2006-10-12 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-10-12 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 BILLS R2644 1 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Billson for Mr McGauran. Bill read a first time. 1 1 09:01:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006 is part of the implementation of the government’s media reform policies in relation to the allocation of datacasting transmitter licences covering the two unallocated television channels. As part of the media reform legislation, provision will be made for the allocation of one set of licences—channel A datacasting transmitter licences—for fixed, in-home, free-to-air digital services, and the other—channel B datacasting transmitter licences—for a potentially wider range of digital services. The Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006 will implement the government’s policy objective to require the licence holder of the licences reserved for fixed, in-home, free-to-air services—the channel A licences—to be subject to a revenue based annual licence fee in addition to the up-front payment resulting from a price based allocation system. The annual fee will be determined according to formulae based on the formulae used to calculate commercial television broadcasting licence fees. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned. 1 BILLS R2645 1 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Billson for Mr McGauran. Bill read a first time. 1 1 09:02:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Collection of Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees) Bill 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide payment machinery and record-keeping obligations to support the administration of the Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006. The Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006, which was also introduced today, will provide for the imposition of annual licence fees on channel A datacasting transmitter licence holders. This bill—the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Collection of Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees) Bill 2006—will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to ensure compliance by the channel A licence holder with licence fee payment obligations and appropriate record keeping in relation to these licence fees. These obligations will be similar to those currently imposed on commercial television broadcasting licences under part 14A of the act. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned. 2 BILLS R2646 2 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt. Bill read a first time. 2 2 09:05:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Mr HUNT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—known generally as the EPBC Act—is the Australian government’s premier piece of environment and heritage legislation. The EPBC Act has now been in operation for just over six years. During this time the act has gained wide acceptance across the Australian community, and has achieved real results for the environment. The EPBC Act has established Australia’s place as a world leader in environmental legislation. The act has been acknowledged as a world-class and innovative piece of environmental legislation. It is one of the few environmental laws anywhere in the world that provides a comprehensive national approach to environmental protection and that deals with such a wide range of environment and heritage issues. For the first time in our Federation, the EPBC Act clarified the environmental roles and responsibilities of the Australian government, and the linkages between it and the state and territory governments. The act provides mechanisms for consultation and cooperation between those governments. It puts in place a streamlined environmental assessment and approvals process in a way that is predictable, transparent and efficient, employing statutory time frames to ensure timely decision making. However, experience over the last six years has shown there are still ways in which the operation of the EPBC Act can be improved to optimise its efficiency while maintaining and enhancing its environmental effectiveness. The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No.  1) 2006 proposes those improvements. The same basic framework and general approach are to be maintained. The aim is to continue to strengthen environment and heritage protection while streamlining some of the provisions of the EPBC Act and providing greater capacity and flexibility for more strategic approaches to be employed. Achievements under the EPBC Act The keystone of the EPBC Act is the protection of the seven matters of national environmental significance for which the Australian government has particular responsibility. These are: World Heritage properties; National Heritage places; wetlands of international importance (that is, wetlands declared under the Ramsar Convention); nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species; the Commonwealth marine area; and nuclear actions. The EPBC Act provides for the assessment and approval of projects likely to have a significant impact on any of these matters of national environmental significance—probably the most well known of its functions. The EPBC Act also deals with a wide array of other environment and heritage matters. These include: listing and protection of World Heritage properties, National Heritage places, Ramsar wetlands, threatened species and ecological communities, and marine and migratory species; identification and protection of the Commonwealth’s own heritage—important places within the Australian government’s control; regulation of actions on Commonwealth land or affecting Commonwealth land; recovery plans, threat abatement plans and other types of plans to assist the protection of Australia’s unique biodiversity; regulation of wildlife trade to ensure ecological sustainability and the humane treatment of wildlife; strategic assessment and accreditation of fisheries; protected area management; and a range of activities to ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, the act. Since its introduction, the EPBC Act has achieved major environmental wins for Australia. These include the establishment of the Australian Whale Sanctuary and the protection of all cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) within its waters. The EPBC Act has also provided national protection for the first time for Australia’s 64 Ramsar wetlands sites. It has provided comprehensive protection across the nation for the first time for our unique threatened species and ecological communities. In all, almost 2,000 referrals of developments proposals have been made since July 2000 under the EPBC Act. More than 400 have required assessment and approval in order to protect matters of national environmental significance. Close to another 300 have not been required to undergo the EPBC Act approval process because they were designed in such a way as to avoid adverse impacts on matters protected by the act. The EPBC Act has therefore protected matters of national environmental significance more effectively and more comprehensively than ever before in Australia’s history. In addition, over 120 fisheries have been assessed and associated accreditations and declarations made. Nearly 200 new species, ecological communities and processes have been included on the various lists established by the act. Over 250 threatened species recovery plans and 50 draft or finalised Ramsar management plans are in place. Over 370 places have been added to the national and Commonwealth heritage lists. And over 15,000 permits dealing with wildlife protection have been issued. The EPBC Act has afforded greater certainty in relation to Australian government involvement in environmental matters, leading to changing attitudes and raised standards. Since the introduction of the EPBC Act, developers have become aware that their proposals will not proceed without adequate consideration of ecological sustainability. They are increasingly designing their projects and consulting government and the community with these principles in mind, with the result that the EPBC Act provides far more protection than previously for Australia’s rich and unique wildlife. Significant legal successes have also been achieved, including record penalties for illegal land-clearing activities, and the establishment of conservation agreements for threatened species affected by development. A new National Heritage regime has been initiated, already providing recognition and protection of 34 outstanding heritage places which have shaped the nation’s identity, such as the Port Arthur Historic Site, Point Nepean in my own electorate of Flinders and the Sydney Opera House.  Despite these successes, however, it has become apparent that the operation of the EPBC Act can be improved, particularly for those who make applications or nominations under the act. Operational improvements can be achieved by reducing processing time and decision points affecting the environmental assessment and approval of proposed developments, using more strategic approaches, and providing greater incentive for development interests, the states and territories, and local government to engage with the act earlier in their planning cycles. The necessary changes can be achieved in a manner that does not weaken protection for Australia’s important biodiversity and heritage, with the focus continuing to be on achieving strong environmental outcomes. Changes to the EPBC Act Within this context, the bill aims to make improvements in four distinct categories: streamlining administration of the act for efficiency and effectiveness, thereby cutting red tape in government; being more strategic and flexible in directing Australian government action on the environment; strengthening compliance with, and enforcement of, the EPBC Act; and, finally, implementing a range of minor amendments needed to overcome some technical deficiencies in the act. Streamlining for efficiency and effectiveness—cutting red tape in government Cutting red tape is a priority for the Australian government.  The January 2006 Banks report to the government entitled Rethinking regulation: report of the taskforce on reducing regulatory burdens on business concluded, among other things, that current Australian regulation imposes excessive and unnecessary costs on business. While the Banks task force did not make any recommendation to change the regulatory regime of the EPBC Act, the government has been mindful in reviewing the EPBC Act to examine the nature of the EPBC Act processes to ensure that the act’s processes are as efficient and effective as possible. In particular, the government sees no need for administrative process for process’ sake. If we can reduce red tape without compromising environmental protection, then this is what we will do. In this context, the bill contains many amendments, some of which are of a technical nature, designed to reduce duplication and complexity. For example, the bill proposes the streamlining of project assessment and permit stages so that, once a project is assessed and approved under chapter 4 of the EPBC Act, subsequent protected species permits may be issued under chapter 5 without further assessment. Currently, the permit regime of the act is separate from project assessments and approvals. The bill also eliminates current difficulties in accrediting or recognising fisheries managed under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The proposed changes will include greater capacity to reduce processing time for assessments and approvals of developments referred under the act by reducing the number of mandatory steps taken by applicants and enabling the Australian government to make decisions on different act approval stages simultaneously. A new process will be introduced to enable the government to make quicker decisions on more straightforward proposals. The bill also allows World Heritage properties to be transferred across to the National Heritage List without the need for further assessment. This will increase efficiency and avoid duplication in the consideration of our World Heritage sites, such as Kakadu National Park or the Great Barrier Reef, on the list of places of most heritage significance to our nation. The bill also allows for improved cooperation on environmental assessment and approval processes between the Australian government and state and territory governments. These improvements should assist state and territory governments to respond positively to the Banks task force recommendations calling for more bilateral agreements, which will remove duplication between state/territory and federal environmental assessment and approvals, to be signed under the EPBC Act. Changes to the EPBC Act will clarify responsibilities for proponents and simplify the referral, assessment and approval processes. The bill will also allow the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to publish policy statements on the application of the EPBC Act that will assist decision making and inform the community. The policy statements will enable regional and local planning schemes to be prepared in a manner which will facilitate their accreditation under the EPBC Act, providing greater certainty for all. The proposals to streamline the EPBC Act will provide substantial benefits to the nation. They will benefit industry and the economy in a way that will maintain our strong commitment to protecting Australia’s unique and iconic natural, historic and Indigenous heritage. They will ensure that ecologically sustainable development becomes an ongoing reality for Australia. Being more strategic and flexible One of the major changes proposed by the bill is a practical proposal to put in place a strategic framework that will allow the Australian government greater flexibility and capacity to deal with the emerging environmental issues of the 21st century. One way in which the bill achieves this objective is to provide greater incentives for authorities and proponents to engage in strategic assessments, bioregional planning and conservation agreements under the EPBC Act. While the EPBC Act currently provides for such strategic approaches, the take-up to date has been poor. Changes will make it easier for developments to be considered earlier in the planning process and in strategic and regional contexts. As these approaches are also likely to take state, territory and local government and regional natural resource management plans into account, they will provide a stronger and more strategic framework for environment and heritage protection. The bill also provides for a more strategic approach to the listing of heritage places and threatened species and ecological communities. The roles of the Australian Heritage Council and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee will also be expanded to enable a strategic approach to be taken to listing. In future, roles of the council and committee will be restructured to provide advice to the minister on annual work programs, which will be based on the strategic importance of nominations and other listing proposals rather than, as now, simply when they happen to be nominated. Both the council and the committee will retain their expert independent status as the minister’s advisers on these matters. To complete the transition to a three-tiered heritage system for governments as proposed by the Council of Australian Governments in 1997, the Register of the National Estate is to cease to be a statutory register. This will not occur until after a transition period of five years which will allow states and territories to complete the task of transferring places to state, territory and local heritage registers. The register will be maintained on a non-statutory basis as an important archive. The bill will also establish the List of Overseas Places of Historic Significance to Australia, which will allow for the symbolic recognition of overseas sites that have a special place in Australia’s history. This change will allow Australia to keep a statutory list of these important places in a way that does not give rise to perceptions that this may affect the sovereignty of other countries. Similarly, the bill will shift the focus from recovery plans to recovery action for our threatened species and ecological communities. New listings will be supported by conservation advice prepared by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which will lay out practical conservation actions that can be implemented by local and regional interests. Recovery plans will still be developed but recovery documentation will be more flexible than currently prescribed. Another area of strategic reform is the alignment of the EPBC Act and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. The bill will provide increased scope for the fisheries regulator to manage depleted fisheries to environmental and economic sustainability. Through listing such species as conservation dependent where they are supported by appropriate management plans, we can be confident of their long-term survival in nature. The EPBC Act will continue to provide the regulatory underpinning for the protection of such marine fish species. Should the recovery targets of a management plan not be achieved, the EPBC Act provisions will allow for the threatened species listing of that particular marine fish species to be upgraded to a higher level of threat with an accompanying higher level of protection. Strengthening compliance and enforcement While there have been a number of successes in ensuring compliance with the act during the first six years, practice has shown that the current provisions are often difficult to use. The proposed amendments will strengthen environmental protection by fixing these problems and making it easier and quicker to bring compliance action against people and organisations that breach the act. The bill establishes a range of new enforcement options as an alternative to lengthy and expensive court proceedings. The amendments will enhance enforcement action taken to address minor breaches of approval conditions by allowing the use of a new set of reduced penalties. Changes to the act will also broaden the powers of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to require remediation action where matters of national environmental significance have been damaged without the need to resort to court action. The amendments will broaden the types of conditions to be attached to development approvals to allow voluntarily compensatory actions and financial contributions to offset the impacts of development in situations where impacts are unavoidable. The bill will also introduce a regime to deal with the increasing problem of environmental crimes conducted by foreign nationals in fishing vessels in the Australian jurisdiction but outside the migration zone. The regime will provide for detention of suspected persons in Australia and the transition, if necessary, from environment detention to immigration detention under the Migration Act. Minor technical amendments The bill also proposes a range of minor technical amendments. In general, these are designed to improve efficiency and effectiveness. In some cases, they seek to clarify processes. For example, the bill sets out a new way of handling requests for reconsideration of decisions taken under the act. This new process is quicker and more efficient while still allowing all interested parties to have their views heard. Closing In conclusion, the changes to the EPBC Act proposed by this bill will ensure matters of national environmental significance continue to receive the highest possible level of protection. They will cut red tape and enable quicker and more strategic action to be taken on emerging environmental issues. They will make environmental decision making more efficient and cost effective. They will provide greater certainty for industry while, at the same time, strengthening compliance with, and the enforcement of, the EPBC Act. They will make regional decision making with its better strategic framework a priority and increase the general understanding of the processes and mechanisms of the EPBC Act. The bill will build on the substantial environment and heritage gains so far achieved under the EPBC Act and provide the framework for Australia to move forward in the 21st century. The proposed changes will strengthen the EPBC Act’s environmental protection regime and increase its effectiveness by facilitating more strategic approaches while, at the same time, reducing the extent to which the act is process driven in a non-productive manner. I congratulate, in particular, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, I thank all those members of the Department of the Environment and Heritage who have contributed to the drafting and creation of policy within the bill and I thank those members of the public who have contributed to these developments. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Gavan O’Connor) adjourned. 7 BILLS R2620 7 Debate resumed from 14 September, on motion by Mr Brough: That this bill be now read a second time. 7 09:22:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I rise today to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006. This bill follows up on the first stage of the reforms that were enacted in June through the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006. The bill implements the second and third stages of the child support reform package. Under the second stage of the reform package, due to commence on 1 January 2007, the bill will, firstly, introduce independent review of all Child Support Agency decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal; secondly, broaden the power of the court to ensure that child support obligations are met and strengthen the relationship between the courts and the child support scheme; and, thirdly, allow separating parents more time to work out parenting arrangements before their family payments are affected. Under the third stage of the reform package, due to commence on 1 July 2008, the bill will introduce a new child support formula that will change the way child support payments are calculated, change the treatment of income from second jobs and overtime, change the treatment of parents with dependent stepchildren when calculating their child support liability, simplify the ‘change of assessment’ rules for altering the amount of child support that is payable and, lastly, change the arrangements for parents who wish to make agreements for ongoing child support or lump sum payments. Labor accepts the need for reform of the Child Support Scheme. The regime that was set up by the Hawke government in 1988 has become an international model for child support arrangements, yet we acknowledge significant ongoing concerns about fairness, the assessment formula and compliance. While there are divergent views about the impact of this package, Labor believes that there is strong community acceptance of the need for change. Labor’s approach to child support reform is always guided by a set of core principles, central to which is a belief that the interests and wellbeing of the children must always come first. The legislation before us today is the culmination of a process which included the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into family separation issues which led to the report Every picture tells a story. The inquiry recommended the establishment of a ministerial task force to examine the Child Support Scheme, including an examination of the costs of raising children in post-separation households. The Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support reported in May 2005, and its recommendations form the basis of the government’s reform package. Labor recognises the work of the task force and acknowledges that in undertaking the first systematic evaluation of the scheme it has provided a strong basis for reform. The task force found that the scheme needed to be updated in light of changes in society and the circumstances of many families since 1988. The package of reforms developed by the task force is the result of expert research and analysis and looks for sound intellectual principles on which to balance competing factors and attempt to produce a balanced package of measures. The centrepiece of the reforms is the new child support formula, but it also includes increased compliance activity, use of courts for debt recovery, a new approach to parents who are understating income and access to administrative review through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The task force has developed a new formula for child support liability based on evidence of the actual costs of raising children, shared parental responsibility for those costs and recognition of each parent’s level of care. The task force identified several problems with the current formula. Firstly, the current formula uses fixed percentages of income, assuming people spend the same proportion of their income on children regardless of their level of income. This assumption is incorrect, as people with higher incomes spend more on their children in a dollar value than people on lower incomes, even though they spend less as a percentage of their income. Nor does the current formula distinguish between the ages of the children, so the higher expense in dollar terms that comes with older children goes unrecognised. The current formula treats the income of resident parents more generously than it does the income of non-resident parents, and does not take account of contact by the non-resident parent with the children for up to 29 per cent of the time. Second families are also unfairly and inconsistently taken into account under the current formula. The new formula, on the other hand, is explicitly based on the costs of children and varies according to their age and the income of the parents. An income shares approach is used so both parents will have the same amount deducted as self-support and both parents’ incomes will be taken into account in establishing the costs of the children. The resulting costs of children will be apportioned between the parents according to their share of the combined income. In the new formula, parents who care for their children for 14 per cent or more of the time will be recognised as contributing to the costs of the children through their care. It is also worth noting that these measures soften the link between the family tax benefit and the number of nights of contact with the non-resident parent. This has long been problematic for some parents who have more flexible contact arrangements, and when they do agree to more contact in one week they find themselves losing money as a result. This bill will allow resident parents to keep all of the family tax benefit where a non-resident has care of their child for less than 35 per cent of nights in a year—that is, fewer than five nights in a fortnight. There will also be equal treatment between first and second families by using the actual costs of the children from the second family, rather than a flat amount, in working out child support payable for the first family. As I said, resident parents will keep all of their family tax benefit if the non-resident parent has care of their child for less than 35 per cent of nights in the year. Given that the new formula has its basis in research into the actual costs of raising children in separated families and takes into account levels and costs of care by both parents, Labor believes that the new formula has a strong intellectual basis. It is worth noting, however, that many people have criticised the fact that the new formula does not take into account the value of unpaid work. For example, the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children said that the argument that costs are lower for younger children only holds true as long as the costs of non-cash inputs of unpaid care work are ignored. The higher expenditure on teenagers is accompanied by a reduced direct load of unpaid care, enabling parents to more easily increase hours of paid work. They further said that because women undertake the majority of unpaid care work the failure to acknowledge the costs of unpaid care inputs embeds a structural gender bias against women within the formula, and the provision of unpaid care work is further socially devalued. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has also commented that the task force did not engage with the issue of forgone earnings. However, on balance, Labor have decided that the new scheme is likely to be fairer and more focused on the needs and costs of children. Labor have previously expressed our principal concern about the financial impact of the reform package, and obviously our principal concern is the effect it will have on low-income households. Single parent households are among the most financially disadvantaged group in our society. Single mothers’ groups have noted that 46 per cent of sole parents with dependent children live on very low incomes, and these families are at the highest risk of poverty of all family types. Labor are also concerned that those single parents who were disadvantaged by the recent welfare changes may now face the prospect of further cuts in their family incomes. Labor believes that there is a responsibility on the government to ensure that the wellbeing of children is not compromised by the combined impact of these two policy changes. Labor acknowledges the concerns of many resident parents that they will receive lower child support payments under the new formula for calculating these payments. We also note that the task force chair, Professor Parkinson, does not disagree that a significant proportion of single parents will receive lower payments as a result of the bill, noting in evidence to the Senate inquiry that around 55 per cent of assessments will decrease under the new formula. There has been some concern that we have not been able to get a straight answer from the government about who will lose and by how much. The upside of the new formula for some parents is that those parents with older children may see an increase in their payments. Unfortunately, people with children under the age of 12 may see their payments reduced. At the request of the task force, NATSEM modelled some of the impact of this new formula. It seems from NATSEM modelling that resident parents on low annual incomes of $26,000 or under will incur the biggest reductions in child support payments. For example, according to this modelling, where the non-resident parent earns $78,000, a resident parent with an income of $26,000 will be $50 a week worse off. Obviously, that sort of money is a big deal for families who are struggling on $26,000 a year. These families are already amongst the most economically marginalised in the country. Ninety-one per cent of these families, according to the Child Support Agency’s own data, are headed by mothers. Only four per cent of these families have incomes over $50,000 per annum and 75 per cent raise their children on incomes below $20,000. We know that supporting parents who are getting by without paid work or who are managing on part-time wages are frequently surviving on incomes well below the poverty line. The Parkinson report said that in order to fix the anomalies in the current system some payments will go up and some will go down and that we should not compare the outcomes under the current system with the outcomes under the new formula. Professor Parkinson tells us that there will be some winners and some losers. Labor’s view is that there has been a failure to make adequate transitional arrangements, for a start, for the people who may lose out under these new arrangements. We do understand that the reduced income due to the formula is likely to be offset in part by other aspects of the reform package, such as the new family tax benefit arrangements, the introduction of minimum payments for parents who deliberately minimise their assessable income and a strengthened compliance regime. Witnesses to the Senate inquiry also noted the real increase in family payments since the current formula commenced in 1989. Professor Parkinson sought to make that point in evidence to the Senate inquiry when he claimed that family payments now meet most or all of the cost of the care of children in low-income families. We also note Professor Parkinson’s view that under the existing formula many child support payments across the spectrum are too high while others are too low. The reason for the inconsistency was the fixed income approach used in the current formula and the failure of the scheme to take account of the fact that the cost of children differs substantially according to their age. A more equitable and consistent formula is required, and Labor considers that the new formula is on the way to doing that. Labor’s social security spokesperson, Senator Chris Evans, has said in the past that the underlying intellectual integrity of the package recommended by the task force attempts to provide a balanced range of measures. Labor has decided that to attempt to unpick the task force’s recommendations by seeking to amend certain elements would undermine the integrity of the package as a whole. The ALP has also recognised that establishing a new formula based on fairer and sounder principles means that some payments will go up and others will go down and that child support payers and payees will be affected in different ways according to their income, the number of children involved, who cares for the children, how often they care for the children, the age of the children and whether or not second, third or even fourth families are involved. We accept that there are significant difficulties in assessing the true impact of the change in formula and that the workload that the Child Support Agency and other government agencies now face in undertaking the new assessments is substantial. We understand that around 760,000 child support assessments will have to be reviewed if this bill passes into law. A whole range of new information will need to be collected from families before any new child support assessments can be issued, and obviously that will be a time-consuming process. We do not, however, accept that these difficulties excuse the government from making provision to protect low-income single parent families should they suffer financial disadvantage because of the changes in this bill. In fact, we would have to say that there is an increased need for protections and assurances for low-income families given the level of uncertainty that these new arrangements bring. Such provisions were clearly contemplated by the report of the ministerial task force when it noted on page 261: ... the Government may wish to give consideration to the position of those whose liability or entitlement will vary to a large extent as a result of the recommendations, to avoid causing hardship in the short term. These concerns formed the basis of recommendation 25 of the report, which said that the government needed to comprehensively consider the management of transitional issues regarding the implementation of the new formula. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened. I can see no provision made in the bill to protect those families, particularly families on very low incomes, who may suffer financial hardship as a result of the changes to the scheme. My Labor colleagues and I will continue to press the government to ensure that these families are protected. These are the same families, of course, that may be affected by the Welfare to Work changes. The interaction of these two areas of government policy, although not considered by Professor Parkinson or by the government, is of significant concern to Labor. Currently, sole parents are getting $244 a week if they are on the parenting payment. For their youngest child’s eighth birthday, a sole parent pensioner will get that pension cut by $29. Labor’s concerns in this area were not allayed when government witnesses to the Senate inquiry admitted that no work had been done on the combined impact of the child support changes and the welfare cuts on single parent families. Added to that is the fact that when these parents move on to Newstart the amount out of every dollar earned that the government will claw back will also be much higher. For every dollar sole parents earn from working, they will lose up to 75c of their Newstart benefit. We have vigorously opposed these Welfare to Work changes because they punish sole parents and many of the other most vulnerable members of our community. We need to be very vigilant to ensure that these changes do not lead to increased poverty and to increased child poverty in particular. The other area that I wanted to discuss was monitoring and evaluation. While Labor are concerned about the failure of the government to make any attempt to quantify the impact of the bill and to make provision to protect low-income families, we note that work is in progress to establish monitoring and evaluation systems once the new formula is introduced. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will clearly be critical to the successful implementation of the new scheme. If the changes lead to income reductions for low-income families, they could undermine any other improvements that may occur in the overall child support scheme. Labor will move to establish a Senate inquiry in 2007 to properly examine the impact of the bill on existing child support recipients and in particular whether any of these families will be worse off as a result of the changes. Strengthened compliance and the new minimum payments provisions are something that we are very supportive of. Labor welcomes the long overdue enhancement of the Child Support Agency’s compliance capabilities, which will better enable the agency to pursue non-resident parents who fail to provide any support for their children. Until now, there has been no mechanism for external administrative review of child support decisions except through the courts, which is expensive and time consuming for parents. The new arrangements will improve the consistency and transparency of child support decisions and will provide a review mechanism that is inexpensive, fair, informal and quick. The fact that only half of all non-resident parents meet their child support obligations in full and on time is a problem that has needed to be addressed for some time. Labor also welcomes the introduction of a minimum payment for parents who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support. However, Labor recognises the concerns of Professor Parkinson that these provisions of the bill may need to be strengthened. In conclusion, Labor will be supporting the bill overall, subject to the concerns that I have raised today. I am going to move a second reading amendment that relates to these concerns. We support the move to make arrangements that are based more firmly on the evidence about the costs of raising children. We are concerned about the potential for some of the most vulnerable people in the community to be worse off under this and consequently we urge the government to commit to very careful monitoring and to making any necessary transitional arrangements. We recognise the work of the House committee and its report and the work of Professor Parkinson and the ministerial task force. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its serious concern about: the Government’s decision to proceed with the bill without providing any protection for low income families who may lose income as a result of changes to the child support scheme; the failure of the Government to properly manage transitional issues in circumstances where parents are worse off under the bill, as recommended by the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support; the failure of the Government to make any attempt to quantify the financial impact of the bill on existing child support customers; the failure of the Government to provide up to date demographic information about existing child support customers; the unreasonably short time frame imposed by the Government on the Senate Inquiry into the bill, particularly given the extent of the changes to the child support scheme and the potential financial impact on low income families; and the overly-complex nature of the changes in the bill”. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded? WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12 09:50:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —I stand to support the government’s Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006, a most dramatic move, and to reject the amendment put by the member for Sydney. The amendment, it seems to me, is very much of a simple kind. It does not in any way alter or change a word in the legislation. It seems that these pious amendments have become fundamental to this parliament, when in fact the opportunity obviously exists for the opposition to assist the government in complex matters—if they have the capacity to do so—by putting forward real and true amendments that represent a change to the legislation. This government would always consider them if they were for the better. It is probably worthy of comment in that regard that I had the misfortune to serve for 13 years in opposition in this place and was charged with a number of duties during that period on behalf of the Liberal Party. For a long period, I was the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business and obliged to sit in on policy decision making and question time. I got a shock the other day when the Leader of the Opposition was the first person in this House to ask a question about North Korea and the indicated explosion of a nuclear device. I said to one of your colleagues, Mr Deputy Speaker, ‘That’s the best question he’s ever asked in this place, because it was the question of a statesman.’ I have to say that the next day the first question on that matter came from this side of the House. It was always the case within the Liberal Party during their term in opposition—maybe to the longevity of the Hawke government, in particular—that if the government had a good idea we supported it wholeheartedly. You might remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I stood shoulder to shoulder with Con Sciacca on the excellent initiative of the Keating government, Australia Remembers—which was the ceremony to celebrate 50 years since the end of the Pacific war. I could not find any criticism of the government, and my principal reason was that the remaining veterans deserved the applause of the Australian people as delivered by the incumbent government. This initiative before us today is one that does not need a pious amendment. If there are issues within it that could be improved by a substantive amendment, it should have been put forward by the opposition; otherwise, they should get with the government on initiatives that are good for the country—as, the record shows, was the practice of the Liberal Party in opposition. Just to be agin everything is not, I think, appealing to the Australian people. To the best of my recollection, when the original child support legislation was brought into this place—by, I think, Mr Howe, who might have been the deputy leader of the Labor government at the time—the Liberal opposition supported the proposal. We had every opportunity to go out and describe some of the inadequacies of that legislation and to start a fear campaign, but of course we recognised that there was an obligation to fix the arrangement, which was pretty unsatisfactory. The original change to the Family Law Act was introduced by Senator Lionel Murphy, and it actually required the Family Court, before requiring maintenance, as we once knew it—and I might refer to my knowledge of that a little bit more—to add up all the welfare payment opportunities that existed, which were of course provided by taxpayers typically with viable families. After that, if a bit more money was needed, it would be by way of a maintenance order delivered by the courts to the non-custodial parent. Living in the north-west of WA as I did at that time, and employing people in the hotel industry, it was not unusual to have a barman snatched from behind the bar and taken off to jail because he had not paid his maintenance. Of course, one of the reasons he was in the north-west was that he was hoping to escape that liability. I was a bit put out about this because I would have to go and do his shift behind the bar. Further to that, I was often called upon, if they were able workers, to settle the amount and hope that I might get it back some day. One of the more dreadful aspects, nevertheless, was that the maintenance bill went on while they were in jail. So when they came out they owed more money than they did when they went in. It was a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement, and Mr Howe came to this parliament with something that was better than that. Nevertheless, its inadequacies and, more importantly, its unfairness in a modern society have become very apparent. It took a long time for those members who had significant constituencies of such people—and there is a demographic and a geography about it, for the reasons I pointed out a minute ago—to address the problems. The circumstances are that it was based on principles that do not stand up in modern society, one of the first being—and I think there is still a bias in this regard—the principle that the female partner is necessarily the best equipped to look after children. That can no longer be sustained. I have, within my broader family, a very successful niece whose husband has been the houseparent virtually throughout their married life. They have three very nice kids. We can all remember the time when once the female was considered the carer and the person who was at home. It certainly applied during my childhood. My mother never had paid work, and I do not think my father would ever have approved of it. Times have changed. Consequently when a marriage has unfortunately broken down, liability for the future maintenance of children should be equally shared. Of course, as we also know, those in a broken marriage should not be consigned to isolation in terms of their relationships for the rest of their lives. It frequently, and properly, happens that they make new relationships, and it is unfair for one party to be denied that opportunity because, under the terms of the payments they must make, they cannot afford to start a new family or to marry someone who already had a family. They would also be disadvantaged. All of those problems were only compounded, unfortunately, by a very rigid system and an excessive empowerment of a bureaucratic agency with powers of garnishee. Imagine garnisheeing the bank account of a person whose small business is trading in motor cars, a person who buys and sells them to achieve a profit and, from that profit, makes payments to the Child Support Agency. If, because he gets behind, they take all this money out of his bank account, he can no longer trade motor cars and then he has nothing. He is like the poor devil, historically, who was put in jail for failure to pay maintenance and when he got out of jail the amount of maintenance was even higher. It does not say much for the mentality of the public servants that they could not understand that. In my electorate the problem is people having payments demanded on the basis of the average profit potential of their farming enterprise, even though the land may be in total drought and the bank has taken their chequebook back and put a big stapler through it. Farmers in my electorate have had settlements demanded on the basis that their farm a couple of years ago, or five years ago, in a bumper season made a lot of money. That is a silly proposition, and there needed to be a much better response. To a very significant degree, that particular problem is being addressed with this new legislation. I find it very encouraging, as someone who has had—as many of us in this place have—traumatised people in their electorate office saying, ‘How do I manage?’ I have often made the point that in our earlier debates there was a view that this was a male-female dichotomy. If I go back through the correspondence I have received on this matter, the majority of it is from females and, more particularly, from the mothers of non-custodial fathers, who frequently have an inner knowledge of the marriage breakdown and are outraged about how their sons are being treated. I also receive correspondence from women who have fallen in love with a non-custodial parent and have found themselves on the breadline while they try to carry on a new relationship. All of these matters, to a degree, have had to be addressed by the taxpayer. You cannot get the perfect formula and the perfect distribution of cost, but it has always been argued that this is a process to guarantee the maintenance of children. That can only be applauded. And yet we have had some peculiar views at the legislative and bureaucratic level about the cost of raising children. It appeared that the richer you were the more expensive each and every child was. It appeared that, if there was one child or four children involved, the cost individually was always the same. Most of us who have raised a number of children know that is not the case. My notes say that kids get more expensive when they are teenagers. You ought to try some that are 30 or 40 years old! There is always a demand on parents. I hold the opinion, by the way, that in the Australian context you provide for your children so that they can provide for theirs. As we know, in countries adjoining us the reverse applies. We looked at all these matters, and we had to come up with better solutions. Cases are brought to our electorate offices of a supporting parent earning—because they have that ability—three times the salary of the non-custodial parent, then receiving a very high percentage of the non-custodial parent’s salary, calculated before tax. This is patently unfair and silly. To say that children’s needs increase in proportion with a parent’s salary is also silly. Clearly there is a fair and reasonable cost, and if you are a high-wealth person then there are decisions that you can make when it comes to education, and even quality of clothing, I guess. I am not sure that kids who get designer clothes to wear to school are necessarily any better off than those that do not, other than when facing the sort of peer pressure that might arise. After taking all these things into account, what have we done? We have created a new formula for calculating child support. The new formula is based on new Australian research on the cost of children—surprise, surprise—and better reflects community values around shared parenting. It better balances the best interests of parents and children. The formula treats both parents’ incomes and living costs more equally and takes account of the fact that older children cost more. It also ensures that children from first and second families will be treated more equally. What could be fairer than that? Then there is a proposal for ensuring a minimum payment—and it is a very small amount of money—for all children. It commences at $6 a week. I know that is not much, but there will be circumstances where that is all the non-custodial parent, male or female, might be able to pay. The FaCSIA fact sheet says: Parents who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support (payers who claim to have very low incomes, but actually have higher real incomes or resources) will have to pay $20 per child per week, unless they can prove their incomes are in fact very low. I hope the bureaucracy will be a little careful when they are assessing farming families in this regard. We are looking more sensibly at the treatment of second jobs and overtime. One of the more stupid things in the past was: the harder you tried to raise an income, possibly to support a new family, the less you got and that money may have been passed to a person who did not need it and whose children did not need that level of support. We are also taking account of stepchildren—in most cases, the children of a secondary relationship. We are taking note that they represent a liability and somehow an adjustment has to be made. In some cases, because of the generosity implied in some of the formula for payment, the taxpayer is going to have to be a contributor—but certainly not to the level of the original Murphy family law arrangements. There is also a modification to the change of assessment rules. The current change of assessment processes and rules for parents are confusing and are not widely understood. Under the changes being introduced, the rules under which a parent can apply to have a change of assessment of their child support liability will be made much clearer. There are other measures in this bill, but I have used up most of my time. I am sure that I can rely on my colleagues to make those points. In closing, I must refer to the establishment of the family relationship centres. I am already getting good reports about those centres. It is an excellent measure. I wonder what the next speaker might say when I quote my mother—someone whom I admired and who had a great influence on me. She was from the Irish side of the family. She explained to me that, in her era, there was, unfortunately, nowhere for a married woman to go if she was having relationship problems. In fact, even if you went home to your mother, she was pretty keen to get you re-established in your own relationship because she did not really want to have to support you and your children in her household. I know that this is a simplistic argument, but the point my mother so often made was: the reality of the irredeemable fight tonight—something I guess most of us in this room have experienced—is often hard to establish the next morning but, if you walked out that night, it is irretrievable. Consequently, I think that, when people are having relationship problems, it can be a good thing to keep them in the field of counselling and negotiation rather than have them go to a lawyer, who will profit from the disagreement. That is not to excuse family violence or other acts that cannot be tolerated, but too many marriages break down over a simple argument or maybe a simple mistake made by one party—even to the extent of that word ‘adultery’. (Time expired) 16 10:10:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —The Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006 represents the next instalment in the reform of the child support payments system and follows measures passed earlier this year. As I said at the time of the debate in the House on those earlier amendments, I have been closely involved with this issue through my role as Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs—and I thank the honourable Chief Opposition Whip for his assistance on that committee. That House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, as it was then known, reported to the House in December 2003 with Every picture tells a story. That inquiry only partly addressed the issue of child support payments. This legislation owes much to the Parkinson task force and the modelling undertaken to establish the costs of raising children in separated families. The committee’s report reached the conclusion that: ... it is imperative that independent modelling of the cost of children in separated families should be undertaken and published to establish what the impact would be if child support payments were based upon those results. In any event, the results of the study should be used to determine the basis of future child support payments. Given the major changes to family payments since the original child support formula was introduced, it can be appreciated that substantial change was necessary. But it was also valuable to have a more realistic assessment of the true cost of each child in a separated family, and that became the starting point for the new formula. A major assumption in the original formula was the acceptance that people spend the same proportion of their income on children. The old formula, therefore, took a fixed percentage of the remaining portion of the payer’s income. Those percentages were set at 18 per cent for the first child, 27 per cent for two children, 32 per cent for three, 34 per cent for four children and 36 per cent for five or more. It sounds like the ‘cheaper by the dozen’ principle. The Parkinson review drew on international research showing that, the higher the household income and the more parents spend on their children, that expenditure declines as a percentage of their income. The review also commissioned its own research, carried out by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. I must admit—and I am sure that more than a few members would be in the same boat—that interpreting graphs is not one of my strengths, but Parkinson clearly shows that for middle to higher income payers, the current child support payment exceeded the estimated gross cost of children. It is clear that the often claimed unfairness of the child support scheme is borne out by the research. I should also note that the studies showed that, for lower rates of payer income, the cost of children exceeded the amount of payment. While it is assumed that family benefit payments would make up for much of this shortfall, we cannot assume that no resident parent will be worse off under the new formula. I will come back to this point later, but I must say at this stage that none of the reports or research has been able to put a figure on just how many resident parents will be worse off and which particular income bands those payer and payee parents fall into. I will come back to the question of the fairness of the child support formula. Parkinson concluded that the fairest reference point for the Child Support Scheme was the continuity of the expenditure principle. This principle requires that a non-resident parent should contribute the same amount towards the child after separation as they would if they were living with the other parent. As we have seen, expenditure on children rises with income, so a formula based on the parents’ incomes would be fairer, rather than a fixed sum. But Parkinson also concluded that it was not feasible for child support to maintain the child’s living standards, as this would involve a degree of spousal maintenance and the effect of new partners, all of which would lead to a much more complex formula. The task force concluded: ... it is proper for child support obligations to be based on the best available evidence of how much children cost to parents with different levels of combined household income in intact relationships, and for the costs of children in separated households to be considered in evaluating how to take account of contact arrangements and shared care in the formula. Another factor in looking at the cost of children is the age of the child. The task force presented figures prepared by NATSEM which showed a great difference in the cost of children according to age. The percentages for middle-income households ranged from six per cent for a child aged nought to four and up to 27 per cent for a 16- to 17-year-old. These large differences led the task force to consider special allowances for the age of the child. I am concerned, though, that there will be some losers under the new formula and that for low-income families the cost of children is greater as a percentage of income. If we look at the figures given, we can see that for a low-income family a 13- to 15-year-old costs 28 per cent of income and a 16- to 17-year-old costs 39 per cent. The costs of those children may be met through other forms of assistance. Again, we will find that some families will struggle as children grow into their teens. Another issue which concerned the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, as well as Parkinson, was the question of the use of before- or after-tax income in the formula. The task force went to considerable lengths to find a fair solution to this problem. Its report shows that the Australian Institute of Family Studies community attitudes survey found that 87 per cent of non-resident fathers and between 71 and 79 per cent of men and women in the other three groups believe that child support payments should be based on net rather than gross income. The family and community affairs committee agonised over the issue but gave reasons of simplicity and the impact on low-income families for not preferring after-tax income. But the final choice of before-tax income recommended by the task force adds the deciding factors that its costs are based on expenditure on children in intact families, where combined before-tax income is considered, and allow for family benefit payments. The other factors follow the task force’s recommendation that the percentage of income for higher income payers should decline. While the amount would still be higher for higher income earners, the percentage of income devoted to child support payments would be less. In deciding on the percentages for each income bracket, the impact of income taxation can be taken into account. There will, I am sure, still be those who would advocate that before- rather than after-tax income should be used in the formula. I think that it is essential that the point I have just made—that is, that income tax rates are taken into account when setting the percentage—should be made clear to all child support payers. At a time when we have seen this government lavish tens of millions of dollars on advertising, and with an election year coming up, I am sure we will see even more money spent. I think it is not too much to ask that some of that money be spent to explain the new formula. That should include issues like the calculation of child support based on before-tax income. I also refer to the principles that the task force used in their proposal to redesign the Child Support Scheme. Those principles included the expectation that children who do not live with both parents should have an adequate living standard and that the non-resident parent should provide support based on what they would be likely to spend if the two parents were living together. The second principle was that parents share the expenses at a level appropriate to their income and in proportion to their capacity to pay. The third principle reflects the change in family assistance since the introduction of the old formula. We all remember the words of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke that no Australian child will live in poverty. While many may have scoffed at the idea at the time, the children most likely to live in poverty when that statement was made were children in single parent families. We have come a long way since that promise. While I do not think we can yet say that no Australian child lives in poverty, the expansion of family benefits since then has meant that we should consider the effect of those benefits when calculating child support payments. I said earlier that we know that the new formula will leave some low-income non-resident parents worse off. While government funded family benefits provide the bulk of income for a great proportion of single parent families, we should not lose sight of the principle that a non-resident parent has a responsibility to support his or her child or children, and that takes priority over all financial obligations other than those necessary to support themselves and any other legally dependent children. While it is clear from the findings of the task force that government-provided family support payments make up the great bulk of support for more than half of all children of separated families, we do not have a realistic measure of whether those payments are sufficient. To give the House an indication of the cost of a child in a single parent family, I quote the figures presented in the task force report. Where the average weekly income is $583, the cost of nought- to four-year-olds is estimated at $115 per week. For five- to 12-year-olds it is $119 per week, for 13- to 15-year-olds it is $140 per week and for 16- to 17-year-olds it is $240 per week. So you can see for a single parent family on that fairly low income the high proportion of income that goes to meeting the cost of the child. That brings me back to the matter I raised earlier: that we can be certain that some resident parents will be worse off as a result of this legislation. I would have hoped to have had a better guide to exactly who and how many would fall into that group, and I should add to that the effect of this government’s Welfare to Work requirements. During the deliberations of the family and community affairs committee on this issue, one principle stood out as being essential for any new arrangements. That was that no resident parent should be worse off and, in particular, no low-income resident parent should be worse off. With the new formula to come into effect in July 2008, we will not see its effect until after the next election—and that is something government members may take some comfort in. However, bearing in mind that these changes will be coming into effect following the introduction of Welfare to Work changes, I think it is reasonable to assume that many thousands of low-income resident parents will find themselves worse off under the new formula. In the time available until then I think that, as a matter of priority, agencies involved in providing benefits and support should do their best to get some hard data on those who stand to lose from the changes. For those reasons I support Labor’s second reading amendment so that we can get some accurate figures on the effect on low-income families. It is shameful that the Senate inquiry was given so little time to look at this important question. It seems that the government does not want to acknowledge that there will be losers under this new formula—and there definitely will be losers—and that it does not want to be put in a position where it will need to make up for the loss of income. We should, at the very least, be trying to find out who the losers will be. Only then can we consider ways of minimising the impact on those families. We may even have the chance to make further adjustments to minimise the impact on those families. I note the provisions in this bill to allow for an independent review of child support decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. This measure is welcomed by Labor members as it will provide an inexpensive, fair and speedy means of reviewing decisions. As almost every member of this House will have encountered someone who claims to have been harshly dealt with in claims for child support, I am confident that this review procedure will provide a transparent means of reviewing child support decisions. One common grievance which is addressed in this bill is the matter of income from overtime and second jobs. The complaint from a non-resident parent seeking to establish a new home after separation is that, if you work harder or longer to try to get ahead, you are required to make higher child support payments. The possible exclusion of that income in the first three years will be appreciated. However, I question, as I am sure many child support payers will, why it is limited to three years. On the earlier bill I expressed my concern that the minimum payment was indexed from $5 per week to the grand sum of $6.15 per week, so I am pleased to see that parents who deliberately minimise their income—and there are a lot of parents out there who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support—may be required to pay $20 per child per week. I believe this is consistent with the principles of the Child Support Scheme and better reflects the community’s expectation that parents have an extended responsibility to provide support for their children. The bill also allows further flexibility for parents to make arrangements between themselves, and that is also very welcome. Other changes make the system simpler and fairer. This legislation is welcomed for providing what should be a fairer system of child support payments. It would be a great shame if this improvement, with all its benefits, were to cost some of the most disadvantaged children in Australia because of its failure to ensure that no low-income resident parents would be worse off. There is time to take a closer look, to do the research and to come up with measures that will avoid that happening. We will definitely just have to wait for a Labor government at the end of next year to do that as a matter of high priority—and that Labor government will do it. 20 10:29:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I want to begin by recognising the tremendous work and dedication of Maggie Deacon and Pat Dunn, two of the officers in the Child Support Agency in Townsville. All of us receive all sorts of complaints about the Child Support Agency and its operations, but I can tell you that both Maggie and Pat are wonderful people and certainly have a customer service ethic that is beyond question. About two weeks ago, I was able to attend an information night put on in Townsville by the department for those interested in child support matters. There was very good attendance. All sorts of other agencies attended on that particular night. When I explained to those who were there the changes contained in the bill that is before the parliament today, the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006, there was virtually universal happiness. Those who had great concerns about the operation of the current system were certainly pleased to see the very positive changes that have been brought forward in this bill. It is a very complex and detailed bill, but this is an area where there are a lot of changes needed, and we have to be mindful of getting the right outcome. When I was sitting in my office and I heard the first Labor speaker on the bill introduce a second reading amendment to the bill, I was quite surprised. When I read the amendment, I was even further surprised. I do not know why the Labor Party has to be so negative and carping on a bill that delivers such benefits to people who need them. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —We’re supporting the bill. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Member for Chifley, I understand that you are supporting the bill but I have in front of me a list of points in the amendment which I find negative and carping. Let us look at some of them. They include ‘the failure of the government to provide up-to-date demographic information on existing child support customers’. I certainly had that available to me; I do not know why the Labor Party did not have it available to it. Another is ‘the failure of the government to make any attempt to quantify the financial impact of the bill on existing child support customers’. I certainly had that available to me. I saw all of that information, I asked all the questions, and I am sure that if the Labor Party had been interested enough to ask the questions, it would have received the information. It was freely available. That is why I am surprised to see this amendment come forward. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George interjecting— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The member for Throsby! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Well, I am just telling the Parliament of Australia that I had access to all of the information which this amendment claims was not available. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Read it into the Hansard record. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —You can make all the noise you like in the parliament but I am telling you that I had access to and I saw the information. I made it my business to see the information, and you should have made it your business to see the information. I do not understand why you are not doing your job as a member of parliament in getting hold of this information. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —You don’t know what you’re talking about. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chief Opposition Whip! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —In relation to the point about the unreasonably short time frame imposed by the government on the Senate inquiry, for heaven’s sake! For how many years have we been talking about this? The member for Chifley knows when he first became involved in this issue. He knows, having seen the bill, what a great step forward it is; what a landmark step forward it is. He knows that he will support it and that the government will support it, because it is in the interests of people in the Child Support Agency area. In relation to the final point in the amendment, ‘the overly complex nature of the changes in the bill’, I suppose the next thing you are going to complain about in the next set of amendments is that it is 31 degrees in Canberra today. That is the sort of rubbish that we are seeing in these types of amendments. It is just ridiculous. The previous speaker whinged about some parents being worse off. Yes, they are. But she failed to understand what this bill is all about. The central piece of this bill is about fairness. Having had such a lengthy inquiry and report and a long response time for the report, I find it amazing to see the Labor Party rejecting fairness as the central tenet of this bill. It is absolutely amazing. Because the bill is so complex, I cannot cover everything that is contained in it. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Unbelievable! You just had a go at the amendment. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am having difficulty hearing myself at the moment. I ask you to bring the House to order. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Herbert has the call. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —There are a number of issues contained in the bill. One of the issues that I want to deal with is the more flexible arrangements and the better legal protection. I questioned this when it was brought before the government backbench policy committee because it seemed at odds with the normal operations of the Commonwealth of Australia that we would require couples to have received legal advice before certain other things happened. That seemed a bit odd to me. But when I inquired, I was satisfied that it was in the interests of both parents to have taken legal advice. The problem is that the courts are generally less likely to vary an agreement, if there is an appeal, where legal advice has been obtained by both parents when compared to cases where only one of the parents received legal advice. So by incorporating this requirement in the bill, we are actually protecting both parents against potential adverse outcomes later on. Parents will only be required to have received legal advice if the agreement is less than the current child support assessment. What finally convinced me to support this particular measure is that parents will have access to free or low-cost legal advice through the duty lawyers at the Family Court and through community legal centres. This condition is not onerous because either free or low-cost legal advice will be available. The process and rules for determinations of orders made under the Child Support (Assessment) Act to depart from the administrative assessment provisions where some parents reside a fairly significant geographical distance apart is a matter which all of us have had a lot of constituent contact about. The formula allowance for costs enabling contact with a child may be inadequate as the costs of travel for the children to and from their non-resident parent’s home, or for the parent to travel to see the child, can be significant. In this bill, we are allowing for that; this justifies an increased allowance beyond the allowance made in the formula for regular care. Parents in this situation will certainly welcome the fact that the government has recognised the issue. I was very happy to see that schedule 4 of that bill provides for other reforms that commence on 1 January 2007. In particular, the relationship between the courts and the new Child Support Scheme will be simplified, particularly in relation to percentage. Parents will have better access to court enforcement of child support debts—which is very welcome—and courts will have increased powers to seek information and evidence in those cases and to make interim arrangements for child support cases generally. That is a good outcome. Certainly those parents who have unpaid child support will welcome this particular arrangement. I am sorry, as is the government, that all of these amendments cannot be enacted more quickly, but it was just not possible. When we saw that major amendments could not be started until 1 July 2008, we were really disappointed, but there are very good reasons. It is just something that cannot be avoided. Parents who are in the child support system will certainly look forward to the new child support formula, the more flexible arrangements, the better legal protection, the income definitions for certain tax-free amounts, the residential parent keeping their family tax benefit, the minimum child support payments and being able to use income from second jobs and overtime to help re-establish themselves during the first three years. They will welcome the introduction of these measures, along with the simplified process to suspend child support payments and the appeal process to the SSAT, which are long overdue. There is a whole raft of changes. Talking to my constituents in Townsville I know that they see this as a very welcome piece of legislation. They do not see it, as the Labor Party does, as overly complex in nature. They will welcome it and I certainly strongly support it. 23 10:41:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —Before I talk about the substantive issues that I want to raise in relation to the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006, let me respond to the comments made by the member for Herbert. The member for Herbert was trying to imply that our amendment was not based on genuine issues of concern. I think he said, ‘If you want to find out the impacts, everyone can; I know the impacts in my own electorate.’ Just for the record, we were briefed by the department just 48 hours ago and in great detail. In that briefing, the department made it very clear that no-one in the department was able to estimate the degree of disadvantage that some people will face in the new system. They have undertaken to examine 700,000-plus cases between the carriage of the bill and the implementation date of 1 July. If the department, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Professor Parkinson cannot tell us with any degree of certainty what the actual impacts on a range of people in the child support system are, I find it amazing that the member for Herbert can get up and mislead this parliament by suggesting that somehow people are failing in their duties if they are not able to know the exact impact of this legislation on the people that they represent. I think that the amendment moved by our shadow minister points, in a very objective and rational way, to the limitations of the debate on this bill. I am concerned that I am debating a bill not knowing precisely what the outcomes are going to be, particularly for sole parents—who are predominantly women—and low-income families. We do know that, despite the best endeavours of the formula to bring into being a more objective basis for setting the costs of raising children, statements made by Professor Parkinson indicate that there will be losers in the system—that is, people who are going to end up with less child support by way of child support payments than they are currently receiving. We hope that they will be compensated by an increase in family tax benefit payments, but no-one has any degree of certainty about what that outcome might be—save, it seems, the member for Herbert, who must have some crystal ball whereby he can predict the actual outcomes for the people that he represents. It is important to make that point, and I think the member for Herbert displayed quite a remarkable degree of ignorance about the outcomes of this legislation. I want to speak in support of the bill—notwithstanding some of the limitations that are so properly picked up in our amendment—as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs that worked very hard on the bipartisan report Every picture tells a story. This led to a major overhaul of the family law system in this country and is gradually leading to an overhaul of the child support formula, which we as members of parliament all know causes enormous grief to people we represent. I want to place on record my congratulations to Professor Parkinson and members of his task force, who have done a very solid task in reviewing all of the empirical research both in Australia and overseas to try and arrive at a far more objective setting for the implementation of the child support formula. In so doing, I think it is going to relieve a lot of the concerns that we constantly hear from people whom we represent. The intention of the change is to improve the fairness of the Child Support Scheme and to encourage active involvement of both parents in their children’s lives after separation. The legislation before us is highly complex and highly technical. You only have to read the Law Council’s submissions to the hearing of Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, brief though it was, to understand that even lawyers see complexity in the system. It seems that everyone, except the member for Herbert, acknowledges that it is complex, although he did later concede that point. Cut to its core, the bill will usher in a new system for assessment of child support payments. It is based on far more objective criteria than we have had in the past. As we know, a lot of constituents come to us with concerns about a formula that has been based on percentages. Those percentages often do not specifically relate to the actual costs of raising children. It is not unreasonable for people to want to know what the actual cost is of raising children at different income levels, at different ages and in different family formations. We have finally got to the stage where we can, with a greater degree of certainty, say to the people whom we represent that the new formula will be based on an income shares approach, whereby the cost of caring for and raising children has been based on Australian research and objective data. I want to acknowledge NATSEM’s very valuable input of the modelling that has been done to arrive at this formula. In future, the costs of raising children will be based on the combined incomes of both parents. I think that is a very important principle. Those costs are going to be distributed between the parents in accordance with their capacity to meet the costs of raising children. Another very important element is that it treats first and second families more equally, thereby more fairly. As we know, a constant concern that is raised with members of parliament by people who repartner is that the children of the second relationship are not currently treated on an equal basis by the application of the formula. I think we overcome that problem in the new formula. The costs incurred by parents who provide regular or shared care of their children—the non-resident parent’s costs—are better reflected and recognised in the new formula. I want to talk about the positives before I come to what I think are the limitations of the bill. The present formula does not take account of or compensate a non-resident parent who looks after children for up to 29 per cent of the time, and that has been a source of concern. Non-resident parents often say to me that there are costs incurred that are not properly compensated. In the new formula, parents who care for their children for 14 per cent or more of the time, which probably equates to a night a week, will be recognised and compensated for the costs they incur. Under the new scheme, all biological and adoptive children are to be treated as equally and as fairly as possible. The costs to a parent of caring for resident dependent children outside of the child support case are also acknowledged. This corrects a cause of constant concern expressed by constituents who say that currently second families and the children of second families are unfairly and inconsistently taken into account. I think the changes address what we know are the conflict points between parents over the splitting of family tax benefit by allowing resident parents, who are predominantly female, to keep all of their family tax benefit, except where there is shared care, which is defined as 35 per cent or more of the time. Very importantly, minimum child support payments will now be indexed to the CPI and will apply to each support case up to a maximum of three cases, rather than being divided among children in different family situations, as is the case at present. Parents who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support—and we know there are a lot of people in the system who do that and who have done it in a regime where compliance has not been as effective as it could be—will have to pay $20 per child per week up to a maximum of three children, unless they can prove the basis for their low-income status. Also very importantly, for the first three years after separation parents will be able to have income from second jobs and overtime excluded from child support calculations when the extra money they earn is being used to help with re-establishment costs. A maximum of 30 per cent of total income will be able to be excluded, to ensure adequate support for children. I think that is an important issue. It is constantly raised with me that when relationships break down the costs of repartnering, establishing new households and establishing new care provisions are not properly compensated in the current formula. I think all of those positives in this legislation will go a long way to addressing the longstanding grievances that are expressed both by payers and by payees in the system. But I have to talk about some of the inadequacies in the legislation. The inadequacies are not necessarily the fault of anyone in particular, but nevertheless it places us in a position where we are voting for a piece of legislation while not knowing the actual outcomes and the impacts. I am particularly concerned about the impacts on the most vulnerable, the low-paid and the sole parents in our community. If the member for Herbert does not think this piece of legislation before us is complex and technical, let me quote the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia: We as lawyers … have the greatest difficulty working out a great number of the clauses … It is also fair to say, from the clients we see across our desks day by day, that the present scheme is almost impenetrable to the average person. The new scheme is going to be no less transparent and possibly even more complicated. It may achieve better outcomes, but in being able to understand and follow how it gets to those outcomes it is going to be a considerable challenge, not only for the payers and payees but also for those who are advising them at each level, including their legal advisers. I say to the Law Council: it is interesting that you make this comment about the complexities of the bill and yet we have a member in this House who seems to think it is all readily understood. I am pleased that it is the department’s intention, as I understand it, to undertake a plain English rewrite of this legislation as soon as possible. I do accept that the implementation period between the carriage of the bill and the actual day of operation will hopefully give the department and the minister’s staff the opportunity and the time to explain the changes in a way that is more readily understood not just by the people administering the new system but also by the people who are both payers and payees in the system. I think one of the justifications for the early carriage of the legislation has been that it will require that implementation phase to explain the complexities to the community. With the implementation of the formula changes scheduled for 1 July 2008, we should have the opportunity in that 18-month implementation period to explain to our constituents and the families we represent how the changes will affect them. It is important that all members of parliament are in a position to gain access to the plain English rewrite of the legislation, because they will often be the first port of call for people in the community wanting to know how this legislation will affect them. We need to understand that the complexity of the changes coming into being, while very worth while, is very daunting. Now I want to say something about my substantive concerns—concerns that have been picked up in the amendment moved by our shadow minister. The child support formula should—and does in this proposal—reflect to the best of our ability our knowledge about the true costs of raising children. That being the case, we need to understand that one of the consequences of the proposal is that there will be some reductions in the amount of child support paid to resident parents, particularly where the non-resident parent has a higher income. There is no publicly available modelling to estimate the impact of the new system on existing child support recipients and payers. The lack of analysis is very concerning, given that we know from Professor Parkinson’s comments that a significant proportion of single parents will receive lower child support payments under the new formula—how many we do not know, and how much they will lose is also unknown. We have been told—and I take this at face value—that the Child Support Agency will reassess all client payments once the bill is passed and before the operative date. That evidence will then give us a much clearer idea of the impact on people. There will be households, no doubt, that will find themselves worse off under these changes, as confirmed by Professor Parkinson. While conceding that it was difficult to give a reliable estimate of that impact, Professor Parkinson said: My best guess is that the majority of assessments will go down … my estimate of 55 per cent is probably much closer to the mark than the 60 per cent that was reported in the media. It is nonetheless just a very general estimate. The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children have argued: Most single parent households will be financially worse off as a result of the formula changes. An estimated 60 per cent of primary carer households will be worse off as a result of the formula changes. So I am genuinely concerned that we are debating a bill whose impacts and consequences are not known to us other than we know that the potential impacts could hurt the most vulnerable in our community. Professor Parkinson told the Senate committee: We did model—and very carefully—the impact of all these changes on those who are currently on welfare. What we found was that the trade-off between family tax benefit not being split and the child support changes was going to be either neutral for them or advantageous—that is, it would make a dollar difference here and there with that group because they are not typically receiving much child support. When they get all the FTB, it is actually more valuable for them. Obviously some are going to be worse off as a result of the child support changes, but they will still be getting a lot of child support. Where their former partner is a high-income earner there will still be significant amounts being transferred. We did model all of that very carefully and we are comfortable that the trade-off between the payee getting all the FTB and the child support changes did create a fairly equitable balance. That is the hope that I have too—that any reductions the resident parent faces as a result of the changes in the formula will be compensated by the changes to the rules about the splitting of the family tax benefit. I think we all hope that is the case, because we all know that the sole resident parent with children is among those who suffer the highest degrees of financial hardship and those who could find themselves in poverty without adequate income support. I am not sure, and nor can anyone be sure, that Professor Parkinson’s wish for the equitable balance that he talks about will eventuate. And I guess we will not know until the Child Support Agency does all the detailed calculations that need to be done. I am concerned, however, that the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children took into account the drop in income due to reduced child support at some levels and the expected increase in family payments, and they argue that it still results in an overall drop in income of between $10 and $20 per child per week—and this is without the impact of the Welfare to Work changes factored in. Witnesses from the Institute of Family Studies told the Senate that no work had been done on modelling the combined impact of the welfare changes and the prospect of reduced child support payments on single parents. This is of significant concern to me given that I represent a lot of sole parents, and I am appreciative of the already dire financial circumstances faced by these families. We know that 46 per cent of sole parents with dependent children live on very low incomes and that these families are at the highest risk of poverty of all family types. So I think it is quite proper for the shadow minister to have moved the amendment in her speech on the second reading, because when the new formula comes into being those people who are going to be affected adversely by it need to know that there were people in this parliament who appreciated they were voting for a bill without exactly knowing the ramifications at all levels of family formation. So we are flagging that that is a potential problem that both sides of this chamber need to keep in mind and may have to address. That is why I support the calls for both a Senate inquiry and an independent inquiry to properly examine the impact of the bill on existing child support recipients. It is a great pity the positive reforms in this bill are diminished by the government’s decision to proceed without any guarantees of protection for low-income families who may lose income as a result of these changes. While I support the bill and am pleased that I was able to be part of the process, I end my comments by yet again highlighting my serious concern about the potential negative financial impacts of these new arrangements on low-income families and particularly on female sole parents. (Time expired) 27 11:01:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —As a local member, probably the most difficult issues I have had to deal with are those involving family breakdown and child support. They are difficult and distressing for all parties involved: for the resident parent, for the non-resident parent and for the children. On one hand there are women who come into my office whose husbands have deserted them and left them with a number of children and no support, with the husband or the father avoiding his responsibilities and not paying child support payments. On the other hand there are men who come into my office devastated that their wives have left them and have taken their children. They are often cut off from any contact with their children, not even knowing where they are, and denied access to those children, whom they love dearly. At the same time, over a period of time, they are being forced to pay what they consider extremely harsh or excessive amounts of child support for children they cannot see; and sometimes when they do see those children it is obvious they are not benefiting from what the father is paying and the payments they make are seen more as spouse support payments than as child support payments. And in the middle of all of that are children, traumatised by the separation of their mother and father and by the reduced access to one or the other—usually to the father—and, sadly and tragically, often used as weapons in that struggle between two feuding parents and sometimes seen as a prize, somehow, for the winner in a Family Court case. These are often traumatic, tragic and very distressing circumstances. It is a sad irony, isn’t it, that families that are the fundamental building blocks of our society and on one hand can bring the greatest joy and fulfilment to those involved can, on the other hand, when broken cause the greatest pain to all involved. The figures are quite sobering. In 2004 there were 52,747 divorces, an increase of 9.2 per cent from 1994, 10 years earlier, and an increase of 22.3 per cent from the figure in 1984, 10 years before that. And 49.8 per cent of divorces in 2004 involved children. In 2003, just over one million children under the age of 17 lived in single parent families. That is, 22 per cent of children lived in single parent families, and most of those—87 per cent—lived with their mothers. In my electorate of Macquarie there are just over 4,000 child support cases, involving 6,146 children. I dare say a whole lot of other children are also living in single parent families but are being supported not through the child support system but by other arrangements. The family law system, which came into place in its initial iteration in the mid-1970s, and the child support system that has been operating since 1988 have not really adequately assisted families in this situation. In fact, some would argue that rather than assisting they have exacerbated the difficulties. The changes involved in this legislation, along with those changes to family law that we had last year and earlier this year, attempt to reduce the burden and the pain of family breakdown. Clearly we cannot prevent family breakdown; we cannot remove or totally ameliorate the emotional and psychological damage that that causes. But we can try and help partners and children cope. We can try and address the practical and financial issues related to that. The family law changes that came into place earlier, for instance, involved a commitment by this government of just on $400 million for the establishment of family relationship centres. Earlier this year I was pleased that the Attorney-General visited Penrith, just near my electorate, to open the family relationship centre at Penrith, which aims to serve the areas of Penrith, the Nepean, the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains and is already providing an incredibly valuable resource for parents. This includes parents struggling to hold their relationships together and, hopefully, in some cases, it is saving marriages by providing that essential support and counselling. It is also helping separated partners to cope with life after separation. This legislation currently before the House, the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006, involves the second aspect of those changes to try and reduce the pressure and to try to provide support for families wracked by breakdown. These are changes to the child support system to allow the partners to better cope with the financial and practical aspects of separation. Most of the aspects of this legislation come out of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs that some years ago produced that excellent report Every picture tells a story. After intense consultations and hearings around the country, it made a list of excellent recommendations about how to try and address these issues. Then of course the government set up the ministerial task force headed by Professor Patrick Parkinson, who did extensive research into how best to apply the recommendations of the House of Representatives committee. We have in this legislation today a number of key changes aimed at reducing some of the trauma, particularly the financial trauma, associated with family breakdown. Probably the first and most significant one involves the changes to the child support formula. Fundamentally and importantly, those changes involve basing the formula on the cost of raising children as ascertained by independent and extensive research, rather than basing it on an arbitrary percentage of the payer’s income, which was the way the old formula worked. The new formula, as well as being based on the cost of raising children, will take into account both parents’ incomes. The resident and the non-resident parent’s incomes will be treated in the same way. That is much fairer than the old system, where the excluded income amount was treated differently for the payer and the payee, or the resident and the non-resident parent. The new formula will better allow for the amount of time that each parent spends with their children and the costs involved in that. The formula will treat first and second families more equitably, and this is a very important step. Under the old formula, second families really suffered. Where a family had, sadly, broken down and the payer, usually the father, was trying to undertake his obligations and responsibilities to look after his natural children from the first family, the first marriage, he really struggled when he entered a new relationship and tried to establish a second family. This formula very fairly tries to much better balance the costs and the needs of the second family with that of the first family. The formula also recognises that children cost more as they get older. The cost of raising a teenager, as all the parents in this place will know, is substantially more than the cost of looking after infant children. In all, this new formula is fairer, more objectively based and will more equitably deal with the issues involved. Clearly not every payee will receive more money out of this formula. It is axiomatic that, if there were problems with the way the old formula worked—both sides agree that there were issues with that and the formula has to change—some people will be better off and some will be worse off. It is disappointing in that context to hear some of the speakers from the opposition somehow arguing that no-one ought to be worse off. If there is an acknowledgement that the formula was faulty in the first place and that faulty formula is to be changed then, unless taxpayers are going to be asked to dig into their pockets, some people will be receiving less in child support payments than before, and that is understandable. The important point is that the new formula is based on the extensive work done by the House of Representatives committee, including members of the opposition, and on the extensive, quality work done by Professor Patrick Parkinson. Some other aspects of this legislation are also very welcome and very valuable. The external review of the Child Support Agency decisions to give an external or objective avenue of appeal is a welcome change. One of the extremely frustrating aspects of the process for many people who have had to deal with the Child Support Agency over the years has been that, if they want to object to the way the formula is calculated and the way it works, they have to go through an appeal process using Child Support Agency staff. They, again, try to do their job correctly and do the right thing, but nevertheless they look at the situations through pretty much the same eyes as the staff who made the first decisions. This legislation will provide an external appeals process through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal from 1 January next year and will bring a much greater degree of objectivity into that appeal process. That will be welcomed by parents who have experienced the frustration time and time again of not being able to get a fair hearing through the Child Support Agency. The third measure in this legislation provides for better arrangements for parents making their own agreements between themselves. They will be better able to formalise those agreements without having to go through the Child Support Agency and will be able to formalise them in a way that gives greater certainty not only to the payee but also to the payer and ultimately, of course, to the children. Fourthly, there is a better alignment between child support payments, the family tax benefit system and childcare payments. For example, parents with over 65 per cent access to their children will keep all of the family tax benefit that accrues for their children instead of losing some of it. Low-income non-resident parents who spend more than 14 per cent of contact time with their children will receive rent assistance, the healthcare card and the Medicare safety net. It is important to point out here that there will be substantial costs to the government, several hundred million dollars, over the next four years as part of this. This is not a revenue-saving device for the government. We are putting extra money into this to make sure that families are not disadvantaged, and a substantial amount at that. Another change is the three-year exclusion of the second income of a payer who is trying to set up a new home. When a family breaks down, the payer often leaves the family home so that the mother—usually—and the children still have a place where they can live. The payer leaves and often has to pay rent for a new home while trying to support his children, often in very difficult circumstances. We made a change some years ago so that a payer who took on a second job or did overtime to support a second family would have the income from that second job or the overtime excluded from the formula, and that was a very welcome step. This legislation goes a step further to recognise not only the cost of supporting a second family but also indeed the cost of setting up a new home. For the first three years, a payer who does take on a second job to try and support himself and to establish a home will have the income from that second job excluded from the formula—a very sensible and equitable approach. Another change is the better inclusion of the costs of supporting stepchildren in assessing the way that the child support formula works. Stepchildren, if there is no other support for them, will be treated, quite appropriately, in the same way as the natural or biological children of the parent. As well, there will be the introduction of an increased minimum payment where a payer is not working and is still supporting children. Where he is supporting children in more than one family, instead of that minimum payment being split between the two families—or indeed in some cases even three families—that minimum payment will apply to each family. This is quite a reasonable arrangement. Another initiative is that where payers are deliberately minimising their incomes that minimum payment will be raised to $20 a week so that they cannot get out of their obligations to their children. These are very substantial changes, and are well overdue and very welcome improvements to the way that the child support formula and system works. When added to the family law changes that we saw earlier, these constitute a very significant improvement for families suffering the trauma and distress of family breakdown. We will never stop families breaking down, we will never remove the trauma associated with that, but these changes will provide very positive steps in the right direction in helping partners and in helping children particularly cope with the financial and practical aspects of those family breakdowns. 