance the authority being conferred on security guards, the bill provides safeguards to ensure the guards identify themselves and do not subject an intruder to greater force or greater indignity than is necessary. To summarise, this bill empowers maritime security guards to ask a person who they are and what they intend doing in a secure area and, if necessary, to remove that person and any unauthorised vehicle without having to wait for police to come and do so. To me these provisions are commonsense precautions against possible threat. Being aware and the ability of authorised personnel to react quickly are essential in preventing security—possibly terrorist—threats. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill, and its report was tabled in September last year. It recommended that this bill be passed in its present form. It has now been passed in the Senate and I am happy to commend the bill to the House. 45 16:54:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is exceptionally important because it goes to our security as a nation in the fight against terrorism. It is also about whether or not we are going to be committed to the employment of Australian seafarers, because it raises serious questions about the Howard government’s lack of commitment to promoting local employment, which is part and parcel of the fight against terrorism because of weaknesses in the system that currently exist. This is clearly reflected in the second reading amendment, moved by the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for homeland security. In that context, the changes to the act—it is an act of 2003, so it is not all that old—going to maritime and transport offshore facility security ensure that threats from terrorist and criminal activity are minimised in the interests of national security. That is the objective of the amendment. Obviously they are changes that the Labor Party support as the opposition but we also say that they simply do not go far enough. This is not the first time we have raised in the House some of these weaknesses. In fact, as the person who in the last parliament was the shadow minister for transport, I can say that we raised a number of these issues in discussion with the government in the lead-up to the legislation being taken through the parliament. We have also raised them subsequently, both privately and publicly, as an opposition. The reason the opposition supports these changes is that they include simplified procedures for making changes to security plans, shorter statutory timeframes for approval of security plans—and how could you oppose these options?—technical amendments to clarify the intent of the act, a technical amendment to the related Customs Act 1901 and various consequential amendments to other acts. I would emphasise the point I made in a similar debate last evening as to the priorities of the nation going to Indigenous employment and education—that is, unfortunately there are problems with the government’s commitments to its legislative priorities. There are serious questions about existing weaknesses in the maritime security legislative framework which could endanger the security of Australia in the foreseeable future; for example, think about the red alert that currently exists on aviation security in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is also interesting to note that unfortunately we are moving up to a further anniversary next week of September 11 and the devastation that event caused in the United States. I think it is fair to say that the new, improved measures will benefit maritime transport and offshore facility security only if this government manages to implement them. There is a big difference between passing legislative change and implementing it in the field. Just as with Indigenous education, we the opposition have little confidence in the competence of this government in the area of maritime security. In the past, when it has been a supposed election issue—as with, for example, the question of Tampa—we have had a number of government members wanting to talk on the issue of so-called maritime security. When it comes to doing something practical about it, it is interesting to examine the record and the seeming lack of willingness by government members to come in and talk about these legislative changes. Unfortunately this is becoming, all too often, the nature of the government’s performance—almost a sense of arrogance with regard to the role of parliament in addressing bills that are currently being debated in the House of Representatives. This is also, as has been noted by members of the opposition, flowing through to the performance of a range of members of government in their attendance at and participation in committees of the House of Representatives and the joint House committees in association with the Senate. I think the lack of attention to detail in terms of the legislative program by members of the government reflects a sense of arrogance and contempt for the parliament and a clear lack of commitment to doing something in a legislative sense and then following it through—putting pressure on the department to make sure that the changes, which are about the security of Australia, are fully implemented. On that note, my colleague the member for Brisbane, who is respected in the maritime industry, has, because of his commitment to doing something about strengthening Australian borders, been forced to say in this place: In the past the government has enacted legislation with the support of the Labor Party and then failed to properly administer it. The reason he knows this is that not only does he participate in the debates and offer up practical suggestions; he also regularly goes around the country and not only talks to the employers, the unions and industry but seeks to understand firsthand on the ground what is happening and where the weaknesses are in maritime security. I commend his work. In the case of maritime security, just as one example I refer to the failure of this government to ensure that, as required by law, all ships advise details of their cargo and crew members 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. This issue is in fact picked up in part (1) of the second reading amendment by the opposition, where we draw attention to the fact that there has been a failure by the Howard government to conduct security checks on foreign crews, which goes to the manifest of crew members. This is an issue that the opposition has been pursuing since the early part of the parliament of 1996, when we started pursuing this issue through questions to the minister for immigration, which then unfortunately led into more serious questions going to the operation of maritime security in Australia. For the government to think about it only 10 years later, when in a second reading amendment we are forced to again raise the question of the failure of the government to actually conduct adequate security checks on foreign crews, raises serious questions in the minds of many in the Australian electorate about the commitment of the government to do something about protecting the Australian community. I say that because the most recent information given to the Senate tells us that, interestingly, just 67 per cent of ships coming to Australian ports actively comply with the requirement to properly advise of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. That is an indictment of the minister and an indictment of the performance of the Howard government on the maritime security issue. It is also interesting to note that a third of ships simply do not comply with the law, and this government is doing nothing about it. Of those ships, half do not inform authorities about their cargo and crew until they are berthed in an Australian port. And we are supposed to be concerned about border protection in Australia in 2006, moving up to yet another anniversary of September 11! I just shake my head. I tell you what: a lot of Australians are shaking their heads about the lack of commitment by the Howard government to their protection, because they want to sleep in the knowledge that we have a government actually committed to doing something genuine and practical on the ground in the fight against terrorism—and it is an international fight. It is about time Australia pulled its weight. It is no longer just a simple issue of being seen to do the right thing through passing legislation; it is also a more serious question about enforcing existing legislation over and above the amendments that the Labor Party supports in the debate before the House today. That takes me to another area of grave concern and, in my view, absolute dereliction of duty on the part of this government. This dereliction of duty relates to the failure to carry out a comprehensive security check on foreign crews. I think it is fair to say that the government do not know who is actually coming into Australia as part of a foreign crew from day to day. They do not know and, to be honest, they do not care. This is about detail and hard work, and they have no commitment to actually going into the detail and doing the hard work to protect the Australian community. This is a very important issue raised by Labor members and senators on many occasions, publicly and in this parliament. When it comes to foreign crews, the names on the manifest are checked against existing databases, usually—and you have to be surprised at this—after the ship is berthed. Then they check to see if any of them are persons not wanted in Australia. The fact is that there is no way of knowing whether the people on the ship are who they say they are, and no security checks are done on any of them by the Howard government anyway. Conversely—and this is what is expected of Australian seafarers beyond Australia—it is an interesting comparison to see what our seafarers have to go through overseas, as against foreign seafarers coming to Australian shores. Australian seafarers are required to undergo the most rigorous and thorough security checks by the Australian Federal Police and by ASIO, and appropriately so. We want to make sure that Australians working in the maritime industry are there for the right reasons: they are merely seeking gainful employment in an industry that they love and care about, and these seafarers also care about the security of Australia. Why aren’t we applying the same standards to foreign crews coming to Australia? Why aren’t we prepared to commit to saying to foreign crews that we expect them to undergo the same security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO as those which we apply to citizens of Australia? There is no good reason why there should be lesser security checks on foreigners coming into Australia than the security checks that we apply to Australian citizens. It is fundamental that we have the same standards of security. Importantly, our seafarers also have to have a maritime security identification card. There were detailed negotiations with the government leading up to the legislation which provided for this card. The requirements with respect to the maritime security card are similar to those required to get a clearance to actually work in and around our airports and as aviation workers. Aviation security identification cards certify that the holders are people of good character. We have no idea whether or not foreign crews include people of good character and good background—which I think we should know about foreign crews—who are appropriate for employment in a security sensitive area. That is what we are asking for with respect to foreign crews—that you are required to prove that you are of good character and good background and therefore welcome to enter our ports. We are carrying pretty sensitive cargo. I think we have to make sure that we are thorough about ensuring that those who are involved in the carrying of that cargo are of good character and good background. I defy the government to suggest that we should have any other standards. If it is good enough for Australians to meet the required tests by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO of being of good character and good background, then surely we should ask the same of those crews coming to Australia which could cause major terrorism damage to Australia. It is a fundamental security measure, and the Australian public must be assured that we are in safe hands at our airports and in our ports. The same can be said of the way the government handles our maritime security. As my colleague the member for Brisbane put very well: ‘The Howard government hands out permits for flags of convenience crews like it was a Friday night chook raffle at the local pub.’ I think that is a fair description of the Howard government’s approach to maritime security. None of the checks—the types of checks that would give us confidence in Australia that our seafarers are carrying out their duties in a proper way—are carried out. Flags of convenience crews are, frankly, floating terrorist opportunities to do serious damage to Australia. The use of ships of convenience was a measure to handle peak periods of demand that was introduced by the Howard government in an extreme campaign against the rights of Australian workers. The government is now using these ships to replace Australian ships and crews on a routine basis, in the process sacrificing the safety of Australia’s sea lanes and ports. The ports of Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle are major population centres. We need a government that cares about guaranteeing the future, the security and the safety of those local communities. The government is exposing our maritime ports of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods. What types of goods? We should be concerned about this. I am concerned about explosive grade ammonium nitrate, but it would seem that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Truss, is not. I am concerned about the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into this country. I am also concerned about the potential for other criminal activities. It seems the Prime Minister is not concerned about these issues, because foreign crews are not told that they also must be of good character and good background. As the shadow minister for resources, I have other problems. I am concerned about the lack of commitment by the Howard government to working with the industry and the Maritime Union of Australia to ensure that well-trained, highly skilled Australian seafarers maintain their pre-eminent role in the LNG shipping trade. Think about the current growth in resources. Why aren’t we training Australians to share in the benefits of these exports opportunities? For over 25 years, the continuity of operations agreement between the North West Shelf venturers and the MUA has ensured the safe, reliable, on-time delivery of LNG cargoes to customers around the world, in particular Japan. The agreement has served the industry and Australia well. Receiving nations can rest easy in the knowledge that LNG tankers will safely operate in their sea lanes and ports under the control of highly skilled, security-cleared seafarers—people of good character and good background. If it is required in Japan, why isn’t it required in Australia? It seems that the Prime Minister is more concerned about the safety of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagoya than he is about the safety of people living in and around the ports of Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Adelaide, Fremantle, Kwinana and Karratha—to name a few of the ports that depend on, or are exposed to, foreign crews. Japanese, Chinese or Korean LNG receival terminals are entitled to this degree of security but Australian terminals are not. Those countries require a high degree of assurance that their cargo, vessels and onshore terminal facilities will be secure, yet we do not expect the same standards in our own ports. One of the strengths of the Australian LNG industry is its reputation as a reliable, safe supplier in the global marketplace, and one reason Australia has been able to maintain its global position as a reliable shipper of LNG is that the shipping contracts have been written on a delivery ex-ship basis. This means that the seller controls the shipping. I would be concerned if there were any move away from ex-ship contract terms to free-on-board shipping contracts, where the seller generally controls the shipping. This is a very serious policy issue, and I ask the government to start thinking about it. In Labor’s view, a move to free-on-board weakens Australian involvement in the LNG transportation task. It introduces more flags of convenience shipping into the LNG trade. It risks Australia’s reputation as a reliable LNG supplier, and it creates potential new security risks here and in the ports of our customers. If that is the case, we will lose. A 2004 report produced by Scandia National Laboratories, under contract to the US Department of Energy, titled Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water made mention of the fact that Australia’s LNG risk management strategies are world’s best practice—good enough for overseas but not good enough for Australia in terms of foreign vessels and foreign crews coming to Australia. The same level of risk assessment and commitment to high-quality risk management strategies cannot be guaranteed if ships contracted to carry Australian LNG are drawn from the flags of convenience registries. We are already exposing our maritime points of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods such as explosive grade ammonium nitrate. They are floating targets, with crews about whom we have no understanding of whether they are of good character or goodwill. I do not want to accept those risks and in doing so expose the LNG trade. I am asking today for a greater commitment from the Howard government to seriously address the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into the country and the potential for other criminal activity to run riot in Australian ports. That takes me to the issue of security checks on the enormous number of containers that come through our ports every year. Just 10 per cent of them—imagine that!—are X-rayed when they are unloaded. In Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports in the world, 100 per cent of containers in two of their nine terminals are now X-rayed. If it can be done in Hong Kong, it can be done in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or any other port. Why not in Sydney? Why can we only X-ray one container in 10 in Sydney? The Howard government does not think this is an issue of great concern. Australia has a coastal border of 37,000 kilometres. Protecting this border and the points of entry to Australia is a priority, but the issues raised by me today are not on the government’s agenda. This government has no plan for maritime security. The bill before the House is a small step forward, but a lot more needs to be done. We as a nation deserve better when it comes to our national security and the protection of our maritime borders and points of entry. The second reading amendment raises the issue of serious weaknesses in the system. I join with the member for Brisbane in condemning the government for its neglect of its duties on maritime security, for using flags of convenience permits to undermine Australian shipping and jobs and for its failure to guarantee, as any ordinary Australian rightfully expects, that people supplying Australian ports on overseas vessels with foreign crews are of good character and of good background. The Howard government needs to answer that question. (Time expired) 50 17:14:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is one of a series of bills the government is introducing in the area of maritime security. The aim of this bill is to simplify security procedures for ships and port facilities, to clarify processes for drawing up security plans and maritime facilities and to amend various acts to keep them consistent with the principal act. Next week we mark the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001 and the terrorist attacks on the twin towers in New York. It should have been an alert to Australia that we needed a new regime in transport security—both aviation and maritime security. I have spoken a number of times in this House on issues relating to both aviation and maritime security, because I remain unconvinced that this government and, in particular, the National Party Minister for Transport and Regional Services are taking this issue seriously enough. Like the member for Batman, I am convinced that the ethos by which this government judges maritime security is the lowest common denominator—but dollars are not security. There are still huge holes in the government’s transport security system—holes that are quite unacceptable in our current security environment. Last month, I spoke about the glaring inadequacies in our aviation security. This is becoming a major scandal. Only yesterday the Minister for Transport and Regional Services had to admit that no baggage is being screened at major regional airports such as Launceston, Townsville, Maroochydore and Alice Springs. This completely ignores the recommendations of the Wheeler report, which the government itself commissioned. Again, like a broken record, I repeat: does the government not realise where the September 11 attacks began? They began from a small regional airport in Portland, Maine, where the terrorists got themselves on the security side of the airport and were therefore able to get onto the major planes, which they hijacked at Logan Airport in Boston. This is a pattern which is blatantly obvious to anyone. It means that thousands of passengers travelling from these major regional airports around our country and flying directly to Sydney and Melbourne are arriving with unscreened bags. I have to ask: what have the government members who represent these regional centres been doing? Where are the protests from the honourable members for Bass and Herbert about their constituents being put at risk in this way every time they fly? The people of Launceston and Townsville deserve better than this. I am sure that after the next election they will elect members who look after the security of the communities they represent. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the admission by the minister is fresh evidence that the Prime Minister cannot be believed when he claims that his government is doing everything it can to protect the travelling public. The Prime Minister certainly cannot look Australians in the eye and tell them that he is doing everything he can to protect them from terrorism. As the Leader of the Opposition rightly said: if Australia had a full-time inspector of transport security, tasks like regional airport security would get the attention they deserve. The same is of course true for maritime security, which is the subject of this bill and not the subject of the bill that the member for Fairfax talked about—the maritime security guards and other measures bill. I must say that it is surprising that, with so many debates in this House, so few members of the government are willing to speak in favour of their own legislation. It was a disgrace—and I will recount this to the House—that in the Main Committee during debate on our deployment of troops to Afghanistan there were 15 speakers from the opposition but only one speaker—not a backbencher but a parliamentary secretary, so I suppose it was part of his duties—from the government side. There were 15 opposition people and only one government person who spoke on this very important deployment involving the physical safety of members of our defence forces. This bill requires the House to look again at our maritime security. While Labor are not opposing the bill, we are taking the opportunity to highlight once again this government’s continuing failure to take maritime security seriously. The honourable member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for homeland security, spoke in detail on the many problems which this government has failed to deal with, apparently because it does not want to offend the stevedoring or shipping companies. We all remember from the maritime dispute of 1998 how close this government was to certain interests in the maritime industry. We can now see the consequences of that with the neglect of the security of our ports and all of those who work in the maritime industry. Australian law currently requires all ships arriving in Australia to advise authorities of the details of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port; but, as the honourable member for Brisbane told us yesterday, only 67 per cent of ships coming into Australian ports comply with that requirement. So 33 per cent of ships entering Australian ports do not comply with the legal requirement to inform Australian authorities about their crew. The member for Batman pointed out the difference in the treatment of LNG carriers, which are such an important part of our export trade, and the crews on flags of convenience ships are coming into Australia on an increasing number of single voyage permits. The government allows this because of the National Party’s lowest common denominator attitude to shipping and to the safety of Australian citizens. I have to ask: what kind of government passes laws and then does nothing about people who blatantly ignore these laws? What kind of government gives this House pious lectures about security and then fails to enforce its own laws—laws passed with the bipartisan support of this parliament—in such a vital area? The answer is: a complacent government, a slack government and an incompetent government. The centrepiece of Labor’s maritime security policy is the creation of a coastguard. The Minister for Defence claims that this an outrageous policy and a slur on the Royal Australian Navy. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. The function of the Navy is to project military power at sea, often far from our shores. The Royal Australian Navy is currently doing just that, with its usual efficiency. I can testify to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, having had a chance to see for myself Australia’s role in the recent RIMPAC exercises in Hawaii. I can testify to the efficiency of HMAS Manoora and HMAS Stuart and the great work that the sailors and officers on those ships are doing on behalf of Australia. The functions of a coastguard would be to protect Australia’s coastline from all manner of threat—few of them would be military in a direct sense, such as illegal immigration, illegal fishing, environmental threats such as oil dumping—to monitor the activity of shipping and, if necessary, to enforce Australian law with regard to shipping. If we had a coastguard, we could enforce our own shipping laws and protect Australian ports while not diverting the RAN from the important tasks that we have a Navy for, which often takes it far away from our shores. In the United States, ships that fail to provide necessary information are required to stand offshore, and the US Coast Guard enforces this requirement. In Australia, we have no coast guard; we just let them sail in anyway. Of course, again, as both the member for Brisbane and the member for Batman have pointed out, we have an increasing number of flag of convenience ships and an increasing number of single voyage permits, with ships coming into Australia, 33 times out of 100, with sailors about whom we have no idea what their backgrounds are or what their purpose is. So, if Jemaah Islamiah were to fill a Panamanian tanker with ammonium nitrate, hire a Ukrainian crew who spoke no English and had no idea where they were or what they were carrying, and sail it into Port Melbourne in my electorate, the requirement that it notify the port authorities of its cargo would probably not be enforced, and we would have no capacity to prevent it from coming into port, even if we found it suspicious. Does this government really think it is appropriate that the Royal Australian Navy keep its warships tied up in every Australian port to guard against threats of this kind? That is not what the RAN, with its highly specialised ships, equipment and crews, is trained and funded for. That is the role of a coastguard. The government likes to pretend that a coastguard is some kind of second-best, Gilbert and Sullivan outfit. Let me remind the House that the US Coast Guard has more than 40,000 personnel, that it has an annual budget of $US5 billion and that it deploys five large coastal patrol ships, 12 high-endurance cutters, 27 medium-endurance cutters and many smaller craft of various kinds, plus 200 aircraft. Its personnel have specialist training in maritime surveillance, search and rescue, police work and interception. I point out in passing that Australia actually has a longer coastline than the US, although of course it is not as densely populated. Every day, on average, the US Coast Guard conducts 82 search and rescue missions, seizes $US2.4 million worth of illegal drugs, conducts 23 waterfront facility safety or security inspections, responds to 11 oil and hazardous chemical spills and boards 202 vessels of interest to law enforcement. Far from thinking that the Coast Guard is a waste of money, the US is currently planning a major expansion and re-equipping of the Coast Guard to meet the new challenges of the times, including the terrorist threat to US ports and shipping lanes—a threat which I suggest equally pertains to Australia. The United States Coast Guard’s motto is ‘semper paratus’, which means ‘always ready’. This government’s motto, by contrast, should be ‘numquam paratus’, which means ‘never ready’. I suppose it goes with ‘never, ever’, doesn’t it. I have spoken before about the fact that the National Party has been responsible for the transport portfolio ever since this government has been in power and that it therefore has been responsible for our maritime and aviation security. As I have said, it is Labor’s view that these matters should be the responsibility of a minister for homeland security, but this government in its wisdom has chosen to leave them to a succession of National Party transport ministers—ministers who have many other things to think about. There is evidence that these ministers have never seen the security of Australia’s ports and airports as their top priority. In the case of the current Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the honourable member for Wide Bay, his top priority this year has been saving his political neck and the collective neck of the National Party from the ever-widening scandal of the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, which of course took place during the time when he was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry from 1999 to 2005 and while his leader, the current Deputy Prime Minister, was Minister for Trade. I am sure the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has given less than his full attention to the issues of foreign crews on freighters entering Port Melbourne or to the issue of screening baggage at Townsville Airport. The reason is that he has been anxiously awaiting the report of Mr Justice Cole’s royal commission into the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal. And he has every right to be anxious, because every week the news from the Cole commission gets worse for the government. Last week we learned about the role of BHP Billiton in the so-called Tigris affair, which was a calculated attempt to rort the UN’s oil for food program. It seems that BHP was more than willing to join with the AWB, which I have previously called the militant wing of the National Party—remember that great picture of Mr Flugge, the former National Party candidate, half naked, with his pistol, sitting there in Iraq?—in recouping more than $10 million. The National Party militant wing, the AWB, together with BHP, wanted to recoup more than $10 million from the UN’s escrow accounts which BHP had paid to Iraq in effect as a bribe to buy Australian wheat. The AWB did this by inflating the price charged for Australian wheat and then passing the money on to BHP. This gives the scandal a bipartisan aspect, since of course BHP has very close links with the Liberal Party. Once again, it was the National Party ministers who were asleep on the job, while the AWB and BHP joined forces to collude with Saddam Hussein’s regime in rorting the oil for food program. I am sure you would be pleased, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, if I came back to the bill. The bill deals with maritime security, and there is certainly plenty more to say about the risks to the security of Australian ports and the people who live around them, such as the people of Port Melbourne in my electorate. The fact is that we live in the most dangerous region of the world in this respect. In April, the US Department of State released a report on threats to maritime security in our region. The report said: While Indonesia has significantly improved its efforts to control the maritime boundary area with the Philippines, the area remains difficult to control, surveillance is partial at best, and traditional smuggling and piracy groups provide an effective cover for terrorist activities in the area. The 2005 annual report of the International Maritime Organisation shows that nearly half of the world’s reported piracy incidents occurred in South-East Asian waters. One hundred and seventeen of the 266 cases, including a number of shipjackings, were in this region. It is not difficult to imagine al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah hijacking a ship and using it as a floating bomb, aimed at one of our busy ports. There would be almost nothing to prevent this. The government has not implemented the measures needed to reduce the risks to our ports. The policy of handing out single or multiple voyage permits without any proper process to ascertain the bona fides of the shipping operators increases this risk. Last year we had the case of the Pancaldo, which carried 3,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate up the Australian coast without any security checks on its crew. Other countries, even countries we usually regard as high security risks, are a long way ahead of us. The Philippines has recently banned the importation of ammonium nitrate. I realise that Australia is not in a position to do this, but we might at least make an effort to prevent it being carried into Australian ports in ships about which we know nothing, manned by crews about whom we know nothing either. Labor supports this bill, but that should not be taken as an endorsement of this lazy government’s failure to act to protect the security of our seafarers and our port communities or even to enforce the laws that this government itself has passed. That is why I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane, namely: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Howard Government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and protect Australians, including: the Howard Government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews; the Government’s continued failure to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port; the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports; the failure of the Howard Government to examine or x-ray 90% of shipping containers; the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline”. Under a Labor government we will have a full-time minister for homeland security, we will have a full-time inspector of transport security and we will have a full-time professional coastguard. Only then will Australia have an acceptable level of maritime security. 54 17:30:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I would like to congratulate the member for Melbourne Ports on his excellent contribution to the debate. He highlighted most of the issues and more than the issues that are of great importance in this area. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The bill simplifies the procedures for making changes to maritime shipping and offshore facilities security plans, clarifies measures relating to the plan’s approval process and makes a number of technical amendments to clarify the act. I find it really quite disturbing—and I have said this on numerous occasions—that we constantly have to come into this place to clean up and amend bills that were rushed through with indecent haste. It is very important for the government to make sure that all bills are drafted properly and that the consequences of the legislation are looked at fully. We should not have to return to this House to introduce additional legislation to clarify legislation we have already debated. It was quite obvious when this legislation was first introduced that there would be problems. One of the main purposes of this bill is to require various ships, ports, offshore facilities and other places to have security plans in place to minimise the danger to them from terrorism or acts of violence. The plans must be approved by the Secretary to the Department of Transport and Regional Services. In this legislation, there is a change to the process of approval of security plans in schedule 1—that is, that the secretary will have only 60 days in which to approve a security plan instead of the current 90 days. As well as that 60 days, 45 additional days can be given if more information is required in order to make the decision on a security plan. Invariably, I think we will find that there will be additional information required. It concerns me that those plans must be put in place in a timely manner. When you need an extension of 45 days for that additional information to be put in place, then you have a problem. This legislation will tighten up the previous bill and, as such, it should be supported. I do not think there will be any members of this parliament who would not feel inclined to do so. More to the point, I think we need to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. This really highlights the failure of the Howard government in the area of maritime security. I would have to say that much of this government’s legislation relating to maritime matters has always been driven by its ideological hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. I find it totally unacceptable that legislation that is put in place for one purpose could be distorted, not by what is in Australia’s best interests but rather by the government’s ideology. The Labor amendments address the Howard government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews and its continued failure to ensure that foreign ships provide manifests of crew and cargo before they arrive in Australian ports, which is essential if we are to ensure that our ports and coastline are secure. They address the ready availability of permits for single voyages—I am also very concerned about continuing voyage permits—and the ready availability of permits for foreign flag ships, including the foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials such as ammonium nitrate into Australian waters and ports. Finally, they address the failure of the Howard government to examine or X-ray 90 per cent of shipping containers. At a time when security is such a major issue, at a time when Australian seafarers and maritime workers are required to obtain maritime safety identification cards, it would appear rather strange and incongruous that foreign seafarers are not subject to the same type of security—at least at the same level. The requirement of 48 hours notice for crews and cargoes is only adhered to in 67 per cent of cases. That means that 33 per cent of ships entering Australia do not adhere to that rule. Fifteen per cent do not advise about crew or cargo until they have berthed. From my perspective, that is a major security issue. There are no effective security checks of foreign crews. When we are talking about foreign crews, it is important to examine who these foreign crews comprise. My predecessor in this House, Peter Morris, was chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —A great chairman. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —A great chairman, yes. He was chair of the committee when it did a report that highlighted— BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —He knew more about shipping than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, who is at the table. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —As my colleague points out, he knew more about shipping than many of us here—not only people on the other side but just about any person in Australia. The report of the committee was called Ships of shame. In the report, the committee identified who the crew members were. They were people who were treated in subhuman conditions, people who were totally powerless, people who were expendable and people who could not question or in any way buck the will of the person in control of the ship. They were desperate people. These are the people who are entering our waters without proper checks. Australian sea men and women are being checked. They must have the maritime security card. Foreign crews are not effectively checked. The list of crew is submitted; in 33 per cent of cases it does not meet the 48-hour criterion and in 15 per cent of those cases there is no advice until the ship has berthed. When those ships enter our harbours and the names of the crew are presented, there is no effective way of scrutinising them and clearing that the people who are actually identified are the people who form part of the crew. The whole system is anything but effective. If the government is really serious about security, it should address that issue—and address it as a matter of urgency. It will be too late—far too late—once we have an accident in our waters. Shortland electorate is a coastal electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give you an idea of some of the changes that have taken place in relation to shipping under the Howard government’s reign. Until a couple of years ago, the Wallarah used to take coal from Catherine Hill Bay—a delightful little settlement in Lake Macquarie and part of Shortland electorate—to the port of Newcastle. It was Australian owned, it had an Australian crew and it was carrying Australian cargo. That ship has now been sold. It is sailing under a foreign flag, with foreign crew. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think it is good enough at all. Back in about 2002, I visited Newcastle harbour and went aboard the Angel III, which was a container ship. I met the captain. It was a Maltese flagged ship with a Greek captain, crewed by Burmese seafarers. The crew were very frightened. The safety instructions were in English and the crew members could not even speak English, let alone read it. I think this is a serious issue—an issue that, as a parliament, we cannot allow to continue and an issue that the government has failed the Australian people on. The policies have not only led to the destruction of the shipping industry and the continued abuse of crews but placed in jeopardy the safety of all Australians. It has also come to my notice that al-Qaeda owns somewhere in the vicinity of 15 to 18 ships. These ships come under the flag of countries such as Malta, Tonga or wherever the ship is able to obtain a flag from—a flag of convenience. These ships are crewed by foreign seafarers—people who are desperate, people who have been used to sailing in atrocious circumstances. These are the ships that are coming in and out of our ports, carrying cargoes such as ammonium nitrate. These are the ships with crew members that are not being properly scrutinised. It really makes me shiver. It is a great worry to us on this side of the House. But it seems that the government is not concerned about these desperate people who are crewing ships that could come from wherever; it is more interested in scrutinising Australian seafarers and making sure that their credentials are in order. To me, it does not gel. What about overseas, in the United States? The government of the day is very close to the United States government, and we on this side of the House respect much that the United States does. One of the things we are particularly supportive of is the fact that they will not allow ships to enter their ports unless they give 48 hours notice of who their crew are or 48 hours notice of their cargo. The coast guard will actually make sure that they do not enter the port until that information is presented. To my way of thinking, that is the way our government should be operating and, when those ships do enter, the government should be able to ensure that the information about the crew is validated. I would now like to move to the fact that the government has recently announced and was very proud of the fact that it is X-raying 10 per cent of all cargo that enters Australia in containers. That means that 90 per cent of all cargo that comes into Australia is not X-rayed; and in the past cargo containers have been found to contain explosives. Once again, it is not good enough. In Hong Kong, 100 per cent of all cargo is fully X-rayed. If we are really serious about security at our ports then we should be ensuring that all cargo is X-rayed. It is imperative to ensure the safety of our ports. I mentioned that Shortland is a coastal electorate, and that raises the issue and makes it even more important to me that we have safe waterways and that the ships that are sailing in those waterways are safe. September 11 changed the way we look at safety, security and terrorism. When we are looking at our waterways and the ships that sail them, and at the fact that we have ships sailing with single voyage permits and continuous voyage permits, security is paramount. Coupled with that is the impact that these ships can have on our environment. By not ensuring the security of these ships we can have enormous devastation to our environment and to our coastline. It is imperative that we as a nation have control over the shipping that takes place in Australian waters. That is something that, I hate to say, has diminished greatly under the Howard government. In Australia we should have an Australian shipping industry with Australian seafarers crewing those ships, and seafarers should be evaluated in a way that ensures that any foreign seafarer coming into our country will be scrutinised in the same way that Australian seafarers are. I think it is time that this government became serious about security at our ports. It is important to have a strong security regime in our ports, similar to what exists in the US or Hong Kong. To do that, a government must have a commitment to the shipping industry. I urge the government very strongly to make that commitment to an Australian shipping industry, to safety on our coastline and to ensuring that our environment and our people are protected. The legislation that we have before us today clarifies a rather murky piece of legislation that was introduced back in 2003. It puts in place provisions to enable the act to work in a much more effective way. But I do not think we should be constantly coming back to this parliament, time and again, debating legislation that the government should have got right the first time. I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister, and I urge the Howard government to ensure that foreign crews that enter Australia meet the safety checks and are scrutinised in the same way that Australian crews are. I urge the government to move immediately to ensure that all cargo entering Australian waters is safe and to undertake a program of X-raying all shipping containers, not just 10 per cent. 58 17:50:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —I find it pretty appalling that only one member of the government backbench spoke on this bill and we have got 15 or 16 speaking on the Labor side of the House. It shows the interest that the government has in maritime matters and in the security of the country. It also shows up the government’s hypocrisy. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 has some severe implications for Australia, but it is not a bill that goes far enough and it never has. The other bill that this is amending was not good enough, and this one has been brought in to try to stove it up a bit. But that is not getting there either. The government has not dealt with the matter as it should have. Labor have been calling for urgent maritime security reform for some years and we welcome this amendment bill. However, many urgent reforms are required in Australian maritime security. You see government ministers weekly, nearly daily, talking of the security of Australia and the difficulties we are in. We have to take these issues seriously. We have changed act after act giving more powers to security forces and police forces in this country. We may need to do that, and we have done it, but in the maritime sector we are still falling pretty short. We still have not got there. We have got nowhere near where we have to be. We seem to want to pick on Australian seamen. We want to make sure that they have the credentials, we do security class checks and make sure that they have their security cards et cetera, and that is fair enough. But we allow foreign seamen to enter the country. We have ships tying up to the wharves around Australia without the same sort of checks. It seems to be hypocrisy on the part of this government. In one area we are stressing enormous numbers of security issues. We have made boat people into terrorists. We are creating very high tension around these things. But we do not seem to want to deal with the issue of foreign crews coming into the ports of Australia. We know, and I think my predecessor mentioned, that the United States of America do not allow foreign crews into their ports because of the security issues. They do not allow them to sail around the shores of their country. I understand why; there are many reasons why. The amendments that my colleague the member for Brisbane has moved to this amendment bill are good and I will be supporting them. It was the government trying to deregulate the shipping industry some years ago which pointed them in a bad direction. The amendment bill gives effect to Australia’s international obligations under the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO; the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code; and chapter XI-2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the SOLAS convention, of 1974. That act establishes a means to protect against unlawful interference with maritime vessels and associated transport or offshore facilities by setting up a regulatory framework centred on the development of security plans for ships, ports, port facilities and offshore facilities which are crucial to imports and exports oriented maritime transport or domestic energy supplies. Naturally, that is what we have done in this country to protect our ports and the export and import industries—to protect what we import and the great wealth we get from our exports. Presently a participant cannot change a plan without submitting a revised plan—that is, somebody coming into an Australian port cannot position a boat without saying that they have revised what they have done. I think there is a change here to make that slightly easier. I accept that as being a reality, and that is fine. But ship security is something that we need to be far more careful with than this current legislation is. In the past the fact that we have had Australian crews operating on ships around Australia has probably given us a false sense of security. Our crews are highly trained and they have a great sense of loyalty to their country. Our crews go back to the Second World War and our merchant navy, where they served their country well. Their loyalty is not questioned. On the whole they are probably some of the best seamen in the world, and they are recognised as such. Other countries will seek out Australian crews because they know they can rely on them, their skills and their ability to manage ships and make them work—as opposed to foreign crews, who are normally very badly trained, if trained at all, and have very little safety knowledge or understanding. Also there are always language issues that are never dealt with in any way, and they should be. I think my colleague the member for Shortland made some very good points about being on ships, and I have also been in this situation, and seeing frightened foreign seamen in pretty bad distress—not people that you would want to rely on, people that could probably be manipulated in many ways. That is not a very good security situation to have. We have set a standard for Australian shipping and for overseas ships that come to Australia, but I understand that 20 per cent of ships that dock and tie up in Australian ports have not notified who their crew are or what they have on board the ship. That is appalling, but it is what we seem to be letting happen. We also have foreign crews taking permits and using ships for coastal freight around our boundaries. In Tasmania, we sell vodka to the Russians, tulips to the Dutch, truffles to the French—they might go on the plane—meat to the Japanese, wood to China and milk powder to Jordan, and hundreds of other products produced in Tasmania are sent out to the world. A lot of that is shipped from the ports in Burnie and Devonport, and our ferry ports take in many other things. Concrete from the Railton cement works goes out from there. The port of Bell Bay at the top end of Launceston looks after Comalco and the other refineries. There is also the port of Hobart, which of course is not very big anymore. These ports take foreign ships and foreign crews, and we do not know who is on board these ships when they tie up to the port. That shows a lack of security and understanding. Ministers who sit in this parliament stand up at question time and go on television to lift the security level of this country to a very high level and get people at a higher sense of alert, but they are not taking seriously these sorts of situations. They are allowing foreign crews on the coastlines of Australia to flout the regulations that we are setting for ships that come into the ports to notify who their crews are and what they have on board. Many of the Australian crews have been trained through the Maritime College, which is in my electorate in Tasmania. It is an excellent facility that trains in security and safety and all the other aspects that are needed. It is a great course used by many people from other parts of the world to train to become good seamen, and we have retrained many Australian seamen there. It is recognised as a great training facility right around the world. In the 1990s I sat on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for the inquiry into the ships of shame and I was around when the Ships of shame reports were tabled. Peter Morris, the previous member for Shortland, was the chair, and he knew a heck of a lot about shipping in the world. We watched the deregulation of the shipping industry and saw foreign ships come into the ports and the security issues come into play, knowing that the ships of shame had been highlighted. Ships of shame were in the world and needed to be dealt with, but we still allowed ships to come into Australian ports. Given that, I find it even more difficult to work out why ministers and why this government’s agencies have not acted. We have touched on a few bits of what can be carried. I remember being in Halifax, Canada, some years ago and reading about the great explosion, which was the greatest explosion in the world prior to the dropping of the bombs on Japan during the Second World War. In Halifax, Canada, a ship blew up in 1917. It was loaded with gunpowder and petrol and was leaving to go to the front in France. It devastated the city, and I remember reading a book about it while I was there. That ship did not have ammonium nitrate on it, but after reading that book I started to take notice of some of the other enormous explosions that have taken place, like the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured 500. That was ammonium nitrate. The IRA used ammonium nitrate in a bombing of London’s Canary Wharf. The total damage was estimated to be about £85 million; two people were killed and 100 were injured. In 2004 the UK arrested some people on terrorist charges and they had half a tonne of ammonium nitrate, fertiliser, in their lockup, and we know what they were trying to do. The most famous incident dealing with ammonium nitrate was the explosion of the SS Grandcamp in Texas City in the United States in 1947. It was carrying 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. The explosion was heard 150 miles away and it threw the 1.5-tonne anchor two miles from where it started. So one would think that we would not allow ammonium nitrate to be in a foreign ship with a foreign crew sailing around Australia and calling into ports. But we do. There is something seriously wrong in allowing this to occur. This government is failing the people of Australia. It is raising the security level of this country up and up but it does not want to do anything about some bits of it. We are saying that a standard for an Australian seaman has to be at this level, which is fine. He has to have a security pass, has to reach a standard, has to carry his card and has to be at this level. We accept all that. We know that he can reach a level of safety and competence to meet any test in the world. But we know that there are foreign crews that cannot meet any level. We know that they are not up to any sort of level that we could put them up to. This should be dealt with. This bill does not deal with it. As I said, I understand that 20 per cent of ships that come in and tie up in Australia do not notify who is on board the ship, who is in the crew and what is in the ship to be unloaded. A part of the international standards that were pulled together was to make sure that those things occurred—that ships were to notify. As I said, these things have been around since the Ships of shame days and all that good work done by Peter Morris, who went around the world speaking about those ships. This House should be very proud of the work done by its transport committee in those days because I know that report was a world-renowned report. Whether we have taken shipping to a better degree and a better level is something that awaits further reports, but it is a standard that we should be setting for the world. We should be a part of it. We need to deal with these issues. We need to come to grips with these things. Under Labor’s plan, as announced by our leader earlier this year, we would establish a department of homeland security and organise around two core responsibilities of border protection and protecting against terrorist attacks on the border by making sure that we had a coast guard. We would deal with local groups as well. We could make sure that the volunteer coast guard people were right up to date. We could do things with proposed acts like this to make sure that those foreign crews, if they were going to be on the coast, have the same standards that Australia has. I just want to mention the Australian shipping industry. When you see that so much of all the commodities that we are selling to the rest of the world out of Australia today is going out in foreign owned ships, that is a bit of an indictment, and we need to come to grips with that. (Time expired) 61 18:11:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I too want to make some comments on this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Brisbane. Clearly the government is seeking in this bill to amend what some people would say are rather technical changes in order to improve upon a bill that was enacted some time ago. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is certainly a specific bill insofar as it relates to the time in which the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services would have to approve a maritime security plan. As I understand it, items 5 and 6 combine to reduce the 90-day approval time to 60 days, which would be defined as the ‘consideration period’. However, the secretary would also have the discretion of extending that time of 60 days by another 45 days where, in order to make a decision on the plan, additional information is requested from the person seeking approval of the plan. That is the nub of the bill, which is seeking to amend what was clearly a deficient piece of legislation that was introduced by the government and passed by the parliament some time ago. But I think it is important to note the second reading amendment moved by the member for Brisbane which seeks to enunciate—and I think quite clearly enunciates—concerns the opposition has with respect to maritime security. It seems to me and others on this side that the government is big on rhetoric when it comes to national security but small on action. There really is an ever-increasing gap between what the government says it will do and what the government does in relation to national security. I think increasingly people are beginning to be made aware of this. It is also clear that the government shows very little regard for national security in this place. It is important to note that again we have a situation where there are many opposition members getting up to discuss issues regarding national security—in this case, the maritime security bill. There has been one member of the government—you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay—who has contributed, not for the full amount of time but certainly you contributed to this debate. Other than you in your capacity as the member for Fairfax, no government member—certainly not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for  the Environment and Heritage—has spoken on this bill. What you really see, time and time again, is that the government introduces bills in this place and then does not have either the respect for this place, the respect for its own constituents or the interest in the actual matters that it is putting forward to enact to actually speak to the bills. I understand this bill is relatively technical, as I said, but the second reading amendment that has been asserted by the member for Brisbane is significant and would need rebutting if the government concerned itself with debate in this place. But the government, of course, fails to have any regard for this chamber. Again, what you see is a list of opposition members seeking to engage the government in matters that it introduces into this place and the other place, and the government not even turning up to discuss these matters. I refer to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Brisbane. I would like to go to at least certain parts of that amendment. The amendment criticises the Howard government’s failures in maritime security, including its failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews. We have heard concerns raised by a number of people and organisations with respect to this matter. The Maritime Union of Australia, I know, is a much-maligned organisation as far as the government is concerned, but it is indeed an organisation that represents workers in the industry. If the government had regard to what concerns the employees in the industry have then they would listen to that organisation with respect to security. Clearly, with respect to the failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews, the government believes there is no security issue around not knowing the identity and the security risk or otherwise of foreign crews. The member for Brisbane enunciates that in the second reading amendment. The amendment also clearly outlines the failure of the government to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crews and cargo before arriving at an Australian port. So there is no regulation which would improve the security of these arrangements for crew and cargo arriving in this country. Further, there is criticism in the amendment of: ... the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports ... Examples of such dangerous materials include ammonium nitrate, which can explode without being deliberately detonated, and was used, as was indicated earlier by a number of Labor speakers, in the terrorist attack upon the federal building in Oklahoma in the United States only 10 years ago. The amendment also criticises the failure of the Howard government to examine or X-ray 90 per cent of shipping containers, the failure to develop an adequate training regime and qualification level for maritime security guards, the failure to create a department of homeland security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia, and, indeed, the Howard government’s failure to establish an Australian coast guard to patrol our coastline. The opposition have for some time been seeking to impress upon the government the need to fill these holes in our security. We have really had enough of the rhetoric and the fridge magnet. It is time for the government to seriously have regard to these deficiencies in national security. I return to some of the concerns that have been expressed by people who work in the industry, and I include in that the Maritime Union of Australia. Some of the concerns they have raised are in relation to just the day-to-day activities that their members and companies of this country are engaged in and, as a result of a lack of security, could potentially lead to disaster. Firstly, we would say that a strong maritime security regime is critically important in securing Australia’s growing liquid natural gas trade. We have an obligation to our trading partners when we send a ship from here to their ports that that ship is secure. That is not only a sensible thing to do and an economic thing to do; it is an ethical thing to do. The use of Australian shipping and the use of highly skilled, highly qualified Australian crews are important parts of the adoption of a strong maritime security regime. This has been demonstrated where Australian LNG tankers crewed by Australians have demonstrated a commitment to the highest levels of maritime security aimed at maintaining the security of both the LNG tankers and their valuable cargoes. Furthermore, this high-level Australian commitment to maritime security is important in maintaining our enviable reputation as a reliable and secure supplier of liquid natural gas to the world market. The security of Australian liquid natural gas is one of Australia’s key marketing advantages in the global LNG market. I think it is fair to say that we are not the sole supplier in relation to that product. There are other places for those countries in need of liquid natural gas to go to if they seek this energy source. So one of the factors that would certainly weigh on the minds of decision makers in other nations when seeking to import an energy source like LNG is: will that import come into their ports—whether in China, Korea or Japan—in a manner that is safe for the particular port and safe for the country? We would argue that there is a clear nexus between highly trained domestic crews working on those ships and increased safety and security in relation to trade in such substances. I would argue that one reason Australia has been able to maintain its global position as a reliable shipper of LNG is that the shipping contracts have been written on a delivered ex ship basis, meaning the seller controls the shipping. Indeed, people to whom I have spoken, and to whom I am sure others have spoken, would be concerned—and many in the industry are concerned—that any move away from ex ship contract terms to free on board shipping contracts, where the seller generally controls the shipping, weakens Australia’s involvement in the LNG transportation task, introduces more foreign and flag of convenience shipping into the LNG trade and creates potential security risks. I refer to a 2004 report produced by Sandia National Laboratories, a division of the Sandia Corporation under contract to the United States Department of Energy, entitled Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas spill over water. The report made mention of the fact that the Australian LNG risk management strategies were already adopting the risk treatments proposed by Sandia as world’s best practice. What is referred to in that report is the industry undertaking the transportation of such potentially dangerous energy sources at world’s best practice, and I would hate to think that the government, because of its ideological blindness, hatred and enmity towards unions and unionised workforces, would not only risk those contracts but endanger the lives of people here and abroad. The same level of risk assessment and commitment to high-level quality risk management strategies cannot be guaranteed if ships contracted to carry Australian LNG are drawn from FOC registries and even some of the second registers of non-FOC countries. Australia is strongly committed to the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code which, as you might know, Mr Deputy Speaker, came into effect only two years ago. It is fair to say that, despite the conflicts that have occurred between the Commonwealth and the maritime unions, most infamously in the 1997 maritime dispute, as a result of the work that has been put in between the maritime unions, the maritime industry and the Commonwealth there has been some effort to ensure that the maritime security regime has been secured. However, notwithstanding the goodwill of the Maritime Union, the industry and, one would hope, the Commonwealth, this failure to see past the enmity towards MUA is a real problem for the Commonwealth. I can understand that the MUA may not be on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list, but you must be pragmatic and work with all parties in matters that assist the security of this nation. You must consider and put at the forefront in your area of public policy the safety of the citizens of this country. Therefore, I ask the government to genuinely engage with the maritime industry, which includes those organisations that represent employees, to find ways to minimise the likelihood of a national security risk, which has increased as a result of the threats of terrorism. It should be noted that we have far more to fear from terrorists than the government, we would hope, would fear from unionised workforces. Clearly, in the priority of things, you would hope that the government would not make a decision that would adversely affect the union and that that would be its priority, rather than working together with all parties in the maritime industry in order to secure improvements to the way the industry undertakes its job in securing safe shipping in both our ports and the ports of other nations. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, this bill in itself is rather limited in its application. Its purpose is to amend a particular time threshold from 90 days to 60 days, enabling the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to approve a maritime security plan. That change has reduced the days but it has provided that same secretary with the discretion to increase the days by an extra 45 if there is a requirement. It is fair to say that this bill is rather innocuous in the breadth of concerns people and indeed the opposition have with respect to maritime security, but this is a good opportunity—and the member for Brisbane took this opportunity—to raise some serious concerns about the failure of government to properly secure our ports, to properly scrutinise the cargo that comes into our ports and to properly screen crews on foreign vessels or indeed foreign crews on our own vessels. These are serious matters. We are now only a week away from the fifth anniversary of those awful events in the United States. It is such a vivid memory for all of us—particularly the dreadful destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York by two planes that were deliberately piloted into both towers by terrorists. But I think it is fair to say that a breach of maritime security can be just as dangerous—indeed more so, because a vessel that enters a port could have far greater capacity for explosion than even the awful event a week from five years ago. Therefore, I think it is important that the government turn their collective minds to that issue and, instead of fighting and resisting engagement with the Maritime Union of Australia, sit down and talk with them because they are, along with the employers in the industry, experts in the field. They should be listened to; we would have a safer industry as a result. 64 18:31:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I want to thank my colleague for another insightful contribution. It is a pleasure to see him in this place, giving us his words of wisdom. The purpose of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is to amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, to simplify the procedures for making changes to maritime ship and offshore facilities security plans, to clarify measures relating to the plan approval process, to make a number of technical amendments to clarify the intent of the act, to make amendments to various acts consequential to the enactment of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and to make a technical amendment to the Customs Act 1901. The opposition spokesperson, Mr Bevis, has moved an amendment, and I think it is worth reminding ourselves of what that amendment entails. It entails a number of criticisms, condemning: ... the Howard Government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and protect Australians, including: the Howard Government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews; the Government’s continued failure to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port; the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports; the failure of the Howard Government to examine or x-ray 90% of shipping containers; the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline … I know that there have been considerable changes in the Department of Defence, some of which we believe are to deal with deficiencies in the security arrangements off the northern coast of Australia, in particular, with the creation of the Joint Operations Command, but I am afraid that the changes that have been made thus far do not satisfy the needs of Australia’s security environment as identified by the opposition spokesman. I say that as the member for Lingiari and as a shadow parliamentary secretary with responsibility for Northern Australia. Our northern waters require much closer surveillance for security purposes than they have hitherto had. That is no condemnation of the role that the Australian Navy or, indeed, the Customs Service has played. Frankly, they just have not had sufficient resources to do the job that they are required to do. I must say that my knowledge of the Australian Navy personnel who are engaged in this task is that they do their job very professionally and they do it under very arduous circumstances. Whilst I note that the new Armidale class of patrol vessels is gradually being put into service in the northern waters, I have to say that the poor buggers have been and still are sailing the Fremantle class patrol boats. They are not the most comfortable vessels. In those northern waters in the peak of the cyclone season—a very hot time of the year—they are not comfortable vessels by any stretch of the imagination. These personnel have a very difficult task that they have to undertake on our behalf. Despite the difficulties they have had with that equipment—and that is not to say that they have not been well served by it, but it is a difficult exercise—they have undertaken their task with much vigour and much application, and they deserve to be commended for it. As I have highlighted many times in this chamber—as recently as last year in relation to the antiterrorism bill and earlier this year in relation to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006—the problem of maritime security and border protection in Australia’s northern waters has not been addressed sufficiently by this government. We know this because of the number of vessels that continue to come into our waters for illegal fishing. The endemic nature of this illegal fishing was identified by Labor’s caucus—the Transport and Maritime Security Taskforce—in its report Maritime security and illegal fishing: A national disgrace. According to the task force, illegal fishing is a highly organised, sophisticated criminal activity. It is not about subsistence fishers on traditional vessels. They are using modern commercialised fleets equipped with modern technology: echo sounders, radars and GPS equipment. From the work undertaken by Professor James Fox of the Research School for Pacific and Asian Studies of the Australian National University in a report entitled Report on illegal fishermen in Australian waters 2005, we know that Australian waters are being targeted as easy pickings for illegal fishers. As I told this chamber on 31 May this year in my speech on Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006: What we know to be the case is that foreign fishers are using Australian shores, landing their vessels and in some cases setting up caches of food and even going so far as sinking wells for fresh water. Along with the increased number of vessels is the increased possibility of vessels landing on the mainland. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, this provides a significant risk for quarantine issues on our northern borders and it has grave implications for industry—in particular in the Top End but, nevertheless, in the broader community. This concern was also raised in the caucus report. We have had discussion in the past about our concerns regarding avian flu—indeed, much was made of that fact—and the possibility of an epidemic here in Australia. We now know that these vessels that foreign fishers have been sailing in have been landing on Australian soil. There is a distinct possibility that at some time down the line, if we do not stop these practices, we could end up having on our soil an exotic disease, such as avian flu, or another animal-borne disease, such as foot-and-mouth or rabies, impacting upon our broader population. You do not have to be an expert on these issues to understand what the implications would be to the Australian community if this were to take place. From evidence regarding foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters given by Rear Admiral Crane to a Senate estimates committee on 17 February this year, we know that in 2005 there were 13,018 sightings of illegal vessels—and these could have been repeat sightings. This was a 35 per cent increase on the sightings of the previous year. In the same year, only 280 illegal vessels were apprehended and only 327 boats had their fishing gear and their catch confiscated. This represents 4.6 per cent of total vessel sightings for that year. Again, we would be negligent as a parliament if we did not express our concern to the government about this appalling state of affairs. Again, in evidence given to Labor’s Transport and Maritime Security Taskforce, there was an assertion that nine out of 10 illegal fishing trips are successful. I recall in this chamber on 31 May recounting an example of one illegal fisher who had been arrested in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. This individual, as I said then, was not on his second, third or fourth visit; the person caught had made 103 voyages to Australia. We know now that deterrence has not been a real problem for these fishermen; they are still coming to Australian waters. According to Professor Fox, 40 Indonesian fishermen drowned in Australian waters last year. These deaths should not have happened. We have even had deaths while Indonesian fishermen have been in the custody of the Australian community; there have been deaths of fishermen who had been detained by our defence forces or Coastwatch people and brought into Darwin Harbour. We know that, if we had an adequate maritime security operation which prevented or deterred fishers from coming into Australian waters, the threat or risk of such deaths would be minimised. I know that the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, in his contribution talked about this—and, I have to say, this is a very important issue for the Northern Territory. Also, I am a bit alarmed that, despite the importance of this piece of legislation, there is only one government speaker making a contribution to this debate, and that is Alex Somlyay. Where is the member for Leichhardt? Where is the member for Solomon? Where is the member for Kalgoorlie? JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Missing in action. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —And that is always the case here. They beat their breasts about how well the government is doing but, when it comes to representing the real needs and interests of their communities, they are found wanting. I think it is a major disgrace. In particular, with the member for Solomon, we have a member who has got up in this place before and spoken about the resource industries of the Northern Territory—none of which, by the way, are in his electorate. The only resource in his electorate is the hot air that emanates from his own being. All the oil and gas mining activity takes place in waters which are either offshore waters or in the electorate of Lingiari—my own electorate. The oil and LNG plant in Darwin Harbour is in my electorate. However, we see the member for Solomon getting up in this place and proudly spouting forth as to how these industries have all been as a result of the beneficence of the Howard government. Where is the member for Solomon tonight? Why isn’t he here talking about the potential threat to those very industries if we do not have proper and adequate maritime security? This is critically important to securing Australia’s LNG trade. We might also ask him if he has any concerns at all about the way in which potential terrorists might actually get into Darwin Harbour, either on a particular vessel or by exploiting the circumstances that exist in relation to the resources in the community. I note that the shadow minister, Mr Bevis, raised the significant issue of concerns about the potential for terrorists to mount suicide missions into Australian waters on vessels using an explosive like ammonium nitrate. You would want to know what the impact of that might be on Wickham Point in Darwin Harbour. You would want to have some interest in securing Darwin Harbour from that sort of threat. You would want to have some interest in securing our offshore platforms against that sort of threat. But we do not see it being demonstrated by the member for Solomon here this evening. As important as it is for us to ensure we have adequate security to protect ourselves against those possible incursions, we also need to understand that an important part of satisfying our need for this sort of security—especially as we cannot identify, in most cases, the personnel on foreign vessels who are coming into Australian harbours—is to use, as far as possible, Australian shipping and of course highly skilled, highly qualified Australian crews. I believe this is an important part of adopting a strong maritime security regime. This has been demonstrated already by the North West Shelf project where Australian LNG tankers crewed by Australians have a demonstrated commitment to the highest levels of maritime security aimed at maintaining security of both the LNG tankers and their valuable cargoes. Furthermore, the high level of Australian commitment to maritime security is important in maintaining our enviable reputation as a reliable and secure supplier of LNG on the world market—and this is potentially of great significance to those of us in the north of Australia where these LNG resources are being exploited. The security of Australian LNG is one of our key marketing advantages in the global LNG market. Not only is it good for Australians but it also delivers energy security to our LNG customers. Japanese, Chinese or Korean LNG receiving terminals can have a high degree of assurance that their cargo, the vessel and the onshore terminal facility will be secure while an Australian crewed LNG carrier is in port. It has been a concern of mine for some years that Australian crewed vessels are absent from these important areas of trade. I am most concerned that, when we contemplate the development of our economy in the north of Australia and we contemplate the development of these massive resources off our shores, we do so in a secure environment where we know they will be protected. We know they will be protected not only for the economic benefits that they bring to us but also, and most importantly, because of the cost in human life that could eventuate should some disaster befall them such as a terrorist attack. I recall that when the Timor Gap Task Force was in existence, during the years of the Hawke and Keating governments, one of the issues that we raised was the potential for ensuring the security of supply and the security of shipping into the port of Darwin and other places. We are here to support this legislation because it is important, but the government has failed us significantly in the area of maritime security and transport security and it needs to do a lot more to meet Australia’s security needs. 68 18:50:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I take the opportunity this evening in this debate on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 to again raise my concerns and protest about this government’s failure to provide the necessary maritime security that this nation requires and its failure to provide protection for our communities, particularly communities like mine, which is centred on a port in the electorate of Throsby. The member for Lingiari was absolutely right to draw attention to the totally inadequate response from the other side of this chamber. There is one speaker on the government side today compared to 12 speakers on this side of the chamber. I dare say that intelligent members on the government benches are embarrassed about the totally inadequate performance of the Howard government in many areas of concern identified in our amendment. They must be embarrassed otherwise they would be in here defending the government’s record in light of the many areas of inadequacy that our shadow minister has brought to the attention of the chamber in the amendment he has moved. I take the opportunity to speak on maritime bills when they come before the parliament because they are of great importance to Port Kembla, to the suburbs and communities that live in the vicinity of the port and to the workers that are employed at the port and their families. Last year when I spoke on the Maritime Transport Security Amendment Bill I drew the parliament’s attention to a comprehensive report on Australia’s maritime security issued by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. I want to quote a paragraph from that report which sums up the concerns of a credible independent body. It said: A terrorist attack on Australia’s maritime interests is a credible scenario. We have high dependence on shipping and seaborne trade, and are adjacent to a region where terrorist groups have maritime capabilities. …            …            … Australia still faces major institutional and operational challenges in reducing the risks of maritime terrorism. We haven’t met these challenges fully, and we lack consistency in the response across the states and territories. These are the words of an authoritative and independent body that is there to provide fearless advice to the government. The Howard government has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Labor’s amendment to this bill, outlined in detail by the member for Brisbane, indicates significant areas of government failure in providing necessary maritime security and condemns the government for its failure and inaction in regard to many of the concerns highlighted in that amendment. I want to again take the opportunity to repeat some of the concerns I have previously raised in the House, particularly with regard to the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign vessels which, as we know, carry dangerous materials in our waters and into our ports. The government is abusing the rules for the granting of these permits. This is a very important matter, for about 1,000 coastal permits are now issued each year for foreign ships carrying oil, chemicals, LPG and dry cargo between our ports. Very alarmingly, an investigation by the Australian newspaper last year found that foreign ships with foreign crews were carrying explosive cargo, such as fuel or fertiliser, and that they could have lodged fraudulent documents to obtain voyage permits for coastal shipping trade. The headline of the article that appeared in the Australian said it all: ‘Lax ship checks expose ports to terror threat’. In this article the Australian revealed details of an internal audit of the Howard government’s administration of coastal shipping under the Navigation Act. The audit of the administration was obtained under freedom of information laws by the freedom of information editor of the Australian, Mr Michael McKinnon. He did the community a great service in pursuing the outcome of this audit. The audit was conducted by KPMG, a very reputable body, for the Department of Transport and Regional Services and it was completed in October 2004. It delivered a damning assessment of the government’s performance, finding that the administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels is a shambles. The audit revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits is granted without a signed application, which according to KPMG meant that ‘the department risks granting a permit based on a bogus or unauthorised application’. The audit revealed that inadequate financial controls mean that the government may be unaware of fraud, errors or other irregularities relating to the licence and permit applications, that poor record keeping means data relating to more than one in five approved licence and permit applications is ‘absent or incorrect’ and that existing regulations are, in KPMG’s words, ‘out of date’ and ‘do not reflect current operating procedures’. If all that was not enough, the report also found that the department has breached the navigation regulations and ministerial guidelines by failing to properly establish if a licensed Australian ship is actually available before issuing permits to foreign vessels. Single and continuous voyage permits are supposed to be issued only when a licensed ship is unavailable. The minister also has to be satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. As we know, unlicensed foreign ships are not required to pay their crew Australian wages when trading on the Australian coast. Many foreign ships—many of them ships of shame, flag of convenience vessels—undercut Australian wages and conditions. It is a sad indictment of this government that it has presided over the demise of the Australian coastal trading fleet while giving a leg-up to foreign shipping that uses substandard vessels and engages cheap foreign labour. A recent story on The 7.30 Report by Heather Ewart showed clearly that Australia’s remaining merchant fleet is under severe threat as a result of the abuse of this permit system. Under the Howard government, half of Australia’s fleet has already been decimated. We are now down to 50 Australian vessels. MT Stolt was the last Australian flagged chemical carrier. The vessel, after a dispute in Tasmania, is now to be reflagged from Australia to the Cayman Islands and the 18 sacked Australian workers are to be replaced by foreign seafarers. It is of no surprise that on The 7.30 Report one of the MUA officials, Mick Doleman, said that single voyage permits are now being handed out by this government like ‘confetti at a wedding’. On that program, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services put an entirely new construction on the issuing of permits to foreign vessels, saying that an Australian vessel must be available and ready to operate under ‘reasonable terms and conditions’. We know from this government’s position what ‘reasonable terms and conditions’ means: a drive to the bottom in competing against foreign crews and foreign labour. The result of that policy position is becoming manifestly clear, and that is that the remaining Australian merchant fleet continues to remain under direct threat from foreign competition through the abuse of the permit system. It is important to understand why the government’s failure to properly administer the cabotage system in this country really matters. First, it is clear from the findings of the audit that the lax administration of foreign ships on the Australian coastal trade places Australia and its citizens at a heightened risk of maritime terrorism. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has been issuing permits, as we know from this audit, in response to unsigned applications, which in the restrained words of the audit report means it has risked granting a permit based on a ‘bogus or unauthorised application’. It is no secret that the international shipping industry has a dark side. During the course of its inquiry into the introduction of maritime security identification cards, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee had evidence that made this very clear. International maritime security agencies now accept that Osama bin Laden owns a fleet of cargo ships all flagged under the flag of convenience system. As we know from the very important Ships of shame report, this system allows for the evasion of taxation and most other regulated costs. But, more importantly, it provides the beneficial owner with the most effective veil of anonymity available in international trade. In my view there is no more effective veil of anonymity than a blank application form. In fact, I can hardly think of a way to make Australia more vulnerable to terrorist attack than by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port without the inconvenience of lodging a signed permit form. As we know from the KPMG audit, that has occurred. The latest Australian maritime transport compendium commissioned by the Australian Shipowners Association contains a telling statistical tale about the growing use of foreign ships to transport goods around Australian ports. It reveals that since 1991-92 the number of permits issued to foreign ships has grown by over 325 per cent. In 2003-04, the last full year subject to the report, foreign vessels were permitted to carry almost 30 per cent of the Australian interstate and intrastate sea freight trade. As we know, foreign seafarers are not subject to the same rules that apply to Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are foreign seafarers denied Australian pay and working conditions but they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers. I want to commend the Maritime Union of Australia for the way it has willingly and efficiently cooperated with the government in introducing the maritime identification card system and other very important measures that it understands are necessary to secure and protect Australia’s maritime trade. It is just a great pity that this government is letting the shipowners, the seafarers and the Australian community down so very badly in the many areas that were identified in our amendment. The Labor Party has continued to argue that the carriage of highly dangerous goods, like ammonium nitrate, by foreign ships around our coastline must stop now. I commend the Leader of the Opposition on the many important contributions he has made in this chamber highlighting the grave dangers that exist in allowing foreign vessels to transport ammonium nitrate around our coastline. As I said earlier, the MT Stolt was the last Australian flagged chemical carrier and it has now gone. It should be clear to everyone that the safest way to transport high-consequence dangerous goods around Australia is obviously on Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women subject to appropriate security screening. Secure ships and secure seafarers mean better protection for the Australian community. It is bad enough that this government has facilitated an explosion in the number of single and continuous voyage permits issued to foreign ships; it is worse that the government is leaving Australia vulnerable because it will not or cannot regulate a coastal trade according to the rules. It is not just a matter of supporting Australian shippers and Australian maritime workers, as important as that is. It is not just a matter of keeping dangerous substances like ammonium nitrate out of the hands of terrorists. The increasing carriage of sea freight around our coast by foreign ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels subject to very minimal regulation, also puts our natural environment at risk. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I know you will be very concerned about that, coming from the island state of Tasmania. It is in my view a matter of good luck not good governance that Australia has not seen a major environmental disaster associated with the carriage of chemical or petroleum products by one of these ships of shame. The Howard government’s neglect of shipping policy threatens our economy, it threatens our national security and it threatens our natural environment. It is well and truly time that the Howard government ceased abusing the cabotage system. There is a real threat of a ship being used as a weapon in a terrorist strike, just as we saw jet aircraft used in the disastrous 2001 World Trade Centre attack. A maritime vessel could be used against a population centre, like the one that I represent, adjacent to a port facility, or it could be used in shipping channels with frightening consequences. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to what happened back in 1947, and I will remind people again about the explosion on the SS Grandcamp in Texas City. The vessel was carrying 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate, and it gives us an idea of the horrendous consequences of what might happen. That explosion on the vessel was heard as far as 150 miles away, with a mushroom cloud rising 2,000 feet. Locals thought it was a nuclear bomb. The Grandcamp’s 1.5-ton anchor was flung two miles and was embedded 10 feet into the ground. Texas City was devastated. The explosion killed at least 567 people. As I indicated, the Leader of the Opposition has raised that incident to alert the community about the possible dangers of these very dangerous chemicals being transported around our coastline. The Australian parliament passed legislation in 2004 to provide for better exchange of information between state and federal agencies on users of ammonium nitrate. But this government has done nothing to prevent the carriage of ammonium nitrate by foreign flagged ships, often crewed by unidentified seafarers, with all the possibilities of terrorist infiltration and attack that this might allow. Given the known business links between Osama bin Laden and shipping, this is an area of serious vulnerability that demands urgent and immediate attention. Coupled with the high incidence of piracy in our near northern waters and the operation of terrorist groups in islands bordering those waters, the government’s complacency is so negligent and so appalling. In the same way, it is inexcusable that ships arriving from overseas are not being required to meet their notification obligations. I pursued this matter with the Minister for Justice and Customs and, in the replies that I received, it is clear that nearly eight per cent of ships in 2004 failed to provide details of crew and cargo until after arrival. It is too late then if they are carrying explosives, a dirty bomb or worse. The requirement to identify vessels and cargo before arrival is a thoroughly sensible procedure. Labor supports it. Indeed, we have been critical of the government’s failure to properly implement it. The government needs to make clear how this reporting requirement will be implemented in future to ensure complete compliance with the legislation. It could take a leaf out of the book of the United States, where these procedures are strictly enforced. Ships that fail to provide necessary identification there are denied access to ports and are interdicted if required. The situation at our ports is serious when, as we know, currently only about 10 per cent of inbound containers are screened. With more than 20,000 ship arrivals and over 3½ million movements of loaded containers in Australia, there is plenty of room for error when 90 per cent of containers go unchecked. I want to conclude by saying that the member for Lingiari was absolutely right to draw attention to the vulnerability of the Top End of Australia in particular. We have had about 13,000 cases of suspected illegal fishing boats in Australian waters. Only 200 of those were apprehended. Even if they double that target, that still leaves about 12,600 boats that go free. Our northern border has become so porous that illegal vessels are now routinely sighted on our mainland and even upstream, where camps have been found. In conclusion, let me repeat the words from the report of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute: A terrorist attack on Australia’s maritime interests is a credible scenario. The government should urgently address the deficiencies that we have pursued in our amendment to this bill. 72 19:10:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —It is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the honourable member for Throsby on this matter. In particular, I wanted to draw to the attention of the House items (5) and (6) of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for homeland security—namely: the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline. The honourable member for Throsby in her contribution alluded to the porous borders that we have to our north. I could not but agree with her. It is a well-known fact. The honourable member for Throsby pointed out that there were more than 13,000 sightings of illegal fishing boats in our northern waters. These fishing boats do three things: obviously, they fish for fish; they fish for shark; and, in respect of some of the reefs, they destroy reefs in their quest for trochus shells. Particularly, they do not limit the taking of the shells to trochus shells—sized or undersized—but they remove all shells from the reef. When the honourable member for Throsby said that there were more than 13,000 sightings of illegal vessels, she was right. We only intercepted 200. Notwithstanding the extra $300 million, we are going to reduce the number of illegal fishermen from our shores from 96,000 illegal fishermen per year to the much more comfortable figure of 72,000 illegal fishermen, who will enter our borders, rape and pillage our waters and destroy the livelihood and the environment of hardworking fishermen and our Indigenous community—and, while they will not go undetected, they will not be interdicted or interrupted. It is an utter disgrace. For a government that prides itself on issues of national security and what it is doing to bolster national security, to have this happen in our northern waters is a disgrace. It is not good enough. I will tell you why it is not good enough. The government will not set up a department of homeland security. The United States may have done it in response to what has happened there—and I remind everyone that the September 11 anniversary is not far away. They experienced those attacks and they set up a department of homeland security. The one reason why this government will not set up a department of homeland security is that the Labor Party has been advocating it. We have been pointing out the need for better coordination and a more focused fight in the war on terrorism. There have been a number of announcements by the government to try and improve coordination. They have embedded a new unit in Defence; they have got Customs officers and Defence officials working there, and I think that is a good thing. But, lest you feel too warm a flush about the success of the government’s moves, not one additional officer or official from the Department of Defence or from Customs has been added as extra. But we would want to do far more. We want to set up a fair dinkum unit of homeland security and we want to stop the illegal fishing. In a very frank moment in response to a question on notice, a government minister has admitted on the Hansard record that Australia stands at risk of getting avian flu from these illegal fishermen landing on our coastline on our northern waters. Can you imagine what that would do to devastate Australia? In the same response it was happily and freely acknowledged by the government minister that we stand at risk of having rabies enter this country through the activities of these illegal fishermen landing on our coastline. Is there no wonder that there is not one National Party member coming into this chamber and contributing to the debate? Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—and I know of your great interest in farming communities—how our farming communities, not only in our north, because it would not stay just in our north, but right across Australia, would be devastated by the impact of rabies entering the dingo population and eventually migrating south? There is avian flu, rabies and possibly even anthrax. So I find it absolutely and utterly amazing that in a national security debate on this legislation, where admittedly the opposition, as it has traditionally done, is supporting the government to get the legislation through but wanting to have practical plans implemented—and hence the amendments—we get only one coalition speaker and a total absence of the National Party. They do not care about our northern waters, they do not care about the fishermen operating in our northern waters and they do not care about the Indigenous community. In this place in this debate they are mute, and I think they are deaf as well. For the life of me I do not understand it. In her contribution the honourable member for Throsby pointed out what was happening with foreign flagged ships. Firstly, there is a great danger, which the opposition has pointed out, about ammonium nitrate—fertiliser. Fertilisers are used by our farmers and are a necessary ingredient for successful agriculture that comes to this country. Ammonium nitrate is also used, quite properly, by the mining community in the making of explosives. So that I am not accused of gilding the lily, I just want to read from the explanatory statement of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2), SLI No. 163 OF 2005, under the heading ‘Terrorism concern’: Of particular interest to Australia is that Jemaah Islamiyah ... had planned to use ammonium nitrate to bomb US and other western targets in Singapore, including the Australian High Commission.  The Prime Minister of Singapore, announcing the arrest of 13 JI members on 19 February 2002, said JI planned up to seven simultaneous attacks using ammonium nitrate truck bombs. The group had already stockpiled 3.9 tonnes of ammonium nitrate and planned to acquire another 16.7 tonnes. So when Labor members of the opposition legitimately get up in this place and express concern about how ammonium nitrate can be used by terrorists in Australia, this one paragraph in the government’s own explanatory memorandum highlights the fact that we are vulnerable and at risk. In terms of the domestic trade, one of the proud boasts of the coalition government was to get rid of Australian flagged vessels operating on our coastline. It is called cabotage; it is a fancy word, but it meant that you had to have Australian vessels, Australian flags and Australian crew carrying this cargo. Their very proud boast was that they got rid of it. They have opened it up to foreign vessels, all in the interest of economic rationalism. One of the real sadnesses of Australia—the largest island continent in the world—is that traditionally so few of our ships have been crewed by Australians and owned by Australian companies. If you do have an Australian flagged vessel with an Australian crew you have the most rigorous of checks, and I do not object to that. I think that is a good thing. You are checked by the police and you are checked by ASIO to be able to work as a crew member. It is very thorough. Flippantly, the Deputy Leader of the National Party in this place said, ‘All this security stuff like the airport security cards and’—I presume—‘the maritime security cards that are checked by ASIO and the police are a bit like parliamentary passes.’ Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have to tell you or other honourable members in this place that neither we nor our staff are checked by ASIO or by the police when we are issued a parliamentary pass in this place. There is a world of difference. It is a good thing that that happens for Australian crews, but it does not happen for overseas crews. In fact, the only requirement Australia places on foreign ships coming to Australia is that they tell us what cargo they have and details of their crew. That is all they have to do. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, do you think they are doing that? Do you think they are complying with this requirement? They are not complying with the requirement. It seems to be an optional thing. Ships are coming to this country without giving that information. In the United States of America there is exactly the same requirement. If a ship does not provide that information 48 hours before it berths, it does not berth. In Australia they are required to give information in the same time line, but we say, ‘We don’t know who you are, we don’t know what you’ve got, but come on in.’ This is what we consider to be an appropriate way to deal with a terrorist threat. It is an absolute disgrace. I would make this observation: I suspect there is a greater likelihood of a foreign crewed vessel being an instrument of a terrorist threat than an Australian one. So wouldn’t you think we would be more rigorous as a country on foreigners than we are on our own? It is exactly the reverse. This government prides itself on its national security credentials. The Labor Party is saying it is not taking practical measures. A practical measure would be not only requiring foreign vessels to provide this information about crew and cargo 48 hours before they dock but insisting that they do it. This is a very simple measure. You would think it would be like a hot knife cutting through butter. It is pretty simple to understand. It is not too complex. We would have a 100 per cent compliance rate—not 99, 98 or 95 per cent but 100 per cent. That is what they have in America. But of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I know, we do not have a coastguard in this country. In America they have a coastguard and in America in the very same situation that ship would be required to stand off away from their ports. It would not be allowed to be a danger to their ports and citizens and it would be inspected by the coastguard. This government just cannot do it because again, as much as we advocate practical measures like establishing a coastguard and dealing with these issues, the government says, ‘No, we’re not going to have a coastguard’—not because it is not a good idea but because the Labor Party has been seen to advocate it. In national security measures we should set partisan politics aside. We should not be worried about whether the government or the opposition gets an advantage. We should do things that are in the best interests of our nation. In this particular matter we are merely pleading with the government not to bring a new law down or extend an existing law but to take the practical step of ensuring that this is implemented, that it is actioned and that we get results. The government’s failure to take a practical step to implement it is putting this country at risk. We are a prime target, whether we like it or not and regardless of whether we would wish it otherwise. I am certainly in that latter category. We have to understand that some of the decisions that we have taken as a nation, whether unanimously or otherwise, have made us a prime target for the terrorists. We have to take the interests of the Australian people seriously and to heart. We cannot ignore this. We cannot accept that we are a target but be lax in taking effective measures. Another area of concern is the containers coming into Australia. Customs reassure people by saying, ‘We physically examine all those high-risk containers.’ That sounds most reassuring. But what are the results? They actually physically examine 1.8 per cent of the containers coming into this country. To put it around the other way—and I hope my maths is right; I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would pick me up and give me a private talking to if it was not—that means that 98.2 per cent of all containers are not physically examined. They are not even screened. They are not even X-rayed. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —That’s a disgrace! QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —It is an absolute disgrace. The last thing any member of this House would want to see would be Australia paying an awful price for its failure to take terrorism seriously and to ensure that things like containers are X-rayed, but that is the risk we are running. Wouldn’t it be a practical step in trying to combat the threat of terrorism for us to be assured about the crew, the ships and the cargo coming into the country and that containers, whether they are high risk, medium risk or average risk, were being X-rayed to remove that element of doubt? I ask the minister at the table: what differentiates a high-risk container from a moderate-risk container from an average-risk container from a low-risk container? What are the proportions of containers coming in in the different categories? What gives you such certainty that physically examining 1.8 per cent of the containers is going to leave Australians safe in their places at night? I have no confidence in this regime. I wanted to speak about a couple of things. I know that other colleagues have given more fulsome contributions on this matter and that the honourable member for Holt wants to make a contribution. I will point out again the tragedy that we have had one coalition speaker speak on this bill, and not one National Party member has made a contribution. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —That is a disgrace! QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —I think that that is a tragedy. I think it is a disgrace, as the honourable member for Lowe points out. I cannot but agree with him. I hope the government will implement practical steps. (Time expired) 76 19:31:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —That noteworthy presentation by the member for Chifley is a very hard one to follow. As you walk out of the chamber, Member for Chifley, take a bow. I am pleased to rise tonight to support the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006, but obviously I support the opposition amendment, which, whilst not declining to support the bill, urges the government to do a lot more about what we perceive to be, and I think rightly so, threats to our national security. I will detail the amendment: the Howard Government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews; the Government’s continued failure to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port; the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports; the failure of the Howard Government to examine or x-ray 90% of shipping containers; the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security— as there is in the United States of America— to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and (6)   the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline”. Some on the other side may well be saying that the reason why Labor are moving this amendment is to make a political point, but from where I sit as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I can certainly say that we cannot be doing enough to protect the security of our ports and our borders. In looking at this legislation and supporting the provisions of this legislation, from my perspective the legislation clearly does not go far enough. As we have heard from some other contributors, even the legislation that has been implemented has not been appropriately applied. Given what I perceive to be this nation’s risk—and I will come back to that particular point in a moment—I believe that the government must do more to ensure the national security of Australian citizens. I mentioned before the current threat environment. Today, in my capacity as deputy chair of the joint intelligence committee, I received a briefing from a gentleman called Robert Pape, who has written a book called Dying to Win, which is a very thorough analysis of the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. That book talks about the reasons why suicide terrorism is being used by organisations like al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, the Tamil Tigers and a range of other organisations. Through a thorough analysis of suicide terror bombings, we can see that it is not just linked to the Islamic population. There are other examples, and I have just cited some of them. It is a tool used by an organisation to make a point to a country, to weaken a country’s resolve and to strike at the psyche of a particular community. When you look at the history and conduct a thorough analysis of the attacks that have been conducted, it is not a tool that is only applied by organisations that cover themselves with the Islamic umbrella. But, having said that, we should be very mindful of this point made by the very thorough and incisive analysis conducted by Associate Professor Robert Pape: those nations that participate in occupying forces in foreign countries are invariably at a much higher risk of retaliatory attack by organisations like al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah. There is a very well documented and researched book which establishes that fact. Australia has a force in Iraq and, when one looks at some of the analysis that was conducted into the reasons behind the Madrid bombings, the bombings in London and the attempted bombings in London, quite clearly organisations like al-Qaeda are targeting allies of America as a consequence of their involvement particularly in Iraq—because that is the focus of al-Qaeda’s recruitment campaign at the present time—rather than just attacking American interests and America. Australia is an ally of America that has a force in Iraq and, as a consequence of this involvement, according to this very well researched document, we are at a high risk of terror attack. Whilst we are debating this amendment and this particular bill, which has welcome measures to improve transportation security, we must not forget the threat that we face. We must also remember that we must do much more in light of that increased threat to improve Australian transportation and maritime security. In the past I reflected on the speech made by the shadow minister for homeland security, Arch Bevis, when we were talking about legislation that we had supported with respect to ships having to give 48 hours notice before being permitted to dock in Australian ports. What we found, due to a Senate committee report, is that up to 15 per cent of ships had actually berthed in Australia without notifying Australian authorities about the contents of their cargo and about their crew. That is completely unacceptable because one of those ships could be carrying a very large amount of ammonium nitrate. Colleagues prior to my presentation tonight have spoken about one particular incident in 1947. A government document about the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations spoke about the devastating effects, in the government’s own words, of the use of ammonium nitrate. It states: The best known example of terrorist use of ammonium nitrate was the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995, destroying the nine storey office block, killing 168 people and injuring over 500 more. Approximately two tonnes of ammonium nitrate was used in that bomb. Ammonium nitrate was also used in the IRA’s 1996 bombing of London’s Canary Wharf. Total damage was estimated at £85m and several buildings had to be demolished. Two people were killed and 100 injured, the low casualty count due to a series of IRA coded warnings which gave police an hour to evacuate the area. Clearly, that is not being done with regard to terror atrocities committed by Jemaah Islamiah and al-Qaeda. It continues: Ammonium nitrate was also used in the 1998 Omagh bombing which killed 29 and injured 330 people. On 30 March 2004, UK police announced the arrest of eight individuals on terrorism charges. The eight were British citizens, possibly of Pakistani descent, and a related search of a ‘lock-up’ found half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The men were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The problem is that in Australia something like 95 per cent of ammonium nitrate is used as an explosive, particularly in the mining industry, which is an industry that is powering the Australian economy at the present period of time. It continues: There is no regulation of its sale as either a fertilizer or an explosive ingredient in Australia, and very little regulation governing its security ... It is also used in the agricultural sector. Consequently, we have the potential, even in our own country, for enormous damage to be caused by hundreds of thousands of tonnes of ammonium nitrate sloshing around the country, basically unregulated and basically unsupervised. In terms of the threat level to this country, that is completely unacceptable. It is believed that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have somewhere in the order of 11 and 15 ships being used or under their control that can be used. One would think that in this set of circumstances, given the level of threat that I have described, we would be doing everything in our power to ensure that no Australian ship that entered a port was crewed by foreign crews or, if they were, that they would be thoroughly and securely vetted before they got into this country or that their ships would be interdicted, like they are in the United States, if they do not actually report their contents and crew within 48 hours of arriving at that particular port. The fact that that is not being done in this country absolutely stuns me. We are a seafaring country. The other thing is that we export a large amount of LNG, and one of the potential targets by ships carrying ammonium nitrate are sea lane targets. Whilst this legislation, as I have said before, is welcome, it does not go far enough. It should be oversighted by a department of homeland security. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —What about New Orleans? 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —It is good enough for America but not good enough for us—that is effectively what the minister is saying. But that does not surprise me. It is good enough for us to go into Iraq with America but not good enough to take the protective measures that the Americans take to have a coordinated department of homeland security. Is the minister saying that he does not care about the security of Australians, like the Americans did when they pumped huge resources into one coordinated department? Or are we going to have to have a September 11, Minister—is that what you are asking for?—before we actually implement a policy that has been implemented by one of our major allies? Interestingly, some of the European countries are looking at the same sorts of models. Are you saying, Minister—because I want to put this out in a local press release—that you do not think we need a department of homeland security, unlike the Americans? GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Ask the people of New Orleans if they want one. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —Or are you going to say this after we have a terrorist attack? Are we going to have to have a terrorist attack on our soil before you get up in this place and effectively say, ‘We need the same protective mechanisms that the Americans have’? 10000 Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Haase)—Order! The member for Holt will address his remarks through the chair. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —You might want to stop the minister interjecting as well. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Holt will address his remarks through the chair. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —I will do so. I hope that my presentation has been educative for the minister concerned but, as I said quite clearly, the stakes are very high—not just outlined by the Labor opposition but by experts like Robert Pape. My question to the minister is this: can the minister say why it is acceptable that 15 per cent of vessels that come into this country, that berth in this country, do not detail the contents of their crew or their cargoes? Does the minister say that it is acceptable that only 10 per cent of ships that enter Australian ports are X-rayed when in Hong Kong at the present time they are experimenting with 100 per cent X-ray and the Americans are looking at the same thing again? It is quite interesting that, whilst we subject ourselves to an increased terrorism threat as a consequence of our involvement with our allies, we will not implement the same protective security measures to protect our population. Frankly, Minister, I do not see how you can defend this. Whilst I support the provisions in this bill and strongly support the amendment that the Labor Party has put forward, I would ask the minister, in the national interest, in the interests of the security of Australia, to stop playing petty politics and actually adopt Labor’s recommendations to make our country safer and to make our country securer. 79 19:45:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 0 Mr TRUSS —I thank all of those members who have contributed to the debate on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Some of them strayed somewhat from the precise nature of the legislation but I know that there is that privilege in second reading debates. Certainly a number of people from the opposition side have spoken about the issue of port security in relation to the reporting of crews and cargoes on arrival and also in relation to the carrying of dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate. Generally, they also threw in the political comment about a department of homeland security. Anyone who believes that the creation of new government department will somehow or other magically deliver a utopian solution to all these issues, and that that department should be called the department of homeland security, must have forgotten that this week is the anniversary of the New Orleans disaster—a disaster which surely must have put to bed for all time the notion that a department of homeland security can somehow or other deliver worthwhile responses to a crisis when it occurs. This New Orleans incident was a huge embarrassment to the United States and it was an embarrassment to the local authorities. But more particularly over recent times the real attention has been drawn to the failings of a homeland security department, and the very concept is clearly fundamentally flawed. Therefore I would have thought that the Labor Party, with the benefit of this experience and with having actually seen their utopian policy in action and fail dismally, would have rewritten that element of their party policy as well. Can I refer to the issues raised by the honourable member for Brisbane, and I think the honourable member for Holt and others also mentioned the question of pre-entry security assessments for vessels that are coming to Australia. Let me make the point very clear that every ship seeking entry to Australia is subject to a comprehensive risk assessment regardless of the flag that it flies. The risk assessment takes all relevant factors into account, including information about the ship, its crew and its cargo. Security measures are implemented to address the identified risks. These may include ordering the ship to leave Australian waters or holding the ship in a particular position until particular actions are taken to address identified risks. Australia requires security regulated ships to report prescribed pre-arrival information 96 hours before entry into an Australian port. There are cascading provisions to account for voyages that may be shorter than the prescribed 96 hours—that is, requirements to report at 72, 48, 24 or 12 hours depending on the voyage length. If this information is not reported to the Australian Customs Service within a certain time frame contact is made with customs, the vessel’s agent or the ship. If a vessel is within 24 hours of its intended Australian port and the relevant pre-arrival information has not been received, or if there are security concerns with the ship, we have the capability to prevent the ship from entering a port. Under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 information that must be provided includes: confirmation that a valid international ship security certificate or equivalent is on board the ship, including its issuing authority and the date of expiry; the security level at which the ship is operating; the last 10 ports of call where the ship conducted a ship-port interface; whether the ship has operated at a security level higher than its current level, engaged in any ship-to-ship activity or undertaken any other special security measure; and the next four ports of call of the ship, if known. All foreign crew are checked as they enter Australia. Foreign crew go through stringent immigration processes with their names then checked against the various alert lists. The government has also announced the introduction of a mandatory maritime crew visa from July 2007 which will further enhance the screening of foreign seafarers seeking to enter Australia. Reports of import cargo are made to the Australian Customs Service. The period within which the cargo report must be made is dependent on the length of the voyage or flight on which the cargo is carried. In most cases of sea cargo, cargo reporters are required to report cargo no later than 48 hours prior to the ship’s estimated arrival in its first port of call in Australia. The time frame reduces to 24 or 12 hours for voyages of less than 48 or 24 hours respectively. So there is a strategy in place to identify and check the crews and the cargoes coming into Australia. Opposition members who spoke on this bill should spend a little more time checking the facts and a little less time listening to their mates in the Maritime Union whose primary roles are industrial rather than having any real concern about security. There have been frequent references to the transport of ammonium nitrate and other dangerous goods around Australia. I wonder what the opposition is actually proposing in this regard. Are they seriously suggesting that we do not allow ammonium nitrate to come to Australia? The reality is that it is an essential element in primary production and, in particular, in the mining industry. If we were to require that it could only be transported on ships that have an Australian flag or are Australian registered then our capacity to bring this product from the far side of the globe, in many instances, would be seriously limited. If we would not allow a single voyage permit or international vessel to carry ammonium nitrate from port to port in Australia then the alternative is to carry it by road. Do the opposition want semitrailer after semitrailer of explosives to travel through our capital cities, or would they prefer the safer option which is, clearly, to carry it on ships? Day after day the opposition raised the same very rare examples of where they considered there have been incidents and issues of concern. In particular, there is reference to the storage of ammonium nitrate with other volatile products as occurred on the Grandcamp. The Grandcamp incident occurred 60 years ago. We have made a bit of progress since that time and I think it is not unreasonable that the industry recognise that. The shipping of ammonium nitrate is now regulated internationally by the International Maritime Organisation, and Australia is fully compliant with the international regulatory regime, which has a comprehensive range of measures to ensure that the transport of these products, even though they may be inherently dangerous, is done in a safe and effective way. The reality is that whenever issues of concern have been identified the government seeks ways to effectively address those problems and ensure that transport around Australia is effective and secure. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have a great deal of confidence in the important role the maritime sector will play in Australia’s future transport task. Clearly, as a country that is critically dependent on exports, shipping has a key role to play and it is important that our maritime sector be as good, efficient and competitive as any in the world. There is also an important role for the maritime sector and shipping in transporting freight domestically between one capital city and another. It is already cheaper to bring containers from Darwin to Melbourne by ship than it is to take them by rail or by road. With the growth in pressure on our major road networks, particularly between our east coast capital cities, shipping could play an important role in moving vital freight between our capital cities. We need to have efficient ports and appropriate networks to lead in and out of those ports to make that happen, and we also need quality ships and quality shipping systems to ensure that maritime transport is competitive with rail and road and can take an increasing share of our freight burden, which is going to double over the next 25 years. For that reason, we are going to need ships to do a lot better and to take a bigger share of the load in moving freight around the country. Security is of great importance to the confidence Australian people have in their transport system. So this bill, which strengthens the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act, is also important. The bill simplifies the procedures for making changes to maritime, ship and offshore facility security plans. It clarifies the processes in place with the establishment of security zones. It shortens the time allowed for the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to approve security plans and it clarifies when the security plan approval period commences. There are a number of other technical amendments to a wide range of legislation administered within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio. With a handful of exceptions, they are unrelated to transport security matters. The bill does not propose to vary any of the policy settings underpinning Australia’s maritime security regime; it is a procedural bill. The passage of this bill will assist the maritime industry by providing for a simpler process for making minor variations to security plans without undergoing the full plan revision process. The government also wishes to simplify the administrative process for establishing maritime security zones. Consultation undertaken by the Department of Transport and Regional Services with the maritime industry has assisted in developing these amendments, and this bill has the support of industry. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry into the bill and in its report tabled on 15 June 2006 recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. The government looks forward to the passage of this bill within the current sitting of parliament to enable maritime industry participants to focus on implementing and maintaining the security measures outlined in the security plans, thus contributing to the strengthening of Australia’s maritime security arrangements. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Haase)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane 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. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 82 Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay —Minister for Transport and Regional Services) 19:57:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 82 BILLS R2527 82 Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop: That this bill be now read a second time. 82 19:58:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 extends the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation’s ability to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a wider range of sources and circumstances than it is able to at present. Currently ANSTO is limited by legislation to dealing with its own radioactive material, including waste, and in a number of ways it would be sensible and practical for ANSTO to handle, manage or store a wider range of materials. For this reason, the opposition will be supporting this bill. Specifically, the bill before the House tonight allows ANSTO to have a direct role in managing radioactive material involved in terrorist or criminal incidents. At the moment the ANSTO Act limits the assistance that ANSTO can provide in an emergency to only providing advice to Commonwealth, state and territory agencies. In, for instance, the circumstances of a terrorist group gathering material for and assembling the components of a radioactive dirty bomb, ANSTO personnel could advise other Commonwealth officers about handling the radioactive material but would be restrained by law from handling the material themselves, from making that material safe, from transporting that material in safe containers or, indeed, from safely storing that material at an ANSTO facility. Given the expertise and experience held within ANSTO and the facilities which ANSTO has available, this legislative restriction should be removed. ANSTO ought to be able to manage, clean up and store radioactive material in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal incident involving that radioactive material. In my view, this should include the safeguarding of any radioactive matter which may be required as evidence in legal proceedings against alleged terrorists or criminals and in providing expert opinion as required by the courts. I note also the comments by the Minister for Education, Science and Training that this bill will bring Australia into line with standards set out in the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and Labor urges that all necessary actions to comply with this UN convention be taken so that Australia can agree to this important treaty. In addition to the handling of material involved in a criminal act, ANSTO is also currently constrained by a lack of power to process, handle or store waste from other Commonwealth sources—for example, Defence or CSIRO. As a consequence of this bill, ANSTO will be able to lend its expertise to waste management of all radioactive materials held by the Commonwealth. This will include transporting radioactive waste to Lucas Heights, ‘conditioning’ or processing the material to render it safe and suitable for further storage, and temporary storage of that treated material until a long-term repository is available. I am advised that the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency is developing a code of practice and safety guide for the conditioning and management of radioactive waste prior to its disposal. Once they are developed, ARPANSA intends to apply these national requirements for predisposal management to all Commonwealth entities. ANSTO’s experience in managing its own waste makes it the only body suitable for and capable of conditioning Commonwealth waste to meet ARPANSA’s requirements. These changes will mean that much larger quantities of waste will be transported to Lucas Heights for conditioning and held there during processing before eventual storage at the waste dump. This may cause concern about waste transportation and storage in the Lucas Heights community, and I hope that the government has already begun discussions with the community around Lucas Heights. Labor supports appropriate management of Australian nuclear waste, following proper community consultation. Equally, Labor wants to make sure that the present ANSTO site at Lucas Heights does not become a long-term dump for Commonwealth nuclear waste. To this end, I am seeking an immediate assurance that Lucas Heights will not become a de facto national waste dump as a result of the provisions of this bill. I hope that the minister for science is in a position to respond to this request when she closes this second reading debate. At present, spent fuel from the research reactor at Lucas Heights is sent to France for reprocessing. In the past it has also been sent to Scotland. Reprocessing involves the spent fuel waste being held in storage for a considerable period in order to reduce its radioactivity. The reprocessed spent fuel is yet to return to Australia. However, it is due to come back between 2011 and 2015. ANSTO has entered into contractual arrangements for the reprocessing and eventual return of the waste. This intermediate-level waste will return to Lucas Heights before it is taken to the nuclear waste dump that the government is imposing on the Northern Territory. During the reprocessing operation overseas, ANSTO spent fuel is mixed with spent fuel from other customers into a single batch and then allocated to customers in proportion to their input to the mixed batch. It is probable that waste returning to Australia will contain nuclear waste not generated by the Australian research reactor. The government believes that it is not clear that a court would regard such waste as waste arising from ANSTO’s activities. The proposed amendments would make sure that ANSTO has the necessary powers to accept such wastes under its contractual agreements, and manage and store such wastes. The bill also explicitly provides that materials and waste generated, processed or controlled by a Commonwealth contractor are taken to be generated, processed or controlled by the Commonwealth itself, and as such contractors are covered by the same responsibilities and immunities as the Commonwealth. In a broad sense, this ought to be viewed as a positive outcome of this bill because the Commonwealth should not be able to shirk any of its responsibilities or controls by handing over possession of radioactive materials to a contractor. However, there is another side to Commonwealth immunities being extended to contractors. According to briefings my office has had from the department, this bill is what they call a belt and braces attempt to prevent any residual capacity which may exist for legal challenge to the nuclear waste dump by removing the avenue of challenging ANSTO’s authority to manage waste generated by non-ANSTO sources. Advice I have received on this issue indicates that the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act, which already applies to Commonwealth contractors, is ‘a very powerful tool in providing immunity from the operation of state or territory legislation in relation to the establishment and operation of the proposed waste facility in the Northern Territory’. Further, this legal advice suggests that any role that ANSTO may have in the future operation of the facility, including storage and transport, would be covered by those immunities in the Radioactive Waste Management Act. So I ask the minister another question which I would appreciate her responding to when she sums up the bill: could she confirm that she shares the department’s objectives in relation to this provision—objectives which were not stated in these terms in the explanatory material for the bill? Labor objects strongly to the very extensive and powerful immunities that the Commonwealth has already bulldozed through this parliament. These concerns of ours form the basis of the second reading amendment, which has been circulated in my name. I now move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for: its extreme and arrogant imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory; breaking a specific promise made before the last election to not locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory; its heavy-handed disregard for the legal and other rights of Northern Territorians and other communities, by overriding any existing or future State or Territory law or regulation that prohibits or interferes with the selection of Commonwealth land as a site, the establishment of a waste dump, and the transportation of waste across Australia; destroying any recourse to procedural fairness provisions for anyone wishing to challenge the Minister’s decision to impose a waste dump on the Northern Territory; establishing a hand-picked committee of inquiry into the economics of nuclear power in Australia, while disregarding the economic case for all alternatives sources of energy; and keeping secret all plans for the siting of nuclear power stations and related nuclear waste dumps”. The Howard government, as we all know, is determined to dump radioactive waste in the Northern Territory. Before the last election, the people of the Northern Territory were given an undertaking—a promise, in fact—by this government that there would not be a dump in the Northern Territory. When this government needed to be re-elected, it could not wait to reassure Territorians that there would be no nuclear waste dump in the Territory. However, once the Howard government was safely back in office, it seems it could not break that commitment fast enough. Just last year David Tollner, the member for Solomon, claimed not to support the nuclear waste dump in the Territory. At that time he said: There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory … That was the commitment undertaken in the lead up to the federal election and I haven’t heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election. We now know that he has completely backflipped in order to force the nuclear waste dump onto the Territory. The government has shown time and again that it cannot be trusted on such issues. Why would anybody trust this Prime Minister when he breaks his promise to keep interest rates at record lows, when he smashes his promise that no worker will be worse off under the Howard government and when he dumps the promise that he made to keep nuclear waste away from the Northern Territory? We can only say that broken promises are the debris left after 10 long years of this Prime Minister taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of our fair and decent society. The other legacy of 10 long years of this government is its sheer arrogance and heavy-handedness—and that applies particularly to the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister has once again broken the trust of the Australian people. He has repeatedly failed to recognise that trust works both ways. You cannot expect to be trusted if you are not willing to trust the Australian people, to consult with them and to give them time to consider important matters, like the location of nuclear waste. Instead, this government has rammed its extreme nuclear waste dump legislation through this parliament. The waste dump legislation gave the government total power to site, construct and operate the Commonwealth radioactive waste dump at one of three sites in the Northern Territory. It overrode all existing and future state and territory law and regulation that got in the way. In addition, many federal laws have been overridden, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and the Native Title Act. As a final blow, the waste dump legislation destroyed any recourse to procedural fairness provisions for anyone wishing to challenge the minister’s decision to put a waste dump in the Northern Territory. Not only does the government not trust the people of the Northern Territory but it has taken extreme measures to gag them and block them at every turn. We now have this Prime Minister calling for a debate about nuclear power in this country. He expects all of us to believe in him this time when he says that he is interested in the Australian community’s views. The Prime Minister has refused to come clean on the question of where he will put his nuclear power plants. Both the Prime Minister and his science minister, Julie Bishop, have refused to talk about locations—although the science minister has been quite happy to rule out her own electorate. So, if a debate about nuclear power is not an appropriate time to talk about power plant sites, when is an appropriate time? The economic feasibility and safety of nuclear power is intrinsically tied to where the power plants will be. The Prime Minister’s so-called inquiry into nuclear power is not looking at this critical question—but, not surprisingly, that has not stopped Geoscience Australia, the government’s own advisory body on the geology and topography of Australia, from stating in its submission to the inquiry that Australia is: ... the most geologically stable of the continents. It has areas which appear geologically suitable for waste disposal. If that is the case, local communities have a right to know what this government’s intentions are and what to expect from it, both on nuclear power sites and on the siting of future nuclear waste dumps. Make no mistake about it: this government is determined to bring nuclear power to Australia. This so-called inquiry is just part of the government’s constant campaign for nuclear power. I will just make it clear once again: the Labor Party is fundamentally opposed to bringing nuclear power to this country. The Howard government knows that local communities will not cop it, which is why it is refusing to talk about the most important thing: where the power plants and the resulting high-level waste dumps will be. ANSTO told Labor at a Senate estimates hearing this year and later on ABC radio that at least three to five nuclear power plants would be needed for a viable Australian nuclear power industry. So, if this Prime Minister is serious about nuclear power, he should come clean and tell us where these three to five sites might be. In addition, the Minister for Education, Science and Training recently released a report that was commissioned by ANSTO and written by a fellow called John Gittus, a nuclear insurance expert on the economics of nuclear power. John Gittus argued that the risk of terrorist attack on an Australian nuclear power station would be 50 per cent higher today than it was in 2001. A nuclear power station in Australia would now be classed as a ‘world terrorism target’ by insurers, who could charge up to $400 million to insure such a plant. The report goes on to suggest that nuclear power stations would be economically viable in Australia only: If Australia purchased a 5th or later copy of an AP 1000 nuclear power plant, something that’s not likely to be available for another 20 years. If at least 3 nuclear power plants were purchased and built. And if the Government subsidised 14.31 % of the cost of building a power station by, and 21.41% of the cost of electricity produced for the first 12 years of operation. The economics of nuclear power plainly do not stack up. We have abundant sources of alternative energy, waste disposal issues for nuclear power remain unresolved and there are very important national security issues to be considered. The government’s refusal to be honest with the Australian community is seriously concerning at this particular time when the government is pushing the benefits of nuclear power. We also know that the coalition have form when it comes to the location of nuclear facilities. They certainly know how to keep them secret. In 1997 the government considered a shortlist of 14 possible sites for nuclear research reactors but kept the list secret from the public. The confidential briefing—signed with ‘good work’ by the former science minister Peter McGauran—said the shortlist should be kept secret because: … release of information about alternate sites may unnecessarily alarm communities in the broad areas under consideration. Because this document has been released, we now know the short-listed sites included Goulburn, Darwin, Mount Isa, the Mount Lofty Ranges and electorates including Brand and Pearce in Western Australia. The list also included Lucas Heights, right there in Sydney, which makes it all the more important for the minister for science to rule out Lucas Heights becoming a de facto waste dump as a result of this bill. Last week we had the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory spruiking even more nuclear waste for Australia with their calls for Australia to enrich uranium. The problem for Australia is that this Prime Minister has not explained what his plans for nuclear enrichment mean for waste storage in Australia. Is it the case that the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory does in fact want more nuclear waste dumped in their own Territory? We know there is growing momentum in international politics for countries that process uranium to accept spent fuel as well. We know that the government has had enormous difficulty finding a solution for Australia’s low- and intermediate-level waste, let alone taking the world’s high-level waste, but that has not stopped the foreign affairs minister. In February this year he said Australia needs more nuclear waste dumps. He said: We need medium and we need high level storage as well ... We really need to get on with it ... The longer it takes the greater the risk. As I said, we had the Country Liberal Party from the Northern Territory voting last week to support an inquiry into uranium enrichment in the Northern Territory. They backflipped to force the waste dump on the Territory; now they are running to support uranium enrichment and, of course, all of the consequences that that entails. So if the government are in fact planning to introduce nuclear power—and it seems they are—or uranium enrichment plants, they must answer some questions that the Australian people want to ask. Which suburbs or towns will be home to the new nuclear reactors and enrichment plants? What will the government do to make sure local residents and schools are safe? Where will we see nuclear reactors in our major cities? Will they be in any cities other than Sydney? What will be done with the nuclear waste? Will there be nuclear waste dumps other than in the Northern Territory? Given the Prime Minister has not been able to get agreement on the location for low- and medium-level nuclear waste, how does he plan to dispose of or store high-level waste? Of course, he has not been prepared to even attempt to answer any of these questions let alone address the intractable problems of nuclear waste and the safety of operations of nuclear facilities. We only need to look to Britain’s experience. It is certainly a cautionary tale of the serious environmental security and social risks posed by nuclear waste. Britain’s civil and military nuclear industries have accumulated 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste around their country. Indeed, the United Kingdom government has estimated it will cost $170 billion to clean up the 20 British nuclear sites. As a nation, we still do not have a solution for the disposal of our small quantity of low-level nuclear waste. There is no agreement from the people of the Northern Territory. We also know the Howard government’s nuclear power inquiry task force does not include a single environmental expert to look at the critical environmental or safety issues. We understand that Greg Bourne, the head of WWF Australia, was approached to be on the task force, but he described the inquiry as ‘rubbish’. The minister for science, Julie Bishop, even left the door open for the nuclear power inquiry to consider the dumping of foreign nuclear waste in Australia, despite the Prime Minister himself ruling out the importation of foreign nuclear waste. So which is it going to be? Is it the case that we will get nuclear power stations up and down the coast of Australia, as the Prime Minister seems to want? Is it the case that the minister for science is saying that she will consider the importation of foreign nuclear waste into Australia, as she seems to be? All of these issues are critical matters for the Australian people, but as usual we are not getting any answers to these questions from the Howard government. They prefer to run a program of deception when it comes to nuclear power. They prefer to mislead people and to make promises to people, as they did in the Northern Territory, over the nuclear waste dump before the election and then backflip and impose that nuclear waste dump on those people after the election. As I said at the start of this debate, there are good reasons for supporting this bill that is before the House, but I do urge members to look at Labor’s very serious concerns that we have set out in this second reading amendment. It certainly indicates our extreme concerns about the heavy-handed way in which this government is going about both the debate on nuclear power and the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the people of the Northern Territory. 10000 Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Haase)—Is the amendment seconded? QK6 Sercombe, Bob, MP Mr Sercombe —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 88 20:23:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —I have had a moment to look at the amendment proposed by the Labor Party to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006. Not one paragraph of the amendment is constructive and not one paragraph says, ‘There might be a better way.’ The member for Jagajaga, of course, went as far as to talk about renewable energy. We know what is available there—things such as wind. If you do not mind a cinematographic experience for your eyes, where you read the book as the lights go on and off again, that will work. If you do not want to do anything after dark, then of course solar power will work. I have never heard a word from the Labor Party saying that a resource in your electorate, such as the tides, might be a worthwhile experiment. They have said nothing at all constructive in response to this government’s challenging the people of Australia on the future needs for energy. It is as simple as that. That is not a challenge for the baby boomers of the Y brigade or generation X; that is a challenge for kids who have not been born yet but for whom this parliament might have some responsibility above the Labor Party’s view of their rights individually or as a party to be re-elected. The member for Jagajaga has served her party well. She is the doomsayer above all doomsayers. I remember her in this place attacking the government’s proposal to duplicate the Keating and Hawke government’s proposal to get a bond off people entering what we now call high-care nursing homes. It was already there for hostels, as we knew them, introduced by the previous government. She created concern among the community and the government withdrew—and what was the outcome of that? We now have people with homes worth $1 million who, for want of a bond, cannot get into a nursing home. That is a big help! These are the sorts of silly things that she constantly promotes. The great pity—because I have some pretty serious things to say—is that it took three pages of notes full of her misleading comments for me to set the record straight. She wants a guarantee that waste will not be stored at Lucas Heights, considering that ANSTO will be given additional powers to aggregate and manage nuclear waste. But what better organisation within Australia with what better skills—a word we hear constantly in this place—could we give the job to? She wants a guarantee that waste will not be stored at Lucas Heights and then complains about it going to the Northern Territory. She had better make up her mind. She of course runs the usual Labor argument that contractors are all crooks and public officials are always honest. Then she says that no state government is prepared to allow this dreadful stuff within its boundaries. She forgets to tell us that under these arrangements and under what the Commonwealth has been forced to do in the Territory—the people of which rejected statehood—all the states are going to continue to store their nuclear waste in basements around the cities. That is apparently an improvement on having a properly managed and organised storage out in a remote area. She talks about broken promises. This is a big building, and I guess that is why lightning has never struck her dead, but the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to broken promises is those three letters l-a-w. She talks about arrogance. Who was it who called the Senate ‘unrepresentative swill’? She attacks the government for not nominating where we are likely to build nuclear power stations before we have even decided, on good advice, whether that is an option for Australia. Of course, she is quick to shoot the messenger. Poor old Geoscience Australia, a group of independent people, bothers to put a submission to the committee which, she complains, does not contain her choice of decision makers. I always thought a committee was there to listen to the evidence and report, in this case to the parliament and the government, on that evidence. Is Geoscience Australia a reputable organisation? If it is not she should have said so. Instead, she just casts this throwaway slur. It is the equivalent in modern day history of burning books—‘Do not confuse me with the facts.’ As soon as someone goes before an appropriate committee and says something that she and the Labor Party do not like, they are nasty people. She accuses ANSTO of telling them that there could be three opportunities to have plants in Australia. Why are they to be pilloried for that? They are experts. That is what democracy is all about—get the right advice; do not have street corner meetings where you stir up the uninformed. I loved the bit about terrorist attacks. I guess, Mr Deputy Speaker Haase, you read recently about or saw the photographs of the Lucas Heights reactor. It is a mini-reactor. I think the walls are six metres thick. What sort of car bomb is going to run into that and make a dent? What a stupid argument! I want to talk further about the development of the nuclear reactor in Iran. It is probably beyond smart bombs. In its early stages of development it was bombed, but what terrorist is going to blow up the shell of a nuclear reactor if it is six-metre, or even six-feet, thick concrete? I have had a look at some of the Nazi submarine facilities in Oslo. The walls are still there. They are about 10 feet thick. There was not a bomb of the period that could blow them up. Then the member for Jagajaga gives us an economic lecture. When I want some advice from an economist, I will not ask her. She says that someone said we might not need them for 20 years. That might be true, but is that a reason to not debate it now? When she talked about who might contribute, she raised the issue of whether it might cost the government some money. My recollection is the government paid 100 per cent for the Snowy Hydro facility, and the other day there was a big campaign to make sure we never sold it. Of all of the things she has to say, she is worried for the people. But she is not worried for the people of Iran. I have never heard a word from her in this place about whether or not there is a threat to the people of Iran because they are building a nuclear facility and going into the enrichment. She seems to be highly selective about who might get fried and who might not. You have to be consistent about these issues. We know why the world is worried about Iran. It is because, with their hydrocarbon resources, we cannot see their need to generate electricity with nuclear materials. We think they have an ulterior motive. I have never heard her complain about that in this place. She tells us that there are 2.3 million cubic metres of nuclear waste in the UK and then she wants to put a financial figure on that. What I would put on it is that it is there and I have not heard of a person from the general community in the UK who has become impotent or has suffered cancer or anything else as result of that waste in an area about the size of my electorate. Is it proof there is something wrong or there is something right? Then, of course, she worries about there not being a Green on the expert committee. I had a longish period as Minister for Forestry and Conservation, and I tried to get an approved standard for the management of forests. To get that past the standards association all community interests had to be involved or consulted. It was the Greens who refused to be involved in that also. What was the purpose of it? To create a standard by which people might manage our forests. The last thing in the world they wanted was for the problem to go away. And you wonder why they do not want to be there judging a nuclear power investigation. Are they going to give evidence? As I have said previously, the people you put on these committees should be people who are able to analyse the evidence and give good advice to the people of Australia through their parliament. But their idea is that you put people on so that you know the answer before you commence the inquiry. We know all about that from when they were in government. I have 10 minutes left. I have had to spend half my time pointing out the stupidity. Let me repeat again: I have read the amendments and not one of them is constructive—negative, negative, negative. If you wonder why people distrust the Labor opposition it is because they never offer a solution. They want to live with the problem and gain political advantage. As I have said, there are people now who are unable to find a high-care nursing home position because of one of the member of Jagajaga’s campaigns in Labor’s early period in opposition. ANSTO will have additional powers to manage the disposal of waste. We have had the courage to select a highly remote area, with ANSTO’s additional supervision, to place nuclear waste. Please remember that when a medical practitioner injects radioactive isotopes into a human body—prepared and manufactured, of course, at Lucas Heights—the person receiving the injection does not die. They are allowed to go home and sleep with their wife without any fear of contamination. But the rubber gloves that the physician used are low-level radioactive waste, and we have to find somewhere to put that. The state public hospitals keep it in the basement—or possibly chuck a bit of it away when no-one is looking. That is where we start. In my early days in this place, I once said to a person of great knowledge on this: ‘When this radioactive waste has to be stored, what sort of protection do we need? How many feet of concrete? How many feet of lead?’ He said: ‘What about a sheet of cardboard.’ Let us put it into perspective. Nobody, including the Labor Party, is suggesting for a minute that we cease exporting uranium oxide, as long as it comes from their nominated holes in the ground. Yet they seem quite comfortable with a piece of paper that a country signs saying: ‘Take our word for it. We’ll look after this stuff. Even when it is useless to us, we’ll guarantee that no terrorist group will get hold of it. We’ll guarantee we won’t have a change of government and then send you a little bit back on the end of a rocket.’ They want to mount an argument that we should not, firstly, enrich and then monitor that product all the way back to Australia. It would seem to me that, on that practical argument, that is the best place for it. Someone who has had a bit of courage in the Labor Party to argue a long way down this road said to me: ‘Wilson, don’t go that last step. The people will not accept it.’ Why? Because we have the member for Jagajaga saying that you will be infertile tomorrow. But apparently 2.3 million tonnes of the stuff has not created that problem in the United Kingdom—and it is a pretty small place. These are the sorts of issues. Let me put something on the record, more particularly because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who advises the Prime Minister on water, is here. He will probably be terrified to hear my remarks. Years ago, I lived in a town that had a river that could fill Sydney Harbour in four hours, and most of the time it was a dry riverbed. It did not have a dam site. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —What river was that? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —The Gascoyne River. It was 30 miles wide at the sea in one case. One day I will tell you the whole story. I guess it was exciting if you were there. I went out to try to find a way to store some of that water. That seems to be an arising problem throughout Australia. We have a lot of lousy dams. You can talk about most of them on the Murray River. They are too big, too shallow and too subject to evaporation. But, in the days when people saw nuclear energy in a different light, the Americans conducted a program called Plowshare. They actually excavated holes at minimum cost in the deserts of America using this technology. A couple of Australian engineers wrote a paper on it, which came into my possession. They argued that you could dig a mineshaft 1,500 feet deep, half-fill it with TNT and blow a hole 600 feet deep to store water. They told just how you would take it off the river. They went on to say that you could also drill a hole eight inches in diametre and put the appropriate nuclear device at the bottom of that hole, 1,500 feet below the ground, and also get a 600 feet deep water storage. I thought that was a pretty good idea. In fact, if someone went back in the records of the ABC, they would see a very young Wilson Tuckey arguing that case in the bed of the Gascoyne River. I got a response from a state politician of the Labor kind at the time, who said, ‘We’d have everybody eating radioactive cabbages.’ The first point, of course, was that the hole was 800 feet above where the device exploded. But Sir Charles Court, who is the best politician I have ever met in his commitment to this nation—and we take great profits from his commitment to gas when nobody else wanted it and from his commitment to other matters—then delivered me a 16-millimetre movie of the Russians doing just that. I have never found many reasons to approve of communism, but this seems to be one of them. In the movie they drilled the hole right in the riverbed. My advice said it should be off the riverbed. They drilled this hole and they all stood there in visual sight of this event. Off it went—boomp!—and here was this hole. They relied on the rim of the crater to be the dam wall, to add to the value of the hole. Within days, they had dozer drivers in there cleaning off the mess. Of course, they portrayed horses drinking the water and other things at a later time. That is all okay, but when will Australians have the courage to ask themselves: might this be a solution to our water storage issues? In a hole 600 feet deep you do not get a lot of evaporation. These are the things that we have to talk about. The worst thing for the community is for the member for nagger-nagger—I am sorry; I mean Jagajaga—who comes into this place time and again and whinges and moans, ‘The world will end tomorrow.’ I am not planning on it ending tomorrow. I think it is a great place, and I think it will be better when the people who occupy this place come with a constructive attitude. Yes, of course there are problems in everything we do. I thought about this today when they were carrying on with their White Australia policy on imported 457 visa workers. Let me put it this way: a lot of people have car crashes, but we do not ban motor cars. In the rural areas at the moment, we desperately need these people. The greenies go crook about live sheep exports and say, ‘Slaughter them here.’ I agree—except that we have nobody to do it. I have sheep dying of drought which I guess can have their lives ‘saved’ by going to a meatworks. It is a little less painful. But we do not have enough people to do it in a drought. And we have these people standing up making their nice little political point: ‘Let’s take a negative view.’ I have to say that I can remember, when I was not sure whether the power point was broken or the drill was, putting a couple of bare wires in to see which bit worked. Maybe that worker was doing just that. I bet that, if you put the test around this House, there might have been someone else that did. But that is a simple and single issue and it should not be part of the debate in this place. (Time expired) 92 20:43:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —After listening to the member for O’Connor, I am confident I could say whatever I wanted to in this debate and you would not have to worry about relevance, if that is the precedent that has been set. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Newcastle should not reflect on the chair, otherwise she might be dealt with. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —Oh, dear! In dealing with this legislation, I think it deserves great research and credible thought. I have risen to speak on the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2006 and to support Labor’s second reading amendment, which: ... condemns the Government for: its extreme and arrogant imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory; breaking a specific promise made before the last election to not locate a waste dump in the Northern Territory; its heavy-handed disregard for the legal and other rights of Northern Territorians and other communities, by overriding any existing or future State or Territory law or regulation that prohibits or interferes with the selection of Commonwealth land as a site, the establishment of a waste dump, and the transportation of waste across Australia; destroying any recourse to procedural fairness provisions for anyone wishing to challenge the Minister’s decision to impose a waste dump on the Northern Territory; establishing a hand-picked committee of inquiry into the economics of nuclear power in Australia, while disregarding the economic case for all alternatives sources of energy; and keeping secret all plans for the siting of nuclear power stations and related nuclear waste dumps … This amendment deserves to be highlighted given the track record of the Howard government—a government that certainly has form when it comes to misleading Australians on nuclear waste and nuclear energy. Who can forget those fighting words from the government’s representative in the Northern Territory, the member for Solomon, who last year claimed that the Country Liberal Party did not support even a low- and medium-level nuclear waste dump in the Territory? During an ABC interview on 7 June 2005, the member for Solomon said: There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory ... That was the commitment undertaken in the lead-up to the federal election and I haven’t heard anything apart from that view expressed since that election. Let us fast-forward three months; the Howard government now has an apparent change of heart and the member for Solomon, perhaps exhausted by all those policy backflips post election, falls immediately into line, becoming the loyal servant of his big coalition brothers in Canberra. Apparently no longer opposed to the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory, the member for Solomon is reborn as a passionate advocate for the benefits to all Territorians of housing Australia’s nuclear waste. So the member for Solomon, along with all the coalition members, obediently voted in this House to impose a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory. This was despite that fact that it was against the wishes of the very same Territorians who voted for the member for Solomon at the last election when he assured them, ‘There’s not going to be a national nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory,’ and despite the government’s own advisory committee and scientists, who said that the Northern Territory was not a suitable site for a waste dump. But, true to form, the government rammed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Billthrough the parliament last December, allowing them to build a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory whether Territorians like it or not. The then minister for education and science, Brendan Nelson, was granted the power to choose from one of three sites in the Northern Territory: Fishers Ridge near Katherine, Mount Everard and Harts Range near Alice Springs. The minister does not have to now consider any environmental or heritage protection laws or worry about the decision being reviewed by the courts for procedural fairness. Apparently we no longer need to be fair in this country. Territorians must be wondering what they did to deserve so much attention from the Howard government, but overriding Territory laws is a well-established party trick for this government, so there are no surprises there. Having established the Northern Territory as Australia’s dumping ground for nuclear waste—despite community opposition—the Prime Minister is now touting nuclear power as an option for Australia in a desperate bid to be seen to be doing something about climate change. This is an issue he has ignored for the last 10 years. Two years ago the Howard government’s own energy white paper stated: The Australian Government is not contemplating the use of nuclear energy in Australia. Well, two years and a visit to George W later, we have another policy backflip. The Prime Minister now says that nuclear power is inevitable and he wants a ‘full-blooded’ debate about nuclear energy in Australia. But how serious is the Prime Minister if he cannot confide in the Australian people to let us in on his plans for nuclear power and if he steadfastly refuses to provide details of where he plans to locate future nuclear power stations? Every time a direct question on this issue is asked of him or his government they run a mile. How does this Prime Minister expect us to have a nuclear debate without his stating where he thinks the nuclear reactors should be located and where the nuclear waste should be sited? Will there be a nuclear reactor in Port Stephens, in the electorate of Paterson, as reported on the front page of the Newcastle Herald on 24 May this year? According to one think tank, Port Stephens would be an ideal location for a nuclear reactor. On the same day that the Treasurer, as Acting Prime Minister, and the foreign affairs minister, Alexander Downer, threw their support behind the construction of a nuclear reactor in Australia, the member for Paterson, under local pressure, yelled very loudly: ‘Not in my backyard.’ This is the same member for Paterson who says he is a supporter of nuclear energy—just so long as no-one tries to build a power plant in his electorate! Of course, it is fine to dump a nuclear power plant on someone else’s community, and the member for Paterson will no doubt vote for any such future legislation just like he supported dumping a nuclear waste facility on the people of the Northern Territory last year. There would not be a community in Australia that does not have the same concerns that the member for Paterson raised in his response to the nomination of Port Stephens as an ideal site. If not Port Stephens, then where does the member for Paterson suggest that the government should build those nuclear power stations? He is, after all, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, so he must have some thoughts on the matter. Perhaps he would like to share those thoughts with the people of Australia. The member for Paterson, like all members of the Howard government who do not want nuclear plants in their communities, should have the courage to stand up and say no to the Prime Minister. But, after seeing the way the member for Tangney—a strong advocate of nuclear energy—was recently decommissioned by the Liberal Party preselectors for stating that he would welcome a nuclear power plant in his electorate in Perth, I doubt we will be seeing much comment from coalition members on this issue. Actually, only eight members from the government are even speaking on this legislation, and I am sure that they will toe the party line. I look forward with interest to hearing the speech of the member for Tangney later in this debate; ‘Too late,’ he will cry. My position, and that of the Labor Party, is clear. There will be no nuclear power plants in Australia under a Beazley Labor government. We all know that the Prime Minister’s call for a full-blooded debate on nuclear energy is just code for: ‘We are determined to have nuclear power in Australia.’ But nuclear power is not appropriate for Australia. The economics simply do not stack up, and certainly the public are not at the point where they would support it. The Prime Minister continues to talk up this phoney debate on nuclear power for Australia because he really does want to go down that path. But if the Prime Minister is serious about debating nuclear power he should come clean with the Australian people and tell us all which towns and which suburbs will house those nuclear reactors and where the high-level nuclear waste dumps will be located. We now know that nine years ago the Howard government secretly short-listed 14 sites for nuclear reactors without any community consultation. According to the cabinet submission, community consultation was simply too risky because the release of this information would alarm communities. Don’t ever forget that little saying: ‘Who can you trust?’ Well, not much trust there! The experts in this area, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, have stated that four or five nuclear power plants would be needed near east coast cities to make the nuclear industry viable. East coast cities? Sounds a bit like the electorate of Paterson. The Prime Minister ought to come clean about where he thinks these four or five nuclear power plants should be located. Then we could have an open and honest debate with the Australian people. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who opts to simply appoint a six-member task force to undertake a review of uranium mining and nuclear energy in Australia. The task force is of course hand-picked by the Prime Minister and is headed by the former Telstra boss and nuclear physicist Dr Ziggy Switkowski. Curiously, this task force will apparently examine every stage of the uranium cycle except how many nuclear power stations might be needed and where they would be built. So the Australian people will be none the wiser on these important questions when the task force produces its draft report for public consideration in November 2006. That report will have no scientific evidence or opinion regarding locations. Given that the final report is due to be completed by the end of 2006, the period for public consideration will be very brief indeed, particularly as we have an election in 2007. How many Australians will be able to wade their way through the detailed scientific reports with ease? Very few, I suspect. If this is the Howard government’s idea of public consultation, the government members should hang their heads in shame. It is against this background of the government’s incompetence in gaining community consent to establish even a low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste dump and their stubborn refusal to come clean with the Australian people about their plans for nuclear power or to provide details of any proposed sites for future nuclear power stations and waste dumps that we are being asked to consider the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill. ANSTO is Australia’s national nuclear research and development organisation and the centre of Australian nuclear expertise. It is responsible for delivering specialised advice and scientific services and products to government, industry, academia and other research organisations. Its current nuclear infrastructure includes Australia’s only nuclear reactor, HIFAR, which is based at Lucas Heights. It also includes particle accelerators, radiopharmaceutical production facilities and a range of other unique research facilities. The HIFAR reactor is used to produce radioactive products for use in medicine and industry. A replacement, OPAL, the open pool Australian light-water reactor, is in its final stages of construction. ANSTO also operates the national medical cyclotron, an accelerator facility used to produce certain short-lived radioisotopes for nuclear medicine procedures. It is located in the grounds of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Camperdown. ANSTO also manages Australian synchrotron facilities at a number of overseas locations. Importantly, ANSTO is currently constrained to management and processing of its own waste alone. It does not have the power to process waste from other Commonwealth sources like Defence or CSIRO. The purpose of this bill is to allow ANSTO to handle, manage or store radioactive materials from a broader range of sources and circumstances than it is currently allowed to under the current act. This bill is designed to extend ANSTO functions to handle radioactive materials in three broad additional scenarios: dealing, where requested by a Commonwealth, state or territory law enforcement or emergency response agency, with radioactive material and waste arising from incidents, including terrorist or criminal acts; participation in the management of radioactive material and waste that is in the possession or under the control of any Commonwealth entity; and, finally, dealing with intermediate level waste that is due to return to Australia from France and Scotland at a future date for storage and/or disposal. Importantly, this bill also reinforces ANSTO’s ability to operate the proposed Commonwealth nuclear waste dump should the government decide to transfer overall responsibility to ANSTO—ANSTO is currently licensed to operate a separate storage facility for its own waste only—and ensures that nuclear waste handled by contractors is considered to be Commonwealth waste under the ANSTO Act. The Commonwealth believes that the extension of this immunity to contractors is necessary to limit potential legal action by the Northern Territory government in relation to the siting and operation of the waste dump proposed for in the Northern Territory. Key issues that relate to this bill include the following. The power given to ANSTO, as the expert agency, to assist state and federal authorities in the event of a terrorist attack involving radioactive materials is important and obviously one of the reasons we support this bill. In its current form, the ANSTO Act limits the initial assistance that ANSTO could provide in an emergency to little more than the provision of advice. Currently, ANSTO cannot take possession of any nuclear material in the event of an incident. The bill will also bring Australia into line with standards set out in the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The bill also clarifies ANSTO’s role in assisting in the management of nuclear waste in Australia and lending its expertise generally to nuclear waste management. As a consequence of this bill, ANSTO will be able to lend its expertise to waste management of all radioactive materials held by the Commonwealth. This will expand its responsibilities greatly. Given that ANSTO will be handling a lot more waste and in light of the recent accidents at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, which we have raised in the parliament—a stark reminder that things can go wrong—the minister must assure the local community that their health and safety will not be put at risk. I would have liked to have seen this legislation provide more support for ANSTO in terms of research into the management of waste—after all, it was Australian knowledge and expertise that led to the invention of the synroc process. But unfortunately there is no accompanying guidance in this legislation that gives ANSTO more resources or more research capabilities—just more work. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to report 407 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which was tabled this week. It is actually regarding ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, which is charged with protecting the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. Report 407 was in response to an Audit Office report that found that improvements were required in the management of ARPANSA’s regulatory functions and that processes to issue licences and monitor compliance were insufficient. The report recommends a more rigorous process for appointing the CEO, managing the information systems and granting licences. There is also a very important specific recommendation that ARPANSA provide a quarterly report to the parliament, not an annual report, on licence breaches, including incidents of noncompliance. Incidents such as those that were recently revealed in parliament question time only because Labor brought them to public attention by asking questions of an embarrassed Minister Bishop, who knew nothing of them, highlight the need for more regular reports to parliament on incidents where safety and health are compromised. Notwithstanding Labor’s opposition to the nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory and our concerns about more waste being held at Lucas Heights, Labor supports the bill’s provisions relating to expanding ANSTO’s role in dealing with nuclear terrorism incidents, including controlling and storing radioactive material which may involve a dirty bomb. Overall, the extension of ANSTO’s involvement as the nuclear science and research experts in nuclear waste and security management is totally desirable. But, as our second reading amendment makes clear, we will continue to hold this government to account for its heavy-handed imposition of a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. Debate interrupted. 97 ADJOURNMENT 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 97 97 21:00:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —On 23 July, Melbourne’s Sunday Herald Sun and Perth’s Sunday Times reported on the Australian Liberal Students Federation national conference in Sydney held earlier that month. Both stories begin: A BIG Brother-style sex scandal involving a rising star of the Liberal movement is being investigated by the party. Liberal staffer Brendan Rowswell, of Melbourne, has been accused by a female colleague from WA of ‘nuzzling’ his head into her chest at a boozy party function and sexually harassing her. Mr Rowswell is identified as a staffer for the member for Indi, and I can confirm that his name appears on the member’s current staff email list. Mr Rowswell has also used his Parliament House email address as a contact point for fellow Young Liberals. The press reports say that 30 minutes after the alleged assault Mr Rowswell pulled a friend away from the alleged victim and announced to onlookers that the friend would be ‘getting lucky’ with her. A complaint by the alleged victim to the executive of the Australian Liberal Students Federation was ignored because the organisation has no sexual harassment policy and it was not prepared to ‘make policy on the run’. According to the reports, the alleged victim also made a complaint to Newtown Police Station but has decided not to pursue indecent assault and sexual harassment charges. Just two weeks after the publication of these reports in the Sunday Herald Sun and the Sunday Times, the Border Mail published a follow-up story. It was headlined ‘Sophie backs her new officer’ and began: SOPHIE Mirabella has dismissed sexual harassment claims against one of her newly appointed senior staff. On what basis the member dismissed the serious allegations against her staff member we just do not know. A report in yesterday’s Herald Sun headlined ‘Junior Libs accused of Jewish slur’ raises more serious questions about Mr Rowswell’s conduct. The source of the report is a transcript published on the website of Mr Andrew Landeryou over the weekend recording a conversation between Mr Rowswell and other Young Liberals about an upcoming student election. The transcript records Mr Rowswell using an anti-Semitic term to describe a member of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students. It is a term that decency and the rules of this House prevent me from repeating. Sadly, it is not the only inappropriate reference in the transcript. Mr Rowswell is also reported to have said: ‘What about the Jews? Ah, expletive them.’ The transcript records another Young Liberal discussing the student election saying that the returning officer ‘will boot out any tickets provoking racial tensions re Israel/Lebanon … we should incite something’. This is a remarkable transcript. I found it barely believable until I read comments by Mr Rowswell in yesterday’s Herald Sun confirming its authenticity. Defending his conduct, Mr Rowswell says: During a bitter, private discussion of factional university politics, where gratuitous comments were traded, I used crude language. Mr Rowswell says his comments were not religiously motivated and he is sorry. While I am sure he is sorry he got caught out, that does not excuse his conduct, nor does it excuse the lack of action on the part of the member for Indi and the Liberal Party. Far from taking action after the first incident—the alleged assault of a fellow Young Liberal—the member for Indi promoted Mr Rowswell to a full-time position. Mr Landeryou says that, as an employee of the member for Indi, Mr Rowswell is: ... an unwelcome distraction for the ambitious MP just at the time she is positioning herself for an elevation to the Ministry in an anticipated reshuffle next year. I doubt very much that Mr Rowswell alone is responsible for the member’s frustrated ambitions, and I think his conduct does more than provide an unwelcome distraction for the member for Indi. It is time the Prime Minister showed some leadership and told the member for Indi to pull her staffer into line. It is time the Liberal Party took action against Young Liberals who think assault, sexual harassment and anti-Semitism can be excused as part of the everyday political rough and tumble. 98 98 21:03:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —I rise this evening to speak about mental health and the lack of importance it seems to have with the South Australian government. It has been revealed that three wards in Glenside Hospital have closed down in the past 12 months due to what the state government says is a lack of demand. This has resulted in the number of available beds going from 1,200 in the early 1990s to approximately 300 last month. Even the number of beds available to mental health patients is significantly lower in South Australia, with only one bed being available for every 100,000 South Australian mental health patients compared to a national average of 11 beds being available per 100,000 patients, as outlined in the National Mental Health Report released in December last year. By taking this approach the South Australian government is placing an unnecessary burden on the hospital system, as public hospitals are now operating as de facto psychiatric wards. I find this rather interesting, considering that the Australian Labor Party South Australian Branch’s mental heath policy, which says ‘Rann Gets Results’—but not very good ones, I can assure you—states: ‘Our vision is to deliver the best mental health services to the community of South Australia.’ In actual fact, they have the worst. I fail to understand how it is possible to deliver such services to South Australians when figures clearly show that South Australia remains at the bottom of the tally board for mental health spending. This comes after the Prime Minister’s announcement in April this year of the government’s $1.9 billion package. Whilst the increased funding was unconditional, it is desired that the states come to the party by collectively matching the much needed cash injection with new funds of their own. When we review the state’s contribution towards funding and what the government would have liked to have been injected as a contribution by the South Australian ALP government, there is currently only $50 million allocated over four years, as opposed to the $144 million hoped for. Without the necessary funding, patients with mental health illnesses cannot receive the treatment and support they need and we cannot educate others about mental health or continue to try to prevent the unnecessary deaths of people of all ages from these illnesses—deaths which are predominately higher in rural regions, like the seat of Barker. In a paper written in 2002 titled Suicide in Australian farming it is noted that in Australia approximately one male farmer dies from suicide every four days. This is a huge amount of people taking their lives. Unfortunately, more than half the men who have depression or a mental illness in rural areas do not seek help. This may be due to the fact that they are not aware of the signs of the illness, that they may feel ashamed or that they just do not know where to get help. Quite often farmers have a poor understanding of mental health and are reluctant to access formal health care. What we can identify is that there are a number of factors which could contribute to suicide, including drought-induced financial difficulties, stock loss, pressure of decision making and the constant physical and mental demands of farm working. It concerns me that, this year, South Australia is facing drought all around the state. It has been a shocking year, and that is going to put a lot more pressure on farmers in South Australia. By providing funding through the South Australian government, we can assist in the education and treatment of such people, to show them that life can be good despite the bad times, and we can assist and treat others before they get to the point of their mental illness becoming unbearable. Thankfully the Australian government is working with all the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, and has developed a national approach to mental health service delivery. The National Action Plan on Mental Health will see the establishment of a COAG mental health group in each state to monitor mental health services and provide independent assessment of the process. It is just not good enough for the Labor state government to push this issue to one side and not give it the appropriate attention and funding it deserves. Mental health illnesses affect many people in many ways in many parts of South Australia, and it is time the issue is taken more seriously by the ALP government in South Australia. 99 99 21:08:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —It is now 605 days since the Howard government broke its promise to Australian fruit and vegetable growers on the introduction of a mandatory retail grocery code of conduct. Those of us who have followed this issue know the history of it very well. In July 2004, the Labor Party announced its policy, which was then followed by a commitment. It shamed the coalition into a making a commitment on the mandatory code, and that was given by none other than the then Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Gwydir, on 1 October 2004. He said the coalition: ... will impose a mandatory Code of Conduct on the horticultural industry. The code will give producers a fairer deal on their terms of trade and on resolving disputes with produce buyers, which are in many instances large supermarket chains. A cast-iron commitment was given by the National Party on behalf of the Howard government. Now we have had a broken promise for 605 days. Actually, it is 705 days since that commitment was given. The then Deputy Prime Minister said that within 100 days legislation on this matter would be brought into this House to mandate the code. The coalition could not deliver on their promise in 100 days. You could not deliver in 200 days. You could not deliver on your promise to introduce a mandatory code of conduct in 300 days. You could not deliver within 400 days. You could not deliver within 500 days. You could not deliver within 600 days. It has been 705 days since that commitment was given, and you have broken the promise every day since. We have an election in Queensland at this point in time, and the fruit and vegetable industry in that state is worth hundreds of millions to the Queensland economy. The growers know who the promise-breakers are in Queensland. They are the National Party and the then Deputy Prime Minister who made this commitment, and one after the other they lined up to tick off on it. If the then Deputy Prime Minister made the commitment in a press release, why isn’t it on the National Party website? He has removed it. Shame, shame, shame! You do not get it more deceitful than this. A press release with a promise has been removed from the website. Let us go through the National Party members in Queensland. In the seat of Dawson, there are banana growers and there are fruit and vegetable growers who put their trust in the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly. She said that this is a great win ‘for my fruit and vegetable growers’. She said: ... a mandatory Code ... will be legislated within the first one hundred days of a re-elected Coalition government. A commitment and a betrayal—that is what this is. It is a betrayal of those growers who put their faith and their vote in the coalition government. Then we had Senator Ron Boswell. Fair dinkum! Senator Boswell fluffs around Queensland like a teddy bear echoing these sorts of commitments. When is Senator Boswell going to deliver? His promise, like the Deputy Prime Minister’s, is not worth the paper it is written on. Then we had the former agriculture minister, Warren Truss. He was on the same kick. He gave the commitment. He said: Therefore, I can confirm today that a re-elected Coalition Government would, within the first 100 days of the new Government, propose legislation to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission powers to enforce a Horticultural Code of Conduct. This was a commitment that has been broken every day for the last 705 days. I say this to fruit and vegetable growers in Queensland, I say it to the banana growers and I say it to every farmer up in Queensland: the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, a National Party member, gave you a commitment and he has broken it. The senator from Queensland gave you a commitment and he has broken it. The member for Dawson has given a commitment and she has broken it. Of course, we have the current minister in the cart too, with a broken promise again. (Time expired) 100 100 21:14:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —On Saturday, 26 August I had the great honour and privilege of opening the Sunnybank Quilters 2006 quilt show at the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds. This well-respected cottage group has been operating for over 20 years and in that time the 40 members have raised many thousands of dollars for charity. As a Sunnybank club, the group is within the electorate of Moreton and I take this opportunity to acknowledge my colleague the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, who is very appreciative of the Sunnybank Quilters and their support of the Southside Education Centre throughout the years. His hard work and willingness to help has always been much appreciated, as it is by other clubs and organisations in the Moreton electorate. This year’s quilt show was organised by Mrs Mary Dettori, ably assisted by Mrs Jan Munn, Mrs Cecily McMahon and Mrs Clarice Elford. All members contributed by sewing for the well-stocked sales table, working tirelessly throughout the day to provide refreshments and by displaying their beautifully crafted quilts, dolls, bears, bags and jackets. As a result of their fine efforts, the show was an outstanding success with more than 520 members of the community gathering at the grounds to show their interest and support. Most importantly, the net proceeds of $7,000 will be equally distributed between the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Queensland and the Community Angels for Homeless Youth. I commend the Sunnybank Quilters on their exceptional service to our community and their commitment to bettering the lives of others through regular contributions to charity. It is through the dedicated efforts of people such as Mary Dettori and her entire team that the local community not only can enjoy events such as the 2006 quilt show but also can contribute to an extremely worthwhile cause. On 26 August I also had the great pleasure of officially opening the Moreton Bay Lions Club Arts and Crafts Show. This too was a great success and congratulations are due to President Ian Bigalla, John Wearne and all the Lions Club members who were instrumental in organising the show. A wide variety of arts and crafts lined the many stalls that were present on the day. It was an overwhelming display of the local talent we have in the Bonner community. The Lions Club of Moreton Bay has been operating for many years and in that time the Lions have worked tirelessly for the betterment of the community and its people. Through their work the local bayside community has been able to support international Lions Club projects such as the Campaign SightFirst II project, which seeks to eradicate preventable blindness. The funds raised from the arts and crafts show will be donated directly to this project which will ultimately benefit disadvantaged Australians throughout the country as well as international communities. As the local federal member, not only is it an honour to regularly participate in community events such as the 2006 quilt show and the Lions Club arts and crafts show but more importantly it is an enriching experience. So many organisations and individuals within the Bonner electorate are committed to assisting others, and I commend them on their unique ability to mobilise the local community for a greater good. The Lions Club of Moreton Bay and the Sunnybank Quilters have my full support and I thank my colleague Minister Hardgrave for allowing me the opportunity to open the Sunnybank club’s 2006 quilt show. 101 101 21:18:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise to speak on a very important issue in the electorate of Richmond. That issue is how the Howard government has abandoned the banana growers of Australia, and in particular the banana growers of northern New South Wales and, of course, those in Queensland who are suffering from the recent devastation of Cyclone Larry. Members on the government side of the House do not take this issue of banana imports seriously. They do not take it at all seriously because they are not concerned about the people of regional and rural Australia. They do not understand the issues that are important to those of us who live in regional and rural areas and how devastating the impact of these decisions are upon our areas. The Howard government has very recently approved the importation of bananas and has already allowed more than 10 tonnes of frozen bananas from Vietnam into this country. The banana industry has been doing it tough for many years. What is the biggest threat to this industry? It is the importation of bananas and the subsequent importation of pests and diseases which could potentially wipe out an entire industry. The decision that has been made this week by the Howard government is a massive backflip. It is an action that could severely threaten an important industry in regional Australia—and it is a very important industry in my electorate of Richmond. What I would like to know is exactly what has changed since 16 June this year when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ruled out the importation of bananas whilst the import risk assessment process was still happening. This process still has many months to run. The agriculture minister was quoted in the Courier Mail on 17 June 2006 as saying, ‘Importing bananas could mean importing exotic pests and diseases,’ yet this week the Howard government has issued a permit for the importation of frozen bananas for a period of two years and has backdated it to start on 1 June 2006. This is an absolutely dismal betrayal of our local banana growers. I call on the agriculture minister to provide details of any scientific assessment used as a basis for this backflip and also to give an explanation as to why this permit was backdated. The Howard government’s promises on banana imports have turned out to be just as false as all its other promises. It is, in fact, just another broken promise in a long line of broken promises—broken promises that severely impact the people of regional and rural Australia. The Howard government must come forward and explain the basis upon which it has decided that these banana imports pose no quarantine risk to the Australian banana industry. Whilst this backflip is clearly a major failure by the Howard government, it is surely a greater failure by the National Party. It absolutely amazes me that National Party members in this House can just sit by and remain silent on this very important and serious issue. They remain silent because they gave up on regional Australia long, long ago. They have sold out on every issue going, whether it is Telstra or industrial relations, and now banana imports. They have not fooled anybody because locals in regional Australia are always telling me that they know firsthand that the National Party will say and do anything to appease their Liberal mates in Canberra. Locals have seen it time and time again. Locals know the National Party have sold them out and they know the National Party have not got the guts to stand up in this House and fight for the bush. Federal Labor will always stand by regional Australia because we take their issues seriously and we understand their concerns. What angers me most about this banana import decision is that just two weeks ago in Murwillumbah we were celebrating the Banana Festival. This is a fantastic local event that has been running for decades. The festival is a celebration of the banana industry in our area, and everyone gets involved—businesses, community groups and schools. I was very honoured to be a judge at the parade in which over 40 floats participated. I was also honoured that so many locals were involved. I was very proud to see the young women who participated in the Banana Queen event raise over $20,000 for our local community. And it was great to see a local Murwillumbah woman, Sarah Armour, named as the Banana Queen of the year. What makes me angry is that while we were in Murwillumbah celebrating this great festival, the Howard government, with the complete agreement of the National Party, were scheming to allow the importation of these foreign bananas. It is a shameful disgrace. None of them will stand up in this House and fight for regional Australia. The importation of bananas is a very serious issue, and it is about time members on that side of the House started taking it seriously. The Howard government and the National Party stand condemned for not taking it seriously and not taking the growers’ concerns seriously. (Time expired) 103 103 21:23:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr TURNBULL —This week the Courier Newspaper Group is being relaunched as the Federal Publishing Company Community Media Group. The newly named group is relaunching three of its stable of community newspapers—the Southern Courier, the Inner West Courier and my local newspaper, the Wentworth Courier. The group was the first community newspaper group to go to colour and gloss printing, and to do so within newspaper deadlines. The new-look newspapers produced this week will continue that great tradition of innovation. The Federal Publishing Company Community Media Group constitutes an extraordinary newspaper business, in large measure due to its proprietors, the Hannan family. The Hannan family started business in the eastern suburbs, in Randwick, as butchers in 1887, and they moved into newspapers in 1934. From this point they built a stable of newspaper and other publishing titles which now constitute Australia’s largest privately owned media business. Their flagship title, the Wentworth Courier, is an outstanding publication both in editorial and financial terms. The ‘Wenty’, as we call it in the eastern suburbs, breaks news and is often a source of news and stories for major metropolitan dailies such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph. The printing division of the family business operates under the banner of the Independent Print Media Group and operates major printing plants in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. The total full-time staff of this eastern suburbs family business employed across the printing and publishing businesses amounts to 2,700 people. The wider group, under the banner of F Hannan Pty Ltd, is 100 per cent Australian owned. Today the proud family tradition of the Hannans continues with the fifth generation of family members employed in the business. The family members in the business include their chairman, John Hannan, from the third generation, Michael Hannan from the fourth generation is the executive chairman, Kim O’Connor from the fourth generation is the chief journalist, Lindsay Hannan and Stephen Hannan work in the printing business and David Hannan works in the property business. From the fifth generation there are James Hannan in the interactive business, Cassie Hannan in the consumer magazines, Adrian O’Connor in the consumer magazines and Richard O’Connor in their marketing department. That is a phenomenal contribution; I would think unprecedented in any family business in Australia. I want to commend the Hannans not just for their commitment to family and business but also for their commitment, beyond reporting, to the community which I have the honour of serving in this place. I would like to make special mention here of Kim O’Connor, a fourth generation Hannan and the chief reporter for the Wentworth Courier. Kim has been reporting on the Wentworth community for more than 20 years. She not only reports on the issues facing the community; she also tries to be part of the solution, which has seen her serve in many capacities from council committees to participating very recently in a community roundtable we organised together to try to find a solution to the rising scourge of graffiti. The Hannans sponsor local rugby, local small business awards, community events, such as the famous People and Pets Day in Lyne Park at Rose Bay, and many charities. They are a proud local family with a strong sense of community. In this important week for them, with the relaunch of three of their community newspapers and the Federal Publishing Company Community Media Group, I offer them my sincere congratulations and best wishes for their continued success in nurturing the ideals that we all share of family, community and enterprise. Question agreed to. 104 21:27:00 House adjourned at 9.27 pm 104 REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION 104 104 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Speaker: Does the Department of the House of Representatives or the Department of Parliamentary Services own and have responsibility for Hansard volumes kept at Commonwealth parliamentary offices. Are Hansard volumes assessed for conservation; if so, (a) how frequently and (b) with what result; if not, why not. What is the annual cost of conserving Hansard volumes. 104 NOTICES The following notices were given: 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to education services for overseas students, and for related purposes. (Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (2006 Measures No. 1) Bill 2006) 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to higher education, and for related purposes. (Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006) 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to the granting of financial assistance to the States for primary and secondary education, and for related purposes. (Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006) IK6 Lloyd, Jim, MP Mr Lloyd to move: That the House: recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils; values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve; acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation; acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities; acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services; and commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson to move: WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor to move: 106 Answers to Questions on Notice 106 106 8 106 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 17 November 2004: Will he explain how self-assessment for personal income tax returns has increased the efficiency of taxation collection. For each calendar year since 1999, how many (a) prosecutions, (b) debt recovery actions, and (c) other actions under legislation relating to personal income tax have occurred for failure to (i) declare taxable income, (ii) obtain a tax file number, (iii) lodge a taxation return, and (iv) pay the assessed income tax. How many persons who should pay income tax have placed themselves outside the tax system by failing to (a) declare taxable income, (b) obtain a tax file number, (c) lodge a taxation return, and (d) pay the assessed income tax. What action is he taking to reduce the number of people placing themselves outside the taxation system; if no action is being taken, why not. 106 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The Treasurer has referred this question to me as it falls within my ministerial responsibilities: This topic is covered in detail in the discussion paper of the Review of Self Assessment (especially at 1.1.1 -1.1.2) that the Treasurer released on 29 March 2004. (i) The following figures for the years 2001-2004 relate to prosecutions secured under the common offence type of false liability. These figures are not able to be broken down by offence. 1999 figures not available 2000 figures not available 2001 26 2002 21 2003 37 2004 18 (ii) This is not an offence. (iii) For the years 1999-2004 the following figures relate to prosecution action for failure to lodge a tax return. 1999 3,369 2000 4,547 2001 4,319 2002 997 2003 1,569 2004 2,263 (iv) Failure to pay assessed income tax is not an offence allowing for prosecution action. However taxpayers are subject to Court proceedings under taxation, bankruptcy or corporations legislation in connection with the recovery of unpaid tax. Not applicable - debt recovery action is only taken once a debt is established on declaration. See 2(a)(i). No debt arises simply by failing to quote a tax file number. Not applicable. There is no debt arising from the non-lodgment of the return per se. 1999 105,089 2000 97,820 2001 339,755 2002 535,837 2003 781,109 2004 819,213 Total ,678,823 Note: A range of debt recovery actions can be undertaken for one case ranging from issue of reminder letters; phone contact and negotiation of arrangements to make payment over a period of time; garnishee action and commencement of legal action. (see answer to 2(a) iv)) Not applicable. Not applicable, though refer to the information provided under question 2(a)(ii) and 2(b)(ii). Failure to Lodge on Time penalties have had effect in law since 1 July 2000, and applies to income tax returns for the 2000-01 and later income years; 2002 2,046 2003 2,860 2004 5,244 Note: These figures relate to penalties imposed for non-lodgment of income tax returns (not for late lodgment). No other actions are taken for failure to pay, although general interest charge may be applicable.   and (4) The New Tax System has provided a range of mechanisms to assist in identifying businesses that operate without being registered for TFN, ABN or goods and services tax. In particular, the lodgment of business activity statements and the no-ABN withholding rules have led to tens of thousands of businesses previously not meeting their tax obligations being drawn back into the tax system. This has resulted in 70,000 demands being issued for lodgment and $185 million in additional revenue to 30 June 2003. The detection of people who seek to evade their taxation responsibilities by operating in the cash economy remains a high priority for the ATO. The range of approaches is varied, including: risk assessment activities including the analysis of close to real time BASs to identify anomalies in a timely manner, and undertaking scoping audits data matching using a range of internal and third party data sources a compliance improvement focus (including field activities) on high risk areas, eg in the building and construction industry, and on barter issues working with peak industry bodies joint agency compliance activities increased promotion of the community Tax Evasion reporting hotline (1800 060 062) educational activities such as seminars, attendance at trade and other exhibitions, and promotion of ATO products and publications a field presence of tax officers dedicated to cash economy activities tax agent leverage activities (ie, co-operating with tax agents to develop compliance messages that assist them in influencing improvements in the behaviours of their clients) a focus on record keeping, including education, and implementing the recommendations in the Cash Economy Task Force report 2003 (which includes recommendations on the development of industry codes of conduct). In the 2003-04 financial year, the ATO contacted 53,766 businesses operating in high risk cash economy industries. Activities included: 33,362 letters sent to businesses where their performance differed from others in the industry or where we received information about potential tax evasion 20,404 businesses visited by one of 660 tax officers specialising in cash economy reviews. These addressed a range of obligations including those relating to income tax, PAYG, GST and Excise. An additional 2,400 visits to businesses were conducted by field officers to review risks and issues in industries not in the cash economy program. With the tools now available under the New Tax System and the range of approaches being employed by the ATO, it is more likely than ever before that those not meeting their obligations will be detected and brought to account. The ATO also has augmented its efforts to identify and deal with people who are operating outside the system by implementing an expanded program of data matching. Data-matching enables the ATO to draw information together from a variety of internal and external sources to identify potential areas of risk and to highlight individual’s circumstances which are worthy of review. The ATO uses data matching in a variety of ways: it facilitates the identification of undeclared income and assists in the efficient allocation of compliance resources; and matches lists obtained from sources outside the ATO with ATO records to detect people who are operating outside the tax system. The ATO is and will continue to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Commissioner and all information obtained under the data matching programme is subject to strict privacy and confidentiality safeguards. 108 108 2251 108 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 Ms Grierson asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 6 September 2005: Does the department or any other agency in the Minister’s portfolio administer any Commonwealth funded programs for which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle can apply for funding; if so what are the details. Are the programs identified in part (1) advertised; if so, in respect of each program (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise it and (b) were these paid advertisements. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is the purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds. With respect to each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Newcastle received funding in (i) 2003-2004 and (ii) 2004-2005. What sum of Commonwealth funding did each recipient receive in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005 and what are their names and addresses. 109 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the Army Military History Research Grants Scheme (AMHRS) and the Defence Family Support Funding Program (FSFP). For details on the AMHRS and FSFP refer to Defence’s annual reports. The AMHRS is advertised in the following national papers: The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier Mail, The Canberra Times and the Army newspaper. Details are also available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/grants/advice.htm The FSFP is advertised within Defence using Defence publications and details are available at: http://www.dco.dod.gov.au See my response to part (1). The AMHRS - the Deputy Chief of Army, on the advice of the Australian Military History Projects committee (independent academics specialising in military history). The FSFP - all applications are considered on merit with the recommendations made by the Family Support Funding Advisory Committee. The recommendations are forwarded to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence for final decision. and (5)Refer to Defence’s annual reports for the relevant years. 109 109 2495 109 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms Hoare asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 October 2005: Does the Minister’s department administer any Commonwealth funded programs to which community organisations, businesses or individuals in the electoral division of Charlton can apply for funding; if so, what are the programs. Does the Minister’s department advertise these funding opportunities; if so, (a) what print and other media outlets have been used to advertise each of these programs, and (b) were these paid advertisements, if so, what were the costs of each advertisement. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), (a) what is its purpose and (b) who is responsible for allocating funds. In respect of each of the Commonwealth funded programs referred to in part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) businesses and (c) individuals in the electoral division of Charlton received funding in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004 and what was the name and address of each recipient. 109 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the Army Military History Research Grants Scheme (AMHRS) and the Defence Family Support Funding Program (FSFP). For details on the AMHRS and FSFP refer to Defence’s annual reports. The AMHRS is advertised in the following: The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, The Courier Mail, The Canberra Times and the Army newspaper. Details are also available at: http://www.defence.gov.au/army/ahu/grants/advice.htm The FSFP is advertised within Defence using Defence publications and details are available at: http://www.dco.dod.gov.au See my response to part (1). The AMHRS - the Deputy Chief of Army, on the advice of the Australian Military History Projects committee (independent academics specialising in military history). The FSFP - all applications are considered on merit with the recommendations made by the Family Support Funding Advisory Committee. The recommendations are forwarded to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence for final decision. Refer to Defence’s annual reports for the relevant years. 110 110 2792 110 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 6 December 2005: For each of the last five financial years, how many people were employed at (a) Government House and (b) Admiralty House and in what classifications were they employed. For each of the last five financial years, what renovations were undertaken at (a) Government House and (b) Admiralty House and what was the itemised cost of each of the renovations. 110 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Official Secretary to the Governor-General has provided the following information: Staffing profiles at 30 June each year can be found in the annual reports of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General. The following renovations have been completed over the last five financial years: 2000-01 111 111 3106 111 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 27 February 2006: Did an employee of his department contact the CSIRO to discuss the issue of ethanol; if so, did the employee tell the CSIRO that he would appreciate it if the CSIRO scientist, Mr Barney Foran, didn’t say anything about ethanol. Will he investigate the incident in (1) and provide a public statement concerning it. Is he aware that the CSIRO has enjoyed a world-wide reputation for excellence and independence. Is it the case that the CSIRO’s reputation is seriously compromised if scientists can be muzzled by governments. 111 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that my department was in regular contact with CSIRO during the course of the Biofuels Taskforce which ran from June to August 2005 as the Government sought CSIRO’s expertise. PM&C advise that there was no communication with CSIRO in relation to Mr Barney Foran. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet looked into this matter and found no evidence to support the claims that scientists in the CSIRO have been prevented by the government or CSIRO management from expressing their views about ethanol. Yes. CSIRO advice is developed in a transparent and independent manner and the Australian Government values the expert advice that CSIRO provides. 111 111 3286 111 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Will the Minister provide a list of the recruitment agencies which were used by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio in 2005. What sum was paid to each agency identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on recruitment agencies by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 111 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (2) and (3) I am advised that the recruitment agencies used by my Department and portfolio agencies in 2005 and the amounts paid to those agencies are as shown in the following tables. Unless otherwise stated, the responses are in respect of the 2005 calendar year and are GST inclusive. Attorney-General’s Department Recruitment Agency Amount paid Candle IT & T Recruitment $1,169.52 Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd $102,285.18 Effective People Pty Ltd $26,236.98 Gillian Beaumont $18,028.83 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd $31,453.96 Hudson Global Resources $22,104.01 Informed Sources Pty Ltd $946.00 Julia Ross Recruitment Pty Ltd $14,393.42 Key People Personnel Pty Ltd $11,558.08 Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd $83,163.72 Patriot Alliance (Security Grade Recruitment) Pty Ltd $41,473.48 Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd $4,403.85 Professional Careers Australia (PCA) Pty Ltd $27,318.44 Quadrate Solutions $5,010.50 Ross Human Directions Limited $2,934.80 Saville & Holdsworth Australia Pty Ltd $19,261.00 Select Australasia Pty Ltd $48,389.43 Staffing and Office Solutions (SOS Recruitment) $94,326.76 Wizard Office Personnel Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $60,756.10 Total $615,214.06 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Recruitment Agency Amount paid Josal Enterprises $638 Law Staff Australia Ltd $9,412 Verossity Pty Ltd $9,056 Spherion Group Ltd $743 Total $19,848 Australian Crime Commission Recruitment Agency Amount paid Acom Professional Pty Ltd $57,947.43 Answerz $36,052.50 Cavill Mayor $71,175.00 Drew Krix $2,327.27 Hays Personnel Services (Australia) Pty Ltd $87,811.67 Hudson Global Resources $11,248.49 Jobwire Pty Ltd $40,534.08 Kaz Technology Services Pty Lt $16,620.00 Matera Consulting Pty Ltd $45,400.00 Patriot Alliance (Security Grade Recruitment) Pty Ltd $7,765.07 Robert Walters Pty Ltd $9,470.36 Ross Human Directions Ltd (T/A Julia Ross Recruitment) $23,496.04 Staffing and Office Solutions (SOS Recruitment) $19,503.16 The Public Affairs Recruitment Company $6,491.09 Ztrem Pty Ltd $2,600.00 Total $438,442.16 Australian Customs Service (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Drake Australia $4,191.89 Hays Accountancy Personnel $18,196.57 Select Australasia Pty Ltd $9,091.00 Recruitment Management Company $116,932.40 Staffing and Office Solutions (SOS Recruitment) $1,170.00 DFP Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $1,926,708.35 Capital Recruitment Services $17,276.25 Peoplebank Australia Pty Ltd $2,095.20 Forstaff Aust Pty Ltd $2,600.00 Select Write Recruitment Support $4,104.52 Quality Staff $415.89 Universal Recruitment Solutions $6,213.00 Total $2,108,995.07 Australian Federal Police (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Adecco Australia Pty Ltd $5,979.00 Australian Public Service Commission $152,949.76 Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd $5,850.00 Hays Personnel Services (Aust) P/L $105,406.75 Hudson Global Resources(Aust) P/L $410,715.74 Julia Ross Recruitment Ltd $3,861.64 Kelly Services (Australia) Ltd $10,642.93 Patriot Alliance Pty Ltd $22,286.17 Recruitplus Act $43,010.41 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $11,172.68 Verossity Pty Ltd $13,090.55 Wizard Office Personnel Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $6,200.00 Total $791,165.63 It should be noted that these agencies have been used for a multitude of services to the AFP including staff member contracting, advancement selection panels, executive advancement, selection processes and targeted project work. Australian Government Solicitor (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Ai Group Training Services Pty Ltd $3,543 Burgess Professional Recruitment $13,625 Coopers Recruitment $3,510 Design Emergency $3,010 Dita Legal $2,681 Gillian Beaumont Recruitment $5,797 Hays Accountancy Personnel $8,633 Hudson Global Resources $23,279 Hughes-Castell (VIC) $918 IPA Personnel $53,056 Law Staff Australia Pty Ltd $32,711 Legal & Corporate Staff Pty Ltd $6,100 Link Recruitment Group (VIC) $9,940 Mahlab Consulting Pty Ltd $9,592 Melissa Mahoney Recruitment Pty Ltd $2,046 PeopleCorp $18,200 Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd $5,755 Rosch $9,500 Staffing and Office Solutions (SOS Recruitment) Pty Ltd $7,880 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $16,346 The One Umbrella $3,379 Total $239,501 Australian Institute of Criminology Recruitment Agency Amount paid HMA Blaze Pty Ltd $13,851 Smalls Recruiting $19,374 Wizard Office Personnel Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $7,108 Total $40,333 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ASIO does not disclose lists of companies with which it has commercial arrangements, for reasons of national security. and (3) ASIO does not publish detailed financial data below Organisational level for reasons of national security. AUSTRAC Recruitment Agency Amount paid Adecco Australia Pty Ltd $6,091 Ambition Recruit Pty Ltd $145,539 Jocellin Jansson Pty Ltd $69,574 Manpower Services P/L $48,648 Paxus Australia Pty Ltd $159,375 Recruitment One Pty Ltd $182,503 Sherborne Consulting P/L $577,240 Total: $2,358,087.86 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Gateway Personnel Pty Ltd $114,807.38 Forrester Manns Recruitment $18,942.28 Drake Australia Pty Ltd $30,910.72 Link Employment & Training $10,263.35 Pegasus Global Pty Ltd $27,169.34 Candle Australia Ltd $14,456.76 Ashmore’s Professional Library Services $7,494.34 Recruitment Solutions $13,639.55 Quadrate Solutions $5,893.93 Westaff $8,115.91 Ross Human Direction $53,736.83 Hughes Castell Pty Ltd $35,501.29 Legal Personnel Pty Ltd $63,092.27 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $77,080.94 Shearn HR Legal $16,514.26 Spherion Group Limited $613.80 Law Staff Australia $156,673.03 Effective People Pty Ltd $1,287.00 Total $666,192.98 CrimTrac (figures are for 2004-05 financial year with GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Icon Recruitment Pty Ltd $170,865.32 Kelly Service $888.03 Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd $205,035.60 Quest Solutions $2,640.00 The One Umbrella $25,963.29 Wizard Office Personnel Recruitment Services Pty Ltd $19,669.46 Total $425,061.70 Family Court of Australia (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid Hamilton James & Bruce Pty Ltd $6,000 Hays Personnel Services $2,500 Kelly Service Australia $1,435 Law Staff Australia $10,573 Manpower Services $42,940 Professional Careers Australia $12,576 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd $4,071 Recruitment Support Specialists $1,839 Seek Communications Ltd $1,015 The Green & Green Group Pty Ltd $16,884 Total $99,833 Federal Court of Australia Recruitment Agency Amount paid Hudson Recruitment Consulting $39,669 Total $39,669 Federal Magistrates Court (GST excluded) Recruitment Agency Amount paid HMA Blaze Integrated Communications $36,401.95 Total $36,401.95 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Recruitment Agency Amount paid The One Umbrella $39,401.90 Select Australasia $36,636.63 Progressive People (Australia) Pty Ltd $27,406.51 Verossity Pty Ltd $1,023.08 Total $104,468.12 Insolvency and Trustee Services, Australia Recruitment Agency Amount paid Adecco Australia Pty Ltd $1,513.97 Selecte Recruitment $2,312.60 Hays Recruitment $2,210.75 Hays Accountancy $16,932.07 Hallis $4,065.59 Paxus $5,244.30 Total $32,279.28 National Native Title Tribunal Recruitment Agency Amount paid Hudson Global Resources $47,949 Trinity Consulting $10,775 Robert Walters $12,392 Michael Page International $16,141 Westaff $5361 Total $92,618 Office of Film and Literature Classification Recruitment Agency Amount paid Hays Personnel $12,982.26 Parker Bridge (Australia) Ltd $80,670.00 Select Australasia 54,015.80 Hudson Global Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd $15,842.12 Greythorn Pty Ltd $20,364.45 Robert Half International - Australia $3,287.98 The One Umbrella $11,737.25 Everest Consulting Group Pty Ltd $49,541.77 Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd $13,655.22 Total $262,096.85 Office of the Privacy Commissioner Recruitment Agency Amount paid Select Australasia $6,721.16 Verossity Pty Ltd $884.40 Total $7,605.56 116 116 3305 116 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio conduct or commission an opinion poll, focus group, or market research in 2005; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each opinion poll, focus group or market research survey conducted. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to conduct the poll, focus group or research identified in (1). For 2005, what sum was spent on conducting or commissioning opinion polls, focus groups or market research surveys by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 116 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that my Department and the portfolio agencies listed below conducted or commissioned the following opinion poll, focus group or market research in 2005: Attorney-General’s Department—Public Affairs Branch—National Security Campaign To inform the development of the national security public information campaign. Focus Groups $48,345 (incl. GST) Tracking of national security issues: Round 1 - $30,580 (incl. GST) Round 2 - $30,580 (incl. GST) Round 3 - $30,580 (incl. GST) Round 4 - $30,580 (incl. GST) Worthington Di Marzio, Level 1, 52 Albert Road, South Melbourne, VIC 3205. $170,665 (incl. GST) Attorney-General’s Department—Public Affairs Branch—Family Law Campaign Developmental research to inform the family law reform community education strategy. $165,000 (incl. GST). Elliot and Shanahan Research Pty Ltd, Suite 102, 83 York Street, Sydney NSW 2000. $165,000 (incl. GST). Attorney-General’s Department—Emergency Management Australia (EMA) To refine the communication strategy for the National Bushfire Awareness and Preparedness campaign. $55,000 (incl. GST). The Wallis Group, 25 King Street, Melbourne VIC 3000. $55,000 (incl. GST). Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) To inform decision makers on the quality of information products provided to users. $32,920 (incl. GST). Profmark Consulting Pty Ltd, GPO Box 2471, Sydney NSW 2001. $32,920 (incl. GST). Australian Customs Service - Customs Corporate Plan During 2005 Customs conducted nine staff focus groups in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra to inform the development of the 2006-2010 Corporate Plan. Axon Solutions Pty Ltd, Level 57, MLC Centre, cnr King and Castlereagh Streets, Sydney, NSW 2000. $23,720 (incl. GST). Australian Customs Service – SmartGate User Evaluation Survey To measure how effective SmartGate has been from a user’s perspective and identify areas where the process could be improved. ACNielsen, Level 6, 39 London Circuit, Canberra City, ACT 2601. $63, 140 (incl. GST). Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) To understand public perceptions of ASIO and determine how best to communication / advertise to the target audience. ASIO does not publish financial data below Organisational level for reasons of national security. ASIO does not disclose lists of companies with which it has commercial arrangements, for reasons of national security. ASIO does not publish detailed financial data below Organisational level for reasons of national security. Family Court of Australia To obtain detailed and constructive suggestions from clients and legal practitioners on possible improvements to the Court’s systems. $115,040.97 (incl. GST). Corporate Diagnostics Pty Ltd, PO Box 4957, Kingston ACT 2604. $115,040.97 (incl. GST). Federal Magistrates Court To conduct a client satisfaction survey. $26,517.15 (incl. GST). Profmark Consulting Pty Ltd, GPO Box 2471, Sydney NSW 2000. $26,517.15 (incl. GST). Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) To conduct a client opinion survey. $52,033 (incl. GST). Measured Insights Pty Ltd, GPO Box 5431, Sydney NSW 2001. $52,033 (incl. GST). National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) Biennial client satisfaction research. $35,029.50 (incl. GST). Mark Dignam and Associates, 44 Walton Street, Blakehurst, NSW 2221. $35,029.50 (incl. GST). Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) To measure public recognition of classification markings prior to introducing new markings. $28,088.50 (incl. GST). Galaxy Research DP Pty Ltd, Level 2, 36-38 Wentworth Avenue, Sydney NSW 2000. $28,088.50 (incl. GST). 118 118 3326 118 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose. What was the cost per massage. How many staff made use of the service. 118 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Migration Agents Registration Authority did not pay for massages for its staff in 2005. Under the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) Certified Agreement 2005-2008, the tribunals pay a reimbursement of expenses up to $100 per calendar year towards Healthy Lifestyle Expenditure. Therapeutic massage is one of the services staff can claim a reimbursement for. In the calendar year 2005 the MRT reimbursed a total of $400 and the RRT reimbursed a total of $995 for remedial massage. In total $1395 was spent by the Tribunals. The median cost per service was $15. During this period 5 staff from the MRT and 11 staff from the RRT claimed reimbursement towards these services. 119 119 3393 119 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 30 March 2006: Why did the Minister suggest that there should be a debate on whether the ABC should be allowed to raise revenue through advertisements. What is the Minister’s response to the numerous reports that advertising revenue would compromise the ABC’s independence. 119 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Minister did not suggest that there should be a debate on whether the ABC should be allowed to raise revenue through advertising. The Government is not considering advertising on the ABC. 119 119 3444 119 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2006: Does NORFORCE contain Aboriginal reserve surveillance units that are trained and paid the same as other reserve units; if so, will these units be supplying information to the Offshore Protection Command. Will sea rangers be providing information to the Offshore Protection Command; if not, why not; if so, what are the arrangements for their remuneration by the Commonwealth other than through the CDEP. 119 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 NORFORCE Reserve element contains approximately 60 per cent Aboriginal soldiers. All NORFORCE recruits complete Common Induction Training or a Regional Force Surveillance Unit Induction Course. Members of Surveillance Squadrons then attend the NORFORCE Basic Patrol Course. NORFORCE personnel are paid the same rates as other Reserve personnel. A substantial operational commitment by NORFORCE is provided to Operation Resolute, which consolidates Defence’s domestic maritime security activities into a single operation to enhance the security of Australia’s offshore maritime areas. The Australian Customs Service encourages all members of the community, including sea rangers, to provide information on illegal activities to the Customs hotline number. Where this information is relevant to the responsibilities of the Joint Offshore Protection Command, it is immediately passed from the Customs National Monitoring Centre to the Coastwatch National Surveillance Centre in Canberra. There is no remuneration for provision of information to the Customs hotline. 120 120 3508 120 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 22 May 2006: Has the Minister read the article in The Australian on 10 May 2006 titled ‘Aunty’s drama in the money’. What is the Government’s response to the financial modelling conducted by the Australian Screen Directors’ Association which estimated that the ABC needed at least $40 million a year to produce the minimum level of Australian drama required of commercial networks. How does the Minister reconcile the Government’s ABC triennial funding package with statements by the chairman of the Government’s policy committee for communications and information technology that the ABC’s drama budget should be increased by between $40 million to $50 million. 120 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Minister is aware of the article. The mandatory Australian Content Standard set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) does not apply to the national broadcasters, which are given independence in programming decisions by their enabling legislation. The Government provides the ABC with over $800 million a year in funding and it is the role of the ABC Board to allocate resources as it sees fit. The 2006-07 Budget provided $30.0 million over three years to enable the ABC to establish an independent commissioning arm to invest in high quality drama and documentaries from the Australian independent production sector. This funding will assist in addressing the reduction in Australian content on ABC television over recent years and provide a significant boost to the local production sector. 120 120 3535 120 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in March 2006 by (i) Her Majesty The Queen of Australia and His Royal Highness Prince Phillip, and (ii) His Royal Highness Prince Edward. 120 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses, for the visit to Australia in March 2006 by (i) Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh and (ii) His Royal Highness Prince Edward, was: travel $662,678.07 accommodation $81,800.52 security $61,460.59 all other expenses                $644,300.35 His Royal Highness Prince Edward visited Melbourne in his capacity as Vice Patron of the Commonwealth Games Federation. His visit was neither arranged nor funded by the Australian Government. 121 121 3536 121 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in March 2006 by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Honourable Tony Blair MP. 121 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in March 2006 by the Right Honourable Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was: travel, $40,859.06 accommodation, $49,843.67 security, nil all other expenses, $94,162.46 121 121 3537 121 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in July 2005 by His Excellency Mr Kay Rala Xanana Gusmao, President of Timor-Leste, and Her Excellency Mrs Kirsty Sword-Gusmao. 121 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in July 2005 by His Excellency Mr Kay Rala Xanana Gusmao, President of Timor-Leste, and Her Excellency Mrs Kirsty Sword-Gusmao, was: travel, $40,233.95 accommodation, $32,263.62 security, nil all other expenses, $26,919.60 121 121 3538 121 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in November 2005 by His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustav and Her Majesty Queen Silvia of Sweden. 122 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in November 2005 by His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustav and Her Majesty Queen Silvia of Sweden was: travel, $213,156.39 accommodation, $46,605.35 security, nil all other expenses, $103,129.56 122 122 3539 122 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in October 2005 by the Right Honourable Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. 122 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The visit to Australia by the Right Honourable Michael Somare, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, scheduled for October 2005 was postponed late in the planning stage. I am advised that there were no travel, accommodation or security costs, but other unavoidable expenses totalling $16,563.19 were incurred. 122 122 3540 122 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in June 2005 by His Excellency General Pervez Musharraf, President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Her Excellency Mrs Sehba Musharraf. 122 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 July 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in June 2005 by His Excellency General Pervez Musharraf, President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and Her Excellency Mrs Sehba Musharraf, was: travel, $33,918.98 accommodation, $20,048.47 security, nil all other expenses, $85,195.32 122 122 3541 122 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in October 2003 by His Excellency Mr Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic of China, and Madame Liu Yongquing. 123 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in October 2003 by His Excellency Mr Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic of China, and Madame Liu Yongquing, was: travel, $47,662.35 accommodation, $43,945.54 security, $2,492.07 all other expenses, $117,356.64 123 123 3542 123 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in February 2005 by His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, Sultan of Brunei Darussalam. 123 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in February 2005 by His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, Sultan of Brunei Darussalam was: travel, $40,399.52 accommodation, $68,014.90 security, nil all other expenses, $18,646.20 123 123 3544 123 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in March 2005 State Visit by His Excellency S R Nathan, President of the Republic of Singapore, and Mrs S R Nathan. 123 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in March 2005 by His Excellency S R Nathan, President of the Republic of Singapore, and Mrs S R Nathan, was: travel, $58,633.05 accommodation, $29,204.10 security, nil all other expenses, $15,226.84 124 124 3545 124 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in April 2005 by His Excellency Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of the Republic of Indonesia, and Madame Ani Bambang Yudhoyono. 124 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in April 2005 by His Excellency Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of the Republic of Indonesia, and Madame Ani Bambang Yudhoyono, was: travel, $49,921.51 accommodation, $43,281.65 security, nil all other expenses, $69,974.21 124 124 3546 124 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in June 2005 by His Excellency Mr Borislav Paravac, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 124 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in June 2005 by His Excellency Mr Borislav Paravac, Chairman of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was: travel, $6,896.63 accommodation, $4,311.98 security, nil all other expenses, $2,155.40 124 124 3547 124 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 30 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in July 2005 by His Excellency Mr Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of the Republic of Chile. 124 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006 , the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses of the visit to Australia in July 2005 by His Excellency Mr Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of the Republic of Chile, was: travel, $23,630.76 accommodation, $18,913.25 security, nil other expenses, $29,908.84 125 125 3548 125 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in August 2005 by His Excellency Sir Nathan Waena GCMG CSI, Governor-General of Solomon Islands, and Lady Waena. 125 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in August 2005 by His Excellency Sir Nathan Waena GCMC CSI, Governor-General of Solomon Islands, and Lady Waena, was: travel, $15,603.01 accommodation, $14,928.60 security, nil all other expenses, $6,726.60 125 125 3552 125 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 22 May 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for the visit to Australia in October 2003 by the President of the United States of America, George W Bush. 125 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 30 June 2006, the amount spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on travel, accommodation, security and all other expenses for the visit to Australia in October 2003 by the Honourable George W Bush, President of the United States of America, was: travel, $21,418.81 accommodation, nil security, $91,688.39 all other expenses, $73,482.44 126 126 3567 126 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2006: In respect of the Employer Awareness Campaign on illegal workers, how many calls have been made to the Employer Work Rights Information Checking Line in each of the last three years. 126 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Employer Work Rights Information Checking Line is a free phone line service for enquiries about general work rights issues, help with reading visa labels and information about warning notices. For each of the last three years the line has received the following number of calls: 2002-03, 10,428 2003-04, 13,968 2004-05, 14,131 The total number of calls received for 2005-06 up until 31 March 2006 is 19,117. 126 126 3629 126 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 June 2006: Can he confirm that the United States Director of National Intelligence, John D. Negroponte, visited the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in December 2005; if so, on what date or dates did the visit take place. 126 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government does not comment publicly on matters of intelligence, including the details of Australia’s intelligence relationships. 126 126 3643 126 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2006: Further to the Minister’s reply to question No. 2551 (Hansard, 31 May, 2006, page 162), regarding the 220 persons categorised as “released not unlawful” and released from detention, how many were (a) suspected of suffering from a mental illness, (b) assessed for mental illness, (c) diagnosed as having a mental illness, and (d) detained after the release of the Palmer Report. 126 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question. to (c) The Ombudsman is investigating possible mental health issues in the 220 caseload and will report on them progressively. He has divided all the cases into 8 categories. One category includes cases that raise mental health issues. It is up to the Ombudsman to determine how each case is classified. It would be inappropriate to comment on these cases prior to the release of the Ombudsman’s reports. None. 127 127 3650 and 3752 127 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer, in writing, on 15 and 21 June 2006: For each calendar year since 2002, how many briefs have been referred by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to inadequate payment of tax by individual, non-business taxpayers reporting a taxable income of (a) less than $21,600, (b) $21,601- $58,000, (c) $58,001-$70,000, (d) $70,001-$100,000, and (e) more than $100,001. For each calendar year since 2002, how many (a) audits, (b) prosecutions, (c) debt recovery actions and, (d) other actions under legislation relating to personal income tax have been taken against individual, non-business taxpayers reporting a taxable income of (i) less than $21,600, (ii) $21,601- $58,000, (iii) $58,001-$70,000, (iv) $70,001-$100,000, and (v) more than $100,001. For each calendar year since 2002, how much has the ATO raised in assessments from additional income tax and penalties as a direct result of compliance audits, from individual, non-business taxpayers reporting a taxable income of (a) less than $21,600, (b) $21,601-$58,000, (c) $58,001- $70,000, (d) $70,001-$100,000, and (e) more than $100,001. Can he confirm that the ATO has entered into settlements with taxpayers in lieu of the payment of original audited assessments; if so, (a) how much has the ATO raised from settlements with individual, non-business taxpayers reporting a taxable income of (i) less than $21,600, (ii) $21,601- $58,000, (iii) $58,001-$70,000, (iv) $70,001-$100,000, and (v) more than $100,001 for each calendar year since 2002; and (b) what were the original audited assessments by the ATO for each category in part (a). What percentage contribution has been made to net ATO collections in each calendar year since 2002 by individual, non-business taxpayers reporting a taxable income of (a) less than $21,600, (b) $21,601-$58,000, (c) $58,001-$70,000, (d) $70,001-$100,000, and (e) more than $100,001. Can he confirm that the ATO has guidelines to ensure that prosecution and settlement decisions are made consistently across compliance issues and taxpayer classifications; if so, what are the details of those guidelines; if not, why not. 127 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The very detailed information sought in the honourable member’s questions is not readily available in consolidated form and it would require substantial cost and considerable resources to collect all the data and assemble it. The practice of successive governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information. 127 127 3673 127 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 Ms Plibersek asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 19 June 2006: Do any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio offer childcare to employees; if so, which agencies. In respect of agencies that offer childcare, (a) is the childcare (i) long day care, (ii) outside school hours care, or (iii) another type of care, (b) is the childcare facility located at the agency’s premises; if so, (i) what is the maximum capacity of the childcare facility, (ii) is enrolment at the facility available to children whose parents are not employees of the agency, and (iii) do the children of agency employees receive preferential enrolment over the children of non-employees; if so, what are the provisions of the preference rule; and (c) will the Minister provide a copy of the information sheet given to employees seeking employer assistance with childcare. Are employees given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. How many employees within each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have made salary-sacrifice arrangements with the employing agency for childcare expenses. In respect of the employees identified in the response to part (5), how many use on site-childcare. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have salary-sacrifice agreements relating to childcare with employees who do not use the on-site childcare centre; if so, how many agreements of this type are there? Will the Minister provide a copy of the childcare benefits provisions from the Certified Agreements of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. What financial assistance for childcare, other than salary-sacrificed fees, is available to employees (including those on AWAs) of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. Have any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax; if so, when. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees, such as sharing childcare facility costs at a site within, or external to, one of the agencies. 128 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Bureau of Statistics Yes. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) offers childcare to its employees. Yes. No. No. Under a lease agreement childcare is provided at a site near the ABS central office in Canberra. 62 accredited places. Yes. Yes. Under the contract, the provisions of the preference rule are that available places are offered in the following order: An information sheet which is available to ABS employees is copied below: Bluebell Early Childhood Education Centre The ABS has received legal advice to the effect that ABS employees who use the Bluebell Early Childhood Education Centre will be eligible for FBT exemption under sub-section 47 (2) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act. On the basis of this advice, the ABS has included child care expenses as a Category A item in the ABS Flexible Remuneration Packaging Scheme. For further information please refer to the ABSFRP Manual BLUEBELL is a highly recommended modern centre, catering for babies, toddlers and pre schoolers 7.30am - 6.00pm, 5 days per week on a full time or part time basis. BLUEBELL services and facilities include: Qualified and caring staff; structured learning and development programs; full nappy service; nutritionally balanced food and beverages; tertiary qualified pre school staff for the pre school program; and 3 years accreditation. If you are interested in enrolling your child at Bluebell and require more information, or if you would like to inspect the centre, please contact: Lyndall on 62532332 at Bluebell or Chris on ext 5107 Breastfeeding facilities: To assist nursing mothers in CO, The Bluebell Early Childhood Education Centre has agreed to provide facilities where ABS employees can breastfeed or express milk in private. Employees considering a return to work before weaning their babies and wishing to use the facilities offered by Bluebell should contact Bluebell’s Teacher/Director on 6253 2332. (3)   Yes. (4)   At 30 June 2006, 21 ABS employees have made salary sacrificing arrangements for childcare expenses. (5)   The information available does not identify Centre use. (6)   The information available does not identify Centre use. (7)   The ABS Certified Agreement 2006-2009 does not specifically contain any “childcare   benefits” provisions. (8)   The ABS Certified Agreement 2006-2009 (Clauses 246 to 250 copied below) provides    assistance to eligible employees in relation to School Holiday Family Care. School Holiday Family Care 246 ABS will contribute to the cost of school holiday care for primary school children of employees where an employee has leave refused, approved leave cancelled or is required to return from leave early because of ABS business during school holidays. Where both carers work for the ABS, the allowance will only be paid when both are at work. 247 Subject to clause 246, ABS will reimburse reasonable costs incurred by employees for their primary school children who attend approved or registered care. At the date of certification of the agreement, the maximum amounts payable are $10.59 per child per day, to a maximum of $105.88 per family per week. These amounts will be adjusted annually in July in line with the general salary increase. 248 Employees employed on short term non-ongoing basis will not normally be eligible to receive the allowance. 249 The reimbursement will apply only on the days when the employee is at work except in exceptional circumstances determined by their line manager. 250 Reimbursement will be net of any government subsidy provided to the employee. (9)   Yes. The ATO sought this advice on ABS’ behalf under previous shared childcare arrangements. (10) Yes. ABS and ATO formed a consortium in relation to Bluebell Early Childhood Education Centre. The ATO has since withdrawn from the consortium but the transitional arrangement in place with the ATO provides ATO employees with access to their existing childcare placements until they are no longer required. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission The ACCC does not offer childcare to its employees to (7) Not applicable None No No Australian Office of Financial Management The AOFM does not offer childcare to its employees to (7) Not applicable None No No Australian Prudential Regulation Authority The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. No; employees are not given the option of salary sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. Not applicable. Not applicable. No; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority does not have salary sacrifice agreements relating to childcare. Not applicable. None - financial assistance for childcare is not available to employees of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. No; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. No; the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority does not have any arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASIC does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. ASIC employees are able to salary sacrifice offsite childcare costs (ASIC does not offer onsite childcare). No ASIC employees have made salary sacrifice arrangements for offsite childcare costs. Onsite childcare is not currently available at ASIC. ASIC employees are able to salary sacrifice offsite childcare costs. No ASIC employees have entered into salary sacrifice agreements for offsite childcare costs. ASIC’s Certified Agreement does not include specific provisions for childcare benefits. ASIC does not provide financial assistance for childcare, other than allowing personal leave to be used to care for children when ill. ASIC has not done so. ASIC does not have such arrangements with other Government agencies. Australian Taxation Office No. Not applicable. See response to Question 1. Not applicable. 28 employees as at 15 June 2006. None. Yes, 28 employees. No. The two current agreements, 2004 Australian Taxation Office (General Employees) Agreement and the 2004 Australian Taxation Office (Executive Level 2) Agreement, can be accessed on the Australian Taxation Office homepage (www.ato.gov.au) or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations homepage (www.dewr.gov.au). None. No, the Australian Taxation Office (in its capacity as an employer) has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office (in its capacity as tax administrator) in relation to childcare and fringe benefits tax. Yes, the Australian Taxation Office has one grandfathering arrangement with another agency. This arrangement is in relation to a long day care childcare service for which the ATO was previously a joint sponsor. Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee CAMAC does not offer childcare to its employees to (7)Not applicable None No No Inspector-General of Taxation The Inspector General of Taxation does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. No; employees are not given the option of salary sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. Not applicable. Not applicable. No; the Inspector General of Taxation does not have salary sacrifice agreements relating to childcare. Not applicable. None - financial assistance for childcare is not available to employees of the Inspector General of Taxation. No; the Inspector General of Taxation has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. No; the Inspector General of Taxation does not have any arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. National Competition Council The National Competition Council does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. No; employees are not given the option of salary sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. Not applicable. Not applicable. No; the Council does not have salary sacrifice agreements relating to childcare. Not applicable. None - financial assistance for childcare is not available to employees of the National Competition Council. No; the Council has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. No; the Council does not have any arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. The Productivity Commission does not offer salary sacrifice arrangements for childcare to employees. Not applicable. No. Childcare provisions are not mentioned in the Commission’s current certified agreement. Not applicable. The Commission has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. Not applicable. The Productivity Commission does not have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. Royal Australian Mint The Royal Australian Mint does not offer childcare to employees. Not applicable. No; employees are not given the option of salary sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. Not applicable. Not applicable. No; the Mint does not have salary sacrifice agreements relating to childcare. Not applicable. None - financial assistance for childcare is not available to employees of the Royal Australian Mint. No; the Mint has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. No; the Mint does not have any arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. Treasury The Department of the Treasury does not offer childcare to employees. The Department of Finance and Administration owns and operates the Abacus childcare centre, which is located at the Treasury building in Canberra. Employees of the Treasury, along with other tenants of the Treasury building, have limited access (third place priority) to childcare places at Abacus. Not applicable. Employees of the Treasury are given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare fees where the childcare is offered by an agency or authority of the Commonwealth. These salary-sacrifice arrangements are administered by an external service provider. 15 Treasury employees currently have salary-sacrifice arrangements in place for the payment of childcare fees. The department does not keep information on which childcare providers are used by employees. See answer to (5) above. Treasury’s Certified Agreement 2004-06 does not contain specific provisions relating to childcare benefits. A copy of the certified agreement is available on the Treasury website at Treasury Certified Agreement 2004-06. Provisions relating to Family and Other Responsibilities are located in Section 6.7 and to Flexible Remuneration Packaging in Section 3.5. The Treasury provides support to assist employees to achieve a balance between their work and family responsibilities. In line with this objective, the department has engaged an external service provider to assist employees with information relating to their carer responsibilities, including childcare. In addition, Treasury employees may seek reimbursement for reasonable family care expenses incurred when required to work outside normal work hours or to travel away from their normal work location. The Department of the Treasury has not sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax. See answer to (1) above. 133 133 3680 133 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 Ms Plibersek asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 19 June 2006: Do any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio offer childcare to employees; if so, which agencies. In respect of agencies that offer childcare, (a) is the childcare (i) long day care, (ii) outside school hours care, or (iii) another type of care, (b) is the childcare facility located at the agency’s premises; if so, (i) what is the maximum capacity of the childcare facility, (ii) is enrolment at the facility available to children whose parents are not employees of the agency, and (iii) do the children of agency employees receive preferential enrolment over the children of non-employees; if so, what are the provisions of the preference rule; and (c) will the Minister provide a copy of the information sheet given to employees seeking employer assistance with childcare. Are employees given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. How many employees within each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have made salary-sacrifice arrangements with the employing agency for childcare expenses. In respect of the employees identified in the response to part (4), how many use on site-childcare. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have salary-sacrifice agreements relating to childcare with employees who do not use the on-site childcare centre; if so, how many agreements of this type are there? Will the Minister provide a copy of the childcare benefits provisions from the Certified Agreements of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. What financial assistance for childcare, other than salary-sacrificed fees, is available to employees (including those on AWAs) of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. Have any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax; if so, when. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees, such as sharing childcare facility costs at a site within, or external to, one of the agencies. 134 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: No agency within the Minister’s portfolio offers childcare to employees. N/A. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) All ongoing employees within DIMA are eligible to salary sacrifice childcare, provided the child care centres are owned by the Commonwealth government. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal No. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Currently, three employees have made salary sacrifice arrangements for childcare expenses. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal N/A. No agency within the Minister’s portfolio offers on-site childcare. See response to part (4). Yes (see below). Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs School Holiday Assistance (clauses 3.450 to 3.456 of the DIMIA Certified Agreement 2004-2007) 3.450 Where an employee with school children has an application for annual leave or purchased leave during school holidays refused or cancelled for operational reasons, the Department will pay $20 per day towards the cost of each school age child enrolled in approved child care, up to a maximum of $200 per family per week. 3.451 Approved child care is care provided by a service provider (including disability service providers) which is: Approved by the Department of Family and Community Services to receive Commonwealth child care payments; and/or Approved and/or subsidised by a State, Territory or Local Government. 3.452 The subsidy will apply only on the days when the employee is at work. 3.453 The subsidy will be paid regardless of the length of time the child is in the program each day, but it cannot exceed the cost incurred. 3.454 An employee whose spouse or partner receives a similar benefit from his/her employer is not eligible for the subsidy. 3.455 School Holiday Assistance payments do not count as salary for superannuation or long service leave purposes. 3.456 Where an employee’s annual leave is cancelled, the provisions at paragraph 3.137 may apply. Annual Leave 3.137 Where an employee is recalled to duty while on approved annual leave, the employee will be re-credited with a period equivalent to the standard hours of duty worked during the annual leave. Where an employee’s annual leave is cancelled without reasonable notice, or an employee is recalled to duty from annual leave, the employee will be entitled to be reimbursed reasonable travel costs and incidental expenses not otherwise recoverable from insurance or from any other source. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal Subsidised child care (clause 4.114 of the MRT and RRT Certified Agreement 2005-08) 4.114 The Tribunals will subsidise child care costs incurred by employees who for operational reasons are unable to be granted recreation leave during a scheduled school holiday. The subsidy will be $10 per day towards the cost of care for each school child enrolled in an accredited program. The maximum payment an employee may receive under this arrangement is $100 per week. (8)   Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Where an employee with school children has an application for annual leave or purchased leave during school holidays refused or cancelled for operational reasons, the Department will pay $20 per day towards the cost of each school age child enrolled in approved child care, up to a maximum of $200 per family per week. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal The Tribunals will subsidise child care costs incurred by employees who for operational reasons are unable to be granted recreation leave during a scheduled school holiday. The subsidy will be $10 per day towards the cost of care for each school child enrolled in an accredited program. The maximum payment an employee may receive under this arrangement is $100 per week. (9)   No. (10) No agency within the Minister’s portfolio has arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees. 136 136 3697 136 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Attorney-General, 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. 136 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The answers provided below on leadership coaching are for those sessions that have been corporately funded through an orientation program in place for new senior executive officers. This program offers new senior executive officers a maximum of three coaching sessions for the purposes of discussing further development requirements. Details of cases where personal leadership coaches or trainers may have been made available to employees outside the orientation program are not readily available. Nil. Nil. A total of $1,237.50 was expended on leadership coaching in the Minister’s Department during the 2005-06 financial year as part of the orientation program for new senior executive officers. 136 136 3699 136 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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. 136 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: to (3)The sum of money expended on leadership coaching in the Department during the 2005-06 financial year is a total of $10,360.73 (excluding travel expenses). The cost per hour of the leadership coaches has been as follows: Secretary—$924.91 average per session for three sessions (excluding travel expenses) First Assistant Secretary—$250 for one 1-hour session Assistant Secretary (1)—$2475 for two x 2.5 hour sessions Assistant Secretary (2)—$900 approx for a series of sessions over 9 months Assistant Secretary (3)—$350 per hour x 9.5 hours (excluding travel expenses) Assistant Secretary (4)—$386 for one 1-hour session EL2—$250 for one 1-hour session. In addition, 372 Executive Level staff have received a single one-on-one individual follow-up training session as part of their participation in their Executive Leadership Programme. This programme equips DIMA Executive Level staff to be effective leaders and to support cultural change in the Department. The follow-up session is included in the cost of the programme. This leadership training is a direct response to the recommendations of the Palmer and Comrie reports, which identified leadership as a critical factor in the Department’s improved performance. Well trained and supported staff is a key theme of the Department’s change and improvement programme. The government has invested an additional $780 million in new and redirected funding over the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 in this change agenda. 137 137 3714 137 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 19 June 2006: In respect of the crew tasked to operate Huon-class boats, how many were assigned to a Huon-class boat prior to the Minister’s announcement to use those vessels in border patrol activities. In respect of the crew to be involved in border patrols on Huon-class vessels, from where will the crew be drawn. How many of the crew on the Huon-class vessels are part-time (or reserve) navy personnel. Will personnel from other agencies be on board the Huon-class vessels; if so, from which agencies. With what tasks would the crew be engaged had we not decided to re-task Huon-class vessels to border patrol activities. Does the Government intend to return either of the two moth-balled Huon-class vessels into service; if so, (a) when, and (b) at what cost. When will the two Huon-class minehunters be on location and ready to commence patrol duties in Northern Australia. Will there be a rotation of other boats to undertake patrol duties. 137 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: All personnel assigned to HMAS Huon and HMAS Hawkesbury have previously served on a Huon-class vessel or been appropriately trained in the full functionality of the vessels. Both crews will be drawn from either existing Huon-class crews or other parts of the Navy. One reserve officer is currently serving on Huon. This officer will leave in August 2006. There is currently no intention to use other reserve personnel for crew augmentation. Yes. Customs, Fisheries, Quarantine, Australian Federal Police and other Australian Defence Force personnel may be embarked on an as required basis. Crews would have been employed within the Mine Warfare and Clearance Diving Force Element Group or in other Navy positions suitable to their qualifications. and (b) HMAS Huon was not taken out of service, but was deactivated. Huon is in the process of being reactivated. HMAS Hawkesbury was never deactivated and is currently en route to commence operations in northern Australian waters. The total cost for reactivation of Huon is expected to be approximately $2.6 million. Hawkesbury will be available to commence patrol duties on or around the end of July 2006 and Huon will be available on or around the beginning of November 2006. The task will be met on an ongoing basis by rotating Huon and Hawkesbury. Defence does not anticipate the need to use other vessels once Huon and Hawkesbury commence patrol duties. 138 138 3729 138 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 20 June 2006: What bilateral agreements or other arrangements are in place between the Department of Defence and/or the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap and the Government of the Northern Territory in relation to the provision of services, conservation and environmental issues, administrative arrangements or any other matters relating to the Joint Defence Facility. 138 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No specific agreements or arrangements exist between the Department of Defence and the Northern Territory Government in relation to the Joint Facility Pine Gap. The Facility and the agencies who manage it, the Australian Department of Defence and the United States Department of Defense, maintain good working relations with a number of local and Northern Territory Government agencies and departments. Issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis as they arise. Any actions at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment must be referred to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for further consideration under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). 138 138 3742 138 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 21 June 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost to the Department of Defence of personnel recruitment advertising and related services for (a) the Defence Intelligence Organisation; (b) the Defence Signals Directorate; (c) the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation; and (d) the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap. 138 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: For security reasons it is inappropriate to provide a breakdown of the costs. Similar information was provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review into human resource management in February 2006 and was canvassed with the committee in camera in March 2006. (a), (b), (c) and (d)                 For 2005-06, the combined total cost was $985,238. 138 138 3761 138 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 22 June 2006: Further to the answers to questions Nos 525 ( Hansard , 23 May 2005, page 155) and 1689 ( Hansard , 5 September 2005, page 155), (a) what was the cost to the Australian Government of operating the North West Cape Naval Communication Station (NCS) in 2005-2006, (b) what sum did the United States Government contribute to the operating costs of the NCS in 2005-2006, (c) what is the status of negotiations between the Australian and United States Governments for a new agreement relating to the operation of, and access to, the NCS at North West Cape, and (d) why was the new agreement not finalised in late 2005 or early 2006. 138 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: For Financial Year 2005-06, $8,752,615 (excluding GST). For Financial Year 2005-06, US$16,625,524 (equivalent to $23,750,749 Australian currency). Negotiations concluded in late February 2006. Defence formally advised the United States (US) Navy of its acceptance of the proposed draft wording of the new agreement on 10 March 2006, and requested that the US Navy provide formal advice of its own acceptance. Such advice is still outstanding. In the interim, Defence and the US Navy have agreed in writing to continue the existing agreement until such time as the new treaty and technical arrangements are implemented. The schedule for the finalisation of the new agreement was on track until late September 2005, when face-to-face discussions on the sole remaining issue for negotiation were conducted in Washington. The US Navy was expected to advise Australia of their acceptance of this issue at this meeting, but did not in fact do so until February 2006. Although Australia has now forwarded a formal acceptance of the draft agreed text to the US Navy, the US Defense Office of General Counsel has not yet reciprocated with formal notification of its acceptance of the draft agreed text. In the absence of the US Defense General Counsel’s formal acceptance, Australia is unable to proceed with obtaining Executive Council approval to sign an agreed text. Consequently, the remainder of the ratification process for the agreement, including review by Parliament, will also be delayed. It is estimated that at least six months from the time of receipt of the US Defense General Counsel’s formal acceptance of the draft text will be required before the new agreement can proceed to signature. 139 139 3762 139 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 22 June 2006: Further to the answers to questions Nos 175 ( Hansard , 8 February 2005, page 155 and 1688 ( Hansard , 5 September 2005, page 164), (a) how many personnel are currently stationed or employed at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, (b) how many Joint Defence Facility personnel are (i) Australian Government employees, (ii) United States Government employees, (iii) employees of Australian contractors, and (iv) United States contractors, (c) which Australian and United States private contractors currently provide personnel at the Joint Defence Facility, (d) what was the cost to the Australian Government of running the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in 2005-06, and (e) who is the current (i) Chief of the Joint Defence Facility and (ii) senior Australian officer at the Joint Defence Facility, and when did these officers commence duty in their current roles. 139 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Approximately 800. Approximately: 10 per cent; 19 per cent; 38 per cent; and 33 per cent. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Hewlett-Packard. Approximately $11 million. Mr Kevin Keating commenced duty on 12 July 2005. Mr Mike Burgess commenced duty on 16 January 2006. 140 140 3817 140 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 Ms Vamvakinou asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 8 August 2006: Which countries (a) have and (b) have not, signed the Memorandum of Understanding on the Trade in Live Animals. In respect of those countries that have not signed the Memorandum of Understanding on the Trade in Live Animals, what steps are being taken to ensure that they sign. When will the list of signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding on the Trade in Live Animals be finalised. 140 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: Memoranda of understanding (MoUs) outlining the conditions for the trade in live animals have been finalised with: Kuwait – MoU in the Fields of Agriculture, Fish and Animal Resources was signed on 16 March 2005 Jordan – MoU on the Trade in Live Animals was signed on 5 May 2005 United Arab Emirates –MoU on the Procedures for the Importation of Live Animals was signed on 6 December 2004 Saudi Arabia – MoU on Trade in Live Animals was signed on 4 May 2005 Eritrea – MoU on Cooperation on Agricultural Issues was signed on 29 April 2005. Active negotiations on MoUs on the live animal trade are continuing with all other countries in the Middle East region that import Australian livestock. Agreement on the text of a MoU on Trade in Live Animals has been reached with Qatar and officials are optimistic that signature will occur before the end of 2006. Good progress has been made in negotiating MoUs with Oman, Bahrain, Iran and Egypt. Preliminary discussions on MoUs have occurred with Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Israel and Iraq.   Countries in the Middle East region that import Australian animals but have not yet signed MoUs on the trade in live animals are subject to additional export measures which are aimed at reducing the risks associated with exporting livestock to those countries. These measures include, inter alia, requirements on exporters to carry additional fodder, additional space requirements, increased scrutiny of contingency plans and certain shipping conditions. It is not clear when all the MoU under negotiations will be signed. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is actively pursuing progress on all MoUs on trade in live animals. 140 140 3829 140 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 Mr Gibbons asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2006: Have Australian Defence Force personnel who served in Operation Relex been given recognition in the form of a medal for the duty and outstanding efforts they performed; if not, when will this form of recognition be granted to them. 141 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: No. Operation Relex is a peacetime operation for which no medals are awarded. However, peacetime service is recognised through the award of the Australian Defence Medal. 141 141 3891 141 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 Mr Snowdon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 August 2006: In respect of the announcement that the Australian and United States governments have reached an agreement that will allow US B-52 and B-1 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers to conduct regular training exercises at the Delamere range in the Northern Territory, will he (a) outline what ordnance the bombers will use during the exercises, (b) give an assurance that depleted uranium, or other similar heavy metals, will not be contained in ordnance used during the exercises, (c) explain whether an Environmental Impact Statement has been, or will be, undertaken in relation to the exercises and (d) outline what the economic and other benefits that will accrue to the Northern Territory and its community as a result of the conduct of the exercises. 141 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: See my responses to Question No. 2785 (published in the House of Representatives Hansard on 9 February 2006) and Question No. 3745 (published in the House of Representatives Hansard on 16 August 2006).