31 11:17:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —I rise as a member of the Labor Party, a party which is supporting the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I concur with the comments of my colleague the Chief Government Whip in his contribution to this debate. I also acknowledge that sitting in the gallery we have Barry Williams, who has devoted more than a decade to trying to establish changes to child support and who in fact served on the very first advisory committee under Justice Fogarty when the legislation was first introduced. It must be a pleasing moment for him. I acknowledge the personal contribution that he has made to the legislation on behalf of his members. Let me be a little ungenerous and talk about the member for Herbert. His contribution was juvenile. He suggested that the opposition were making carping amendments. The reality is that we are not assured of what the impacts of these significant and major changes are going to be. It is quite reasonable for an opposition to want to place on record its concern about the fact that it has not been possible to get all the modelling information and ascertain what the impacts of these changes are going to be. Let me reiterate that I and my colleagues on this side of the House are supporting this bill. I would like to acknowledge the role that the Chief National Party Whip, Kay Hull, played when she chaired the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs that delivered the report Every picture tells a story. The committee demonstrated the best traditions of this parliament: government and opposition members on a parliamentary committee working to a crushing deadline to bring down a very decent report. In particular, on my side I would like to acknowledge the roles that the deputy chair, the honourable member for Fowler, and the honourable member for Throsby played on that committee. It was a very powerful report and it has led to a number of changes. I want to make the point that we can be at risk of crowing that we have things totally right. In this area, there are always three pillars that you have to operate under. The first is family law, the second is child support and the third is counselling. These days, it is very hard to provide pre-relationship counselling, basically because so many of our fellow Australians are choosing not to have either a religious or a civil marriage ceremony and thus the logical intervention point for counselling does not exist for all of us. But I cannot stress enough how important it is—not only at the beginning of a relationship or marriage but during it, in the middle of it and at the end of it—for people to feel comfortable about seeking counselling and advice. The men of Australia never doubt the value of getting a second opinion about their car or changing a builder, a carpenter or whatever, but it is so hard for so many to talk about difficulties in relationships. Without going to the detail of the bill, my party’s position is that we support the legislation but are committed to a Senate review to see how it goes. Personally, I am of the view that we should do more than that. Twelve months after the operation of not only stage 2 and stage 3 but the whole package we should have an independent review to see how it is working and to see whether it is achieving the things that we all hope it will. Notwithstanding the fabulous work that Professor Parkinson has done, it should not be Professor Parkinson who does that independent review. I say to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough: I think that this is really worth while. If I look back at the history of the introduction of the Child Support Scheme, I think it was a major mistake to have Justice Fogarty—good man that he was—who played such a key role in the design of the scheme, overseeing how it was implemented. Not unexpectedly in such a radical shake-up, he felt, and the review indicated, that all was working well. And we know from history that, sadly, all was not working well. Let me also put it on the record that in the mid-1990s there was a House of Representatives review of child support, and one of the key recommendations was to try to move away from the overseas formulas that were inherent in the Australian scheme and to try to establish an Australian cost of living study. I am not saying that the Howard government did not do it; I think that the Howard government would be as disappointed as I was that that review has really not stood the test of time. The Parkinson-NATSEM studies really now, for the first time, give us something solid in Australia to work off, but I express my disappointment that we have lost a decade through not having had that proper and vital bit of information. This bill introduces not stage 2 of the changes but stage 2 and stage 3. Stage 2 introduces an independent review of the Child Support Agency decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. I have said in this place on a number of occasions that we need a proper independent review. Under administrative law, the internal review established by the Child Support Agency—which was a welcome change from what had operated previously—was not a proper independent review under administrative law. This change actually recognises it. I might remind honourable members that, prior to the initiative that was started by my good friend Con Sciacca, when he was parliamentary secretary, if you wanted a review you had to go to the Family Court. So, as flawed as that internal review was, it was a huge improvement. But this now sets the record straight, and those people who are subject to the Child Support Agency now have a proper internal review. Stage 2 broadens the powers of the court to ensure that child support obligations are met. One of the great difficulties of the scheme has been that often, in certain situations, there are people who can drive a horse and buggy through their obligations. I have always suggested that, when you are introducing fairness on one side, you have to make sure that you have got some draconian legislation so that solicitors and accountants who are advising their clients will not want to run the risk of being found to be trying to avoid their obligations. I particularly welcome the provision in stage 2 that allows separating parents more time to work out parenting arrangements before their family tax benefit is affected—or maybe perhaps even reconciling. I do not see that as a failure, should that occur. Stage 3 is the one with the ‘big bang’ changes. What is particularly significant about these changes is that it is not only a change of the formula but a proper work-through of the formula plus family benefits and their interaction, and it is very welcome. I welcome the changes about income and overtime from secondary employment. I also welcome the changes to the treatment of parents with stepchildren when calculating the liability. I often remember the brother of a resident in St Clair, Mr Forno. He was happily married, but his wife had five children by a first marriage, and they were not getting a zack in terms of child support. There was no way that the support he was giving his stepchildren was being taken into account under the formula. That was particularly absurd. Another absurdity occurs where children are treated differently—that is, children are valued differently depending on the primacy of the relationship they come from. Under the old formula, more money would go to support children of the first family than to a new child in the second family. That absurd situation has now been rectified with more than an attempt to treat each child fairly. The honourable member for Macquarie talked about pressure on second families. I always remember that, when it was publicly announced that I was chairing the review into child support in the 1990s, a woman came to see me from Merrylands, of all places. She really quizzed me about whether this was going to be a serious attempt to deal with the difficulties of child support, and I tried very hard to assure her that that was the case. By and large, the report was a very good one. My particular tragedy was that it was not implemented by the Labor Party government at the time. The easiest elements of administration were implemented, but the real guts of the report were not. Sadly, before we had completed the report, the financial pressures on that second family were such that the man committed suicide. The lady did not argue that that was the only reason why he committed suicide, but certainly it was a contributing one. The point I am trying to make, I guess, is that it is traumatic enough for people to have a relationship bust-up and go through all the tragedy and trauma of that, but when they repartner it is actually even harder. The rate of failure for second families or second relationships is higher, and we do not want government constructed schemes adding even more pressure on them. There is another point that I have often observed. I can relay any number of accounts of men who have not wanted to accept their responsibilities properly but when they divorce they tend not to do it in a sort of clinical, lawyer-oriented way. They say, ‘Yes, you can have the car; you should stay in the house,’ et cetera. They often give away some elements of their right to consideration of some property decisions they make in terms of lump-sum payments. Let me make a couple of other points. The best sorts of agreements are those that parents make between themselves in the best interests of their children—not lawyer imposed, not made in any other way. Part of the pressure that a parliament needs to impose is to try to encourage that to happen. I certainly believe that there is great value in trying to have some intervention in a relationship before it collapses, before it is dead and buried. Ironically, all too often the Commonwealth dollars flow when the last breath has been breathed in the life of a relationship. But there is value in intervention, in trying to get parents to set up good communication as they then tackle their mutual responsibilities with children. The pre-existing Child Support Scheme was a radical scheme. It was a necessary scheme, but in my view and in that of a number of others it was actually never about the best interests of children. Although that was an objective of the scheme, in its administration it was always more about clawback of Commonwealth dollars than about dollars going to children. It is true that children benefited from the scheme—I am not trying to suggest otherwise, nor that the families the children resided in were not better off absolutely as a result of the scheme. But the pre-existing arrangements were an absolute disgrace. I note that the task force report is called In the best interests of children. I think that always ought to be our focus, not clawback. In child support there are always three players: both parents and the government. If you make changes, there are always going to be winners and losers; some people are going to pay more and some are going to pay less. I acknowledge that the government, when this is fully implemented, is going to be paying an extra $130 million for the scheme. I welcome that and I support it. It is not possible for us to have a perfect scheme. It is not possible for us to have a scheme and make changes in which there are no losers. So I again make this plea. The Labor Party is committed to having a Senate review of these changes shortly after they come into operation, but it is vital in my opinion to have an independent review 12 months after the operation of stage 3 so we can see what we have got right, we can see who the winners and losers are and, in particular, we can assess whether or not we need to make some adjustments. We should never be afraid of having further independent reviews, because out there in voter land, out there in families, change is a constant. It is always changing. This is about people, it is about children, and we will always need to adjust. In conclusion, let me make this point. I have been privileged to serve on the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, chaired by Kay Hull, the member for Riverina, with the member for Throsby and the member for Fowler. I was also privileged to be added onto the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when they looked at the family law changes. There is one element that still stands out, begging for us to have a look at it—and that is in no way to diminish what has gone before. It is the amount of money parents still pay on the legal profession. I thought it was—I will not say disgraceful—unhelpful in the extreme when the Attorney-General floated the idea that having a tribunal would cost some $600 million, probably three or four times the current cost of the Family Court. That was absurd. But we can never be satisfied until we see dollars going to children or dollars going to parents re-establishing their lives, rather than dollars going to the legal profession. As I stand here today, after more than a decade of interest in this, I cannot tell the House or honourable members the quantum that Australian parents have paid, are paying or are likely to pay the legal profession in family law. It is an outrage. There have got to be better ways of doing it. I certainly hope the relationship centres work. I hope they exceed our expectations. But they have not eliminated, in my view, the burden of the huge harvest the legal profession takes from disputing parents. We need to look at a no-frills approach. I have always argued that. Hopefully that will be the subject for legislation on another day. The Labor Party unambiguously supports this legislation and will be voting for it. We have expressed some concerns in the second reading amendment, and I think it was proper that we did so. I hope we will all be able to look back and say that, since the implementation of this legislation, the children of separating families are much better off, as are their parents. (Time expired) 34 11:37:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —In speaking to the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006, I would firstly like to acknowledge all the hard work of honourable members who have worked in a very bipartisan way to achieve the best outcomes for the people involved in families affected by separation and divorce. Many families do not desire these situations; it is not a choice that they would automatically make. Many people join together in marriage because they are committed and desire to have a healthy family life and a future. But, because of circumstances often beyond their control, and at times due to challenges that individuals within that family face, the decision to separate and divorce comes about, resulting in the children being impacted in many ways. This bill is important in providing change and implementing structures that will make it much easier for families. It reflects the government’s strong commitment to continued overhauling of the child support scheme. This legislation will provide the means for these reforms to move forward. This work has come about largely, as I have mentioned already, due to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs and their report on child custody arrangements, Every picture tells a story. When that report was first released I was working as a private practitioner, working with many families who were experiencing divorce and separation. At that time, I was writing reports for the Family Law Court, often appearing on behalf of families and endeavouring to communicate the best interests of the children. In reading Every picture tells a story, the thing that stood out to me was that, wherever possible, we need to encourage families and couples to work out the decisions about residency, access and division of property between themselves as much as possible. I saw many families who had spent tens of thousands of dollars in the Family Law Court endeavouring to come to a decision. In the process, often grandparents had to remortgage their homes. The committee recommended that a ministerial task force be established to examine the Child Support Scheme. This task force was chaired by Professor Patrick Parkinson. The task force concluded that these reforms were required. Stage 1 of the reforms has already taken place this year. The bill will provide the legislative basis for stages 2 and 3 of the ongoing reforms. Each stage of the reform process will enable the Child Support Scheme to better work in the best interests of children and better balance the interests of parents, while also reflecting community values. The main purpose of the reforms is in line with the government’s new family law system, which aims to encourage shared parenting and to reduce conflict. This bill better recognises the importance of both parents remaining actively involved in their children’s lives after separation. I have spoken with many children over the years and have found that, while there may be conflict between their parents, they require and desire to have a relationship with both parents. I need to acknowledge at this point, though, that there are exceptions. Of course, changes to the Family Law Act have acknowledged that—that is, that, where there is actual violence and abuse, the children are protected. The other main aspects of the reforms include: a new child support formula; external review of the Child Support Agency; better arrangements for parents who want to make their own agreements about child support; improved interaction between child support and family benefits; recognition of the extra costs of setting up new homes after separation by allowing income from overtime and second jobs for this purpose to be excluded for three years; and recognition of step-children where no-one else can financially support them. As the Child Support Agency now has 1.3 million parents who are registered and nearly 1.1 million children who benefit from receiving child support payments, there is no doubt about how important these reforms will be to both parents and children now and in the future. The aims of these changes are to provide and deliver a system that acts in the best interests of both children and parents. Above all, these reforms are about ensuring that Australian families are supported throughout the process. From 1 January 2007, the role of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will be expanded to include independent administrative review of Child Support Agency decisions. This independent review is critical. This will ensure a review mechanism that is inexpensive, much fairer, more informal and speedier. It will also improve the consistency and transparency of child support decisions—something that parents have been crying out for. This process will broadly mirror the process currently available for Centrelink decisions about the family tax benefit and other payments, which a large proportion of child support parents would already be familiar with. Families who are already facing new situations that are filled with uncertainty and challenge must have a system that is reliable and which will be able to support them through the process of appeal. Another fundamental element of these reforms is the new formula for calculating child support, which is based on new Australian research on the costs of children. This is the first time we have used expert Australian research on the costs of raising a child. This new formula will take into account both parents’ incomes, how costs change with income increases and how costs are borne when the child spends time with both parents. The income of each parent will be treated in the same way, with the same self-support amount applied to each and will take into account that children cost more when they are teenagers and less when they are younger. Furthermore, first and second families will be treated more fairly, as the allowance made for them will be worked out in the same way as the costs of the children for whom child support is paid. All care that is between 14 and 34 per cent will receive the same credit of 24 per cent of all the costs. This was recommended by the task force, based on their extensive research on what parents with this level of care need to spend. This will cover most of the regular contact arrangements and will remove the financial incentive for parents to argue about small changes in care, thus removing another point which may create conflict between parents. This bill also introduces the new arrangements for parents who wish to make their own arrangements about child support. It is critical that this system, with these changes, provides for greater flexibility for parents to talk and work things out with one another. Critically, this will remove the need for high costs for parents, for children and also for the taxpayer. There will be two types of agreement: binding financial agreements and limited child support agreements. Binding agreements will provide a greater level of certainty for parents. They will also require parents to obtain some legal advice. This is primarily because these arrangements can provide less than the formula would have provided. Limited agreements, however, will not require legal advice and will ensure that children have adequate financial provision. This type of agreement will also be easier to end, should the parents’ circumstances change. Other changes that will further ensure that adequate financial provision for children is guaranteed include the following. Where parents have more than 65 per cent of care of a child, they will keep all of the family tax benefit for that child. The costs that the other parent bears during contact will be recognised through the Child Support Scheme. This will make the system much simpler and there will be less financial reason to argue over care arrangements—again, eliminating or reducing conflict. Also, for non-resident parents who are paying the minimum amount of child support, which is around $6.15, and who have more than one family with children, this amount will be payable to each of those families, rather than in the previous situation, which was to divide that amount between the families. Parents who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support and who claim to have very low incomes but who actually have higher real incomes or resources will have to pay $20 per child per week unless they can prove that their incomes are in fact very low. In addition, parents will be able to have income from second jobs and overtime excluded from their child support calculation when they can prove that the extra money they are earning is used to help with re-establishment costs. This will be very beneficial to people who are setting up new families and want to ensure that, with the additional pressures, the second family, the second relationship, is successful. With more than 20 years of experience of working with families who have experienced separation and divorce, I know that these changes will make the Child Support Scheme more flexible, more transparent and a lot fairer. I indeed welcome the focus on children. I also welcome parents being supported and assisted not only during the separation period but in the longer term. The encouragement for parents to work on the arrangements and make decisions about their children with regard to this and other arrangements across the family law system is indeed a welcome change. I commend the bill to the House. 37 11:50:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —The Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006 implements the next stage of the government’s child support reforms. It does four main things: it introduces a much needed independent review of all Child Support Agency decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal; it broadens the powers of the courts to ensure that child support obligations are met and it strengthens the relationship between the court and the Child Support Scheme; it allows separating parents more time to work out parenting arrangements before their family tax benefit is affected; and it introduces a new child support formula by which child support payments are calculated, with this measure to commence on 1 July 2008. These, combined with the previous changes to family law, represent the government’s response to the Parkinson review, In the best interests of children: reforming the child support scheme, and pick up on some of the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs entitled Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. When speaking on the previous family law changes, I started by setting out the principles that are central for me in this debate. I want to reiterate those in my contribution today. Central to this debate, for me, is that it is the responsibility of both parents, whether they are living together or apart, to provide a loving, nurturing environment for their children to grow up in—one where they are safe, they are encouraged and they learn to develop into strong adults, free from fear and knowing that they are accepted and loved. Part of that responsibility requires that both parents take financial responsibility for the needs of their children. We must acknowledge that the impact on children of the separation of their parents should be minimised. The psychological and emotional stress that separations can cause is often compounded by the current child support regime. Any change to this that will reduce the negative impact on children deserves the support of both sides of the House. Many of us who have worked in the welfare sector, and in our work as MPs, and see the cases that come through our offices know what a fraught and divisive issue child support payments can be. That children are caught in the middle of such wrangling is something that we must do everything in our power to avoid. These are some of the most difficult cases to work through, and there is often a great deal of emotion and anger involved in them. Not only do immediate and extended families have to cope with the emotional turmoil of a separation and the inevitable fallout of anger and emotion but, at the same time, they are expected to deal with and navigate an extremely complex child support system. Too often, issues about joint parental responsibilities get caught up in disputes about child support contributions. The feelings of fear that parents can experience when they engage in the current child support regime that they will be denied access to their children is all too real for many parents. The occurrence of domestic violence in this country, linked to separation and financial issues, is well documented. It is important that women and children, who are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, are supported not only through counselling and housing but also through navigating what is an extremely complex and potentially overwhelming child support system. These women and children are some of the most vulnerable members of our community, and any legislation that will enable a reduction in their stress is most welcome. This legislation, in essence, attempts to provide a more realistic framework for avoiding such disputes. For the first time, there has been a very serious attempt made to estimate just how much it costs to raise children of different ages, and the child support formula in this legislation is designed to reflect that. I will mention some of the positive aspects of the formula before I go on to what I see as—and which have been highlighted by previous speakers—the major areas of concern. The new child support formula is based on recent Australian research on the costs of caring for children. It takes into account both parents’ incomes after equal self-support amounts are deducted, recognising care of the child for more than 14 per cent of the time and treating first and second families more equally. The role of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is being expanded to include independent review of child support decisions, providing a review mechanism that is inexpensive, fair, informal and far quicker. The family tax benefit part A maintenance income test is being changed so that payments are reduced only for those children in the family for whom child support is paid. Income definitions for certain tax-free amounts, with foreign income and fringe benefits used to calculate child support, on the one hand, and family tax benefit and childcare benefits, on the other, are also being better aligned. Residential parents will get to keep all of their family tax benefit where a non-residential parent has care of their child for less than 35 per cent of nights in a year—that is, less than five nights a fortnight. Non-residential parents who have care of their child for at least 14 per cent of the time—that is, one night a week—will continue to be eligible for the rent assistance component of FTPA and will continue to be eligible for the healthcare card. Parents who have financial responsibility for a stepchild in a second family will now be able to apply to have the stepchild considered when calculating the child support for the parent’s first family if no-one else can financially support the stepchild. I also want to focus on some of the more concerning aspects of this legislation. One of those is that we just do not know what the impact of the changed child support formula is likely to be on low-income sole parents. It is difficult to fully and unreservedly support these changes, given that low-income sole parents are already faced with so many structural barriers. Without comprehensive modelling that takes into account the impact of the government’s Welfare to Work changes and Work Choices and other social policies on low-income and sole parents, we cannot categorically rule out that this will not have a significant negative impact on these families. Modelling undertaken for the Parkinson review showed that low-income families were most likely to experience reductions in child support payments under the new formula. In evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Professor Parkinson and the Australian Institute of Family Studies agreed that this was likely to be the case. However, they argued that for families on very low incomes, the cost of children is largely met through the family payment system, not necessarily through child support. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs’ own department has also been unable to produce any modelling or analysis that supports this claim. It is ironic that at the same time as the government is engaged in rhetoric about reforming the welfare system it is now suggesting that low-income single parents should currently raise their children almost purely on welfare. This certainly is not a policy position that is supported in the wider community, nor is it one that the majority of single parent low-income families will be comfortable with. Further to this, the department has not proposed any measures to protect low-income families who may incur reductions as a result of changes in the bill. So the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are once again pushed to the side by the Howard government, and we are left with a bill that is half-hearted in its approach to reforming the child support system. Single parent households are already the most financially disadvantaged group in our community. They can experience high levels of poverty, homelessness and often social dislocation. I am extremely concerned about the impact of these changes on this group of parents and concerned that the government and the department are not able to tell us with any confidence just what that impact is likely to be. It is absolutely the responsibility of the government to ensure that children in households adversely affected by the changes to the child support formula are actually looked after. This bill does not contain any provision for children in those households that are likely—not possibly, but likely—to be adversely affected by these changes. I am concerned that there appears to have been little thought given by the government to this. I understand that there is to be a ministerial statement shortly, and I will conclude at this point. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 39 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 39 Skills for the Future 39 12:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —by leave—The purpose of this statement is to announce new investments by the Commonwealth towards a more skilled and dynamic workforce. Australia’s labour market is the strongest in generations. Unemployment is at a 30-year low. Workforce participation is at an all-time high. More than 10 million Australians are in jobs, working to build a better life for themselves and their families. Further evidence was revealed just half an hour ago showing that another 30,000 jobs were created in the month of September, which means that more than 205,000 new jobs have been created in Australia since the introduction of the Work Choices legislation. This economic strength is the dividend of policies geared to preserving Australia’s prosperity. As the OECD has pointed out, far from relying on luck, Australia has ‘made its own luck’ in recent years by virtue of structural reforms and macroeconomic policies that have bolstered our economy’s resilience. In this parliament alone, the coalition has set about further increasing workforce participation and productivity through reforms to workplace relations, reforms to welfare arrangements, superannuation reform and, after tax cuts in 2004, more tax cuts in 2005 and 2006. All the while we have continued to run strong budget surpluses. We know that tomorrow’s prosperity is not assured. We know it must be earned through further reform of our economy and we know it rests crucially on harnessing the skills and talents of the Australian people. This financial year the government is investing more than $2.5 billion in vocational and technical education, a real increase of 85 per cent on a decade ago. More than 403,000 Australian apprentices are in training this year, up from 154,800 in 1996. With our investment in 25 Australian technical colleges the government has said quite emphatically that the days when a trade or vocational qualification was deemed ‘second class’ in our society are over. Young Australians have more opportunities than ever before to do what they want to do and be what they want to be. To compete and prosper in the decades to come, Australia will require a more skilled workforce whose members are adaptable throughout their careers to changing product and skills demands. Today I announce Skills for the Future: new investments totalling $837 million over five years to help build a more highly skilled and responsive workforce to support Australia’s long-term economic growth. The primary focus of this package is on raising the skills of Australia’s adult workforce. Skills for the Future also carries a clear message about the importance of upgrading skills over the course of an individual’s working life. It responds to demands from employers for a higher level of skills, a broader range of skills and more frequent updating of skills. It helps more Australians wanting to take up a trade apprenticeship in mid-career, as well as assisting apprentices to acquire the necessary skills to run their own businesses. And it makes a substantial new investment in Australia’s future engineering skills. Earlier this year, I joined state and territory leaders in launching a new national reform agenda which includes a focus on human capital. An agreed priority was to ‘increase the proportion of adults who have the skills and qualifications needed to enjoy active and productive working lives’. Today’s investment is by far the largest contribution so far to this agenda. I therefore call on state and territory leaders to make concrete their commitment to a more skilled Australian workforce. An educated and skilled labour force is increasingly in tight supply the world over. With Australia enjoying the longest economic expansion in her history it is not surprising that demand for skilled workers is very high especially in parts of the economy benefiting from strong commodity prices. In conjunction with today’s announcements, I release an analysis by the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that puts some of the more breathless commentary about a skills ‘crisis’ into proper perspective. The paper makes the essential point that some level of skills shortages is part of the normal functioning of a healthy and dynamic labour market. As pressures emerge, people re-skill and respond to wage signals in order to adapt to changes in labour demand. The economy is adjusting well to the demands of the commodity boom, with a large increase in labour supply and contained wage growth. The government’s policy framework has allowed the economy to run at a high level of capacity utilisation without igniting high inflation. The contrast with previous episodes of commodity boom-related labour market tightness is very stark. For example, in the mid-1970s demand pressures in some sectors led to a surge in wages and inflation across the whole economy. Greater diversity in wage growth across the economy is a key difference between now and then. Higher relative wages in sectors experiencing skills shortages act as an increased incentive for individuals to develop highly demanded skills. If all wages were to go up by similar amounts—as in the days of centralised wage fixing—this incentive would disappear. This illustrates just one way in which the government’s reforms to workplace relations are helping to preserve our prosperity and it demonstrates further why the Leader of Opposition’s policies—which would bring back the worst excesses of industry-wide, union-dominated, pattern bargaining—are bad for Australia’s future economic growth. Not only would Labor’s approach inflict great damage on our mining and resources industries, it would also be a hammer blow to Australian farmers and firms in the manufacturing and services sectors, which are not experiencing boom conditions. A time of high prices for minerals and resources is precisely the worst time to be contemplating a lurch back to failed policies of the past. A dynamic, flexible labour market is one of Australia’s greatest economic assets. Jeopardise that and you jeopardise the very foundations of future prosperity. While it is clear that claims about a skills crisis are exaggerated, Australia does face real skills challenges arising from an ageing population, rapid technological change and an increasingly competitive global economy. The retirement of the baby boomers will continue to put downward pressure on the number of participants in our labour market. Demand for a more skilled workforce is being driven by globalisation and technological change. These twin forces pose a particular challenge to many lower skilled Australians. Building a more skilled Australia requires a flexible partnership across the community involving all levels of government, business, education and training providers and individuals. Information is necessarily dispersed. And a range of variables can change the mix of jobs in an economy over time. Skilling Australia must be a shared responsibility. State and territory governments have particular responsibilities in the area of vocational and technical education. As the owners and operators of TAFE, they must ensure that Australia’s public sector training providers become more flexible and responsive to the needs of employers and individuals. State Labor governments must stop jacking up TAFE fees. Business too has to bear its share of the responsibility for improving the skills of Australia’s workforce. The oft-heard claim that people are the greatest asset of a company should be more than an employer slogan. Training and skills development must be a part of core business. The government also recognises the importance of both individual choice and individual responsibility when it comes to skilling decisions. Increasingly, workers want to be able to respond to change and access training opportunities throughout their working lives. An education and training system predicated on a world where someone was educated until young adulthood and then entered a job lasting roughly 40 years has become basically obsolete in the 21st century. Recognising the need for our education and training institutions to become more flexible and responsive to individual needs, today’s announcement includes a large investment in individuals. Work skills vouchers One of the biggest skills challenges we face as a nation is to improve the basic skills of our workforce. Almost a third of Australians aged between 25 and 64 are without year 12 or equivalent qualifications. Many adults fall short of functional levels of literacy and numeracy which are now essential for just about all jobs, and certainly all jobs that involve the operation of computers and digital technology. This problem largely reflects lower education participation by young Australians two and three decades ago and previous migration programs which placed much less emphasis on skills. Because many Australians left school or arrived in this country without the levels of English literacy and numeracy necessary to gain qualifications, they miss out on the opportunity to move into more skilled jobs. This leaves them vulnerable to economic change and Australia misses out on their full potential. Today’s announcement gives many Australians an opportunity for a new start at obtaining skills. In some cases, a second chance. Improvements in basic skills will assist people already in employment to move into higher positions and help those who are looking for work to find jobs. From 1 January 2007, the government will invest $408 million over five years to support people aged 25 years and over who do not have year 12 or equivalent qualifications. Each year, up to 30,000 vouchers valued at up to $3,000 will be made available to individuals in this group. In priority order, vouchers will be allocated to: Unskilled workers wishing to acquire qualifications; Income support recipients, such as parents and carers returning to the workforce, who will face active job search requirements in the next two years; Unemployed job seekers in receipt of income support and participating in the Job Network who are undertaking active job search; and People not in the labour force, either voluntarily or because of carer responsibilities, who intend to seek work after achieving their qualification. Courses for which the vouchers can be used in TAFEs and private or community colleges will be all accredited literacy/numeracy and basic education courses and all vocational certificate II courses. These work skills vouchers represent a major investment in closing the gap between the skills-rich and the skills-poor in our community. A symbol of the government’s commitment to individual advancement and economic opportunity, they are as much a symbol of our commitment to social cohesion and national unity. As well as offering Australians new opportunities, these vouchers will deliver more resources into Australia’s education and training institutions, while presenting them with new challenges. A particular challenge is to cater to the needs of people without fond memories of school. To make the idea of accredited training more attractive to individuals with high needs, education and training providers will need to find ways to make adult learning more individualised and rewarding. The government’s policy objectives are very clear. We want the users of our education and training system to be the drivers of the system. And we want greater competition in the training market. Business too has a responsibility to develop strategies to accommodate workers looking to take up these vouchers. Small businesses in particular may face challenges in restructuring work arrangements and employer groups will need to provide their members with advice and examples of best practice. More support for apprentices This government continues to make a major investment in Australia’s apprenticeship system—a system which languished under a Labor government obsessed with the singular virtues of a university education. The government believes more Australians should be given the opportunity to upgrade their skills through a traditional trade apprenticeship, especially workers in mid-career. For many people, making the switch to a trade carries a real financial penalty. It can be especially hard for men and women in the workforce with family responsibilities. The government will therefore invest an additional $307 million over five years in new financial incentives to support mid-career workers undertaking a traditional trade apprenticeship. From 1 July 2007, these incentives will be available each year for up to 10,000 people aged 30 and over who are starting an apprenticeship at the certificate III or certificate IV level in an occupation in high demand. Those 30 and over already undertaking an apprenticeship in these occupations in July 2007 will also be eligible. The amount payable by the government will be $150 a week (or $7,800 a year) in the first year and $100 a week (or $5,200 a year) in the second year. As an apprentice becomes more skilled in the second year their award wage will rise. Therefore, the wage subsidy can be reduced. This initiative will more than double the number of people undertaking apprenticeships midway through their career. The incentive will take one of two forms—either paid to an employer or paid direct to the apprentice. Currently, under some industrial arrangements, if an existing worker becomes an apprentice their employer is required to maintain their existing wage. In other circumstances, employers may have to pay an adult apprenticeship rate where the worker is 21 or more. Such arrangements create a disincentive for employers to allow their workers to take up an apprenticeship or to engage older apprentices. And in these cases, the new mid-career incentive will be paid to employers to subsidise wage costs. In other cases, when a worker becomes an apprentice their income can drop to the junior apprenticeship rate. In this situation, the new incentive will be paid directly to the apprentice to boost his or her income. With the emergence of a more self-reliant and entrepreneurial culture over the last decade, more Australians are keen to start their own business off the back of a traditional trade apprenticeship. For example, more than 50 per cent of all construction tradespeople are self-employed. Employers are also seeking a broader skills base among qualified tradespeople. To assist Australia’s new breed of worker-entrepreneur, I announce today a new Business Skills Voucher for Apprentices to be available from 1 January 2007. About 6,300 apprentices each year will receive vouchers of up to $500 to contribute towards the costs of accredited business skills training, at a total cost of $12.3 million over five years. Apprentices who are undertaking an apprenticeship in a traditional trade will be eligible to apply for the voucher any time from the end of their second year until two years after completion. The vouchers can be used in TAFEs and private or community colleges and will be separate to any business skills training provided as part of an apprenticeship. This is an important new investment in the enterprise workers of tomorrow. Engineering places and higher technical skills A strong skills base in science, engineering and technology is crucial to the foundations of national competitiveness. Qualified scientists and engineers are essential to research and development, innovation and productivity growth. The increased globalisation of science and technology (not least with the rise of China and India as economic and technology powers) presents both challenges and opportunities for Australia. This has been a particular theme of my discussions with scientists and academics under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in the last 12 months. In July, the government released the first ever audit of science, engineering and technology skills in Australia. It found that our skills base in this area is substantial relative to overall employment, with about 13.5 per cent of employed Australians holding relevant qualifications. While this compares reasonably well with many OECD countries, there is no room for any complacency. Increasingly, Australia faces a global market for talent. We need to work hard to train and retain our science, engineering and technology workers. The skills audit found that Australia potentially faces a declining number of engineers available to meet industry needs due to demographic trends. Engineers Australia has also highlighted that a large proportion of current engineers who graduated in the 1960s and 1970s will retire over the next 10 years. Against this backdrop, the government believes there is a strong need to increase Australia’s investment in engineering skills. Today I announce that the government will invest $56 million over four years to fund an extra 500 Commonwealth-supported engineering places at university from 2008. These places are in addition to the 510 new engineering places commencing from 2007 which were announced by the Minister for Education, Science and Training on 24 July this year. The minister will work with universities on how the places will be allocated between universities. Universities will be free to utilise the places in particular areas of engineering which are in demand. This is consistent with a broad approach to skills development given the degree to which Australians with professional, associate professional and trade-level engineering qualifications are widely employed across the economy. More generally, Australia needs to increase the opportunities for people to obtain higher level skills through vocational and technical education. Today I announce additional employer incentives worth $54.4 million over five years so that more Australians will be supported in their workplaces to undertake diploma and advanced diploma level qualifications. The Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Program will be extended from January 2007 in three ways to support training at the diploma and advanced diploma level. First, we will remove the rule which prevents workers with prior qualifications at a certificate III and IV level from receiving benefits. Second, we will open the program to an employer’s existing workforce, not just new employees. And third, in consultation with industry, we will increase the range of eligible higher level qualifications in engineering, complementing the provision of more engineering places at university. Up to 24,800 people will benefit from the new incentives over the next five years. Employers will receive incentive payments of $1,500 for each employee commencing a diploma or advanced diploma program and $2,500 when they complete. Employer incentives could be paid for employment based training or, where this is not available, for institution based training. The Australian government has now committed more than $2.5 billion to employer incentives for vocational and technical education over the next four years. Equally, we expect industry to live up to its responsibility to invest in the technical skills our economy will need in the future. Conclusion I do not in any way underestimate the challenges many businesses have in obtaining suitable staff today. We live in a workers’ market in Australia to a degree unmatched in my 32 years in politics. One has to go back to before the doubling of unemployment in the Whitlam years to find anything comparable. With Australia having largely dismantled the protective wall that once surrounded it, what emerges is a picture of unparalleled economic strength. Now the challenge is to build on that strength by maintaining our economic flexibility while investing in a more skilled and motivated workforce. Today’s announcement demonstrates this government’s commitment to a national reform agenda that will further increase workforce participation and productivity. I thank my colleagues the Minister for Education, Science and Training and the Minister for Technical and Vocational Education for their contributions to the preparation of these policies. As a matter of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, can I inform him that I will not be able to hear his reply, as I normally do in these matters, because of a luncheon engagement with the visiting Prime Minister of East Timor. In that vein I commend this statement to the House. I present the following document: Skills for the Future—Ministerial Statement, 12 October 2006. Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 12:28:00 —I move: That the House take note of the document. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the debate. Leave granted. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Beazley (Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 28 minutes. Question agreed to. 46 12:28:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the House for that extended opportunity. This is a response to a skills crisis of the Prime Minister’s own creation—that is all there is to it—and it is a product not of any sincere convictions on his part but of his political fears, a product of the political fears he has that the consequences of the skills crisis he has induced may well bring about the undoing of his government. This is a document, a statement and a program about the Prime Minister’s future and the future of his government; it is not a program or plan for the future of this nation, the future of the people of this nation and, in particular, the future of the young people in this nation who crave opportunities for education and opportunities for skilling. And this Prime Minister, I have to say, is still in denial on this skills crisis. Only this Prime Minister would have the effrontery to say that there is no skills crisis and then announce an $800 million program to deal with one. Only this Prime Minister would have the brazen effrontery to make that sort of claim. But it is entirely a product of his doing. It is entirely a product of his neglect and, I suspect, of his hostility over the years to those particularly in the traditional trades, which often tend to coincide with the heavily unionised. Certainly the skills and qualifications they have are influenced by the heavily unionised. The result of that is the appalling situation now confronting industry and the workforce of Australia. This government has had for over 10 years no real plans for their future and, in having no real plans for their future, has had no real plans for the future of this nation. If you want evidence of this, Mr Speaker, and I think the Australian people are entitled to it, I go simply to one statistic. Remember, you have just heard the Prime Minister talk about apprenticeships, talk about post-school education and talk about engineers and the people we need. Here is the OECD’s statistic for this government on this area of public investment by our nation, indicating the priority this government has given this essential element of public investment for our future. The OECD’s Education at a glance report showed, just a few weeks ago, Australia is the only advanced economy in the world that has reduced its public sector investment in education since 1995. It is the only one in the world. On average, other nations have increased their investment by 48 per cent; Australia’s has been cut by seven per cent. For 10 long years the Howard government has got its priorities wrong and failed to prepare us for the future. The Prime Minister has boasted over the last few years about rises in real wages. He has boasted about it, but he has absolutely hated it. His industrial relations changes, which he sought to defend here again today, have got nothing to do with rising wages, nothing to do with encouraging skills and everything to do with competing in the world that we confront now, not on the basis of the skills and brains of the Australian community but on the basis of lowering the wages of the Australian community. His attitude to the higher education system and the TAFE system in this nation—and you can describe his attitude to them in the last 10 years as nothing less than an attack—is of a piece with his attitude to industrial relations. It is about creating the set of circumstances where Australia’s international competitiveness is determined not by the brains and skills of our people but by the lowness of our wages. That is simply a fact, and you can go through all the statistics which demonstrate it. Today, for example, we have a proposition to give a benefit to some 30,000 mature age trainees. There is a resonance in that figure of 30,000, because over the last 10 years 300,000 Australians have been turned away from TAFE—some of them, of course, mature age individuals who wanted the chance to advance themselves and some of them, of course, youngsters coming out of school. All of them were people who wanted to make a significant contribution with their skills to this nation, and now, 10 years on, of that 300,000, 30,000 are going to receive a mea culpa from this government—an apology. Thirty thousand will receive this government’s apology, but the fact that 300,000 can be turned away and only 30,000 picked up is a pretty fair indication that this, in keeping with the Prime Minister’s denial of a skills shortage, falls short as a plan for our future. I will go into a real plan for this nation’s future; a plan that respects the desire and the absolute enthusiasm that there is amongst young Australians for the skills that they need to build themselves and their country a very useful future. I will detail those plans—the real plans—for the future of this nation, and claim a bit of credit, I might say, for forcing the Prime Minister kicking and screaming to this table now. But before I do this, I want to go through one other sorry piece of evidence about how we find ourselves in this position now, with a substantial, effective deskilling of our workforce and the chronic shortages that we now confront in business in accessing skilled workers, that even the Prime Minister has had to fess up to. Since 1997, the Reserve Bank of Australia has repeatedly said to this government that one of the capacity constraints in the economy that will ultimately affect the prosperity of our people, the growth in the economy and ultimately factors such as the interest rate regime has been a chronic shortage of skills. First there was the November 1997 Statement on monetary policy: This judgment is consistent with persistent reports of skill shortages and pressure on wages in the construction sector. The November 1999 Statement on monetary policy cited: ... evidence that the strength of the labour market may be generating skills shortages in some areas. And continued: Skilled vacancies, according to the survey conducted by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, are at historically high levels. The 5 April statement by the governor said: In some areas skill shortages have emerged. Pressure for higher wage rises appears to be building, even though wages growth to date has been restrained. The November 2004 Statement on monetary policy said: ... business surveys suggest that a broad range of firms are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable labour ... Both the NAB and ACCI-Westpac surveys suggest that the difficulty in obtaining suitable labour has moved into the upper end of the range recorded over the past two decades. …     …         … While economy-wide measures of wages growth have remained relatively stable, localised pressures are certainly evident in some official wage measures as well as through liaison, which points to substantial increases in wages for skilled employees in the construction and resource sectors, and in some areas of business services ... These developments are consistent with survey data showing that firms are finding it increasingly difficult to attract suitably skilled labour, pointing to the possibility of stronger wage pressures emerging in the period ahead. The February 2005 Statement on monetary policy—this is the most massive indictment of government neglect that you could conceivably imagine from the men and women who are responsible for determining monetary policy in this country—said: The strength in the labour market is also apparent in liaison reports, which indicate strong demand for labour and shortages of skilled workers in a range of industries and sectors, from construction and engineering to accounting and information technology. …         …         … Higher labour costs, due to skill shortages, and higher material costs, particularly for steel products, contributed to this price movement. And so on. In the March 2005 speech by the RBA Assistant Governor, Malcolm Edey, he stated: The severity of the current skills shortage is captured by some of the business surveys which report the difficulty of finding suitable labour now is as high as it’s been in the last two decades ... The May 2005 Statement on monetary policy said: Liaison indicates that labour shortages are most pronounced among skilled workers in the non-residential construction and resources sectors, and in parts of the business services sector. However, labour shortages are becoming increasingly broadbased across industries and skill levels. Consistent with this, business surveys indicate that difficulty finding suitable labour has become a key factor constraining output. The August 2005 Statement on monetary policy said: Liaison reports suggest that skill shortages in specialised occupations are still acute. Shortages are becoming more widespread across industries and occupations, but remain most pronounced among skilled workers in the non-residential construction and resources sectors, and in parts of the business services sector. The May 2006 Statement on monetary policy said: More recently, business surveys and the Bank’s liaison with businesses point to continued tight labour market conditions and shortages of skilled labour. The NAB survey suggests that labour scarcity remains a greater constraint on activity than the more traditional concerns about lack of demand (Graph 64). Firms across a wide range of private-sector industries are using non-wage forms of remuneration that are not fully captured in the standard wage measures, such as bonus payments and more flexible working arrangements, to attract and retain employees. The August 2006 Statement on monetary policy—this is the latest statement from them on monetary policy, and they had a great deal to say—said: Over the year to the June quarter, employment growth was strongest in the mining and electricity, gas & water industries, with the household services ... …     …         … Survey-based indicators and vacancy data mostly suggest that demand for labour is still strong and that the labour market will remain tight. The ABS measure of job vacancies increased in the June quarter, to show a nationwide vacancy rate of 1.5 per cent, the highest level in over thirty years (Graph 26). Private-sector measures of vacancies also show robust annual growth in job vacancies. …         …         … Continued strength in labour demand has led to ongoing labour shortages. Business surveys report that firms are experiencing difficulty finding suitable labour, and employers note that this remains a key factor constraining their output. Feedback from the Bank’s liaison program indicates that labour shortages are broadbased across industries and skill levels. However, shortages are most pronounced for skilled workers in the non-residential construction and resources sectors, and in much of the business services sector. Don’t these people ever read the statements made by the people who determine the interest rate regime that applies in this country? Because I have a slightly longer period of time than is usually permitted to us, I have been able to go through the whole litany of Reserve Bank reports offering advice to the people opposite, including that exceptionally foolish and meretricious minister who has to handle these matters. Take all of the traditional skilled trades. I am talking about all the construction workers, tilers, carpenters, plumbers, brickies and sparkies; and all the workers in the manufacturing industry, the fitters and turners, metallurgists and all those folk. The one measure which gives you an indication of how this government has dealt seriously with the trades is to ask this question: how many of those trades have turned up showing no skills shortages over the last 10 years? The best performance in any of those trades areas I have mentioned and many more has been in a trade capable of staying off the shortage list for two years. That is about the best of it. Most have been on it for 10 years, and all of them have been on it for at least eight. It is extraordinary that we should find ourselves in this situation. The future of this nation is in this area. The traditional trades are critical to all sectors of the Australian economy, and this government has done nothing but persecute them and ignore the warnings, and hence we are now where we are. Let us make absolutely no mistake about this—this is not a plan for the future of this nation; this is a plan for the future of the Prime Minister. It is typical of his cynicism. It is typical of the sorts of things he does when he confronts a problem. It is the educational equivalent of regional rorts. You find yourself in a position where you are in serious trouble, you are 12 months out from an election, you are worried about your future—not the future of the people you have misgoverned—and what you do is fling enough money at it to give even your incompetent ministers the capacity to have the odd feather to fly with as they go out on the hustings. It does not give them much. Let me go through the initiatives that have been announced here today, because I do recognise many of them. There is support for apprentices to undertake business training to improve their entrepreneurial skills—an idea that Labor suggested when we launched our skills account policy in January this year. There is the extension of employer incentives for diploma and advanced diploma qualifications—I proposed this in my skills blueprint in September last year. There is a wage subsidy for mature age apprentices—this goes back a fair while; it is an idea taken from Working Nation. It is an admission that perhaps those programs should not have been trashed 10 years ago. If that had not been done, perhaps the skills crisis would not be so bad. I welcome the extra places for engineering, but it is not enough and it is far too late. Over the past 10 years there has been a decline in the number of Australian students commencing an undergraduate engineering degree. One thing they did not say today is that they are going to deal with the fact that engineering students are paying $16,000 more in HECS for their degree than they were in 1996. Our recently released higher education white paper presented an option to relieve the HECS burden on students, especially those in science and engineering. Action is needed on that front, too. We do not mind our policies being pinched. Our policies, our plans and our blueprints for the future are out there to be stolen. That is why they are out there. They are out there to influence government as to the direction they ought to take. I am proud of the fact that the hard work done by my colleagues along the front bench here—in particular my deputy, who has carriage of this area for us—and my colleagues on the back benches, in drawing to the attention of this government and our political opponents the skills issue of this nation, is in a small way starting to pay off. I am very glad that some of that is emerging in what we have here. But this is simply nowhere near enough to address the 10 years of neglect which I have been through, which have left us in the sorry position of hearing the Reserve Bank, in report after report, trying to alarm government into doing something serious. Let me suggest some serious policy for the government to pinch. Let me suggest a plan that will work for the future of this nation, because these are our plans for the future of this nation. The first thing I would do is this: we have got to get people back into training for traditional trades effectively. We will get rid of course fees in traditional trades and, for that matter, for childcare trainees, by establishing skills accounts for individuals. These accounts will be available for courses provided by either public or private sector providers, and they will be worth up to $3,200 over a four-year course. Pinch it; get out there and take that one. That will start to put a serious incentive into the system for people to start taking up traditional trades. Of course, they have to have somewhere to go that will get them interested in these areas. So instead of telling kids to leave school at year 10, which seems to be the strategy of the Prime Minister, provide kids in schools with alternatives to simply sticking around with the academic subjects. One thing we will do, on being elected to office, is this: we will ensure that all kids in this country have a right to choose in their school districts a specialised trades school. What is this government’s solution for those kids who find themselves with an academic education that does not suit them? By heavens, the other day we even heard the Minister for Education, Science and Training talking not about skills but about reintroducing Latin into the school system. Forget Latin—start encouraging people to become electricians; start encouraging people to become plumbers; start encouraging people to become carpenters. Latin scholars—that is what the minister for education wants. Fair dinkum, Mr Speaker! In addition, it is the case that young people do not necessarily know what opportunities and capacities they may have to engage in trade programs. Give them a ‘trade taster’ program even earlier in school, so that they have an opportunity to look at what it is like to be a carpenter, a plumber, a chef or an electrician. Give them that opportunity. I will also provide more opportunities to begin apprenticeship training at school. Our Trades in Schools scheme will double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skill shortages. If you can come out of your school with one or two years of your apprenticeship under your belt, there is that much more incentive to stay in place and complete your apprenticeship when you leave school. We will make sure that the schools have first-class facilities in those areas where we wish to establish effectively a training culture. Then there are the apprentices themselves. Here is a further plan for you to pinch—and, in a package worth $800 million, you could have pinched this one; I am disappointed that you did not do it: give a bonus to youngsters who complete their full apprenticeship in those traditional trades. I am talking about a couple of thousand dollars; a bit of financial incentive. Pinch it; you could have easily fitted it into an $800 million program, and it would produce a serious outcome. When I was Minister for Employment, Education and Training in this country, 80 per cent of those who started trade apprenticeships finished them. That figure is now lower than 60 per cent. That is hopeless. We want youngsters who are in apprenticeships to complete their apprenticeships. Of course, another reason why young people are often so loath to complete their apprenticeships is that they see other kids out there earning a great deal more. That goes to apprenticeship wages. It comes back full circle to the government’s industrial relations strategy. Is their strategy to increase the wages of young Australian apprentices so that they are encouraged to stay in their apprenticeships? No, that is not their strategy. Their strategy is to use the changes in the industrial relations laws to make it even harder for young apprentices, as we found when we went to a building site with electricians recently where the apprentices were taking cuts. The second thing is that that does create a problem, and they do know that. So what has their other solution been? Their other solution has been to bring in foreign apprentices. In order to make absolutely certain that the incentive is maintained very firmly by businesses, the education system and the Australian government, we will abolish that foreign apprenticeship trainee visa. We will make absolutely certain that our young people do get the incentive that comes with them being the exclusive recipients of the apprenticeship training that they need. That is a plan for the future of this nation. That is a plan that addresses the massive skills shortages that we now confront. That is a plan that makes absolutely certain that the future prosperity of this nation is sustained. The government’s plan is a cover for what they intend to do about industrial relations. They will not abandon their wage cutting agenda. You have no idea, Mr Speaker, how annoying it is to sit on this side of the House and watch the Prime Minister boasting about rising real wages when you know that, in his heart of hearts, he hates absolutely every word he is saying. He moves as desperately as he can to create two Australias—firstly, a wealthy, small group in a position of dominance, and a situation where his friends at the big end of town are well advantaged; and, secondly, the rest of the Australian community, struggling with job uncertainty, unable to access a decent education and training opportunity, confronting instability in the workplace and unable to be certain that they will get work hours that are family friendly for them. Ours will be a different Australia. Ours will be a productive Australia—an Australia that takes the participation issues seriously by addressing those things that keep people out of the workforce, like an absence of child care, and addressing those things that put people into the workforce without the skills they need, by giving them those opportunities to pick up trades. That is a real plan and a real blueprint for the future of this nation. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. 51 MISCELLANEOUS 51 51 Mr HUNT (Flinders —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) 12:56:00 —by leave—I move: That the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate: Skills for the Future—Ministerial Statement—Motion to take note of document: Resumption of debate. Question agreed to. 51 BILLS R2620 51 Debate resumed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney 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. 52 12:57:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —In resuming my comments on the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006 that we have before us, I want to reiterate my concern that, despite the good measures that are in this bill and the support for families in fairly difficult circumstances that it provides, we just do not know what impact this bill and the changes to the Child Support Scheme are going to have on low-income families. We have heard, obviously, from some of the modelling that was done at the time of the Parkinson report, that they will have an adverse effect on low-income families. But it does appear that the government has not taken that into consideration in the development of this child support formula, nor has it taken that into consideration in any compensation measures in this particular bill. I am concerned that there appears to have been little thought given by the government to that. Whilst I am concerned about the failure of the government to make any attempt to quantify the impact of the bill and make any provision to protect low-income families, I do note that work is under way to establish monitoring and evaluation systems once the new formula is introduced. An ongoing monitoring and evaluation is clearly critical to the successful implementation of the new scheme. I support moves by Labor to establish a Senate inquiry in 2007 to properly examine the impact of the bill on existing child support recipients and, in particular, whether any of these families will be worse off or are worse off as a result of these changes. When we are making changes of such a significant nature, we know that there is evidence out there in the modelling that was done for the Parkinson review and there is an expectation that low-income families will be affected by this legislation, I think it is absolutely critical that we go back and look at it in 12 months time to see what those effects have been and whether any further changes need to be made or any compensation measures put in place. Despite this, I am concerned about what is going to happen to those families who are going to be worse off with the changes to the child support formula over the past 12 months. I encourage the government to make sure that they actively look at this for low-income earners. It is a shame that the government did not take the time or the effort to fully model this bill before it was introduced into this place so that those negative impacts could be taken into account and minimised. The other component of this legislation is the strengthening of the compliance regime for the Child Support Scheme. Introducing an independent review mechanism and enhancing the Child Support Agency’s compliance capabilities is long overdue. For too long the Child Support Agency has been a bundle of red tape that, despite sending copious letters, did little to actually enforce the payment schedules it created. The fact that only half of all parents meet their child support obligations in full and on time is a problem that has needed to be addressed for a long time. It is the children of separated families who ultimately have paid the price of the existing toothless Child Support Scheme. And, as the summary report and recommendations are titled, we should all, regardless of which side of the House we sit on, be working in the best interests of children. The new arrangements will improve the consistency and transparency of child support decisions and will provide a review mechanism that is inexpensive, fair, informal and quick. As I have already said, the emotional and mental strains of separation are challenging enough without the additional expense, stress and fear that the current system thrusts upon ordinary Australians. The new arrangements will finally take into account that not all Australians have a law degree and are capable of arguing their case succinctly in an environment that is both intimidating and confusing. I am supporting this bill today, subject to the concerns I have raised about its impact on low-income, sole parent families. The government must commit to monitoring its impact and assisting low-income families that are adversely affected. The child support formula should more closely reflect the actual costs of raising children. The legislation should assist in providing a more transparent and realistic assessment of child support payments. In conclusion, I will go back to where I started: the core principle of this debate is that it is the responsibility of parents, whether living together or apart, to provide the best possible environment for their children to grow into healthy adults. The law cannot force parents to act responsibly but it can attempt to provide them with every opportunity to do so. 53 13:02:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 1 0 Mr SCHULTZ —I have listened very carefully to some of the debate about the Child Support Agency and, as an individual who has for the last three years undertaken considerable research into the issue of the Child Support Agency, I am absolutely disgusted that people come into this chamber with a sudden interest in it. I have raised specific issues over the years on this issue, and they have not expressed their concerns at all in the past. Let me get back to the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006. I rise because the bill is introducing some changes to the child support legislation as a result of recommendations which flowed on from a number of reports on the Child Support Agency and, more importantly, from the ministerial task force on child support chaired by Professor Patrick Parkinson. I happen to have a personal view based on the 6,000 submissions I have in my case files from all over Australia that (a) we have not gone far enough in reforming the legislation and the way in which it operates, and (b) we have not done anywhere near enough to make child support legislation fair and equitable across the board for parents, particularly those who have had a marriage break-up. The role of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal through this legislation is being expanded to include independent reviews of child support decisions, providing a review mechanism that is inexpensive, fair, informal and quick. This is a very positive move by the government in introducing this legislation, because there have been extreme anomalies in the system to the point where, in 99.9 per cent of cases, the payer—that is, the non-residential parent—has been subjected to costs because of the unfair system. The relationship between the courts and the new Child Support Scheme are going to be simplified. Parents will have better access to court enforcement of child support debts, and courts will have increased power to seek information and evidence in those cases and to make interim arrangements for their child support cases generally. I think most decent and sensible thinking people will applaud that particular change because it has been long overdue. In terms of the courts, this measure only goes part of the way. On the basis of the evidence I have at my disposal, the courts have taken absolutely no action at all against individuals who have gone into the Family Court on these issues, had orders placed against them and have not complied with those orders relating to the access of children. The courts have done absolutely nothing through the family law court to pursue those individuals breaking judicial instructions. This indicates to me that there is one set of rules for the male component of a marriage and another for the female component. In all cases, the people who have broken the court orders have been female custodial parents, and no action has been taken against them. I make that comment without any apology whatsoever because it is based on, as I said, the considerable evidence in the files I have at my disposal. Whilst many of these changes are going to make the system somewhat fairer than it is today, unfortunately they will not come into effect in many instances until 2008, although the second stage of the reforms which I just alluded to start on 1 January 2007. In July 2008, stage 3 of the reforms comes into effect. They are centred on a new child support formula being provided based on recent Australian research on the cost of caring for children that take into account the incomes of both parents after equal self-support amounts are deducted, recognise care of the child for more than 14 per cent of the time and treat first and second families more equally. That is a very good initiative. One of the weaknesses of the draconian monolith which is the Child Support Agency, which I have called a national disgrace, is that it has created massive problems for second families in particular. I am very pleased to see that the government has introduced that change to the Child Support Agency legislation through this bill. There are a number of anomalies that do not seem to resonate with members of this parliament or with the ministers who are responsible for this legislation. I am talking about the problems associated with an agreement between the parents of a child that is made outside of the Child Support Agency. An example of what I am talking about is the situation—and I have documented cases on this as well—where the Child Support Agency has threatened to remove single parent benefits from the person who has custody of the child if that custodial parent did not pursue child support payments, despite the fact that the custodial parent did not want to put any imposition on the father and in fact wanted to get on with her and the child’s life at arms length from the father. I think that is reprehensible. This issue concerns a set of double standards, and an example of this is a case centred on paternity issues. DNA samples may have been taken because of either a comment or a suspicion that a child or a number of children—and some cases have involved three out of four children—were not the children of the person who was the subject of child support payment orders. In regard to those paternity issues, I refer to the lack of will of the Child Support Agency to chase the real father, recompense the person who was accused of being the father and was not the father or return the money through the system to the parent that that person paid. In some instances, people have paid money for up to eight years—and at the moment there is a classic case of that in a court case in Victoria. I also note that, under stage 3 of the reforms, the family tax benefit part A maintenance income is going to be changed so that payments are reduced only for those children in the family for whom child support is paid. I think that is a reasonable move. There are also more flexible arrangements with better legal protection that are going to be made for parents who want to make agreements between themselves about the payment of child support and for how lump sum payments are treated—and, in relation to the example I just gave, I think that is a very good move in the right direction. But I will be monitoring that to see how effective it is, because we do one thing and practise another as far as the Child Support Agency itself is concerned. The income definitions for certain tax free amounts, foreign income and fringe benefits that are used to calculate child support on the one hand and family tax benefit and childcare benefit on the other will be aligned in another change. I think that is a reasonable move by the government and the appropriate minister in the right direction. Resident parents will keep all of their family tax benefit where a non-resident parent is carer of their child for less than 35 per cent of the nights in a year. Non-resident parents who have care of their child for at least 14 per cent of the time will continue to be eligible for the rent assistance component of family tax benefits part A and will continue to be eligible for a healthcare card. I think that is another good move in the right direction. It is probably going to assist in ensuring a better balance between the responsibilities of both parents for the care and upkeep of their child. The minimum child support payment of about $6.15 per week for non-resident parents who pay child support to two or more families will now have to be paid to each of those families rather than being divided between them. I think that is a very reasonable and sensible approach because it pulls into line those payers, in particular male payers, who make up about 92 per cent of the payers involved in the Child Support Agency, and requires them to meet some responsibility to children that they may have had in two or more families. Parents who deliberately minimise their income to avoid paying child support will generally have a $20 per child per week minimum payment. Some people would say that that is not enough, but it is certainly more than it is now. I commend the Minister for Families, Community Services and IndigenousAffairs and the government for introducing that. The thing that I and most decent thinking Australians want to see is those people who deliberately ignore and try to avoid their responsibilities to their children being made to pay for their children. Parents who are using income from second jobs and overtime to re-establish themselves during the first three years after separation may have that income excluded from child support calculations. My advice to the government on that is that the word ‘may’ should be removed and replaced with the word ‘should’, as an amendment to that particular proposal in this bill. The reality is that I have seen more and more people who are paying their child support going into abject poverty because, every time they try to get on with a second family or make a new life for themselves, their additional income is taken into account in the calculation of their child support payments—not even on the net value of the additional income but on its gross value. That in itself is a classic illustration of how this child support legislation, which was originally introduced in the 1980s, has allowed this monolithic bureaucratic empire to get out of control. It has been aided and abetted in that by the lack of interest of previous ministers of the Crown of both political persuasions. I would like to speak a little bit more about certain parts of this bill. One of the things that I need to speak to, which is part of the proposals in this bill under stage 3 of the reforms, is the section where it says that a parent who has financial responsibility for a stepchild in a second family will now be able to apply to have the stepchild treated as a dependant under the formula used to calculate child support for the parent’s first family. There is a good reason for that change: to date, a stepchild or the children of a second marriage have been treated vastly differently, in terms of their rights as children, from the children of the first marriage. I hope that we do monitor that, and very closely, because it is something that has created an enormous number of problems within the community. The next thing I want to talk about is, I know, an issue that many in the community have raised. I know the minister has had it raised with him. I have certainly raised it with him, I have certainly raised it with the government and I intend to talk about it here today because it gives me an opportunity to highlight how some legislation can create enormous problems for some sections of the community—and, in this case, no other section of the community is subjected to this particular draconian inconvenience. I am talking about what is commonly referred to as the capacity to earn process of the Child Support Agency which not even the Taxation Office is able to impose on Australians who are out there earning wages. Not even the Taxation Office can do it. I can give you an example of the impact of the capacity to earn process, for those who do not know what it is. A member of the public who is employed in a job that pays $70,000 a year, has a marriage break-up and is then subjected, quite rightly, to child support payments for the children of that marriage based on his wage. He then finds that, due to various circumstances and perhaps some pressure from the former partner or wife, he cannot cope mentally with the pressure. For example, the former partner of the individual became so vindictive, putting complaints to the person’s employer, that he had all of his career path opportunities removed from him; he was getting nowhere. He could not cope with the pressure. He resigned from his job and took up another job, which paid in the vicinity of $57,000 a year, from memory, which was significantly less than the wage that he got in his previous occupation. And what happened? I will tell you what happened. The Child Support Agency assessed his child support payments on the basis of his previous wage, as his capacity to earn. His child support payments are still being assessed according to that previous wage level, despite the fact that he earns only $57,000 a year. He has gone into a new relationship. He cannot keep up with the payments. He falls behind in the payments and the interest rate increases because there is a penalty imposed on him through the system. He then gets to a stage where, as in many such instances, the debt is between $30,000 and $70,000. He will never be able to pay it back. In some instances—and there are cases of this in my own constituency—that person may take his own life to get away from the system. The point I am making here is that capacity to earn is a supersensitive issue to the Child Support Agency and the system, but it creates enormous social, psychological and economic pressures for individuals and the community itself. More importantly, it can lead to heartbreak for the families of such an individual. But it does not stop there. If a person, for whatever reason—perhaps through pressure from the Child Support Agency—takes his life, and there is a debt, the Child Support Agency has the habit of then targeting the mother and father of that person because he may not have any money in his estate. That is the sort of nonsense going on in the Child Support Agency that is creating massive problems out there that we really do have to think very seriously about addressing in the not-too-distant future. In closing on that point, the capacity to earn issue—because of the way it is applied and the anguish that it is causing through the mental, social and economic pressures it places unfairly on individuals—is, I believe, because it is the only government agency in the country that practises it, unconstitutional. I am getting some constitutional lawyers to give me some advice on that. I put the minister on notice that at some stage I am going to challenge it in the parliament unless the government thinks very seriously about looking at it and changing it in the interests of fairness for the whole of the community in every area of taxation. Some of the recommendations of the Parkinson task force accepted by the government have already been adjusted and refined. I compliment the minister on that. I know it is a very difficult issue. I know I am a bit of a pain in the butt from time to time when I raise these issues with the minister and the government and talk about them publicly, but I happen to believe that it is time for changes and there are more to be made—(Time expired) 57 13:22:00 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Mr BROUGH —Thanks to the member for Hume for his comments. He amongst many members of this place over the last 10 years, some who have departed, has an enormous commitment to trying to ensure that separated families are dealt with in a fairer, more equitable way which works for them and their children in these three-way relationships—and sometimes four-way and even five-way relationships. They are difficult. They are challenging. They raise issues which it takes a lot of courage to take on. I know of the member for Hume’s personal commitment to this, and I also pay tribute to the former member for Richmond, Larry Anthony, who was also very passionate about this and put an enormous amount of time and effort into it as well. And so have many people from both sides of the House. The current Opposition Whip has been a strong advocate for change. If we look back to the late eighties, when the then Labor government introduced the current child support system, we see that it was done with the best intentions. There is no doubt about that. It was trying to ensure that more custodial parents, as they used to be referred to in those days, received reasonable support for the children that they were caring for once they had separated. And it certainly did help. But as time has moved on, as circumstances have changed, we recognise that the system has not worked in the way it ought to for children in particular and for separated parents. Unfortunately, it is a fact of Australian life that there are numerous—and a growing number, unfortunately—of separated parenting situations. They are part of normal Australian life. What we should be doing in government is attempting to assist people to be able to bring their families up in the best possible way they can, understanding that not in all circumstances do relationships remain solid. We should not be casting any aspersions on anybody in particular with regard to whether it is right for a child to be in a particular relationship. We should accept the fact that relationships do break down, that that is an enormous strain on children and parents and that, when separated parenting is required, legislation should support them in the best way possible. I think all of the speakers on both sides of the House have today supported the legislation and I am very grateful for that. It is very important that we have a bipartisan approach so that, moving forward, these hundreds of thousands of families have some certainty about what is going to occur in the years to come, understanding that many people remain with the child support payment system for 15, 16 and 18 years, depending on the age and number of their children. It is a very long association. We intend to improve people’s relationships with the Child Support Agency in a very fundamental way so that it is interacting with parents, so that it is not adversarial, so that it respects people’s positions, rights and the circumstances they are in, and so that it does its absolute best to help them in a difficult time. I make no excuses on behalf of the government for ensuring that the one group fundamentally uppermost in our minds at all times in dealing with the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006 was in fact, and will continue to be, the children—not only children of first marriages but children full stop. The fact is that the existing system that we are about to replace certainly valued children from first marriages more highly or greatly than those from second marriages or relationships. That was unfortunate and inappropriate. That is one of the many measures that is addressed. Many other positive measures in this bill have been outlined by speakers on both sides of the House, reflecting the circumstances that have been portrayed to them by constituents who have come to them over the years with very heartfelt circumstances. There are things that have left an indelible mark upon them in their understanding of how important it is for these changes to occur. These changes are occurring over a three-stage period. The first have already been introduced. Obviously, that legislation has been through the House and the Senate and is now law. The next range of changes commence from 1 January 2007, and then the main formula changes commence from 1 July 2008. We have covered this territory before but, in summing up, it is worth reminding the House that the reason behind that time frame is that there has to be an enormous amount of correspondence between all parties that are involved with the Child Support Agency. There are major IT systems changes. It is critical that we train staff in the child support agencies to deal with these complex issues, and for them be able to explain the issues to the separated parents in a clear, concise and family-friendly manner so that we can assist them all. One of the things that has come to my attention time and time again as a member of parliament—and not only as the minister responsible—is the fact that people who have disagreed with assessments that have been made want to have the opportunity to be able to have their circumstances reviewed external to the Child Support Agency. Now, for the first time, this bill makes that possible. It will give an independent third party a chance to evaluate the circumstances that are prevalent in both partners’ circumstances and try to come to a judgement that is in the best interests of that family and, in particular, the children. The changes commencing from 1 January 2007 in particular are designed to improve the procedures that are followed by parents when seeking that review. We are introducing powers within the court to increase the information that the Child Support Registrar is allowed to access so that parents can have their circumstances heard and dealt with in the courts in a more even-handed fashion as well. This is important from a practical perspective as well as from a symbolic one. If you are a parent and you feel that the other side, the other party who you may have had some very challenging times with, is being advantaged by the system, it does not do anything to support the parents in trying to conduct their lives in the best interests of their children. This has been a very comprehensive process. The Parkinson review has done an enormously good job. It has dealt with a lot of people around this country. It has dealt with those who have been the closest to these issues, and I pay tribute to and thank the many advocates of the mothers and the fathers, acting sometimes collectively and sometimes independently, who have put forward their views and debated these points. They have reconciled themselves to the fact that not everything that they were seeking was possible. But, in the best interests of trying to find an improved system, they have worked with the government to bring about the changes that we are about to vote on. I thank the opposition for their constructive approach to this. I note that they are not denying a second reading to the bill. I wish to make no political points at all. This is about Australian families and Australian children and giving them the best opportunity to survive and to thrive in a world in which separated parenting is a reality. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Plibersek’s amendment) stand part of the question. 13:35:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Wilkie) 80 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 54 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. * Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Question agreed to. 60 Mr BROUGH (Longman —Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) 13:42:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 60 BILLS R2451 60 Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Mr Hunt: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Albanese moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: notes that on 20 August 2003, then Leader of the Government in the Senate Senator Robert Hill stated in relation to Indigenous heritage protection that the Government recognised the shortcomings in the existing system, that reform was long overdue and that the government was anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible; registers its concern that the Howard Government has failed to address the shortcomings in indigenous heritage protection; expresses its concern that the Howard Government has failed to act on the recommendations of the 1996 Evatt Inquiry into the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984; notes that it is now 10 years since the Evatt Inquiry reported, and calls for a comprehensive review of Indigenous heritage protection; and calls on the Government to support the inclusion of a sunset exemption provision in the bill”. 60 13:43:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —Last evening when we were debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, we were going through the reasons for the legislation. It is perhaps worth referring to the report of the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Many ways forward: report of the inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in Indigenous communities. I was the chairman of that committee, and on page 129 we stated: Incorporation 4.71    Indigenous organisations can be incorporated (established as corporate entities) through a variety of legislative mechanisms including those under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (ORAC), or through various State and Territory incorporating agencies. Bodies may wish to incorporate in order to fulfil legal requirements or to meet funding or lending bodies’ requirements. 4.72    ORAC articulated why Indigenous organisations choose to incorporate: Communities cannot survive without incorporated bodies because they open the door to funding, land-holding, commercial enterprises [and] economic independence… 4.73    The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (the ACA Act), administered by ORAC, was enacted for the purpose of providing Indigenous groups and communities with a simple and inexpensive means of incorporation … That sets the scene for this situation. In October 2002 ORAC advised the committee that there were approximately 2,800 corporations incorporated under the ACA Act. It is important to understand, when we focus on heritage protection within the national context, that, while the integrity of heritage and culture is very important, it is part of a much wider agenda. Therefore, when we move to make these alterations to the Victorian situation or to do with overseas property et cetera, we should remember always that the Indigenous heritage issues fit within an estimated 2,800 corporations under the ACA Act, which is about half of all the 6,000 or so corporations within Australia. That reminds us that, as important as the heritage and culture are, there are also the issues of health, education, employment and all the other various issues which are important to the present-day situation for Indigenous people. As I said last night, I wish the bill a speedy passage. But, in the context of the broader agenda for the Indigenous people of Australia, we need to bring some perspective and understand that this is a practical recognition of the changes in corporate law over a period of time and of the balance between corporate law and heritage and culture. It is important that the government move with the times and bring this legislation into place. I wish the bill a speedy passage. 61 13:47:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 seeks to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to provide greater certainty to international cultural loan arrangements by ensuring that declarations made under the act cannot prevent the return of objects imported temporarily to Australia with a certificate of exemption under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. It provides for the repeal of part IIA and other provisions in the act that only apply to places in Victoria, to enable the Victorian government to administer Aboriginal heritage protection in Victoria directly through its own legislation. It brings the act into line with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 by making amendments to clarify which class of instruments contained in the act are not exempt legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and are accordingly subject to its provisions. That is schedule 3. The bill makes consequential amendments to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987. When the bill becomes an act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 will still apply to Victoria, but it will apply in the same manner as it applies to other states and territories. Removal of the specific references to Victoria will place Victoria on the same footing in relation to protection of Aboriginal cultural property as the other states and territories under the act. However, the act falls far short of the expectations of Indigenous Australians and indeed, I would have thought, falls far short of the expectations of other people interested in this area of public policy. I note that an amendment has been moved by the member for Grayndler, which I believe should be supported by this House. The bill does not deal with the broader Indigenous heritage issues, and it is really a step back from the apparent commitment made by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Robert Hill, on 20 August 2003, when he told the Senate: We gave undertakings a couple of days ago that the sites bill— the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill— would be brought to the Senate as quickly as possible. The minister has since reaffirmed to me that negotiations and consultations are continuing to take place. We recognise the shortcomings in the existing system. Reform of that is long overdue. We are anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible. As the Labor amendment indicates, it is clear to us that, whilst this legislation is new and may provide some limited improvement, it does not meet the undertakings given by former minister Robert Hill, who was then Leader of the Government in the Senate. Here comes Hopalong Cassidy! I welcome my touch football colleague into the chamber. Those who are in the gallery need to know that Minister Hockey had an accident playing touch football the other morning. Unfortunately, he collided with another minister. They are great mates, these people. He collided with the other minister, kicked him in the kidneys and sprained his ankle! Unfortunately, Joe is carrying the burden of that injury, and I wish him a very rapid recovery so we can see him out on the touch football field next week. I might say, again for the benefit of those in the gallery, that when we from this side of the chamber and those from the other side play sport together it is one of the few occasions we actually share things together. Whilst we may disagree very strongly in this place, and indeed very aggressively attack one another at the dispatch box, we are able to put those differences aside when we go out of this building and spend time together. I think that is a lesson for all of us. It is a good indication of what we should be able to do in this place—have a healthy debate, have differences, but be able to walk out of here, not necessarily as best mates but as friends who can share time together and can experience seeing a comedy act out on the touch football field. Nevertheless, let me go back to the legislation before us. This legislation is a very cynical piece of legislation. It takes advantage of the government’s Senate majority. It is put up cynically, the government knowing that it will get through. The minority report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry pointed out that the bill continues to ignore many of the substantive recommendations of the 1996 Evatt inquiry, which reviewed the act and made some very strong and specific recommendations. These included: firstly, respecting customary restrictions on information, including gender restricted information; secondly, protection from disclosure contrary to customary law restrictions, including guidelines on the kinds of information courts can seek and exemptions from freedom of information laws; thirdly, guaranteed access rights to sites of recognised significance for those recognised as being allowed to do so under customary law; fourthly, minimum standards for state and territory cultural heritage laws, including automatic blanket protection for sites clearly falling within these standards; fifthly, the establishment of an Aboriginal cultural heritage agency and Indigenous cultural heritage bodies controlled by Aboriginal members, representative of Aboriginal communities, with responsibilities for site evaluation and administration; and, lastly, protection of all aspects of Indigenous heritage, including intellectual property. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short on those recommendations. These matters are extremely important for Indigenous Australians, and it is about time this government sought to understand their importance and priority for Indigenous Australians. The government is, of course, yet to come good on its commitment for consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about these matters. It continues to refuse to accept that a process of negotiation is good for business, it empowers people to accept responsibility, it makes friends and, importantly, it works. As with other aspects of this government’s approach to Indigenous policy and dealing with Indigenous disadvantage, it simply does not care enough about celebrating and protecting the complex heritage of Indigenous Australians. Sadly, we say that here the proof of the pudding is in the eating—and this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not a bill from a government that really cares. It is clear that the government does not care enough about what Aboriginal people think or want, and that is sad for all of us. From the Prime Minister down to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, it just looks like they want Indigenous people to scurry away—to go away and not be on the radar. It is 60 years on from the infamous policy of ‘smoothing the pillow of the dying race’. This government has been in power now for 10 years, yet it still harks back to assimilation for the intellectual wellspring of its policy formulation—and, again, that is sad for all of us. But, of course, it is a one-way process of assimilation. This government has no interest in sharing recognition and valuing the things that Aboriginal people hold worthy of celebrating. Last month, the Gurindji people celebrated the 40th anniversary of the walk-off by stockmen from the Vestey owned Wave Hill Cattle Station. Who was there at that celebration from the Australian government? Not the Prime Minister or the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—in fact, there was no-one there representing the Australian government. The Gurindji people, like many others, recognise the significance of the Wave Hill event, and they put a huge effort into the celebrations. I was there, accompanied by some of my colleagues—including the member for Canberra, Mrs Ellis, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and a large number of other dignitaries. The Gurindji people, despite their efforts, were unable to attract the interest of the Commonwealth government. As it happens, the Gurindji people are seeking heritage protection for the significant sites of the walk-off. It is worth noting that, since 1996, only one declaration involving Indigenous heritage issues has been made under the act. Prior to that, from 1994 until 1996, 21 declarations had been made by the former Labor government. Under this act, Indigenous places that are considered to be of national significance may be listed on the National Heritage List. But, due to the way that the Howard government has administered the provisions of the act, a place of significance to a particular Aboriginal community is not eligible to be listed unless it can be established that it is also a matter of significance to the broader Australian community. Wave Hill is widely recognised as the site of a highly significant sequence of events in the history of the development of Aboriginal land rights and, indeed, the history of this country. Also, let us not lose sight of the fact that Wave Hill was the site of a highly significant event in Australian industrial history. It was the first sustained response to a case that was arbitrated by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission—a watershed in its own right. It brought the union movement—hesitantly at first but certainly to be sure—to bring its considerable influence to bear on righting Aboriginal disadvantage. We already know what this government thinks of Wave Hill. In July 2004, Minister Ian Campbell said that it would be given priority consideration for listing on the National Heritage List. And what has happened since? Absolutely nothing. We have had the 30th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s famous ‘handful of sand’. Who could forget Gough Whitlam pouring the sand through the hands of Vincent Lingiari to demonstrate, in a very symbolic way, the handing back of the country to Indigenous Australians? It was the first time it had happened in Australian history—yet this government will not recognise it. Of course, the other celebration was the 40th anniversary of the walk-off from Wave Hill—the longest strike in Australian history. The strike lasted in excess of nine years, and the minister has said not a word about this application. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 64 MISCELLANEOUS 64 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I seek the indulgence of the House to address a few remarks on the fourth anniversary of the attack in Bali on 12 October 2002. I am sure that today all members of the House will recall with great sadness the events of the night of 12 October 2002, when two explosions in Bali claimed the lives of 88 Australians, as well as the lives of scores of others. Indeed, more than 200 people died in that horrific terrorist attack. On behalf of the government and, I know, all of the Australian people, I again express our deep sympathy and condolences to those who lost their loved ones in that attack. Their sense of anger at the injustice and the wanton and cruel character will never subside. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with them and also with the beautiful people of the beautiful island of Bali, for whom so many Australians have very great affection. That attack demonstrated that terrorism strikes in an indiscriminate fashion and strikes without regard to the race, religion, political beliefs, political behaviour or political motivation of people. If we examine the terrorist attacks that have occurred since 11 September 2001, we find a situation where there is no pattern other than the desire of people who are perverted by their blasphemous interpretation of a particular religion to kill and maim with an indiscriminate intent. It is important to recall the way in which the events in Bali have brought the people of Australia and the people of Indonesia together. The cooperation between the Australian Federal Police and the Indonesian police was outstanding. I record my gratitude to the Australian Federal Police and their counterparts in the Indonesian police who worked with unremitting and tireless professionalism to bring to justice those people who perpetrated this attack which claimed the lives of 88 of our fellow citizens. The results have been very impressive indeed. Many trials have been held and justice has been dispensed, as it should be, to those responsible for these murders. The way in which our two countries have cooperated bodes well for the future, although it was borne out of a very tragic event. On the first anniversary of the bombings I dedicated three elements to a practical living memorial to the victims: the Australian Memorial Centre, an intensive care and burns centre at the Sanglah Hospital, which is Bali’s largest hospital; the Australia-Bali Memorial Eye Centre, which will be opened in June next year; and the Australia-Bali Memorial Health and Medical Scholarship, which is helping to improve the skills of Balinese health workers. Those who attended the ceremony marking the first anniversary of the attack in 2003 will never forget the heartfelt speech delivered by the then senior minister in the Indonesian government, General Yudhoyono, who was to become the President of that country. His personal commitment to the fight against terrorism is undoubted and unconditional. As we reflect on those events, the possibility that terrorism will strike again in our region and in our own homeland cannot be ruled out. We should hope that moderate Islamic leaders like President Yudhoyono are supported and are successful. The greatest antidote to Islamic terrorism and those people of the Islamic faith who blasphemously distort the values of that great religion are moderate Islamic leaders like President Yudhoyono of Indonesia and President Musharraf of Pakistan. We must hope, in the name of fighting terrorism, that their leadership triumphs over the more extreme elements in their societies. 65 14:05:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr BEAZLEY —On indulgence, today we remember the victims of the Bali bombing, the 202 people who died when terrorism exploded in two Kuta nightclubs on 12 October four years ago. We stop and reflect today on the terrible waste of lost lives: the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, daughters and sons who died in violence in a place previously known to the world for its tranquillity and its friendship. We think today of the 88 Australians, so many of them so young, and those citizens of 22 other countries, all brutally murdered. We, too, think of others who have suffered. Some of the survivors are still recovering from their physical injuries. Their lives were altered irrevocably by the terror in Bali that night. We think of the families whose lives were ravaged and laid waste just as surely as the nightclubs at Kuta. We think of the people of Bali, now inhabitants of a paradise lost. Four years on, we pause, we reflect, we grieve and we rail against the pointless, mindless carnage of it. We try to make sense of the senseless. We contemplate how best to honour the lives of those who suffered and died and their myriad stories of courage, sacrifice and humanity. There are now many monuments, both here in Australia and at the site of the bombing in Bali. The Prime Minister named several of them in the remarks that he made. They are very fitting tributes. But I do believe that the greatest memorial we can offer to the memory of the Australians who lost their lives is a pledge to protect the way of life that they held dear. We note that in that recently released intelligence report those who created these dreadful circumstances are assessed by the intelligence agencies of our allies as having got stronger in the course of the last four years. This is despite, as the Prime Minister has said, the most excellent work done by the Australian Federal Police, in conjunction with the police force of Indonesia, in bringing to justice those specifically associated with this atrocity. The challenge, therefore, is still before us. We need to effectively fight terrorism here in our neighbourhood. We have to make absolutely certain that we both add value to the way in which this struggle with fundamentalist terror is conducted and are absolutely clear-cut in our priorities as to where it must be done: in protecting ourselves here and ensuring that people in the region are effectively protected. We owe it to the Australians who lost their lives in Bali. We owe it to the survivors. We owe it to their families. We owe it to all Australians. 65 14:08:00 Questions Without Notice 65 14:08:00 65 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that under this Prime Minister’s watch Australia has reduced our public investment in TAFEs and universities by seven per cent—the only advanced economy to do so—while our global competitors have increased their investment by 48 per cent? Is it not also a fact that this year the Howard government is spending even less of the federal budget on vocational education than last year? How is Australia supposed to train the skilled workers we so desperately need if the Prime Minister refuses to make long-term investment in TAFE and trade training? Given that the Prime Minister created this skills crisis, why should Middle Australia believe him when he says that this short-sighted pre-election catch-up will fix it? 66 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I know what has happened under my watch: unemployment has fallen to a 30-year low. I know what has also happened under my watch: the battling workers of Australia have higher wages than they ever had under a Labor government. I know that this has happened on my watch: the strength of the Australian economy is greater than it has ever been at any time since the end of World War II. The problem with the figure relied upon by the Leader of the Opposition is that it does not include the vast majority of vocational and technical education expenditure in this country, but just university expenditure. It shows the single-tracked obsession of this Labor Party with university education. The only thing that matters to a Labor member of parliament is a university education. They have forgotten the value of technical education, and when you add all of the figures together, public expenditure on higher education is expected, by 2007, to be at $8.2 billion, which is an increase of 26 per cent since 1995. 66 66 14:10:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you outline for the House the results of the September labour force survey? Secondly, what does the strength of the labour market indicate about the importance of workplace flexibility in containing inflation? 66 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Bass for his question. I can inform him that the labour force figures released today for the month of September show that in the month of September 31,400 new jobs were created. That is about 1,000 jobs a day throughout the whole of the month. As a consequence of that, unemployment has fallen to a 30-year low of 4.8 per cent. In the electorate of Bass the unemployment rate today is 5.5 per cent, compared with the unemployment rate in 1996 of 9.9 per cent. So it is nearly half of what it was 10 years ago. The good news is that over the last year there have been 271,000 new jobs created in Australia, and under this government, since March 1996, there have been 1,966,000 new jobs created in Australia. The other good news is that the participation rate—that is, the rate of people of the working age population who are in work or looking for work—has now reached an all-time record high of 65.1 per cent. In other words, there is a record participation rate, a record number of jobs and a 30-year low in unemployment. Since the Work Choices reforms were introduced in March of this year 205,000 new jobs have been added to the Australian economy. We do not say that they were all added as a consequence of Work Choices because obviously economic growth has a lot to do with this. But we can say one thing: the claim by the Labor Party that Work Choices would be job destroying—that was the claim—was wrong for 205,000 reasons since March of this year. The strength of the labour market also underpins the need for flexibility. Nothing would be more damaging—where you have a 30-year low, where you have some parts of the economy that are very strong on the back of mining and commodity prices and where you have other parts of the economy which are being brutally kicked around by drought, such as the agricultural area—and nothing could be more wrong than to have wage fixing that took wage settlements out of profitable areas of the economy and applied them back to those areas of the economy which are not doing so well. Nothing could be more destroying in terms of inflation, in terms of economic growth and in terms of jobs. That is why Labor is so wrong in opposing Work Choices. It is why the ACTU is so wrong in putting forward its orders for battle for the ALP today of getting rid of AWAs and returning to centralised wage fixation. That is what gave us the problem back in the early eighties and the early nineties. One of the reasons we have been able to maintain this in a low-inflation economy is that we have much better industrial relations, and nothing threatens that more than the Australian Labor Party. 67 67 14:15:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms MACKLIN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that not one dollar of his Skills for the Future package will go to attracting or supporting Australian young people to get into traditional trade apprenticeships? Given that almost two-thirds of Australian apprentices are under the age of 25, why have they been comprehensively ignored by this package? Given that the Prime Minister acknowledged on AM this morning the inevitable problem of retaining people in low-paid apprenticeships, why isn’t there any help for young apprentices, many of whom are on $6 or $7 an hour? Why is the Prime Minister so ignorant of the fact that 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds are the long-term future for dealing with Australia’s skills shortage? 67 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Apart from the fact that I happen to think that just being over 25 or over 30 is still pretty young, and in fact I think a much higher age than that is still pretty young, I would counsel—not a word I normally use; it is a bit too politically correct for me—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about introducing ageism into this debate. I think that is a very unwise thing to do. You ask about 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds. I will give you 403,600 responses to what this government has done for that age cohort, because that is the number of apprentices now in training, which is a 161 per cent increase since March 1996. I might also remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the principal beneficiaries of the 25 Australian technical colleges—in fact really the only beneficiaries of those—are young Australians in years 11 and 12 and, the last time I checked, most Australians in years 11 and 12 were well under the age of 25. 67 67 14:18:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 Dr JENSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. What support is the Australian government providing to universities to address the engineering skills shortage through the Skills for the Future package announced today? 67 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 Tangney for his question and I acknowledge his deep interest in this area. The $837 million Skills for the Future package, which was announced by the Prime Minister today, includes funding of $56 million over four years for 500 new engineering places at universities across Australia. These places will commence in 2008. These engineering places are going to contribute significantly to building our engineering capability and will add to the 65,000 students who are currently studying engineering and related technologies. The 500 new Commonwealth supported places are in addition to the 510 new engineering places that I announced in July and they will commence in 2007, so over the next two years, 2007 and 2008, there will be 1,010 new engineering places, which will substantially improve the capacity of the higher education sector to deliver high-quality engineering courses in this country. That is going to support development of our infrastructure through to our high-technology industries and take full advantage of the mining and resources boom that is supporting our economy and driving our economic wealth. I will be writing to Australian universities to seek proposals for the 500 new engineering places, and this underscores just how important the Skills for the Future package is. It will deliver more opportunities for Australians and it will continue to drive our innovation and global competitiveness with a productive workforce. 68 68 14:20:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms MACKLIN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the wage incentives contained in his skills package, which are limited to only 10,000 mature age apprentices a year. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Australian Industry Group estimates that Australia needs an extra 270,000 skilled workers? Isn’t this just another short-sighted pre-election patch-up covering the cracks caused by 10 long years of government neglect? 68 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is that the ‘only’ to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers is well in excess of double the number of people who now enter mature age apprenticeships. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition sneers at the fact that there are only 10,000. I might remind her that, if she is talking about ‘onlys’, there were only 122,000 apprentices when her leader was Minister for Employment, Education and Training. 68 68 14:21:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 Miss JACKIE KELLY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Will the minister inform the House how the Australian Skills for the Future package will further improve apprenticeship training? 68 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —I thank the member for Lindsay. The government of the state she comes from is not meeting its obligations in the partnership the Commonwealth has with the Australian states on the whole area of vocational and technical education. In particular, in that state of New South Wales, TAFE fees have increased by 150 per cent and 200 per cent in some courses. In fact, even the Australian Education Union in their recent TAFE Futures report have acknowledged that young people are being pushed out of the education system by those TAFE fee increases in New South Wales. We have seen fee increases there to $1,700. I say to the member for Lindsay: keep up the work that you are doing to fight for your constituents on this front. The Prime Minister today announced a boost of $837 million over five years, which will add to an already record-setting level of expenditure by an Australian government in the area of vocational and technical education. There has never been a government in Australia’s history that has spent as much money as this government is now spending and, in fact, even before today’s announcement, was spending on the area of vocational and technical education. The results are already in, with 403,600 people entering the training system as apprentices this year and 1.7 million people in the training system around the country. The $408 million in work skills vouchers will give an opportunity to 30,000 people each year to access those vouchers in a way that in fact trusts them to make their own choices and make it work for them. It makes certain that eligible adults aged above 25 years who have not reached a year 12 outcome or a certificate II outcome or the elementary elements of vocational training can enrol in accredited literacy and numeracy courses so that they have an opportunity to make good their ambition and experience, to realise something for themselves and to take on the opportunity to participate even more fully than they might have already in Australia’s economy. The $306.7 million support for mid-career apprentices will help up to 10,000 apprentices aged 30 and above each year who in fact are in the workforce, who have been there and done that but do not have the piece of paper to prove their ability, to get that piece of paper. It backs the employers as well as the employees in the decision to invest in those people to train. These sorts of initiatives are going to make an enormous difference. These sorts of initiatives are going to add to this record level of funding: the $156.8 million already in the system on support services for employers and Australian apprentices through the Australian apprenticeship centres; the $28.2 million in the $800 toolkit allowance—an allowance that Labor cannot guarantee and that could be under threat if there was ever a change of government but which came in as a result of this government focusing on young people and, in fact, all people in the training system—and the $571 million in the 2006-07 financial year alone for financial incentives to employers to back their decision on the margins to make a difference for their business by investing in their people. Today’s package is going to produce enormous dividends and continue the strong economic circumstance of this country. 69 69 14:26:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Treasurer. Why does the Treasurer now acknowledge that skilled labour shortages are putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates when back in May this year he dismissed the link? He said: It really, you know, it’s totally unrelated to monetary policy. Hasn’t the government been asleep at the wheel when it comes to inflationary pressures in the economy? Haven’t families paid the price, with seven back-to-back interest rate rises? 69 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —This government put in place monetary policy and inflation targeting and it was totally opposed by the Labor Party, which threatened to sue on the grounds that it was illegal. I do notice that the Labor Party has given up that policy and has not yet served the writ that it promised 10 years ago. The monetary policy that we have put in place has been very successful, with inflation averaging 2.6 per cent over the course of the last 10 years. Indeed, it has been so successful that the Labor Party now says that it wants to adopt coalition policy on monetary policy, which we welcome. In relation to future prospects for inflation, we believe we can continue to meet our targeting notwithstanding the fact that the Australian economy is experiencing unemployment lower than it has had for the last 30 years. But to do that we have to make sure that wage settlements from profitable parts of the economy are not transported into unprofitable parts of the economy. There is nothing wrong with an increase in wages in a profitable mining company where it is meeting a world price and boosting supplies. There is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, the employees have the right to share in the profitability. What is wrong is if you try to take a wage settlement out of a mining company—say, for an electrician or something—and apply it to a manufacturing company in one of the big cities, where there is not such an opportunity for profit. If you do that, you harm profitability and you harm employment. This is what happened with the breakout under the metal award in 1981. It is what happened in relation to the inflationary pressures that were in the economy in the late 1980s which led to extremely high interest rates. Under a much better industrial relations system we can handle that. We can maintain our targets in relation to inflation and we can maintain the Australian economy in a much stronger position than it has been in in the last 30 years. 70 70 14:29:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 Mr HAASE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services update the House on the impact of Australia’s outstanding economic performance on rural and regional Australia? What is the government doing to assist regional businesses and address skills shortages, particularly in my electorate of Kalgoorlie? 70 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. Of course, the member for Kalgoorlie clearly understands the current strength of the Australian economy and so much of that strength is coming out of his electorate, particularly from the mining and resource sector. That sector is doing more than its bit to push unemployment down in Australia, where we have got a national unemployment figure of 4.8 per cent—much lower in Western Australia; I think about 3.7 per cent, as a result of what is going on in the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate. But, of course, the mining sector is also generating a lot of the demand for skills in Australia. It does not matter whether they are people from Western Australia or across the broader nation. The package announced today—Skills for the Future; $837 million—is adding to measures that we already have put in place to upskill the country beginning at the high school level, as the Prime Minister indicated, through the Australian technical colleges and year 11 and year 12. It will link those young people with industries that need those skills in the future and lead them into the workplace. It is interesting to note, and the member for Kalgoorlie would recognise this, that the other advantage of this package is in terms of upskilling workers already in the workforce—people who might be working in some of the areas along the eastern seaboard in a particular trade that want to upskill so they can direct their skills into the mining and resources sector in Western Australia. The assistance that is provided in this package will help deliver extra workers into the areas of need where they can take advantage of the prosperity that is being generated by the mining sector in particular. This is all part of a focus and a very clear direction the government is giving as far as the Australian economy is concerned. Since 1996, 1.9 million new jobs have been created in the economy—205,000 since Work Choices was introduced earlier this year; 205,000 since the sky was supposed to fall on the Australian economy. It has not fallen; it has gone in the other direction—real wages growth of 16.4 per cent. We need to compare those sorts of statistics—the level of unemployment in Australia—against what it was in the early to mid-nineties. We all remember when the Labor Party was in office running the Working Nation program—where unemployment was, what was happening with skills and what was going on in the economy—and it is vastly different now. We will continue to introduce policies that are right for the time and that will deliver the skills that are needed in Australian industry to continue to secure the prosperity of the nation, particularly in areas of major growth and need like the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate in Western Australia. 71 71 14:33:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the speech last night by the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens. Does the Treasurer agree with the governor’s assessment that rising inflation is: ... not just because of prices of petrol and bananas. What factors does the Treasurer believe are putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That question was close to asking for opinion, but I will call the Treasurer. 71 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —Of course, I have seen the speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank last night. I note in passing that of course the member for Lilley has sought to misrepresent it. He did not say anything about skills in his speech last night. It did not stop old Gilligan over there running around and claiming that he did. In relation to inflation, we had 1.6 per cent— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —You want to be Skipper. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Come on, Skip! With a skipper like that, it is a wonder the rest of the cast could get in the boat! But in relation to the CPI— DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. I am sympathetic that the Treasurer has a bad case of skipper envy, but would you bring him back to the question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cunningham will resume her seat. The Treasurer has only just begun to answer his question. The Treasurer is in order. I would remind the Treasurer: he should refer to members by their electoral division or their title. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —We all know who he is talking about: the member for Brand, affectionately known as ‘Skip’ around the parliament. In relation to the CPI, the two largest elements for the June quarter were in relation to fruit and vegetables and petrol. Of 1.6 per cent movement in that particular quarter about one per cent was made up of those two items. Ex of those two items, you had a CPI of about 0.6 per cent. But, under the agreement that the government has put in place with the Reserve Bank, the agreement that the Labor Party opposed and wanted to sue the government for entering, we will be looking at underlying inflation over the course of the cycle. What we will do is look through one-off factors which we believe will pass through the system such as the effects of cyclones and oil prices. We are looking for underlying inflation—that is, inflation in general goods and services. Obviously, petrol will have delivered some pressure as a second round effect in relation to those and, obviously, commodity prices will have delivered some second round pressure in relation to those. It is the key second round, underlying or general price movements that are the focus of activity under the agreement between the government and the bank. That is what we focus on. It is made clear by the governor, it is made clear by me and it is made clear by the agreement between the two of us. 72 72 14:37:00 Anderson, John, MP 4K4 Gwydir NATS 1 Mr ANDERSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House of the assistance being provided to farming families to manage the current drought? And are there any alternative views? 72 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —I thank the honourable member for Gwydir for his question. No-one knows more of the devastation and loss from prolonged drought that affects individual families, rural economies and rural economic and social life than the member for Gwydir. Many members on this side of the House know it too. All of us appreciate that this is now the worst drought on record and it has required an unprecedented response from the government. Since 2001, and before then, a number of regions have been going in and out of drought and across the board there has been no normal seasonal rain since 1995. We have provided over $1.2 billion to more than 53,000 farmers and their families. The Commonwealth government pays 100 per cent of income support and 90 per cent of interest rate subsidies. The government is spending $29 million a month on that income support and interest rate subsidies. The government is continually monitoring its drought assistance measures. At the request of the Prime Minister, I have undertaken a series of consultations with the National Farmers Federation, farm organisations and rural community groups and representatives in order to make sure our assistance is targeted as properly as possible. These issues are currently under consideration. Earlier this week, we heard from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer, all of whom are well aware of the dire circumstance our farmers and rural communities are facing. However, this must be news to those opposite, because yesterday on ABC Country Hour the opposition agricultural spokesman, in an attempt to exploit the fears and uncertainties of farming families, said, ‘Only 13 per cent of farmers have ever accessed these particular provisions.’ That is a deliberate and calculated deception. Fifty three thousand farmers do not add up to 13 per cent of the farming community, as the shadow minister said when he misled and deceived the Australian public. To exploit the misery of drought would have to be the lowest act anybody associated with agriculture could ever engage in. In the member for Gwydir’s electorate, up to 57 per cent of farmers in the Bourke-Brewarrina area have accessed assistance. In the member for Riverina’s electorate, 80 per cent of eligible farmers have accessed assistance. In the Goulburn-Loddon area, the member for Murray’s area, 75 per cent of farmers have accessed assistance. Today in the member for Parkes’s electorate, 45 per cent of farmers in the western division are currently accessing exceptional circumstances. The opposition claims serve no other purpose than to strike fear into people who are vulnerable and exposed. It is playing politics with drought. And I should say that the member for Corio has never asked me a question as shadow minister for agriculture, either in this House or in writing. He has never issued a press release. I have checked the Hansard and he has never raised drought. The only comment from him on this that any of us can locate is in yesterday’s ABC transcript in which he, quite frankly, lied to the Australian people about only 13 per cent of farmers receiving drought assistance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I believe the minister might rephrase his answer and withdraw what he said. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —I withdraw. But people will make their own judgements about the honourable member’s integrity. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What was that? He should come to the dispatch box and say the words ‘I withdraw’. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I believe that the minister has done that. I call the minister. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —I had some sympathy for the position the member for Corio finds himself in, but not anymore—now that he exploits the fears of farming families. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are still waiting for an unconditional withdrawal of what was clearly an unparliamentary term, which has been unparliamentary forever. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I heard the minister say, ‘I withdraw.’ I call the minister. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —I will say again to the House that I withdraw. But anybody who heard that knows full well the deception the member for Corio engaged in. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister said, ‘I withdraw.’ 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On every occasion that you require withdrawals from this side of the House, you require people to say the words ‘I withdraw’ with no further embellishment. Can you require the same of the minister? Otherwise, you are setting a new standard about withdrawals which will be used by the opposition—make no mistake. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I heard the minister say, ‘I withdraw,’ and he then went on to answer his question. 73 73 14:43:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. It relates to the question that was just answered. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran interjecting— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have called the Leader of the Opposition. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I refer the Prime Minister to the dramatic— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I warn the member for Batman! PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —I refer the Prime Minister to the dramatic downgrade in this season’s expected wheat crop and the fact that most wheat exported this season will be out of Western Australia. Can the Prime Minister confirm that farmers who sell wheat through AWB this year will have to carry an increased share of the burden of the $65 million service agreement between AWB Ltd and AWB International? What action will the Prime Minister take to address this additional burden which will fall disproportionately on Western Australian growers in the middle of the worst drought in living memory? 73 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am aware of the arrangements that exist between AWB and AWB International. I think the House would be aware that the Cole commission will be reporting very soon. There could well be implications in relation to the AWB and AWB International as a result of that report. I take the opportunity of assuring Western Australian wheat growers that, as in the past, the government will in the future look after their interests. 73 73 14:44:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, what is the government’s view on Japan’s announcement that it will be imposing a number of strong measures in response to North Korea’s nuclear test? 74 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. Second, I would like to say that the government of Japan informed us last night that it was going to take a number of very strong measures in response to North Korea’s nuclear test. We appreciate the fact that our friends in Japan have notified us of their actions. The measures include a ban on port calls in Japan by all North Korean vessels, a ban on the importation of all North Korean goods and a ban on the entry into Japan of all North Korean nationals apart from some special cases, such as on humanitarian grounds. The Australian government welcomes Japan’s strong measures, and we encourage the international community to consider the measures that Japan has taken and, where it is relevant and where possible, to take similar or at least proportional steps. Japan’s response, like our own, takes care to avoid imposing additional pain on the long-suffering ordinary people of North Korea. The Japanese, though, have shown considerable leadership here, and I think it is important that Australia recognises that. Let me just say in conclusion that the United Nations Security Council are still considering sanctions, and we hope that they will come to a conclusion—and that it will be a strong and effective conclusion—fairly soon. But of course there will be the whole question of enforcement. There are a number of North Korean ships in the Asia-Pacific region; it is only reasonable that all of us would want to know whether those ships were carrying dual-use technologies or technologies that could be used for North Korea’s defence machine—its nuclear component or its missile component in particular. Under the Proliferation Security Initiative, we will be continuing to look for ways—of course, within the bounds of international law—to intercept ships and to be able to inspect ships where the ships themselves may be suspicious or their cargos may be suspicious. But I think all of this throws a good deal of light on the issue of the Proliferation Security Initiative. I do not think it has a terribly catchy name, but it is a way of reinforcing in very practical terms the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the non-proliferation regime in relation to other weapons of mass destruction. I think in relation to North Korea this has the potential to be a particular test of its effectiveness, but I am sure it will live up to expectations. 74 74 14:48:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer the minister to his unequivocal support for the Medibank Private sale five minutes before the Prime Minister deferred it; I refer him to his unequivocal support for the Snowy Hydro scheme sale five minutes before the Prime Minister dumped that; and I refer him to his claim yesterday that there is no skills shortage in Australia—again, five minutes before the Prime Minister announced the funding package in an attempt to repair a decade of neglect. Why can’t the minister keep up with the government’s backflips? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The standing orders together with the House of Representatives Practice state that long preambles such as the one given to that question are out of order and that the point of the question must be reached in a seemly and timely manner. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister was not asked a question in relation to his ministerial responsibility. I believe the question is out of order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: each of the statements in the question from the member for Wills are statements that the minister made in his capacity as minister. Are you suggesting he made those statements in his private capacity as a citizen of this country; and, if so, why were they broadcast by the media as statements from the minister? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business is well aware that the standing orders are quite clear—that the minister will be asked questions on matters which relate to his or her ministerial responsibility in relation to public affairs and proceedings pending. They must be matters for which the minister has ministerial responsibility. The member for Wills wishes to rephrase his question. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Yes, Mr Speaker. Having regard to your ruling, the Minister for Human Services expressly commented on the skills shortage and other issues in the context of his portfolio. So I again refer Minister Hockey to his claim yesterday that there is no skills shortage in Australia, five minutes before the Prime Minister announced the funding package. Why can’t the minister keep up with the government’s backflips? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That question is in order. I call the minister. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: notwithstanding that you have now called the minister, I want to refer back to your previous ruling, Mr Speaker, which ruled the first two parts of the question out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The first parts clearly had ironic parts, which standing order 100 refers to. But the question as rephrased is now in order. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The first two parts I have ruled out of order. I am calling the minister. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your first ruling contained a very important precedent insofar as you said that questions could relate only to things within a minister’s portfolio. In fact, they may also relate to public affairs with which they are officially connected. Therefore, public statements made by ministers about public affairs are matters about which they can be asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I ruled the first two parts out of order because they contained ironic expressions. I call the minister. 75 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr HOCKEY —This year the Australian government will be spending around $2½ billion on skills development in addition to the $837 million announced by the Prime Minister today. We make no apology for helping to skill up the Australian workforce. We make no apology for helping to create jobs. And all the better that higher wages come with those jobs. 75 75 14:53:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 Mr McARTHUR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of proposals to force businesses to give their financial details to third parties? What impact might this have on the economy? 75 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 Corangamite for his question. I note that in his state of Victoria the unemployment rate, according to the latest ABS statistics, has fallen to 4.5 per cent. Indeed, the 205,000 jobs created in Australia since Work Choices is almost three times the number of jobs created over the same six-month period on average in the last 20 years. In October last year the Leader of the Opposition committed to releasing his workplace relations blueprint in the first six months of this year. He said: In the first half of next year, we’re planning to set down our blueprint for an industrial relations framework … Mr Speaker, until today, the Leader of the Opposition had been waiting at the altar for his union masters to come along and deliver the blueprint. Mr Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU, has now released his blueprint to run the country. I say that advisedly, because in June Mr Combet said: I recall we used to run the country and it would not be a bad thing if we did again. And how does Mr Combet want to run the country? First of all, as the member for Corangamite pointed out in his question, what Mr Combet wants to do in his blueprint is to force employers to reveal the financial details of their businesses. Secondly, he wants to prevent businesses from making any workplace decision without union approval, right down to the working methods used within a businesses. So what we have, if Mr Combet gets his way, is a return to the bad old days when the union shop stewards and the union bosses controlled every hour of every day of every worker in Australia. That is what Mr Combet’s blueprint for Australia is. As a result of this, we now have a quite clear choice: a government which is committed to providing freedom of choice for employers and employees or an opposition dictated to by the union movement in Australia, which, on their own words, is dedicated to denying people choice in this country. Let us make no mistake about what this plan is. This is a plan for strikes. This is a plan for slashing jobs. This is a plan for lowering wages in Australia. What Mr Combet has released today is a threat to the jobs of all Australians. If there was any gumption from the Leader of the Opposition—who still has not released his blueprint—he should immediately condemn Mr Combet’s plan. He should immediately condemn it as the job-destroying plan that it is. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, should publicly tear up this recipe for economic vandalism. But of course he will not do this. We know he will not do this, because, at the end of the day, what we see is a sinking skipper with his bumbling boatload, who are incapable of running Gilligan’s island, let alone the Australian economy. 76 76 14:57:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Minister for Trade. I refer the minister to his statement on 15 January this year about the AWB’s payments to Iraq under UN sanctions. He said: I think that whilst we’ve all now got the benefit of hindsight and we can look back on who maybe should’ve known what, the reality is that even with the benefit of hindsight the things that were happening at the time were reasonable … Does the minister stand by his statement? 76 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr TRUSS —The honourable member for Griffith has taken out of context many of my statements in relation to these issues over the years. In fact, he produced a document—with 10 ignored warnings et cetera—which includes only five words in inverted commas. The rest are in a context invented by him. The reality is that the Cole commission has been established to investigate serious allegations that have been made about the AWB. Those allegations— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. The question of the member for Griffith was simply— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I will rule on his point of order. The minister is in order. He has only just began to answer the question. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —The Cole commission will soon deliver its findings, and that will be an appropriate time to make a judgement about what actions have been appropriate and what actions have not been appropriate. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister has completed his answer. 77 77 14:59:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 Mrs GASH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On the fourth anniversary of the 2002 Bali bombing, would the minister update the House on how Australia is cooperating with Indonesia to combat the threat of terrorism? 77 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and the interest that she shows in the issue. The Prime Minister has spoken about the anniversary already. I add that the Australian consul-general has organised a memorial service in Bali for today which was attended by Ambassador Bill Farmer, our ambassador to Indonesia. Nineteen representatives of the victims’ families and survivors travelled from Australia for today’s ceremony. Since the Bali bombing, there has been extraordinarily effective cooperation between Australia and Indonesia in the area of counterterrorism. The House would understand that we cannot talk about it in great detail. Nevertheless, the work that has been done by the Australian Federal Police, Australian intelligence agencies and elements of our defence forces alongside their Indonesian counterparts—combined with the diplomatic relationship—has been extraordinarily important in countering terrorism. Australia and Indonesia co-hosted the Bali Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism. Australia and Indonesia have not only cooperated very closely but also done more than that: we have led the way in building regional cooperation in the area of counterterrorism. I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition was referring to terrorism as a whole or terrorism in South-East Asia in his remarks, so I might not be doing him justice. But I thought that he was suggesting that Jemaah Islamiah had got stronger since the time of the Bali bombing. I do not think that that would be our assessment. The Indonesians, with the support of the Americans, us and others, have done a very good job in addressing the issue of Jemaah Islamiah. It certainly would not be the Indonesian assessment that Jemaah Islamiah has got stronger in that time. Indonesia has tried and convicted over 160 people for terrorism related crimes. Six people have been sentenced to death. It is important that this is understood: three of the six who have been sentenced to death are people who were directly involved in the 2002 Bali bombing. Sometimes you hear people say that the Indonesians have let Abu Bakar Bashir get off. The fact is, they have sentenced to death three people who were directly involved in those Bali bombings. There are eight people serving life sentences, and a further 23 serving sentences of 10 or more years. It is important that we in this country understand that the Indonesians have been doing a very good job in countering terrorism. They have been doing a very effective job, and they are very committed. This is not easy. The politics of handling this issue in Indonesia are, as some in the House would understand, completely different from the politics of handling that issue in a country like this. It is a totally different environment. In spite of that, President Yudhoyono, his ministers and officials have addressed this issue very robustly. Having said all of that, I would not go as far as my predecessor, Gareth Evans, went a year or so ago when he said that Jemaah Islamiah was pretty much out of business. I would be a little less optimistic than that. There is still a problem. There is still an active network of jihadists in Indonesia and in South-East Asia. But a lot has been done to address that issue. Finally, when it comes to advocacy for moderate Islam, it has to be said that that is not something that gets much publicity here in Australia. But the Indonesian government has been doing a very good job. Nothing is more effective in terms of the advocacy for moderation in relation to Islam than advocacy coming from Muslims and Muslim governments. The Indonesian government is very focused on that. We would like to congratulate them for the work that they have done despite the difficulties that they face and, frankly, will continue to face. 78 78 15:04:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Minister for Trade. I refer to a different statement by the minister, made this time to the National Party Central Council in March this year, when in referring to AWB’s payments to Iraq he said: ‘So, if ever there were any kickbacks to the Iraqi grain, then I guess they would’ve ended up with the government. So that is not terribly unusual.’ Does the minister stand by this statement? 78 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr TRUSS —It is not wise to ever take what the honourable member for Griffith says on face value. For instance, he asked me a question just before about what I said on 15 January this year. I have just checked my diary, and I was travelling between Hong Kong and Manila on that day, so it is fairly unlikely that I said what he quoted. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —AAP, mate. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —I was travelling between Hong Kong and Manila on that day, so I did not make those statements on that day. He also chooses to take out of context what I said at the National Party conference in Emerald in March this year. Let me make it absolutely clear that in that speech I went to great lengths to emphasise that Australia expects high standards of our businesspeople when they operate overseas. Right at the beginning of that speech I said, ‘We have high business standards and ethics in Australia and even if they are not shared in other parts of the world that does not mean that we should compromise our standards.’ I made it abundantly clear that I expect high standards of Australian businesses. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Oh, no you didn’t. One message for the Nats— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith is warned! GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —I commented later that there had been an effort on the part of some to confuse the word ‘commission’ with bribery and corruption and I said that the idea that you could cross out the word ‘commission’ and write in ‘bribery’ or ‘kickbacks’ as though the words are interchangeable is completely unacceptable. Let me make it absolutely clear: I condemned bribery; I condemned kickbacks; I condemned corruption. Commissions are a reasonable part of business activity. I expect all Australian businesses, including the Australian Wheat Board, to behave responsibly and according to Australian law. 78 78 15:07:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 Mr LAMING —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister provide information to the House on Exercise Cumpston and how it will help to protect Australians from a possible influenza pandemic? 79 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Bowman for his question, and I acknowledge in particular the work he has done as a doctor on public health issues, particularly in places like East Timor. Australia is recognised as a world leader in pandemic preparedness. So far the government has committed some $600 million towards, amongst other things, building up one of the world’s largest antiviral stockpiles and helping to improve surveillance and treatment capacity in our region. Exercise Cumpston, which will begin on Monday, will be Australia’s largest ever health simulation exercise. It will help test our border control, disease detection and surveillance, contact tracing, quarantine and treatment systems. It will also test our decision-making structures, our coordination mechanisms and our communications strategy. One feature of the exercise will be the arrival at Brisbane Airport on Tuesday of a plane carrying at least one person infected with pandemic flu. This exercise will run over four days, it will cost more than $4 million, it will involve more than 1,000 Commonwealth and state officials and other health personnel and it will be attended by 55 foreign observers. This exercise will help to demonstrate that you can trust the Howard government with the security of Australia. You can trust the government to handle health security and biosecurity as well as other national security issues. 79 79 15:09:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again for the Minister for Trade. I refer to a further statement by the minister at the National Party Central Council in March this year, when he said about AWB’s payments to Iraq: ‘If you are paying commissions to an agent to sell wheat in another part of the world, there is hardly anything odd about that. When we sell our house, we pay commissions to a real estate agent. We may think he charges us far too much, but we don’t say that is corruption or a bribery payment. It’s just a fee for service.’ Does the minister stand by this statement? 79 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr TRUSS —I responded to that question in anticipation in my last answer. The reality is that it is not uncommon in business in Australia and around the world to pay commissions. We pay commissions to people, as I mentioned, when we buy or sell a house and when we buy or sell insurance. Farmers pay commission frequently when they sell their grain to an agent, whose job is to connect the supplier with the market. In those circumstances, that is a reasonable fee for service. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. Has the minister concluded his answer? The minister has concluded his answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I sought the call for about the last 10 seconds or so while you allowed the minister to continue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I asked the minister to resume his seat, which he has. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —On relevance, the question asked whether the minister stood by the statement, and he failed to answer that, as he did with the previous two questions. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Griffith will resume his seat. 79 79 15:11:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 Mr TOLLNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the government initiatives to counter violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities? 79 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr BROUGH —I thank the member for Solomon for his ongoing interest in the affairs of Aboriginal Australians, particularly in the Northern Territory. As every member of this House is aware, it has been a very high priority of this government to address the criminal activity that has been occurring in many remote parts of Australia, particularly in Indigenous communities. As such, we committed to a $130 million package at the June summit, which was subsequently committed to and signed off by all the state and territory premiers and chief ministers with the Prime Minister at COAG. As part of that, we have extended the Central Australia Substance Abuse Intelligence Desk for another 12 months. It has been indicting drugs that have been going to remote communities and destroying young people’s lives. We have also put in a place a sniffer dog team. There is one in Darwin and there will now be one permanently based in Alice Springs. In addition, in a recent visit to Alice Springs, I was unfortunately informed by Northern Territory police officers there that, whilst looking after this very large, remote area, they had no vehicles supplied to them by the Northern Territory Police—which came as somewhat of a surprise. Even though dismayed, I undertook through our department to fund those vehicles immediately so that they could do their work. I have written to the Territory government asking them to, obviously, pick up a necessary component of policing, that being vehicles, throughout the Northern Territory. Yesterday I announced the appointment of an independent auditor of remote Indigenous communities so that we can better ascertain the real policing needs for those communities, and that person is Mr John Valentin. He is the former Deputy Commissioner for the Northern Territory Police. His appointment has been welcomed by the Australian Police Association, as it has been by many others. His task over the next three months will be to determine what policing levels are needed to ensure the safety and security that most of us enjoy, and all of us deserve, in our communities. It will help us to be able to determine, with state and territory governments, where the $40 million that we have allocated to new police stations and new police houses will be used, so that it is on the best advice that these communities can enjoy a safer future and these young Aboriginal people can have the same sort of future that the rest of us expect throughout Australia. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 80 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 80 15:14:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —I certainly do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —At 2.37 pm yesterday in the Senate, one-time TWU leader Senator Sterle alleged that the current negotiations for transfer of some Perth airport land for the purpose of extension of the Guildford cemetery had been delayed because the land ‘contains a track used by the Liberal member for O’Connor to train his horses’. Some considerable years ago I had permission to exercise horses on airport land firebreaks situated outside the fenced airport perimeter, after providing evidence of appropriate insurance to indemnify the airport authorities. I have not visited the area for approximately five years, since I personally ceased riding racehorses for fear I might have become a permanent resident of the adjoining cemetery. Nor has the area been used by my horses under my care. Senator Sterle could have established this fact with one simple phone call. 81 Questions to the Speaker 81 81 15:15:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr BEVIS —Mr Speaker, on Tuesday this week the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations moved a motion which Hansard records in the following terms: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the House from condemning forthwith the Member for Perth. The member for Grayndler asked whether or not that motion was in order, saying: Is it in order for the House and for you to accept a motion before this House that simply condemns the member for Perth … To which you responded: The minister has moved a suspension of standing orders and he is in order. As the debate unfolded, that motion which you advised was a suspension of standing orders was actually dealt with as both a suspension and censure in the one vote, contrary to the earlier advice given to the member for Grayndler. My question to you, Mr Speaker, concerns the wording of the original motion. You may be aware that your department has, just in the last week, installed the latest Macquarie Dictionary on our parliamentary systems. It defines ‘forthwith’ as ‘immediately’, ‘without delay’ and ‘as soon as can be reasonably be expected’ and lists the alternatives in its thesaurus as ‘hurriedly’ or ‘momentarily’. None of those definitions represent concurrent or simultaneous activity, nor did the motion moved by the minister for employment have words to the effect that the censure occurred by passage of the suspension motion. Given that it is customary for motions in this parliament to include the words ‘forthwith’—for example, ‘that the third reading be moved forthwith’—in what circumstances will the use of the word ‘forthwith’ now take on a meaning different to that in simple English as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary and thesaurus? Mr Speaker, will you review whether or not the motion moved by the minister was, as you advised the member for Grayndler, a suspension of standing orders or, as later occurred, a combined suspension and censure? Alternatively, will you provide guidelines as to when the word ‘forthwith’ will have its normal English meaning as opposed to the meaning that it was given on Tuesday? 81 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. The first point I would make is that the ruling was made at the time. It was discussed again yesterday. He is also aware that the matter is being referred to the Procedure Committee. I believe that the Procedure Committee will look at it. 81 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr BEVIS —I am aware of the decisions yesterday and the agreement for it to go to the Procedure Committee. I am also aware that it can take quite some time for the Procedure Committee to report to the parliament—or at least history tells us that that can be so. In the interim, will you provide guidelines—a statement from the chair—to define when the word ‘forthwith’ will have its normal English meaning and when it will have the meaning given to it on Tuesday? 81 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —It is not the role of the chair to offer advice. The chair will consider motions as and when they appear before the chair and deal with them at the time. 81 81 15:19:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr TANNER —Mr Speaker, I refer you to Hansard and the House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings of 7 March 1995, which dealt with a motion of censure following on a motion of suspension moved by the then Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, against the then member for Barker, and the fact that in the House Votes and Proceedings it is recorded that the question on the suspension was put and passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority and then, after that vote, the censure motion moved by the Attorney-General was put and was subject to a division, which was recorded as being resolved in the affirmative. You may recall this, Mr Speaker, because you were a teller in this division. Firstly, I draw your attention to that particular direct precedent to the matters that occurred on Tuesday in an identical set of circumstances. Secondly, I draw your attention to standing order 47(c), which, as that particular instance indicates, requires an absolute majority—that is, 76 votes of the House—to be recorded in order for a suspension motion that is moved without notice to be successful. I note that the motion moved by the minister on Tuesday which you declared to be a composite motion of a suspension and a censure is declared in the Hansard to have been agreed to. My question to you is: when such a composite motion is moved, where it is both a suspension and a substantive censure, does it require an absolute majority of votes of the House in order to succeed? 82 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Melbourne. I believe that there are probably a number of precedents that we might look at as well as that one, including some votes more recently. As the member is well aware, the matter is being referred to the Procedure Committee, and I believe that is the most appropriate place for it. Also, I think the particular vote this week that he is referring to was carried by an absolute majority. 82 82 15:21:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, my question to you refers to Tuesday’s events and the debate again yesterday. Does voting for a suspension motion necessarily imply support for the motion that would be subsequently moved if the suspension is carried? 82 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —It is an interesting question. The whole point about it is that, when members vote on a motion, they vote as they understand the motion to be. 82 82 15:22:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr MELHAM —Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the 5th edition of the House of Representatives Practice at page 187, which says: The Speaker has stated that House of Representatives Practice is the authoritative source of precedent. I also draw your attention to page 186 of House of Representatives Practice, which talks about traditional practice, and I quote: A number of practices and conventions are observed in the House which are not imposed either by the Constitution or by the standing orders, but which are traditional parliamentary rules, often also followed in other parliaments operating in the Westminster tradition. An example of such a convention is the sub judice convention. Another is the practice that a charge against a Member should only be made by means of a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Mr Speaker, that was not brought to your attention on Tuesday. The reason I draw it to your attention and the House’s attention now is the practice that might occur between now and when the Procedure Committee next meets on this matter. 82 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Banks and note the points that he raised. 82 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 82 15:23:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry claimed in question time today that I have made no public comment on drought. Since assuming this portfolio, I have issued 13 press releases relating to the failure of the Howard government’s drought policy, I have made several policy speeches to industry associations on drought matters and, indeed, I have launched the Labor Party’s policy specifically relating to drought. The minister also misrepresented my position on farmers accessing assistance in EC declared areas. In that particular statement that I made to the press, I claimed that 13 per cent of farmers in EC declared areas actually receive assistance. That is information that we obtained from the minister’s department in Senate estimates. Given the minister’s performance on the mandatory code of conduct, farmers know who the liar is in this place. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Corio will resume his seat. When the member wishes to raise a matter like that, he will stick to where he has been personally misrepresented and not debate the issue. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor interjecting— XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —Enjoy it while you can, member for Corio, because your own colleagues have kicked you out. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has the call. 83 15:25:00 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr McGAURAN —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —Just now the member for Corio misrepresented me. I wish to table the transcript of an ABC interview in which he claimed only 13 per cent of farmers have ever accessed EC provisions. He has misled the Australian public yet again. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. 83 Questions to the Speaker 83 83 15:25:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr BOWEN —Mr Speaker, further to my question to you yesterday and your response, the Hansard indicates that when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry took a point of order that the motion being moved by the member for Perth on Tuesday was too long, you replied: The minister has a valid point of order. Given your answer to me yesterday that you did not rule that the member for Perth’s motion was too long, and to assist honourable members and to ensure clarity, can members now take it that, in fact, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry did not have a valid point of order? 83 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I respond to the member by saying that the Speaker does have the authority to amend notices and motions. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr Brough —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you asked the member for Corio to withdraw a moment ago, you might have misheard but he did not in fact withdraw; he said, ‘I misdraw.’ I would ask you to clarify that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I heard it, he said, ‘I withdraw.’ 83 DOCUMENTS 83 83 15:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2005-06. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 84 AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS 84 84 15:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 6 of 2006-07 entitled Recordkeeping including the management of electronic records. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 84 DOCUMENTS Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland —Deputy 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: Aboriginals Benefit Account—Report for 2005-06. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report No. 36—Report of an inquiry into a complaint of a breach of Ms CD’s human rights at the Curtin Immigration Processing  and Reception Centre. Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned. 84 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 84 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s decade-long neglect of training, resulting in the failure to build a modern, competitive economy to ensure the prosperity of future generations of Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 84 15:28:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —The skills crisis is an inconvenient truth for this Prime Minister. Australia’s skills crisis is hurting Australian families and Australian businesses, and now we know that it is hurting the Prime Minister. It is hurting the Prime Minister, and that is why he has been forced to act in the way that he has today. The Prime Minister created this skills crisis. He is responsible for the massive skills shortage which is hurting Australian families, driving up interest rates and making it impossible for Australian businesses to find the skilled labour that they need. We know that since it was elected this government has turned 300,000 young Australians away from TAFE. That is 300,000 young people who could have had the opportunity to learn a trade, to learn a skill, being turned away because of this government’s budget cuts back in 1996-97, the freezing of TAFE spending up until 2000 and of course the slashing of university budgets. What have we seen today from the Prime Minister? A desperate attempt to catch up and deal with an issue that Labor have been putting on the agenda since the last election. Labor have put forward costed policies to make sure that we get enough electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, and so the list goes on. We want to make sure that we have enough of those skilled tradespeople on the job, working in this country, so that we can prosper again. We know, the Reserve Bank knows, Australian families know and of course business knows that the skills crisis is the No. 1 economic issue facing this country. But what does the Prime Minister think? Does he think there is a skills crisis? I will read a couple of his quotes. Back in March 2005, in response to one of my questions, he said: ... I have absolutely no intention of embracing this absurd rhetoric—which is quite false, when you actually look at the increase that has occurred—that there is some kind of skills crisis. In September this year he said: All I ask is that you not mistake boiler-plate rhetoric about a skills crisis ... with anything approaching actual policy insight. Today the Prime Minister provided $800 million to fix a crisis that does not exist. He has spent $800 million of taxpayers’ money to fix something that he does not even think exists. It is quite an extraordinary performance from this Prime Minister. We on this side of the parliament know, and we have been saying it over and over again since the last election, that the lack of skilled workers in this country is the No. 1 economic issue in Australia. It demonstrates the lack of economic management on the part of this government. We know that it is the skills crisis that is pulling down investment, slowing economic growth and, most importantly, as the shadow Treasurer continues to point out, dragging down productivity. What is the government’s answer to the productivity challenge? We know what they want to do. The member for North Sydney, the Minister for Human Services, let the cat out of the bag yesterday. Their idea is basically to make everybody work harder, to drive wages down and, if we refuse to work for those lower wages, bring in more people from overseas. That is the government’s answer to the productivity challenge facing this country. Labor’s answer to the productivity challenge facing this country is to invest in the skills of our people. We know that that is the only way for our country to go forward. Let us look at what the package that was announced today does. Some useful things are finally being done, but it is absolutely extraordinary that this government has ignored the fact that two-thirds of Australian apprentices are under the age of 25. There is absolutely nothing in the package that was announced today, called the Skills Future, that is going to address the issues that affect the people who are our future, the young people of this country—the future of Australia. There is nothing in this package to invest in their future. There is nothing to help them complete their training. One of the shameful statistics that this government needs to take responsibility for is the 40 per cent dropout rate of apprentices in training. Forty per cent of them drop out of their training. Why? Because the wages are so abysmal. Do you think the government could have done something about that today? Of course they could have. First of all, they could have picked up the policy that we have had out there for some time, our trade completion bonus, or they could have thought of something else to do to help these people finish their training. But, no, there is absolutely nothing to help those young people who are desperately needed in our economy. I want to touch on another issue that is so important in this area, and that is the need for us to focus on the standard of education that our apprentices are getting. We hear a lot about standards in areas that the federal government says it has no responsibility for. The Minister for Education, Science and Training wants to reintroduce the teaching of Latin. That should help to deal with the skills crisis! What Labor want is serious investment in the traditional trades. We want some decent standards attached to the training of tradespeople. We do not want any of the tick-and-flick training practices that go on in far too many workplaces in this country. What we want is decent, high-quality training to make sure that we address the skills crisis. I want to take the opportunity to set out what we see as the real policy needs that the Prime Minister has refused to address today. It has taken a very long time for the Prime Minister to even get up here and make the announcement that he has. We have been setting out detailed policy. Last September, the Leader of the Opposition set out a major skills blueprint and really threw down the challenge to the government—a whole year ago—to say: ‘These are the things that really could be done to address Australia’s skills crisis. Let’s go to the root cause of the problem. We need to make sure that in our secondary schools right around Australia we get more young people interested in the trades. It is the case that far too few of our young people are going into the traditional trades.’ So what did Labor propose a whole year ago? We proposed serious investment in trade facilities in our secondary schools for those 12- and 13-year-old kids who are interested in the trades and who want to try them out. We want the best trades facilities in our schools for them. We recognise that for those kids who are in years 9 and 10 it is a difficult time. They are starting to think about what sort of job they might go into. We proposed—a whole year ago—a trade taster program so that those kids could try out different trades and see which one they were suited to. A second initiative put forward by Labor—another initiative raised in the same speech given by the Leader of the Opposition—is that Labor is going to have specialised trade schools in each school district, and we will make sure our young people in years 11 and 12 have the choice to go to those specialised trade schools. We are not going to just have 25 of these technical schools around the country. We know they have to be available in every single school district and, of course, we will do it in a cooperative way with the state and territory governments. Since then we have announced a number of other policies. We have also announced that we would like to see an extra 4,000 school based apprenticeship positions and will pay a little bit extra to the schools associated with every school based apprenticeship position to make sure that they work well for the young person and for the business that is prepared to take them on. Those are all detailed policies that Labor has put forward. Have any of them been picked up today by the Prime Minister? Not one of them—and I have not finished yet. Labor has also proposed—and this is extremely important—that every single trade apprentice, and there are over 60,000 of them every year, will get a skills account. Over the life of their apprenticeship that means they will get $3,200 in their skills account for them to use to make sure that they do not face up-front TAFE fees. It is a very important initiative announced by Labor. What do we get from the Prime Minister? All we get is complaints about TAFE fees. He said today in his ministerial statement, ‘Oh, those TAFE fees, they’re terrible; they’re affecting whether or not young people do a traditional trade.’ Did he do anything about them? Did he announce anything today to address TAFE fees? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Jagajaga does not need any help. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —He is the Prime Minister of this country. If he wanted to do something about TAFE fees, of course he could. More importantly, he could just pick up Labor’s policy. Of course, we have made sure that we have discussed this with the state and territory governments. We know that we have to get an agreement with them to make sure that there is no increase in TAFE fees. It is Labor in opposition that is putting forward the only practical means to get rid of these up-front TAFE fees that are making it so hard for our young apprentices. We have also recognised that something urgently has to be thought up to address the terrible dropout rate in our apprenticeships. So, once again, it is Labor that has put forward a practical way to address this problem. Labor has proposed a trade completion of $2,000 tax free to go into the pockets of our young apprentices. One of the things you find out when you go around and talk to these kids in their TAFEs and in their workplaces, as we on this side of the House know, is why they drop out. On $6 or $7 an hour, it is very, very hard for them to afford to keep going. So Labor knows that we have to do everything we possibly can to put some money in their pockets—$1,000 halfway through their apprenticeship and another $1,000 at the end of their apprenticeship to keep them in training and to make sure that we do not have 40 per cent of them dropping out of their trade and therefore not going on to fill the very serious gap in skills that we have. Remembering the figures that were announced in the Prime Minister’s ministerial statement today, when it comes to apprenticeships there is the additional wage subsidy that will go to 10,000 mature age apprentices. The Australian Industry Group says we need 270,000 extra tradespeople. The Prime Minister is going to give this wage subsidy to 10,000. That is his answer to Australia’s skills crisis, to making sure we do something to address what is holding this country back—10,000 against 270,000. Contrast that to the huge suite of policies that Labor has put forward over the last one or two years. They are detailed, costed policies which are all about making sure we get young people at school interested in a trade, that we keep them in the trades, that they can afford to pay their TAFE fees and that they have some money left over in their skills account to do one of the things that the Prime Minister actually announced today. One of the things that we announced at the beginning of this year as part of the skills account was that anything left over could be used to do business or entrepreneurial courses. So, thank you, Prime Minister, we are glad that you recognise this is a very important issue to pick up. For goodness sake, pick up all the rest of Labor’s policies—Australia urgently needs it. Australia needs it, our families need it and our businesses need it; otherwise, just get out of the way. 87 15:43:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —On the day when Australia’s unemployment has reached the extraordinary low level of 4.8 per cent, Labor brings on a matter of public importance that says that we do not have a modern, competitive economy. It accuses the government of failing to build a modern, competitive economy. The Australian economy is outperforming comparable economies around the world. The OECD, the international organisation that surveys all of the advanced economies of the world, recommended this year that Australia be the role model economy for other economies around the world. In fact, the OECD report of this year confirmed an extremely strong endorsement of the government’s economic management and Australia’s economic performance. The survey noted: Recent macroeconomic performance continues to be impressive ... It went on to say: Living standards have steadily improved— this is in Australia— since the beginning of the 1990s and now surpass all G7 countries except the United States. We have one of the highest living standards in the world and an economy that the OECD says should be a role model for other countries around the world, yet Labor bring on today a matter of public importance—according to them—that says that the government has failed ‘to build a modern, competitive economy’. I have to ask: what parallel universe does the opposition inhabit? We are being lectured on a modern economy by the keynote speaker at the Marx Centenary Conference. The member for Jagajaga declares a war on capital, yet she can come into this House and suggest that the OECD has got it all wrong and that she, in fact, knows what a successful economy is all about. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Sydney! 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sydney is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP — According to the OECD, we have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Today the Treasurer was able to announce some very good news. In the month of September, there were 36,000 new full-time jobs created. The unemployment rate is 4.8 per cent—the 37th consecutive month of unemployment below six per cent. There was a time when people thought six or seven per cent was full employment. Today Australia has 4.8 per cent unemployment in this country. It is breathtaking hypocrisy for Labor to accuse the government of failing to build a modern, competitive economy. Let us have a look at what the situation was when Labor were in government. This is their idea of a modern, competitive economy. Back when Labor were in office, Australian government debt had reached almost $100 billion after five successive budget deficits. They had already sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank and they were still able to rack up a debt of $100 billion. Interest rates had peaked at 17 per cent for homeowners. They averaged 12 per cent under Labor. Unemployment reached almost 11 per cent, averaged at 8½ per cent. Inflation averaged at more than five per cent. This shameful record of Labor hit average Australians hard, damaged small business and destroyed the confidence of this nation. We have heard a lot today from the opposition. I want to remind the House of a comment from the Leader of the Opposition when he had responsibility for education and training. He said: ... I had sort of finally got to accept that I would never be Defence Minister again, so I lost a lot of ambition and I stopped straining ... I thought that there was less capacity to achieve in that [education] portfolio than just about any I have had. That is a disgraceful admission from a man who would want to be Prime Minister of this country. Compare this to the energy, the commitment and the reforming zeal of the Howard government. The admission of failure on the part of the Labor Party does not stop at federal Labor. The Victorian Labor education minister recently admitted that the Victorian Labor Party got it wrong when it closed that state’s technical schools in the 1980s. That was state Labor that closed technical schools in Victoria. I should also remind the House that back in 1993 when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Employment, Education and Training, the number of apprentices in training was down to 122,600. Under the coalition government, there are now more than 403,000 Australian apprentices in training. Labor—state and federal—have a track record of failure and a lack of commitment to providing young Australians with choice and opportunity in training and education. The Howard government has been able to provide opportunities to young Australians and we are also focusing on enhancing the skills of the entire workforce. The Prime Minister announced today a major package of skills initiatives worth $837 million over five years: Skills for the Future. This will deliver more opportunities for Australians to gain new skills and help develop a much more entrepreneurial workforce. We are focusing on the need for a continuous upgrading of skills over the course of an individual’s life. The package includes a major investment in improving the basic skills of Australia’s workforce. It will particularly assist adults to gain literacy and numeracy skills—basic requirements in the workplace. There will be new financial incentives to help more Australians who are looking to take up a trade apprenticeship midcareer. Apprentices in traditional trades will also receive support to help them gain the necessary skills to run their own businesses. The package makes a substantial new investment in Australia’s future engineering skills. As well as funding more university engineering places—in fact, 500 new engineering places in addition to the 510 new engineering places I announced in July of this year—our Skills for the Future package offers additional employer incentives so that more Australians gain higher level technical skills at diploma and advanced diploma levels. Vocational and technical education is a responsibility of the Commonwealth and the states and territories, and the Prime Minister has indicated that he expects the states and territories to invest in workforce education and training to complement the Commonwealth’s initiatives. Federal Labor would do the Australian community a service if it called upon state Labor to support our $837 million package with complementary funding. This $837 million package builds on the Australian government’s previous record commitment to vocational and technical education. Since March of 1996, when the Howard government came to office, funding for vocational and technical education has increased in real terms by 85.2 per cent and the Australian government is spending a record $10.8 billion over the next four years on vocational and technical education. In the 2006-07 financial year alone, the Australian government have committed $2½ billion, which includes funding for a range of initiatives aimed at addressing skills needs, particularly those in the traditional trades. I have put together a list of initiatives that the Australian government have introduced, to evidence our commitment to skilling Australia. It includes establishing 25 Australian technical colleges in 24 regions across Australia; establishing the Australian Institute for Trade Skills Excellence; providing a tool kit worth up to $800 to Australian apprentices in skill needs occupations; providing two $500 Commonwealth trade learning scholarships to Australian apprentices in skills needs occupations who are employed by small or medium sized businesses or a group training organisation; providing an additional 5,000 places per annum for four years in the access program, which assists job seekers experiencing barriers to skilled employment to obtain and maintain an Australian apprenticeship; providing up to 4,500 prevocational training places in the trades through group training arrangements; working in partnership with the group training organisations to provide an additional 7,000 Australian school based apprenticeships; increasing the funding for Australian apprenticeship centres to allow them to intervene at key points during an apprenticeship to increase retention and completion rates, particularly in occupations that are experiencing strong skills needs; extending employer incentives to include selected diploma and advanced diploma qualifications; and supporting national reforms—getting the states and territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, to agree to support initiatives that are designed to underpin a new and genuinely national approach to apprenticeships, training and skills recognition. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Now we just need the states. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education will have an opportunity to speak. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —This is part of the government’s commitment to addressing skills needs that are evident in some parts of the country. It has to be remembered that the states and territories are responsible for all aspects of training in their jurisdictions. The decisions on courses and the level of fees that are charged are made by the relevant authority in each state and territory. This is so fundamental, yet the member for Jagajaga does not seem to understand that there is nothing to stop state Labor governments from increasing fees. She says, ‘What is the federal government doing about state government fees in TAFE?’ I say, ‘What are state Labor governments doing about state Labor fees in TAFE?’ CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Lifting them. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —Yes, lifting them. I also point out that, back when Labor was in government, an estimated 89,300 individuals applied for but were unable to gain a place to study in a VTE course and 69,400 of these were seeking access to a TAFE place—TAFEs that are run by state Labor governments. Under the Howard government, unmet demand has almost halved and still most of those people are seeking a place at TAFE. Young people in Australia need to be supported in their life choices. They need timely and professional advice so that they can pursue a trade or further training or go on to university. The Australian government is committed to improving the quality of career education available to support 13- to 19-year-olds and allow them to achieve a smooth transition through school and from school to further study or work. We are doing this through Career Advice Australia. This is the first truly national career development and transition support system for all young Australians aged 13 to 19 years. This is a significant plank in our support for enhancing job opportunities to ensure we have a more productive workforce. The Australian government is injecting some $280 million into this initiative over 2006-08. Career Advice Australia helps parents, teachers and schools to better understand post-school options. It encourages business and industry to get involved in shaping the future workforce. It gives students the opportunity to gain employability skills through programs such as Structured Workplace Learning and the Adopt-a-School project. It ensures that all young people have access to high-quality and relevant regional and industry-specific career related information. We have local community partnerships forming. They are developing relationships with key community groups—with local industry, employer groups, schools and others. They are delivering three important programs on behalf of the Australian government: the Structured Workplace Learning program, the Career and Transition Support Program and the Adopt-a-School project. Career Advice Australia also aims to improve the standard and status of career support given in schools through scholarships for career advisers, Australian Career Development Studies, school and industry leaders forums and the Career Education Lighthouse forums. We are focusing on not only the 13- to 19-year-olds; we are supporting all workers to help them to upgrade their skills throughout their working lives. The $837 million package that the Prime Minister has announced today will ensure that we do have a productive workforce for the future. We are going to invest $408 million in work skills vouchers for adult Australians with no formal qualifications. We are giving them the opportunity to gain important basic skills to lift their productivity and participation in the labour market. Close to $307 million is going to be provided for a mid-career apprenticeship initiative which will assist up to 10,000 apprentices aged 30 and over each year in trades experiencing strong skill needs. Specifically, the initiative assists those employers who find it difficult to remunerate mature apprentices on adult rates of pay whilst they are in the early years of training and are therefore less productive, and those apprentices who may not participate in an apprenticeship because a career change means dropping to a junior rate of remuneration. The business skills vouchers for apprentices will ensure that apprentices in trades in demand will be encouraged to undertake additional training in small business skills to enhance their future careers. As I mentioned, there will be 500 new engineering places at universities commencing in 2008. The Howard government is building a strong and productive workforce that will continue to underpin our national prosperity. We believe in choice for our young people. We believe they should be allowed to choose whether they want to go into a trade or to university. (Time expired) 91 15:58:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —It has been quite interesting to hear this afternoon some of the points made by the Minister for Education, Science and Training about this package. Minister, I have a number of words to say, but in particular it is just a case of too little, too late, I am afraid, when it comes to this—far too little and far too late. It is a pity that the minister is now leaving and will not hear the long list of neglect that the Howard government has left behind over the last 10 years when it comes to training. Obviously she does not care and is not interested in relation to this. It is the Howard government’s decade-long neglect of training that has resulted in the massive skills crisis that we now face in this country which is causing major damage to our economy. It is a major issue that has been brought up on this side of House on so many occasions. The reality is that this skills crisis is purely of the Prime Minister’s doing; it is purely his fault. For 10 long years he has done nothing to help the young people of this nation. It has been 10 long years of neglect—that is what it is; that is what has brought us to this point today. The fault certainly lies with him. The reason for this crisis is that the Prime Minister, the government and the minister for education place no value on training our young people. What we are seeing and hearing from them today and what we heard from the minister before was about a quick fix. That is what it is: a quick fix and nothing more. ‘How can we spin this one to save our hide?’—that is all they have been doing in here today. First we heard the Prime Minister and then the minister for education. That is all it was about: a quick political fix, not training of our young people. The reality is: it is not good enough. What the minister had to say is not good enough; what the Prime Minister had to say is not good enough—it is not good enough for the future of our young people and it is not good enough for the future of our nation. The neglect that we have seen from this government goes right to the heart of the lack of values the Prime Minister and this government place on our young people and the future of our nation. They place no value on training young people, no value on fair and just work conditions, no value in a fair go for families and no value in protecting our environment. They have an absolute lack of values when it comes to those very important issues that relate to the future of our nation. Over the past 10 years, the Prime Minister has denied Australians the opportunity to have real training and a real education so they can better themselves and contribute to our economy. I want the Prime Minister to come in here and answer these questions: in the past 10 years, how many Australians have been denied the chance to reach their true potential; how many tradespeople have we lost in that time; and how many major infrastructure projects have been put on hold because of this massive skills crisis? I believe the values and priorities of the federal government should be about training our young people, to provide jobs and strengthen our economy—that is where their values should lie. The government’s package that we heard about today raises so many questions. The main questions are: why now, and why have you waited so long? As I said before, the answer is very clear in relation to that: for 10 long years this government has not cared about the future of our nation and our children; this government is concerned about self-preservation and nothing else. That is what this quick fix is all about. This package is not a package providing for the future of our nation; it is a package designed to minimise political damage and that is all it is about. Let us have a bit of a look at the history of the skills crisis and how we got to this point today. As I said, this government has created the skills crisis. We have had businesses screaming out for years about the need for more skilled staff; we have had the Reserve Bank; we have had so many people within the community talking about it. On this side of the House, we have been talking about it for years, yet the government has repeatedly ignored all of those warnings. In that time, it has turned 300,000 young Australians away from TAFE and, under the Howard government, 40 per cent of apprentices have dropped out of their apprenticeships. As we have heard, there is nothing in this package to address that major problem. The government has done absolutely nothing about it. According to the OECD, Australia is the only developed country to have reduced public investment in universities and TAFEs since 1995. The government has decreased spending on universities by seven per cent while the rest of the OECD countries have increased spending by 48 per cent. That is an absolutely shameful record. Also, the government has cut $13.7 million from an incentive program to encourage rural and regional businesses to take on apprentices. Labor has been raising all of these issues year after year. Today, the Prime Minister comes in here and, instead of addressing the real issues that should have been addressed over the last 10 years, puts forward this political fix. What he is doing does not fix the major skills crisis in this country. The crisis has been driving up interest rates and hurting businesses and families. This government has been in complete denial about it. Even yesterday, the Minister for Human Services was in here saying the nation was not suffering a skills crisis but a general labour shortage, and today it is something different. It is absolutely appalling. It goes right to the heart of the government not having an understanding of or a priority for the values that we need in this nation. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —They are a bit out of touch. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —They are very out of touch—absolutely out of touch. The failure of this government to train our youth is the reason we have this skills crisis. If we look at teenage youth unemployment throughout this country, it is a shameful record. As of August 2006, it is 21.1 per cent; in electorates like mine, in Richmond, it is 29.8 per cent. That is a huge percentage of young people out of work. It is absolutely outrageous. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews interjecting— DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —I am talking about what it is now—and you can come up and speak to those young people—and how difficult it is for them. At the same time, we have a massive skills crisis as well in that area. It is an absolute failing of our government. We need to train those young people, and they need to be trained now. Of course, the Prime Minister is not interested in training our youth at all. He prefers to import apprentices from overseas. Instead, we should be training our Aussie kids, not driving down wages and importing workers—that is his solution to it. At the same time that 300,000 Australians are being turned away from TAFE, he has allowed 178,000 skilled workers into Australia. That is an outrageous situation while locals are being turned away. Migration is no substitute for training our young people, particularly those in regional areas where they have limited opportunities. I believe so strongly in providing proper investment in TAFEs, proper investment in training and proper investment in our universities—investment in our children and in our nation’s future. As I have said, under this government we have seen one of the largest declines in public investment in universities and TAFEs in any OECD country. I will say it again: while the rest of the OECD increased funding by 48 per cent, this government cut it by seven per cent. In its first two budgets this government slashed $240 million from its vocational education and training sector. Is it any wonder that we are now facing a skills shortage, with a history like that and after what they have done? As always, this government’s action is too little, too late. It is not good enough at all. By comparison, Labor has put forward numerous policies in relation to this issue because we are serious about education and we value education. We value our young people and we value our nation’s future. That is where our priorities lie. Labor over the years has been designing very strong, practical measures to ensure that our kids have affordable education and training choices like providing free TAFE, creating more apprenticeships, providing a lot more incentives to train apprentices in areas of skills shortages and offering young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities. Those are the sorts of measures we need, particularly given the difficulties we face with people not completing their apprenticeships. There was nothing in that package today at all to address that major issue. We have to make sure the young people get into these apprenticeships and stay in them. That is where the focus should be and we have not seen that from this government at all. We also need to be looking at options to reduce the HECS burden in critical areas of shortage, particularly in our rural and regional areas where there is an absolute, critical need for skilled labour. All we have seen from this government is how they have systematically denied Australians the opportunity to have real training and a real education so they can better themselves and contribute to our economy. As we have said on many occasions, one of the major factors causing a strain on our economy is the huge skill shortage that we are facing. It has to be fixed. There have been so many warnings from so many different groups—from the Reserve Bank right across to businesses—that this government have ignored time after time, yet the government come in here today and suddenly all these quick fixes start appearing. I think people realise exactly what it is: nothing more than a quick fix. Investing in institutions and programs designed to give our young people the skills they need to get a job addresses the skills crisis and youth unemployment, and that leads to future prosperity. As I said, the values and priorities of a federal government should focus on training our youth by providing jobs and strengthening our economy, not providing a quick political fix. Yet the only value this government has, the only value it adheres to, is protecting itself, and it keeps doing that time and time again. It is not placing any value on where the solutions are needed and is not providing for the future of our nation. It is only consumed with protecting its own hide and what spin it can put on the next stop round the corner—whatever that may be. (Time expired) 94 16:08:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I am sure the member for Richmond is relieved her time has expired. Somebody must have told her it was a five-minute speech, because she used the same one at least twice. I am pleased to rise today to make some simple and straightforward comparisons between what the people on the opposite benches have done and what this government is doing, and continues to do, when it comes to creating new opportunities for more Australians. It is interesting to note that those opposite have only actually talked about skills as an issue since the government’s agenda on skills was announced in the 2004 federal election. As part of the proposition that this government put forward in September 2004 and during that election period two years ago, we said we would create the Australian technical colleges, that we would invest in tools for the trades—in other words, an $800 tool kit for people in areas of skills shortage, particularly those in small and medium enterprises—and that we would provide a Commonwealth trade learning scholarship to give people in the first couple of years of their trade apprenticeship an opportunity to gain a $500 tax-free grant from the government to help them lift their overall income circumstances. That is when the Labor Party started to talk about it. For the entire term of government prior to those announcements, the only utterances we heard from those opposite was about universities. Is it any wonder so many people in Australia are enormously despondent as they embark upon the pathway to trade training—the nation building skills that have underpinned all that we have achieved in this country to date? Those people who invested in themselves by investing in the trades are enormously despondent because the Labor Party have not learnt anything over the last 20 or 30 years and because of the academic, highbrow discussion that if you have not got a degree you are a dud. Even today, the member for Richmond’s contribution was an automatic return to the comfort zone. In the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the Prime Minister’s comments at midday today he automatically returned to the comfort zone of talking about universities and university degrees. This government has said, ‘Hang on, the people who have the skills, who have the dignity of doing with their hands what they know is in their heads, need to be celebrated and we need to acknowledge what they are: national heroes and nation builders.’ I have to say to the member for Richmond, who sadly mouths the nonsense that is put in front of her by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the gaggle who hang on around her, that if she wants to talk about lost opportunities let us look at some basic statistics here. Ten years after the previous Labor government were elected, and it is about 10 years since we were elected—in other words, in 1993—we saw 1.1 million people unemployed. What sort of denial existed about opportunity for those 1.1 million people? They were unemployed. Labor saw training programs purely as a means of hiding the unemployment figures. They put money in through their Working Nation program to hide people, to take them off the unemployment list, and mandated that they had to go off and train. We had a lot of people who became expert in weaving baskets and cutting carrots! In fact, just 122,000 people were actually involved in the apprenticeship system in this country in 1993, when the member for Brand was the minister responsible for employment—really, the minister for unemployment—and the minister responsible for training. Factor into that that 10 years after this government was elected we have 403,600 people in training in apprenticeships in Australia today. That is 403,600 people who understand that the investment they are placing in themselves and that their employers are placing in them is going to make a difference for them because they are going to get skills that will stand them in enormously good stead in the years to come. Contrast the figure of 1.1 million people unemployed with the 4.8 per cent unemployment rate. In the state of New South Wales, where the poor old member for Richmond comes from, 5.5 per cent is the unemployment rate. Simply put, it is the worst performing economy and the biggest economy in Australia. Her electorate office is about 100 kilometres away from mine—and it is not far from yours, I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley. The member for Richmond used to be a police officer on the Gold Coast. Her faction got her to move south of the border to give her a chance to get a seat in this place, and she was elected. What the member for Richmond needs to understand is that what happens at Tweed Heads, on the New South Wales side of the border, is completely different from what happens at Coolangatta, on the Queensland side of the border. On the Queensland side, kids attending local schools can in fact start full-blown apprenticeships in the trades while they are at school. They can actually go and get a job part-time, working for an employer, earning a wage, and commence their trade training while they are at school. In Queensland there are thousands of kids involved in school based apprenticeships in the trades—learning to lay bricks, learning to fix cars, learning to build houses, learning to be electricians, learning to do all sorts of amazing things—because they can in that state. An initiative of this government to create school based apprenticeships was grabbed hold of by the short-lived coalition government in Queensland and, to the credit of the current government, was kept going. Out of the 16,100 people in school based apprenticeships around Australia, 8,000 are in Queensland. In the state of New South Wales, not one person is allowed to do a school based apprenticeship in the trades—not one person. I would reckon, at a conservative estimate, that 10,000 or more young people in New South Wales are denied the opportunity to start a trade while they are at school. Why? It is due to the social engineering of the Left of the Labor Party. The Premier of New South Wales, Morris Iemma, says that he is all in favour of school based apprenticeships but he has done all he can to avoid them occurring because of— 0K6 Bartlett, Kerry, MP Mr Bartlett —The unions. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Macquarie, the Chief Government Whip, rightly makes the point that the unions, with their interference in and control of the agenda in New South Wales, have said: ‘No, we want to actually stop people from entering the trades. The last thing we want are more people in the trades. We want to deny people access to the trades while they are at school.’ Now, what sort of damage is that doing to the economy? The New South Wales unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent shows that New South Wales is writing its own ticket to the dump. That is what is going on in the New South Wales government today. In contrast, this government has created 1.9 million new jobs over the last 10 years and created 205,000 new jobs over the last six months. In fact, if you look at every six-month period through all seasons and so forth over the last 20 years, the average is about 70,000 jobs. But something happened six months ago. It is called Work Choices, and it introduced a sense of trust, a sense of choice, into the workplace. Employers and employees are sitting down together like never before, recognising each other’s value, recognising the rights as well as the responsibilities of people at work and creating opportunities as a result. In every state bar New South Wales—Western Australia are being slow, but I am generous enough to say they are getting there—opportunities are expressly being given to kids while they are at school. As the member for Page, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have to be distressed that the North Coast of New South Wales continues to have high levels of unemployment for youth: as high as 30 per cent by some estimates—as put into the Hansard by the member for Richmond. The member for Page would be concerned about that. The member for Page knows that he would like to see an Australian technical college operating in the North Coast of New South Wales. If it were not for the New South Wales state government demanding that no school based apprenticeship could take place, demanding that every teacher—good, bad or otherwise—had to be paid the same and no-one could be offered private agreements, and demanding that all incentives were taken out of the question of training and apprenticeships in that part of the North Coast of New South Wales, maybe the member for Page might have his Australian technical college. The New South Wales government is holding back Australia. But there is not one word from those opposite about how they are going to exert their influence, through their little left-wing socialist collectives, to get the change that is desperately needed in this country—to get the biggest economy and the biggest state doing the job that should be done, and that is to offer kids in that state opportunities to learn a trade. In any discussion about trades, any comparison between the two major parties puts us in the box seat every time. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 96 BILLS S513 96 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that the bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 96 Mr ANDREWS (Menzies —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:19:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 97 BILLS R2570 97 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that the bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 97 Mr ANDREWS (Menzies —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:20:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 97 BILLS R2451 97 Debate resumed. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler 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. 97 16:21:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks in relation to this very important matter, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005. When I concluded my remarks just prior to question time, I was about to refer to some remarks made by a colleague of mine in another place. During an earlier debate on this bill he pointed out: If you want a site of national significance in terms of land rights, surely Wave Hill would meet that criterion. In terms of political and cultural significance surely that site would meet all reasonable criteria. But what you have is a political decision made by the government to not act on this because it finds it to be symbolically embarrassing. It is a symbol it does not want to face up to because it goes to those fundamental questions about the rights of Indigenous people. There are some issues that this government wants to turn its back on. It does not want to address these matters because its version of the cultural wars is prosecuted to the exclusion of those who disagree with it, and this is one very good example. In the context of the debates that we have been having recently about the Prime Minister’s aversion to what he terms the ‘black armband view of history’ and his support of the very contentious views of Keith Windschuttle, I think it is timely to remind ourselves of the importance of Vincent Lingiari and the events at Wave Hill in Australia’s history, not just because they were very important events but because they are not known. They are not known, because people do not want to acknowledge them. For those on the government side, we know that the culture warriors have not been idle in debunking the significance of Wave Hill. A recent article on the events in the Weekend Australian quoted approvingly from a new historical interpretation of the walk-off. In the culture wars version, pastoral managers were deeply concerned when the walk-offs began. Writer Nicolas Rothwell said: With a vague sense of regret, the station managers changed the economics of their industry. Far from feeling that they had underpaid their workers, they believed (and the figures support them) that they had been obliged for years to shoulder the hidden welfare costs for a large community of dependents. It should be no surprise that these matters are contended by those people who were there—those Indigenous Australians who were suffering at the hands of some pastoralists; not all, of course, but some. But the intention of the rewriting of this particular history is to repackage the oppression of the time and focus on the station owners’ alleged concern and sorrow about Aboriginal stockmen acting against their own interests by being paid equal wages. Of course, fundamentally it is wrong. And it is poor history. The true picture of the conditions that created the walk-off at Wave Hill, Newcastle Waters and elsewhere is to be found in the pioneering study of the industry, The end of an era, by the eminent anthropologists Ronald and Catherine Berndt. It can also be found in Ann McGrath’s excellent study, Born in the cattle. But most importantly it can still be found in the living heritage of today’s Gurindji people. One of the original strikers, one of those people present at that time, was a man I know quite well, Mick Rangiari, affectionately known as ‘Hoppy’. He is now, sadly, very old and frail and confined almost permanently to a wheelchair. He has lived his entire life with a poorly treated injury from his work as a stockman. To put it more succinctly, at the 40th anniversary celebrations he said that Aboriginal stockmen had been treated ‘like dogs’. It is very important that, whilst we understand that there may be some contention about the interpretation of historical events, we refer to the original source material. And in this case the original source material is in the minds of the Aboriginal people who were alive and involved and engaged in this particular struggle. Of course, in the end it was not just a strike about poor conditions. It became a symbol for the quest for recognition of rights as landowners and of land rights. That is why it is so important for Australia to recognise and understand these stories. In the dialogue that we have in this place, in our ruminating over the history of this country, this particular story and other stories permeate the landscape of Dagaragu and Kalkaringi. While the Aboriginal names have returned and all but erased names like Wattie Creek and Hooker Creek, the story of the walk-off is part of the legacy of today’s Gurindji. They want to offer that story to the nation as part of a heritage precinct that will, at the same time, be a tourist attraction for people braving the true outback Australia—the remote communities of the north. My Northern Territory colleague Marion Scrymgour has already placed Wave Hill on the NT heritage register. She has pledged the support of the NT government and has already allocated about $200,000 for the heritage precinct project. The NT tourism commission has successfully promoted Wave Hill visits as part of visits to Gregory National Park and the surrounding region. That promotion means a growth in four-wheel drive visits from zero five years ago to 18,000 last year. That means business in a place that needs an economy. But we are still waiting on the Commonwealth minister, sadly, to do the right thing. The lesson from Wave Hill is clear: support for a local appeal for heritage protection does not only mean a historical cultural asset is recognised and protected; it can also mean business opportunities arising from tourism. In this particular instance, it means really decent employment options for young Aboriginal Territorians. Tourists gain something when they experience something of Aboriginal heritage, whether it is rock art paintings thousands of years old or the true story of the strike that happened 40 years ago and is still shaking the world. That something is a walk in someone else’s shoes and a new view of the world. It is a precursor to understanding and true reconciliation, which I know is not a comfortable term these days with this government. If the Prime Minister were actually interested in understanding true reconciliation, he would understand how important Aboriginal heritage is to our image of ourselves as Australians and he would be doing his absolute utmost to protect and support it. Unfortunately, this bill is all too clear evidence that he has not got the ticker for the task. I want to make sure that we understand the import of this piece of legislation, the tawdry way it has been dealt with by this government in the past and the government’s failure to live up to expectations in this current bill. I strongly urge the House to support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Grayndler. I want to emphasise my strong belief that it is in our national interests to recognise and support heritage sites, such as those at Wave Hill, which applaud and recognise the role of these brave Indigenous Australians. (Time expired) Debate interrupted. 99 ADJOURNMENT 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being nearly 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 99 99 16:29:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —Bert James was the member for Hunter between 1960 and 1980. Sadly, as the House noted on Monday, Bert passed away on 30 September at the ripe old age of 92—so he had a pretty good innings. Bert James was known as a frank, fearless and uncompromising representative and advocate. People may find cause to disagree with his politics and at times his methods, but his commitment to his beliefs and to his constituents could never be questioned or challenged. His maiden speech in this place was almost entirely devoted to his dedication to improving the living standards of those who lived in a local economy too dependent on the fortunes of the coalmining industry and the whims of the local coal barons. Bert had many interests, including a sharp focus on international affairs. He stridently opposed conscription and Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. But his key focus was the wealth that went to the local coal barons at the expense of those who won the coal—in dark, dangerous and dirty conditions—and their families. He was unswerving in his determination that they should receive a better deal. While we all remain diligent in our dealings with the coal companies today, it is fair to argue that, despite the Prime Minister’s best efforts, the main threat to the Hunter’s coalminers and their families may now not be the coal companies but indeed those who take an extreme view of the impact of coalmining on the local environment. If Bert James were making his maiden speech today, he would likely feel the need to devote as much time to this question of the environment and mining as he would to workers’ rights. Public debate over these important issues is crucial to achieving the right balance between our economic wellbeing and our real lifeblood, our natural environment. Bert James knew that the parties to any negotiation are rarely equal. When they are, the outcomes tend to be better. When one party is weaker, the result is too often unfair. In these circumstances, government should move to protect the weaker party. Industrial relations provides one clear example. Traditionally, we have allowed workers to bargain collectively to address the power imbalance and have funded an independent umpire to settle disputes. Bert must have spent his last months in a distressed state pondering over the Howard government’s changes to workplace relations laws. In the past, Hunter communities have been the weaker party to the bargain when dealing with the development applications of coal companies. We have been a relatively poor community with a narrow economic base and skills set. In days gone by, coal offered too much economic promise for us to provide too much resistance or to place too many demands or conditions on mining applications. But things have changed. Our local economy is fast becoming more economically diverse, our population is achieving higher levels of education and training and our average standard of living is rising. While coal remains one of the most important industries in the valley and a significant provider of jobs, we can now afford to be a little bit more circumspect in our dealing with the companies that seek to profit from our abundant coal reserves. To put it more succinctly, we are now a stronger negotiating party. This new strength should not only be exercised with regard to environmental concerns. We should also be working harder and more conscientiously to avoid the planning mistakes of the past. Too often, we have allowed urban development to grow off the back of industries which have a limited life. This inevitably results in grief as industries die, workers are retrenched and community income plummets. The consequences of past mistakes are too horrible to allow them to be repeated. Further, government must work harder at returning more of the wealth our coalmining industry creates back to the local region, both to make the industry more economically sustainable and to better prepare us for future periods when demand for our coal may not be so great nor prices so high. But for people who describe themselves as environmentalists to argue that no new mines should be developed in the Hunter as a means of addressing concerns about global warming is just plain silly. Australia’s share of the world’s carbon output is just 1.5 per cent and if the Anvil Hill mine is not developed the company’s customers will secure their coal elsewhere—probably from the expansion of an older mine with less stringent environmental controls. Tackling global warming will require a coordinated global effort to promote greater investment in the further development of clean coal and renewables technologies and ultimately, a carbon price signal that treats every carbon-emitting country equally. In the meantime, the coal industry is too important to the Hunter’s economy to sacrifice it at the alter of a flawed faith in Australia’s ability to reverse the greenhouse effect all on its own. 100 100 16:34:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I would like to draw the attention of the House to a notable anniversary in my electorate; namely, the centenary of the founding of the community of Megan. Earlier this week, I had cause to mention how voluntary efforts of individuals can contribute so much to the health of rural communities when I spoke on the passing of Mrs Madeline Halpin, who was the grandmother of the member for Hunter. I note his presence in the chamber today. The way in which so many in Megan have given their time to celebrate the history of their community is worthy of note. It was on 27 September 1906 that a ballot was held at the Bellingen Court House for 29 blocks of land at what was then known as Wild Cattle Creek. The blocks varied in size from 134 acres to 457 acres and were priced from the princely sum of £1 5s 0d ranging up to the exorbitant price of £2 5s 0d. The successful applicants had to occupy the land within three years, and the first settlers arrived in 1908, setting up temporary dwellings, clearing the forests and putting up fencing. As more settlers arrived with young families, a school was built and then a recreation ground. The timber boom ensured the success of the community, with two mills being built in the early years, and the preparation and transportation of timber providing many jobs. It was in 1917 that the residents came together to chose a name for the community. The Welshman Lloyd George was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at that time and the residents decided to adopt his daughter’s Welsh name, Megan. The pronunciation has since been changed to ‘Meegan’. In spite of the opportunities offered by the demand for timber, life was still undeniably hard in such an isolated community. During the Great War, work started on the Glenreagh to Dorrigo railway, which offered the prospect of relief and another opportunity for prosperity. The first trains ran in December 1924. Around 700 men worked on the line and it was reported that around 3,000 people were living in the area at that time. That figure has since declined to around 200. It is significant that the residents committee has organised the centenary celebrations. The Megan Progress Association and its members are indeed focused on progress through nurturing their sense of community while marking their rich past. One of the main features of the centenary was the preparation of a book containing photographs and personal reminiscences, including some from the earliest days of the settlement. It is a fascinating record of the growth of a community, how life was lived and how it has changed throughout the last century. I would like to pay tribute to Nigel and Elaine Adams, who compiled the material for the book. I shall be placing a copy of the book with the Parliamentary Library. I also pay tribute to Bill Mark, the association president, to Kathleen Parker, who was the driving force behind the celebrations, and to Jim and Mary Kell and Barbara Carter for their very strong contributions. I was delighted to attend the celebrations, which included a barbecue, a sing-along—which included many songs that were popular in 1906—the burial of a time capsule, and the cutting of the centenary cake by three of the oldest residents: Mr and Mrs Ward and Mrs Wilson. If we find it hard to try to anticipate what the next 100 years hold for the community of Megan, we should perhaps comfort ourselves with the knowledge that the future was equally uncertain when those first settlers attended the auction in Bellingen in 1906. As I have said, one of the early milestones in the community was the building of a school. The school has long since closed. Another milestone was the building of the railway, which was needed to take produce to market and to deliver goods to the plateau. The railway has also closed. Whilst the population of the area may have declined with the decline of the timber industry, Megan is still on the map. It survives. The community of Megan will meet the challenges of the 21st century just as the original settlers met the challenges of the 20th century. I commend the efforts of the local community in celebrating their centenary. 101 101 16:39:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —Last week, the Minister for Education, Science and Training made a well-publicised speech calling for the introduction of a national curriculum in this country. In the written version, she cast several ill-judged aspersions on people who sit on the boards of studies of various states. They were withdrawn, presumably under instruction. If we are going to have a debate in this country about the centralisation of educational bureaucracy, why don’t we also have a debate about the decentralisation of some control over our schools? If you visit any school in Australia, you are very likely to find a principal who believes passionately in their job and who approaches it with energy and commitment. You will find teachers who are energetic and talented, and you will find students who make the average adult shake their head in disbelief at their talent in courses most of us would never have thought of, such as Indonesian, hospitality or events management. We need to find more ways to unleash this dedication and commitment and to reduce the bureaucratic controls on principals and teachers—whether they be imposed from Canberra or from state capitals. The findings of a recent New South Wales Department of Education and Training study, which showed that parents want more say over the direction of their schools and less of a ‘one size fits all’ approach, is patently unsurprising. We need to have a debate on an appropriate model to give principals, parents and teachers more say in the running of their schools. In the United States, charter schools have achieved some remarkable results. In Washington DC, one-third of students attend charter schools. A charter school in Washington DC is one where the major decisions on the running of the school are made by the principal and the school council, with very minimal interference from central bureaucracies. In the charter schools, 54.4 per cent of students are proficient in maths as opposed to 44 per cent of students in traditional schools. These figures are more impressive when you consider that students in charter schools traditionally come from lower socioeconomic areas. Of the 15,000 students in charter schools in Washington DC, 98 per cent are Afro-American or Hispanic and 74 per cent come from low-income families. I am not suggesting that each school should be allowed to determine their own curricula, but I am suggesting that charter schools should be able to make more decisions on their own. Here is one example: what is wrong with a public school principal, in consultation with a school council, deciding that senior students at that school should be allowed to study the international baccalaureate? Some students choose the IB to make it easier to study overseas. Others choose it because it is regarded as more rigorous than the HSC or the VCE. Regardless of the merits of the latter view, which I do not necessarily share, what is wrong with giving a school, parents and students the opportunity to make that choice? Charter schools would reinvigorate parent involvement in schools. Some schools have good parent involvement, others are more patchy, and in some that I have been to P&Cs and school councils have folded because parents do not have the time to be involved. But if parents realised they had a real chance to make a contribution to the running of the school, rather than just fundraising, they would be more likely to give up their valuable time. In the 10 years to 2004, the number of students attending public schools in Australia increased by 1.6 per cent. The number of students attending non-government schools increased by 22.4 per cent. It is important that parents and students have a choice as to which type of school they attend. We need a well-funded, vigorous and rigorous public education sector as well as, of course, a private education sector. In this case, everybody wins. We need less point-scoring on education from the government, fewer shrill attacks, fewer references to long-dead overseas dictators, fewer undergraduate debating points from the minister and more of a constructive contribution to the debate about the future of education in this country. I do not suggest that charter schools are a panacea. I do not suggest that they would fix all problems. I do recognise that there are challenges, particularly in staffing, and that in some ways charter schools would provide challenges such as finding teachers for difficult-to-staff schools. But just because there are challenges does not mean that the challenges should not be grasped. If this government really cared about the future of public education, they would be having a full and proper debate—not undergraduate debating points raised in question time every day. (Time expired) 103 103 16:44:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —I am delighted to welcome to the gallery this afternoon students from Lorne-Aireys Inlet P-12 College. They have come all the way from Corangamite to visit the parliament and see the parliament in action. They have been in Canberra for a whole week. They have visited the War Memorial, they have been to the Senate, and now they are seeing the floor of the House of Representatives, where the real policies and speeches take place. I particularly want to welcome Geoff Bird, Marilyn Mackenzie, Tony Turnbull and Vanessa Bartholomew, the teachers who have brought this wonderful group of young Australians to visit the national capital. The Lorne-Aireys Inlet P-12 College is a very good school. The students have a very good academic record. They do their homework and they get good exam results. There are 300 students in the school, and recently they have had a $200 million science wing erected. I have personally visited the school, and I found the students and the teachers to be doing a good job and the facilities to be first class. The students visited my office and I discussed with them the possibility of a bushfire in the Otways. I drew to their attention that the drought was one of the big issues facing the parliament, and just today the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry answered a question about the drought facing the whole of Australia. In my view, there is a possibility that the Ash Wednesday disaster could revisit the Otways and Victoria because of the very difficult and hot seasonal conditions. So the young students were aware that their issues are addressed here in the national parliament. On Saturday, by chance, I am going to visit Lorne by going to the 70th anniversary of the Lorne CFA. That particular group of volunteers have served the committee well for three-quarters of the century. I put on the public record that Lorne won the local football premiership. The Lorne Dolphins beat Irrewarra-Beeac in a great win in the grand final, and those young students were delighted with that. I think it was the second successive win. The World Lifesaving Championships took place in Lorne earlier this year. It was a great triumph for the people of Lorne that those international championships were held there. The Lorne Pier has been fixed up. That is a wonderful, iconic visible symbol of Lorne, and the Pier to Pub event attracts 4,000 swimmers, including the Premier of Victoria, the Hon. Steve Bracks. So Lorne really is a major part of Victoria’s history. Lorne is the start of the Great Ocean Road marathon from Lorne to Apollo Bay. Personally, as you know, Mr Speaker, I participated in the half-marathon, from Kennett River to Apollo Bay, this year and last year. That is a wonderful event and is becoming very much part of the marathon calendar. The Lorne hospital has been just recently completed. That is a $10 million facility. It is not without controversy as to the location, but it is a wonderful facility and all those young people and their parents would be delighted with that. Mr Speaker, as you know, Lorne is very much part of the Great Ocean Road. Those young students would be aware that Mr Speaker, as the member for Wannon, has some parts of the Great Ocean Road in his electorate, but the more significant parts of the Great Ocean Road are around Aireys Inlet, Lorne and Apollo Bay, and the less significant parts of the Great Ocean Road are down towards Warrnambool and the Twelve Apostles! There are 2.7 million visitors who come to the Great Ocean Road every year, and they go through the centre of Lorne, through Mountjoy Parade. So Lorne, with its iconic status as a marvellous seaside resort of world fame, with gum trees close to the water, is a very significant part of the international tourist experience. International visitors go through Lorne, they become aware of the Australian countryside and then they move into the electorate of Wannon after they have been through the electorate of Corangamite. I welcome the students. I am delighted they are here in the parliament and I hope they have had a wonderful time here in the national capital and in the national parliament, where they saw genuine debate taking place in the last 20 minutes of this week’s parliament. 104 104 16:48:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Wide Bay permitted AWB to rort the UN oil for food program on his watch. As Minister for Transport and Regional Services, he defended AWB’s rorting and attacked its critics. Perversely, he has now been appointed Minister for Trade. Today I am joining the call for the minister’s resignation. In March this year Lachlan Heywood from the Courier-Mail reported a remarkable speech by the minister to the Queensland National Party’s Central Council. Heywood and the Courier-Mail did the nation a service, because the speech cannot be found on the minister’s website. It is not every day a senior minister excuses corruption, but that is exactly what the member for Wide Bay did in his address on 26 March. Let me quote the minister’s own words responding to allegations of AWB misconduct aired by the Cole commission of inquiry. The minister, a man now charged with the protection of Australia’s trading interests, said:  … deals are not done by gentlemen just sitting across the table, and some of the language that is being used in this inquiry reflects a total lack of understanding about the way in which business occurs around the world. … if you are paying commissions to an agent to sell wheat in another part of the world, there is hardly anything odd about that. When we sell our house, we pay commissions to a real estate agent. We may think he charges us far too much, but we don’t say that is corruption or a bribery payment, it is a fee for service. This idea that has become prevalent in some of the newspapers to cross out the word commission and write bribery or kickback is a reflection of the imbalance in the reporting there has been on this particular issue. But even if, and I am not conceding it happened, somebody was told many, many years ago that the Australian Wheat Board was paying commissions for wheat sales in Iraq. That would not cause any great worry. The payment of commissions is quite normal in sales. So if ever there were any kickbacks to the Iraqi grain, then I guess they would end up with the government. So that is not terribly unusual. I guess it is not, under this government. These comments are staggeringly stupid. This is now our Minister for Trade. He does not just defend AWB; he attacks the Cole commission and the media for exposing the rorts. These were not the only targets of the minister’s criticism. He also attacked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for doing its job—the department now forced to serve him as a Minister for Trade. The minister complained about the work of the department, saying: Our diplomatic posts around the world think it is their duty to rain confetti through cables to Canberra every morning. The minister might reflect that it could be worth reading some of those cables after what we have heard about the absolute neglect by cabinet ministers during the whole wheat for weapons scandal that is unfolding through the Cole commission. We know numeracy and literacy are not National Party strong suits, but this is a very thin defence of the minister’s failure to heed cabled warnings delivered to him years before the AWB scandal blew up in his face. But the March comments are not the only occasions on which the minister has defended AWB. In January he told Australian Associated Press: I think that whilst we’ve all now got the benefit of hindsight and we can look back on who maybe should’ve known what, the reality is that even with the benefit of hindsight the things that were happening at the time were reasonable. Did everyone get that? He said that ‘the things that were happening at the time were reasonable.’ We know why the minister thought AWB’s conduct was reasonable. It is now becoming clear that the minister was a party to it. The minister was responsible for the Wheat Export Authority, which monitored AWB’s relationship with Iraq and other customers. The minister appointed senior AWB officials to key advisory positions. The minister ignored repeated warnings about its sanction-busting activity and, when the dirty dealings by the AWB were exposed, the minister defended the company and attacked its critics. This minister’s appointment is contrary to Australia’s national interest. The minister ought to resign now as the Minister for Trade. If he will not resign, the Prime Minister should sack him before he does any more damage to Australia’s trading reputation. 105 105 16:53:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I made a speech in the parliament this morning in which I quoted some figures that I would like to correct here this afternoon. I would not want the Ryan electorate, which I have the great honour of representing here in the parliament, to mistake as factual the figures that I quoted this morning in light of recent information that the Prime Minister announced today. I said in the parliament this morning that employment security lies at the heart of economic and financial security for all Australians. I said that, without job security, there can be no security for Australian families and their homes. I also said that the number of jobs that the Australian government has created numbered some 170,000 since March this year when the Workplace Relations Act was introduced. I want to let the voters and the constituency of Ryan know that in fact this figure has now been revised. In fact, some 205,000 jobs have been created since March when the very important Workplace Relations Act was introduced into the parliament. This is a significant figure. This is a figure that affects Australians in a very direct and meaningful way. Australia today enjoys record 30-year-low unemployment figures. Under five per cent—in fact, some 4.8 per cent—of Australians are unemployed. Of course, this still represents hundreds of thousands of Australians, and the Howard government wants more Australians to be engaged in the workforce. The Howard government wants more Australians with skills and with talents to apply those skills and talents to the enhancement of their community and to the national prosperity of this country. The Treasurer released some figures earlier this week which indicate that Australia is the eighth-lowest taxing country in the OECD. The OECD consists of 30 members. According to the latest figures from the OECD in Paris, Australia comes in as the eighth-lowest taxing country of the 30 members of the OECD. The people of Ryan would be interested to know that, since the 2004-05 financial year, the government has delivered personal income tax cuts totalling in excess of $73 billion over the five years as a result of the announcement in the 2005-06 and 2006-07 budgets. This is very significant for the people of Ryan because it means that the money that they earn as hardworking Australians stays in their pockets and stays within their discretion to spend as they see fit in the interests of their families and their personal preferences. I want to take the parliament and the Ryan electorate to a comparison with some of the other members of the OECD. To give the Ryan electorate a comparison in terms of unemployment, Australia enjoys a remarkable figure of 4.8 per cent unemployment—a 30-year low—which I think all Australians should be very proud of. Of course, we all know that this is a very different figure from the double-digit figure that reigned supreme during the days when the Labor government was in power—in excess of one million Australians unemployed. I think it is very interesting to compare Australia’s figures with the figures of other members of the OECD. I am sure that my constituents in Ryan will be very interested to hear this comparison. The unemployment figures are 9.4 per cent in France, 8.8 per cent in Germany, 9.2 per cent in Greece and 7.4 per cent in Italy. These are 2006 first quarter figures. Spain’s unemployment figure is 8.9 per cent. Of course, these are soccer powers, football powers, in Europe. Let me look at Italy. The unemployment figure is 7.4 per cent. Italy might be the world champion in football and it might hold the World Cup, but it certainly does not hold the world cup for its policies and initiatives to reduce unemployment—7.4 per cent compared to Australia’s 4.8 per cent. This is something that reflects very distinctly the differences in our two countries. I think I would rather be in a country that has an unemployment figure of 4.8 per cent than be in a country that, though it might be a great soccer power and be the world champion in football, has 7.4 per cent of its people unable to find a job. I know that the people of Ryan would appreciate this government’s policies in this regard. (Time expired) 106 106 16:58:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I again get to my feet this week and condemn the government’s Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. I think it is outrageous that The Nationals are gloating that they have cut a deal with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, to get this bill through the parliament. I will say it again: they have cut the throat of Australia’s democracy. Next week we will be debating the fact that the Howard government is going to allow News Ltd and PBL to own all of the major newspapers in Australia, both a free-to-air television network, monopoly pay television and 70 per cent of the internet’s news and information sites. That is an appalling and disgraceful assault on the public interest and the future of our democracy. I would hope that the Special Minister of State, who is sitting at the table, reflects on what I am saying here tonight so that when we have this debate next week members will vote to defeat this outrageous assault on our democracy. The government have got into bed with Australia’s two biggest media companies and abandoned the public interest at the expense of our democracy. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5 pm, the debate is interrupted. 107 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5 pm 107 NOTICES The following notice was given: EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move: That, unless otherwise ordered, so much of standing order 29 (Set meeting and adjournment times) be suspended to provide for the House to meet at 12.30 pm on Tuesdays, and so much of standing order 34 (Order of business) be suspended to provide for government business to have precedence between 12.30 pm and 2 pm on Tuesdays, and that these arrangements apply for the remainder of this period of sittings. 2006-10-12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. 108 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 108 108 09:30:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —Daniel Hadson is a second-year social work student at Newcastle university and is in Canberra with me this week. He wrote this speech—these are his words, his thoughts. This week, 8 to 14 October, is an important week in our nation. It is National Mental Health Week. There are many worthwhile national health campaign initiatives and events taking place across the nation, especially in my electorate of Shortland and indeed in the greater Hunter and Central Coast area. There can be no question that we live in an age of constant change. It is an age of rapid technology, instantaneous communication, fast food, long working hours, congested traffic, political instability, media saturation and social pressure. We settle for familiarity over variety, exploitation over exploration and hype over heart. This year’s health week theme is ‘Relationships at Work and Play’, which is a timely one with a strong emphasis on stress management and self-care. This week people in the Hunter and Central Coast are taking advantage of, among others things, ‘stress less’ days, Tai Chi demonstrations, relaxing morning teas and stress management workshops. Awabakal and Hunter New England Health Service also held a traditional games day on Tuesday. It is not all fun and games, however. Mental Health Week is all about education. It is a time of elevated public awareness of the facts and realities of mental health. It is no secret that we live in an era where one in five people will experience mental illness during their life. I applaud the many proactive campaigns taking place this week that seek to facilitate the fostering of mental health. These programs that prevent the development of foreseeable mental health issues are imperative. Even as we sit here today, our communities are being enriched through education forums, preventive workshops and information stalls. The strength of the members of our community who are consumers of mental health services is being highlighted through, among many other events, arts displays, theatre presentations, movie screenings and the launching of poetry books written by people living with mental illness. I urge that we be proactive in dispelling ignorant myths and squeeze the very life out of cruel and unfair stereotypes that are compounded by government legislation and policies that serve only to discriminate against these members of the community. People with mental health issues are not dirty, contagious or incapable, and they are certainly not crazy, yet these stigmas hang as dark tempestuous clouds over the heads of many people who suffer from mental health issues. This is why occasions such as the Destigmatise Mental Illness March, to be held in Newcastle on Saturday, are of great significance. I congratulate ARAFMI for their work in organising this event and wish them a highly successful day. Anne Frank once wrote: We all live with the objective of being happy—our lives are all different and yet the same. She makes a crucial point about the human experience that we so often miss, so often discard, in our judgements, in our labels, in our dropping of people into boxes. It is this difference that makes the National Mental Health Week so vitally important for our nation. (Time expired) 109 109 09:33:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 0 Mr TOLLNER —For many years now residents in Palmerston, a city in my electorate, have been calling for medical services to be instigated in their area. In 2001 a 24-hour medical centre was established in Palmerston to look after families in that area but, immediately following the election that year of the Clare Martin government, the 24-hour medical centre was reduced to simply an after-hours medical service. It was not a 24-hour centre at all. Very recently the Northern Territory government announced that they had completely withdrawn funding to the Farrer Medical Centre, which is located in that health precinct, and the medical centre will be forced to close at some time in the future. At the time that the Territory government made this announcement they said it was because the Commonwealth government refused to fund the centre and it was all the fault of the Commonwealth government, irrespective of the fact that they had withdrawn their funding and had made no application. Just last week, Senator Trish Crossin sent a letter to residents in Palmerston, decrying the lack of GPs in that area and, again, blaming that on the Howard government. She said in that letter: ‘In the last year, the Howard government has given grant funding to more than 60 GP services around Australia to provide after-hours services. Only one of these has been in the NT, located at Stuart Park, but $380,000 was given to support a private after-hours GP clinic in Albury in New South Wales.’ For the information of Senator Crossin, this was the only round of funding that has been announced by the federal government and there was only one GP service in my electorate that applied for that funding, and that of course was the Stuart Park medical centre. A hit rate of 100 per cent is not bad for any electorate. Trish Crossin further says in her letter: ‘Territorians need better support from the Commonwealth government when it comes to supplying GPs and especially after-hours services. If it has funded after-hours clinics around Australia, why hasn’t it also funded one in Palmerston?’ For the information of Senator Crossin, the reason one was not funded in Palmerston is that one in Palmerston never applied. There has been no application by the Farrer Medical Centre or any other centre in that round of funding. Senator Crossin, come to me and tell me who deserves to be blamed. (Time expired) 109 109 09:36:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —We are currently experiencing a housing affordability crisis. The Howard government ignored the skills crisis for 10 years, so I am hoping, and I am begging, that the government does not do the same and ignore the housing crisis that we are experiencing today. Do not ignore it. Do not let this go on for another 10 years. One of the biggest issues that affects families today, especially young people, is being able to afford to stay in a home and pay a mortgage or even pay rent because prices and the cost of living now are so high. The most basic need in life of course is having the security of a home. That security of having a roof over their head is important for families, and it is important for young people to feel safe and secure so they can afford to have a home. Under this government, buying a house today is almost impossible for young people. Today, under this government, if you do not already own a house, it is likely that you will not be able to afford to buy one— AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs Gash —I remember 16 per cent and 17 per cent— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —If the government wants to talk about interest rates, I could easily get into that, but I do not have time today with the few short minutes I have. Instead of just criticising the government, what I want to do today—unlike what the federal government does, which is to just blame the states for absolutely everything—is to say to the government that there is something that it can do: it can put the foot back on the accelerator and make housing affordable once again. I want to commend the work done in Victoria by Senator Kim Carr, shadow minister for housing, urban development and local government and territories. Labor wants a minister for housing appointed. Unless we focus on this issue, we will never be able to deal with it. I agree that we need to develop a national settlement strategy at all levels of government. Federal government must work with the states not against the states and must not continually criticise the states. We need to work with local government as well. It is particularly important at this time when local government has so much impact on housing developments and infrastructure at a local level. We also need to boost the number of skilled tradespeople so we can build homes and have enough people with the skills required to construct the massive amount of homes that we need. We need a government that is prepared to invest in the productive capacity of the economy. We actually need to address those issues—housing affordability and skills. We need the examination of a government backed scheme, a shared equity scheme, that would enable hardworking young families who do not own a home today to have that start, that little boost, to get them into homeownership for the very first time. This generation could be the first generation in Australian history that, by the actions of a federal government, has been locked out of homeownership forever. This is the real tragedy of what is taking place. Unless the federal government concentrates on this issue, it will never be fixed. (Time expired) 110 110 09:39:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Mr HUNT —I want to set out on record for my constituents my views in relation to the recently released Port of Hastings strategic plan draft comments. In particular, I want to set out what I am for and what I am against, because I believe that my constituents have a right to understand precisely where I stand on this issue. The first thing I want to address is the proposed bitumen facility within the heart of Crib Point. Crib Point is a thriving community. It is a group of wonderful people. It was formerly an industrial site, but it has become, increasingly, a residential site as the industrial purposes were abandoned over the previous decades. In that context, after having considered it for some period of time, I believe clearly and categorically that a bitumen plant in the middle of that community would be wrong and inappropriate, and it would not have my support. I say this for two reasons: firstly, the risks in relation to the plant itself and its likely impacts on residents in terms of the environment year round and, secondly, the number of B-double truck movements in and out of the town and right through the middle of Hastings on a daily basis. These two factors combined together—firstly, the environmental effects on and within the local community and, secondly, the B-double truck movement through the heart of Crib Point and through the heart of Hastings—make this an inappropriate place and an inappropriate facility, particularly given that there is a viable alternative to the north of Hastings in between the Esso and BlueScope steel plants, an industrial zone that is available today. So I am not against the economic project; I am against that particular site in the middle of a community, which is inappropriate. That brings me to my second point—that I am not against many of the provisions in the plan. I think that development in the northern sector between Esso and BlueScope has been contemplated for 40 years, has been set aside, is an industrial zone and is for an entirely appropriate use. I do, however—and this brings me to my third point—reject the notion that land between the towns of Somerville and Tyabb should be used for industrial purposes. That is a residential area. It is farmland, it is community land; it is not the place. There is very little prospect of federal intervention here. Some have asked, but we do not have the powers. It is ultimately a choice between what the state candidate, Neil Burgess, sets out and what the state government is doing in supporting a bitumen plant in Crib Point. (Time expired) 111 111 09:42:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP 0 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I rise today to talk about an issue that is important to many past and present servicemen and servicewomen. The issue I raise today is the increasing use of civilian terminology to describe military activities. Specifically, I want to talk about the issue of using the term ‘injured’, rather than ‘wounded in action’, to describe battlefield casualties. I have received many complaints from the veterans’ community with regard to this issue. My office has heard from individuals and groups. One group that has been very strong in its advocacy on this issue has been the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia, an organisation which does a very good job on behalf of its members. I may not always agree with its position but I cannot fault its dedication. The organisation fears that the historically important distinction between those who are injured and those who are wounded as a result of enemy action is being eroded. There are two separate issues with regard to this. One is related to the new set of distinctions under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme. The second is the loss of a term that carried with it a measure of honour. On the first issue, can I be clear: Labor supported the new Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme, and my purpose today is not to propose any legislative changes to this scheme. I understand that the scheme has proven to be quite controversial within the veterans’ community, but I think we are still monitoring its implementation, and it is fair to say that we should wait for a clearer picture before we can judge its success. The second issue is the one I want to talk about today. It relates to the erosion in descriptions of battlefield casualties of the distinction between those who are wounded as a result of enemy action and those who are injured. Increasingly we are seeing politicians, senior public servants, the media and the general public describe battlefield casualties as injuries. Can I say frankly that this is a disturbing change in the language we use to describe casualties suffered by our servicemen and servicewomen. The general public should be aware of the fact that the term ‘wounded in action’ has attached to it a certain honorific for the person involved. To be wounded in the service of one’s country is much more than simply suffering an injury. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to those injured in the service of our country. Their suffering is real and ought to be recognised and respected. However, this distinction is part of our military tradition and is something that is worth protecting. I call on members of this House, senior public servants and the media to be careful in their use of language when describing battlefield casualties. These casualties are not injured personnel, but personnel who are wounded as a result of enemy action, and should be described as such. Using the term ‘injured’ demonstrates a lack of knowledge, at best, and a lack of respect, at worst. Administrative and bureaucratic necessities must not be allowed to see this distinction pass from use. This may seem a small distinction to some, but to many Australian service men and women, past and present, this is a very important distinction. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on us all to watch our language. Surely this is the least we can do for those who give this country so much. (Time expired) 112 112 09:45:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —Employment security lies at the heart of economic and financial security for all Australians. Without job security there can be no security for Australian families and their homes. Homeownership is vital to the security of Australians and their future. Without a job and employment security there can be no home security in the lives of Australians. Today I address my remarks to the people of Ryan and again let them know that the Howard government is working hard to ensure that the record 30-year low unemployment figure of 4.8 per cent will continue. The Howard government will continue to put that at the top of its agenda—ensuring job security, economic security and national prosperity. This will remain its first priority. Does anyone in the Ryan community believe that a Beazley government would have the policy mix to sustain this 30-year low unemployment figure? Of course not. The Labor opposition do not like to be reminded of this, but the Prime Minister and the coalition government will continue to remind them that fairness in the workplace begins with a job—as a very distinguished Labour Prime Minister, the Hon. Tony Blair of the UK, has put on the record. Since March this year, when the Workplace Relations Act was introduced—historic legislation that is all about creating economic prosperity for this country—over 175,000 jobs have been created. So now 175,000 more Australians can contribute to their families and the security of their homes. This legislation will make a big difference to the economic architecture of this country. The people of Ryan will be interested to know that some $11,200 of their taxpayers’ money is spent per minute on benefits for their fellow unemployed citizens. No-one would begrudge the importance of taking care of Australians who need to be taken care of. But the Ryan constituents, whom I have the great honour of representing in this parliament, would equally expect their fellow Australians to seek work where they have the capacity to work and where the jobs are available. In this country employers and businesses are crying out for Australians to fill job vacancies, yet hundreds of thousands of Australians are still not working, notwithstanding our record 30-year low unemployment figure. I commend the legislation to the parliament. (Time expired) 112 112 09:48:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I want to take the opportunity this morning to talk about the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. Just over 40 years ago the then newly arrived founding director of the Canberra School of Music, Ernest Llewellyn, took the reins as conductor of a small amateur orchestra ensemble which became, under his direction, the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. The CSO has grown and developed over the years since, with great pride within this community. Sadly, however, a question mark has been put over the CSO as the result of a recent decision by the Australian Ballet not to come to Canberra next year, claiming that it is not worth their while as the orchestra is too expensive for them and not up to scratch and that our theatre here is inadequate for them to continue touring here. Honourable member—Rubbish! 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —Absolutely. There is always room for improvement, of course. Ian McLean, the chief executive of the orchestra, is doing wonderful things in leading the CSO through further development of the orchestra into what we know will be a positive future. I am very pleased to know that there are discussions of a positive nature now occurring between the Australian Ballet and our CSO. Hopefully, we are all looking forward to a good outcome from those discussions. I would like to take the opportunity to put some facts before the House regarding our Canberra Symphony Orchestra. They are in fact holding scholarships through October—six unique scholarships for young people to gifted honours and postgraduate students from the Canberra School of Music. Next year, in conjunction with ArtSound FM, they are going to introduce a young performer competition. Most importantly, Opera Australia has confirmed that the CSO is to provide the orchestra for its blockbuster production of The Pirates of Penzance in the Canberra Theatre during November of this year. Opera Australia management are delighted to be coming here and to be doing that work with the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, unlike the Australian Ballet—but of course I am not here to criticise the Australian Ballet; I am here to talk about the CSO. The ACT government assists the CSO with funding. I am very pleased to welcome the recently announced federal government funding of $400,000 over four years through the Australia Council to assist the CSO. Of course it should have been happening prior to this time. I am not going to be mean about this, but it is the Canberra national capital symphony orchestra we are talking about. I am very pleased to see that eventually some funding has come from the national parliament, from the government here, to assist the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. I want to wish the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, Ian McLean and all of the students of music in this town all the very best for a very positive future. I look forward with all other people in the Canberra arts community to welcoming the Australian Ballet back at an appropriate time in the future. 113 113 09:51:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —Last Saturday night, 7 October, Central Queensland University hosted the 20th anniversary celebration of its STEPS program, one of the most useful tools the university has to help potential students get ready for tertiary studies. Short for ‘Skills for Tertiary Education Preparatory Studies’, the STEPS program is a pre-university course that gives adult learners the necessary skills and confidence to take on the challenge of university via a 12-week accelerated course or a 24-week flexible program. In many cases students enrolling in the STEPS program have had an unhappy or damaging school experience, but this program has a friendly, open-door approach. STEPS covers core subjects such as academic communications, mathematics, computing, independent learning skills, study skills, library information and literacy skills—in short, the nuts and bolts of understanding needed to kick-start academic studies. STEPS students have gone on to gain tertiary entrance to CQU or other tertiary institutions, while others have moved to more rewarding careers. One such student, Taryn Jeffery, who recently graduated from the program to start a nursing degree, said: I really want to do a bachelor of nursing degree, but I hadn’t been to school in a while, so I thought STEPS would help me make it into the course. I might not be the best writer, but I am a lot more confident now. The 20th anniversary celebrations were a chance for past STEPS students to catch up with former teachers, and to meet today’s students and compare notes as to how the program helped them with their further studies. I commend CQU for the success of the STEPS program and the opportunities it is opening up for prospective university students in central Queensland. I also commend CQU for its excellent facilities that it has provided for students. In recent weeks I had the pleasure of officially opening the Bundaberg campus’s new information commons, which was built with the help of a $1.47 million program from the government’s Capital Development Pool program. These facilities have come on line at Bundaberg and Gladstone campuses and are due to be completed at the end of the year at Mackay campus. CQU’s Bundaberg Library Information Commons is providing far better ICT infrastructure for its students and staff, which is vital in today’s world, where access to state-of-the-art computer and information technology is crucial to extending each student’s learning—a job well done. 114 114 09:54:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 0 Mr McMULLAN —I join my colleague the member for Canberra in making a case for the Canberra Symphony Orchestra. As she has said, the CSO has become embroiled in controversy recently as a result of reported remarks by the executive director of the Australian Ballet, Richard Evans, that one of the reasons the Australian Ballet will not be coming to Canberra in 2007, apart from problems of cost, is possibly the quality of the CSO. This was a very embarrassing situation for me; I am a fan of both the CSO and the Australian Ballet, and I am a friend of many people associated with the CSO and I am a friend of Richard Evans. So I spoke to all concerned, and to some extent I think the matter is the product of a misunderstanding. But there are some facts that we have to accept. The marginal cost of turning a part-time orchestra into a full-time orchestra, sometimes with the need to be supplemented by interstate players, is clearly more than the marginal cost of one extra performance for a full-time orchestra like the Australian Opera and Ballet Orchestra, especially as the CSO has had zero dollars from the federal government until now. It will get $100,000 a year, but that is much less than the millions provided to the state symphony orchestras. But musicians I have spoken with who have played with the CSO and, for example, the Opera and Ballet Orchestra refute the argument about the difference in quality. I note the member for Canberra said that the CSO will be playing for Opera Australia in the forthcoming season, and all the information I have points to Opera Australia being very happy with that arrangement. My advice to the Canberra Symphony Orchestra was: turn this adversity to your advantage; use the criticism to rally fans behind the CSO here in Canberra and in the wider region. I urge all Canberrans to look for opportunities to show their support for our local orchestra—show them we want them and that they deserve support. There are three opportunities coming up for people to show that support: on Friday, 13 October, the Canberra Pops Orchestra are playing a Friday the 13th concert—that is nearly sold out, but there are still tickets; on Wednesday and Thursday, 1 and 2 November, there is concert 4 of the CSO’s 2006 season; and then from 9 to 18 November they will be playing with Opera Australia for Pirates of Penzance. Seize one of those opportunities, I say to Canberra citizens; you will not regret it. Let’s take a positive message out of this contretemps—that the people in Canberra and the people in the wider New South Wales region are proud of the CSO, that it deserves our support, and more support, and that we want the Australian Ballet back here in Canberra in 2008 performing with the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, which would be to the delight of citizens here in Canberra and the region. 115 115 09:57:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —I commend Joe Hockey for his frank statements on the John Laws show yesterday about people who clearly prefer to bludge off the taxpayer rather than work. On the other side of the coin, it is frustrating for people in my electorate wanting jobs and not being able to find them. It is not so much that the jobs are not out there; after all, we have the lowest unemployment rate for decades. Rather, it is the fact that the jobs are somewhere in another state and the job seeker does not have the means to move there, let alone attend an employment interview. I had heard of the jobs boom in the west and the intensity of economic activity in the mining states. I just wish we had the same happening here in New South Wales. So I spoke to my colleague the member for Kalgoorlie. The potential was obvious, but there was no device in place to assist people to move from my electorate of Gilmore to that of Kalgoorlie. The system just did not allow any assistance for people wanting to relocate to take up the opportunity of work in another state. Luke Hartsuyker, the member for Cowper, and I took this to the government, and it was not long before the merits of the proposition were embraced, the result being the scheme that was recently announced. I stress this is a pilot program involving the electorates of Cowper and Gilmore. That means that adjustments may need to be made, with the system tailored to meet reality. But, as a starting point, the concept has merit and is worthy of further development if we want to ensure all Australians have first crack at all the available jobs. For my part, the simplicity of the scheme is its strong point. If you want a job and you are prepared to move to get it but cannot afford the move, the government will assist you. There have been some comments that the allocation of $5,000 will not be enough, and in some cases that may well be the case. I think if we are genuine about the need to place people in employment, to encourage their work ethic and to get people off their dependency on social welfare then it is a cost that is worth bearing. It is a system that necessarily will be cultivated to meet the need. Perhaps, with success, others might follow suit. I accept that not everybody is going to be a willing participant for a variety of reasons, but at least this government is doing something positive about encouraging job take-ups nationally. I concede that it is difficult for some people to take up their roots, move away from their comfort zones and take a punt, but that is what life is all about and the government is not there to support people in their preferred lifestyle. The scheme has been described as innovative, and it is. What we need is more lateral thinking and creativity to take up the opportunities that are on offer. What we do not need is to be stuck in a box of our own making while the rest of the world passes by. The scheme is just one initiative of the many that might be available and we need to explore them. Even if it is right for the moment, this does not mean that we have to stick with it. We have to be experimental and bold in the way we approach matters. I am gratified in playing the role that I did in this scheme and I sincerely hope that it takes off. At least we have tried and we will keep on trying to get it right. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Cowper and the member for Kalgoorlie for their assistance in this area. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with sessional order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 116 BILLS S513 Debate resumed from 4 September. 116 116 10:00:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 will amend the Trade Marks Act 1995. The current act was introduced as the result of a working party set up to review and streamline trademarks legislation. The act replaced legislation that had been in place since 1955. The act has now been in force for 10 years. The government has carried out a review of trademarks legislation in keeping with our policy to keep legislation relevant and up-to-date. The review sought comment from interest groups. The government released three issues papers and received comments from interested parties, including intellectual property professionals and small businesses. An industry reference group consisting of intellectual property professionals and industry representatives was set up to help in the consultations. The review found that the trademarks system was working effectively, but there were some changes that could be made to enhance the system. This bill implements changes to the trademark system arising out of that review. A strong trademark right is a valuable asset that can help increase recognition of a brand. Registered owners have the exclusive right to use their registered trademark on their goods and services. They can sell or license the trademark.  They can also ask Customs to seize goods coming into Australia if the goods infringe their trademark, to prevent the flow of counterfeit goods. A strong trademark system provides a benefit to the public. It provides members of the public with assurance that when they buy something, they are buying genuine goods that have the quality they have come to expect from that brand. The changes made by the bill will improve the trademarks system in a number of ways. The bill will strengthen trademark rights, providing greater certainty to trademark owners and the general public. The bill includes provisions that will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on the users of the system. It will also increase the transparency of the trademark system, and increase alignment of the trademark system with other intellectual property rights. The government is committed to encouraging innovation and to providing Australia with a strong trademark system that meets the needs of all Australians. We are also committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Australian businesses in registering trademarks. This bill reflects those commitments. Amendments in this bill strengthen trademark rights by enabling trademark owners to more effectively protect their trademark. For example, owners of trademarks with a reputation in Australia can now more readily protect their trademarks against registration of other trademarks whose use is likely to lead to confusion in the marketplace. A trademark can be opposed by members of the public if it will affect their business or they believe the trade mark should not be registered. Amendments in this bill will clarify the basis on which an opposition may be taken, and allow a trade mark to be opposed because it was made in bad faith. This will increase the strength of registered trademarks and help weed out bad ones. Over half of the trademark applications are filed directly by the owner of the business. Many of these are small and medium sized enterprises. These smaller businesses can be greatly affected by the burden of regulation and administration in the trademark system. It is our policy to reduce this burden wherever possible. Amendments in this bill reduce the administrative and regulatory burden on trademark owners in a number of ways. Some of the changes reduce complexity in the system while other changes make it easier for trademark owners to correct their application if they do make a mistake. Trademark owners will also find it easier to request Customs to seize goods that might infringe their trademark. Notices requesting seizure will stay in effect for longer and trademark owners will be able to provide a written undertaking to repay any expenses incurred by the Commonwealth, instead of paying a cash security up-front as is currently required. Small business owners, in particular, will find it easier to use the trademark system to prevent importation of counterfeit goods. A trademark is a valuable right and certainty of ownership is necessary for both the owner and also for anyone who may have an interest in the trademark. Amendments set out in this bill increase certainty of ownership of a trademark and increase the public’s certainty that the information on the Register of Trade Marks is correct and up to date. Amendments in this bill also clarify parts of the Trade Marks Act that have confused trademark owners in the past. By clarifying these requirements, it will make it easier for people to apply for a trademark. The amendments set out in the bill also increase transparency and alignment with other intellectual property acts. Many businesses hold a number of intellectual property rights. For example they may own a patent for an invention and a trademark for the invention’s proprietary name. It is more convenient for the owner of these rights if there is consistency when seeking patent and trademark protection. The amendments in this bill bring some of the administrative aspects of the trademark system into line with the patents and designs systems. The bill will result in stronger registered trademark rights and improve the administration of the trademark system. 117 10:06:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise today to speak on the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 and offer Labor’s support for these measures. The bill amends the Trade Marks Act 1995 to strengthen trademark rights and provide greater certainty to trademark owners and the general public. It also includes provisions that reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on the users of the system. The bill also increases the transparency of the trademark system and increases the alignment of the trademark system with other intellectual property rights. The major provisions of the bill will enable owners of trademarks with a reputation in Australia to more readily protect their trademarks against registration of other trademarks whose use is likely to lead to confusion in the market place. It will also clarify the basis on which a trademark may be opposed and allow a trademark to be opposed if it was made in bad faith. It also makes it easier for trademark owners to request Customs to seize goods that might infringe their trademark, and notices requesting seizure will stay in effect for longer. Trademark owners will be able to provide a written undertaking to repay any expenses incurred by the Commonwealth instead of paying cash security upfront as is currently required. The bill will also clarify parts of the act that have previously confused trademark owners, making it easier for people to apply for a trademark. The amendments contained in the bill are sensible though overdue improvements to Australia’s trademark regime that enhance efficiency, improve transparency and reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on trademark applicants and owners. That is why Labor supports these measures and welcomes them. The second reading debate on this bill also gives me an opportunity to outline some of Labor’s proposals in this area which I think are very significant. I am referring specifically of course to Labor’s innovation blueprint. Labor’s innovation blueprint is a plan to turn Aussie brilliance into Aussie dollars to make our economy competitive with the rest of the world once again. Innovation is central to the nation-building agenda and will deliver for this country. A federal Labor government will kick-start the next generation of innovation in the private sector. Reform is urgently needed in areas such as research and development investment arrangements. We need to look more closely at developing the capacity and diversity of our universities, not just trying to seize control, which the current government is doing. We also need to rebuild Australia’s great research institutes, including the CSIRO. These are the innovative drivers—the forces and the levers—that government has available to it to ensure that we drive innovation and that we provide the tools necessary for Australians to move forward in this area. There is a lot of brilliance in Australia but young people and start-up companies are often not assisted by government or regulation in providing the necessary push to achieve their dreams and their goals. This government has failed abysmally, particularly in the area of R&D, to provide the right mechanisms and tools. More thought needs to be put into research and development and how those investment arrangements are made. Certainly the government needs to form greater partnerships with our universities to develop innovation, technology and new systems—from ideas through to in-country development—and to turn them into Australian dollars and Australian jobs, which would enable our skilled people to achieve much more. The key initiatives that a Beazley Labor government would put into place on coming to office would include enterprise connect centres, which could be used as the conduit between the marketplace and universities and innovators out there on the street doing their work. Knowledge transfer partnerships are a better mechanism for taking initiatives from a knowledge based start through to creating systems. Venture capital reforms in this country have had very little attention. Venture capital in most countries is a key driver of innovation that develops those new ideas into products in the market. That is something that Australia could do much better. Health research is another area. Australia has a great reputation in the area of medical and health research and that needs to be focused on more heavily. More needs to be done in the area of modern information and communications technology. We need to rebuild our national icons, for example the CSIRO, and make sure they are independent and that they have the funding available to them to do the things they are chartered to do. Labor will commission the Chifley Research Centre to report on the future of R&D incentives—in particular, the greater incentives for increased and additional R&D investment rather than just the overall levels. Labor will look at better targeting the money to be spent. We will look at converting the benefits of different rates into a single concession for new investment. We will look at expanding the base of the current concession on increased and additional investment and converting the R&D concession into a program of loans and grants. Labor will provide more mechanisms and tools and a greater focus in the area of research and development, which this government has not done. In respect of innovation centres, we need to adapt new ideas in research. We need to take up new technology. We need to test new products, new ideas and new processes. But all of this does take time, and it costs money. There needs to be that partnership between government, people and institutions to see this through to the market. Labor’s commitment is to initially establish up to 10 enterprise connect centres, including one for advanced manufacturing. This is a very important issue that this government has not looked at. Labor will contribute up to $20 million to each centre over four years—a solid, worthwhile commitment. We also need to find a new collaboration of at least one business and a university, a public research agency or a TAFE, to work on specific projects such as improving production and management processes or building and testing new prototypes or a new product launch. Labor commits to providing $10 million in each full year to fund up to 200 knowledge transfer partnerships for projects of up to two years. This is needed urgently in this new-age economy where there is a skills crisis. The jobs of tomorrow will be built around innovation and skilling people, and there needs to be a partnership between all of the institutions involved and government. Lastly, I will make a couple of comments on venture capital. Labor intends to consult on the establishment of an enterprise investment scheme similar to that adopted in the United Kingdom which provides tax incentives for investors who subscribe to innovative companies and on the establishment of a new venture capital exchange to help foster a risk capital market for emerging companies. I commend this bill and Labor supports it. It contains a number of measures that are worth while, that strengthen the trademark rights of individuals and companies. It is well and truly overdue. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—I remind the member for Oxley that the chair has been very generous and may not be so generous in future about speaking to the bill. 119 10:15:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 is important legislation. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on the way in which he has progressed this significant issue. It is important for our nation that we protect our innovation and our innovators. People around the world are seeking to knock off Australian creativity and ingenuity and we must protect and safeguard it. Some of our great brand names are now owned by foreigners. It is a tragedy that Vegemite is no longer Australian. But that is not what this is about. They have not bought the trademark; they have bought the business. So that is a different issue. Today we are looking at some of the changes to the act. In general terms—I will turn to the specifics shortly—what this legislation does is to decrease the administrative and regulatory burden that confronts applicants when they apply for or seek to vary a trademark. This is a very welcome change. The complexity of the current act has led to a number of inconsistencies, which I am aware of, that make it difficult in some instances for Australian trademark applicants to succeed. We welcome measures to toughen trademark legislation and reduce the administrative and regulatory burden to make it easier for people to find their way through a process which can be quite complex. The process is certainly not as complex, in many ways, as it is when applying for a patent. A trademark does not provide the same sort of protection as a patent but, nevertheless, it is often the lifeblood of a company. A well-known trademark is something to be valued and prized; it is of great merit and great financial value. The legislation provides greater certainty once a trademark has been issued. Once a trademark right is issued, the scope with which people can come in under that trademark with something similar is more restricted than was the case previously. That is also a welcome measure. The parliamentary secretary will be aware of a particular interest I have in an Australian company. An overseas firm was seeking to come in under an Australian firm with similar presentations—I forget the legal term—and almost show itself off as the Australian company. This legislation will restrict the prospect of that occurring. The increase in the predicability of the trademark system and clarity of the Trade Marks Act is welcome. Transparency and alignment with other intellectual property acts such as the Patents Act are the broad issues that the bill seeks to deal with. I guess most people in this place would say that this is a pretty dry old subject, but it is a very intense and important subject for Australian business. It should not be underestimated. It is the very key to advertising, market recognition, promotion and advertising. The extent of market reach can be so strongly identified with a trademark. It is a critical commercial product that we should not dismiss lightly. We need to take a great deal of care in the way in which trademarks are managed. It is one of the most critical and commercially viable parts of the intellectual property of a business. The enhancement of the trademark system reflects the government’s commitment to encouraging innovation and protection of Australian business. It provides Australia with a strong trademark system that meets the needs of Australian business. This bill, which will become the law of Australia, follows an inquiry and review of the 1995 act and associated regulations. It is probably about the right length of time to have a review of these sorts of things after 10 years. Some may complain that it is too long since the Trade Marks Act was reviewed. That is not the case. A 10-year span is needed for people to become aware of an act but also to be able to manage their business and their trademarks and their intellectual property with certainty. So I congratulate the government on the review and these changes. As I have indicated, the bill reduces the administrative burden on those trying to register trademarks and it also gives the Registrar of Trade Marks the power to initiate court action in trademark matters. All of those are welcome points. I want to refer to some of the details of the bill itself and comment on the reader’s guide, which is a welcome innovation and is part of legislation to make it easier for those seeking information about trademarks to access some of the details before they start paying lawyers. One of the amendments, an important amendment, relates to section 6 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 6 defines ‘person’ as including ‘a body of persons, whether incorporated or not’. That leaves to one side the capacity of trusts, business names, trading names and partnerships. They are not usually able to own property, and ownership is an important part of the trademarks system. Ownership is generally limited to people who have a legal personality. However, there has been some confusion in this area about who can own a trademark, in particular in relation to trusts and business names. There is an exception in the definition of persons able to own a trademark. International agreements oblige Australia to allow an association to own a collective trademark. The current definition of ‘association’ in section 6 excludes incorporated associations, of which we have many, and it has been the practice in Australia to incorporate associations because of legal protections, insurance and a whole range of other things. Item 64 of the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to remove that restriction and allow incorporated associations to apply for collective trademarks. The rights of unincorporated associations to own collective trademarks are preserved. So it is a very good suggestion, a very good change. The grounds for rejecting an application are not in the same place in the act but in section 31 of the act, which states that the registrar must examine and report on whether or not there are any grounds, under division 2 of part 4, for objection to the application. So what this section does is bring together the grounds for objection and opposition, which are important provisions. Further on in the bill there are provisions about a registration opponent’s earlier use of a similar trademark—this is an area which is often contested—and I read from the explanatory memorandum to clarify the point: A person may obtain acceptance and registration for a trade mark under section 44(4) even though an earlier similar trade mark has been registered for similar goods and services. The person must be able to show that they have used the trade mark before the filing date of the earlier trade mark on those particular goods or services. It goes on: However the owner of the earlier trade mark may have used their trade mark before applying for trade mark registration and accrued common law rights. As it stands the owner of the earlier registered mark has no basis on which to oppose registration of a trade mark accepted under subsection 44(4), even where their use pre-dates that of the accepted application. And: The new section will provide a basis for the Registrar to give consideration to these issues in opposition proceedings. That brings us to the case that the parliamentary secretary brought up and that I am aware of—and it applies to the goods scheme. This fixes up the problem that the Pirotelli family have found, and the attack by Estee Lauder on this Australian company. Estee Lauder employed a firm of solicitors to go hunting for trademarks and names that they could use for their cosmetic products. The Pirotelli family had those brands and had the products up and running. They had applied for registration and, owing to some fault in the advice they received, whether from IP Australia or others—I suspect IP Australia—they withdrew one trademark and Estee Lauder were able to get in there and say, ‘We claim this trademark.’ 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the member for Mitchell willing to give way? SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —Yes. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —As reluctant as I am to draw the member’s attention to the legislation, I feel he is straying very dramatically from the point of the legislation. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Shortland is completely wrong. The member for Mitchell is speaking to the bill. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Talking about Estee Lauder? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —He is speaking to the bill and is talking about trademarks. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —The matter is the claim by Estee Lauder of an Australian trademark. That is what it is about. They are trying to grab the trademark of an Australian company. This bill fixes the problem. What we are talking about is protecting trademarks of Australian companies. That is an important thing for Australian business. Being sure of their trademarks applies to employment and opportunity for Australian companies. I am explaining why this amendment to the current act has been necessary. It is necessary to protect Australian business against raiders like Estee Lauder who seek to knock off Australian companies. It is a very important issue and it is right on the button of what this act is about. That just explains that the Australian Labor Party are off the mark in everything that they do—in the parliament, on the economy, on Work Choices and everything else they get into. They do not understand the implications for the Australian community, Australian workers or Australian businesses. I return to the topic. In this instance, the Australian family who were owners of the trademark thought that they were covered by the current act, and the amendment certainly improves their prospects of success. However, part of this act really does open up some difficult issues, in my opinion, about the capacity for non-Australian companies or, for that matter, Australian companies to seek information, under freedom of information, about the nature of the trademark application. They can seek to gather the papers behind the application, the details of that application for a trademark, and examine them, tear them apart and challenge them under freedom of information, and I believe that information is commercial-in-confidence. Anybody applying for a trademark does so believing that they are applying to a government agency that will safeguard their commercial property. It is no fault of the department, IP Australia or anybody else; it is the way the act works and it needs to be changed. I am unhappy with this process because the capacity for somebody to get behind an application and gather commercially confidential information—because we have a Commonwealth arrangement for freedom of information—allows them to go into an area where I do not believe they have any right to go. I believe that IP Australia and the agencies of government need to make the decisions. If their decision is flawed, that should be challenged, but not the nature of the commercial application. That should not be challenged. In this instance, this family have put forward papers to back up their trademark and explain why it needs to be as it is. They are required to present their marketing plan, their target market and details of their product—not the total chemistry—in their application for the trademark. That information under freedom of information can be available. The officers of IP Australia, who manage trademarks, can look at the release that they are about to make and decide—and we are asking a person who is an employee of the Commonwealth to decide—what is commercially valuable and what is not. It is not the role of a trademark official to be able to do that sort of thing. I do not believe that we should be putting those people in a position of deciding issues of commercial significance when an application for a trademark or to grab a trademark has been made and is being challenged by an overseas company, as in this instance. When the application is being challenged by an overseas company, the officer of IP Australia should decide issues of commercial significance. I guess that is my one complaint against the legislation. What has been done by the government has been excellent. It needed tidying up. All of the measures contained in this legislation are a vast improvement. They are really good. But the freedom of information area is not covered by this legislation; it is covered by the general freedom of information legislation. I do not think the drafters ever considered trademarks when they drafted that original legislation. The original legislation was to allow the public to see whether proper decisions were being made, whether things were being hidden by the executive government and whether things were being done that were open and fair. But to allow that process to go one step beyond what is open and fair and permit an examination of details of policy and decision making within government, and in this instance encourage it to go beyond that and examine the details of the commercial background of a trademark application, I believe is absolutely wrong. It should not be allowed. Those companies are dependent on their trademarks for their future. To allow the details of that trademark and the marketing plans and all the rest, which are a critical part of the application and must be provided with the application for a trademark, to be accessed by a raider cannot be tolerated. I know that in his area the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the government have done everything possible to assist these circumstances. This legislation goes one step further, which is excellent. My complaint is that the only flaw now resting in trademarks for Australian trademark applicants is that the freedom of information legislation almost destroys, in some way, the protections that this legislation grants. I thank the parliamentary secretary, my colleague and friend, for his support on this issue. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a question to the member. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the member for Mitchell happy to take a question? SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —Yes. I hope it is more on the mark than the last one. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I note the member’s concerns and that the area in the legislation that he disagrees with is in relation to freedom of information. Has the member got an alternative to the current situation? It is all very well for him to note he has a concern, but if he has a concern let us hear what his alternative is. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —The alternative is that it does not lie with this legislation and I would be straying off the subject if I were to go into amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I’m happy for you to stray off the subject. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member is answering your question. Is the honourable member for Shortland seeking to ask a question? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I’m happy for the member to stray off this piece of legislation. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Mitchell happy to allow a question? SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —I would be happy to comply privately with the member’s request, but I know I am constrained by the standing orders and I need to stick with the topic. I do not care what you think. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I promise I won’t take a point of order! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Shortland will desist from interjecting. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —I think that I need to comply with the standing orders of the Committee. The standing orders indicate that I should deal with the issue before the Committee—that is, the Trade Marks Act, which I have been dealing with completely. I have complimented the government on these changes because they have solved many of those problems that I identified with this case—that is, a previous application, something lapsing and a previous use of a product are now resolved and much more easily managed. That is a real improvement. The opponent’s capacity for an earlier use of a similar trademark and all of those things are dealt with satisfactorily under section 58A. The Freedom of Information Act is too wide and does affect trademarks, and that is where changes need to be made. 124 10:35:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —in reply—The Trade Marks Amendment Bill 2006 amends the Trade Marks Act of 1995, which is now over 10 years old. The amendments arose out of regular reviews of the act which were carried out by IP Australia, the government agency with responsibility for administering the Trade Marks Act. There was extensive consultation with the public and stakeholders as part of that review. During this consultation, IP Australia utilised the expertise of an industry reference group to help assess the merits of the issues that were raised. The industry reference group comprised dedicated representatives from key stakeholders who willingly contributed their time, and I thank them for their efforts. I thank the member for Oxley for his comments today. In a total of eight minutes, the only part of the bill that he addressed properly was the title and his concerns about the time frame. He said that it had gone on too long. The government has a general policy of reviewing legislation every five to 10 years. This review was undertaken as a part of that general policy. This review commenced in 2002 and took a considerable time because of the extensive consultation with industry and with the people whom we seek to represent in the trademarks area. We make no apology for being thorough in our job. In contrast, the member for Mitchell is one of the most passionate advocates on IP and trademarks that I have seen in this parliament. The gall of the member for Shortland to stand up and ask the member for Mitchell to be brought back to the bill shows her ineptitude—she did not even read the bill. Unlike the member for Oxley, who only addressed the bill in title, the member for Mitchell went through and analysed aspects of the bill and the requirements of his constituents, such as the Piratelli family, on whose behalf he has passionately advocated. He made representations to my office and had a partial result on that in the previous IP bill, which amended parts of the Freedom of Information Act. There is no greater passionate advocate for intellectual property or his constituents’ rights than the member for Mitchell. That stands in contrast to the ineptitude and arrogance of the member for Shortland, who is nothing more than a time waster in this parliament and in the community broadly. The member for Shortland, who did not even bother to read the bill to familiarise herself with its content, then raised questions against the member for Mitchell. This shows her absolute arrogance, illiteracy and ineptitude. Getting back to this bill, the Trade Marks Act provides for registration of trademarks and sets out and protects the rights derived from the registration. Trademarks assist Australian businesses to increase their competitive advantage. Trademarks signify the origin of goods or services to the public so the public can recognise the trade origin of the goods or services. The member for Mitchell correctly said that trademarks are an asset of the business. Recently, IP Australia held a contest for the favourite trademark of the century. The trademarks entered were narrowed down to 10 finalists: Qantas, the Wallabies, Arnotts, Weet-Bix, RM Williams, Penfolds, David Jones, the ABC and Woolmark. They were judged and assessed by outstanding people, such as Ken Done, Carla Zampatti, George Gregan—the Wallabies captain—and Simon Reynolds, who is an industry leader in this area. They understand the value of a trademark—and so does Coca-Cola. A trademark can be valued in the billions of dollars. That is not something that is easily given away. It is a critical asset, a bottom-line measure to a company. I am glad that the public voted for Weet-Bix as the top Australian trademark of the century. We understand the value of trademarks. We also understand the need to protect trademark rights. This bill makes a number of changes to the act that will simplify aspects of the trademark system, particularly for small businesses. Over 50 per cent of trademark applicants are self-represented. Many of these applicants will benefit from the changes that clarify and simplify provisions in the Trade Marks Act. In general, the amendments made by the bill will improve the administration of the trademark system to make it easier to use. The bill reflects the government’s commitment to encourage stronger trademark rights that meet the needs of all Australians. I thank all of the members for their contributions. As I said, the most outstanding contribution, delivered with passionate advocacy, was that of the member for Mitchell. I enjoy working with him—in particular, I enjoy the forthright way in which he represents his constituents on issues such as this— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr BALDWIN —in contrast to the member for Shortland, whose greatest contribution to this place is to make objections and motions for quorums or that members no longer be heard and who has no substance in what she says. So she stands on her own merit, which is very little. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall —I have never moved such a motion. The member is misleading the House. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The member for Shortland! Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 126 BILLS R2570 126 Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Billson: That this bill be now read a second time. 126 10:41:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —It is a great privilege to be speaking on the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006. The impact of the armed forces in the area of my electorate is really significant. In the electorate of Blair, one of the major industries is the defence forces, particularly through the RAAF base at Amberley, and that is becoming more and more a significant part of our community. The bill we are debating today helps to transfer the benefit of armed forces deployment to RAAF Base Amberley right down to the grassroots level. It results in greater local investment in housing and construction. It helps to drive the local economy and it demonstrates to local people what a magnificent investment it is, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to continue to raise, train and sustain our armed forces in the defence of our country. The link between the electorate of Blair and the RAAF goes back a long way. In fact, it goes way back before the electorate of Blair was named the electorate of Blair. It goes back to December 1938 when an area of 882 acres in the parish of Jeebropilly, as it was then, was identified for RAAF Base Amberley. That has become a driving force for industry in the area. This Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 means that what was a bare paddock in 1938—882 acres with a few cows on it—has become a powerhouse of our local economy, with 3,500 service personnel involved in a range of pursuits. Might I say, under this government, it is a base that is growing dramatically. We have seen, from the Commonwealth in recent times, the investment of $2 billion in the purchase of C17 aircraft and that investment is flowing directly through RAAF Base Amberley because that is where the C17s are to be located. At that base, we have the Wedgetail surveillance aircraft under construction. Those aircraft are going to be based at Williamtown but they are currently located at Amberley under construction, and the RAAF and the defence contractors are doing a brilliant job there in creating this wonderful new capability for our defence forces. But those are just a couple of the facets of the work that is being undertaken by Defence personnel on RAAF Base Amberley. We have a massive redevelopment going on at Amberley. In the 2006 budget, $285.6 million was allocated to the redevelopment of Amberley for accommodation, workshops and other upgrades. We have seen the relocation of the 9th Force Support Battalion and with that allocation has come other personnel. In recent budgets we have seen allocations to the construction of new homes. At Grammar Park Estate eight new four-bedroom homes were reconstructed as a result of the 2004 budget at a cost of $2.3 million. We have had $5.6 million allocated to 22 new ADF homes around Forest Lake and Springfield Lake, 10 new homes at Winston Glades and another 20 at Kensington Lakes. These projects together have generated 195 new jobs locally—and that is just in housing construction. As I said, there are 3,500 service and civilian personnel at Amberley. Those people generate tremendous impact on our local economy. We have got a big project underway in the provision of 295 new singles accommodation at Amberley—this is part of the Single LEAP project which is going on across Australia—and recently announced, in March 2006, was $50.7 million for 162 new homes at Fairview Rise in Amberley. That investment in homes and construction and support of the defence capability at Amberley is just one facet of the investment coming from our government. That is a part of the direct investment. What we are talking about today is the indirect investment, the opportunity for people located at Amberley because of their service employment to be able to access home loan assistance from the Commonwealth. The Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to extend the operation of the Defence HomeOwner Scheme for 12 months beyond its current finishing date of 31 December 2006. Under this bill Defence Force personnel who have been in their work for five years or who have been posted overseas on warlike service have the capacity to access a subsidy from the Commonwealth on loans of up to $80,000 for the purchase of a home. We all know the tremendous difficulty faced by service personnel who are moved backwards and forwards across Australia in the pursuit of the defence of this country. It can be very hard for them to invest in homeownership because six months down the track they might be off somewhere else. This is a real incentive. I say to young people considering a career in the defence force: do not just look at the salary; look at issues such as this. Where else in society can you look to get access to a subsidy of 40 per cent of the interest costs on an $80,000 loan? It really is a fantastic allocation and program and an excellent incentive for people to consider the Defence Force as a career. Later in my speech I will look to the fact that currently we are reviewing that scheme, but the purpose of this particular bill is to extend the current scheme for a year to give certainty to people who are in the Defence Force who want to access that subsidy and to reassure them that the government remains committed to their entitlement and to their opportunity to participate in homeownership. This was a scheme originally implemented by the former Labor government with a cap of $40,000. In November 1996 the Australian government passed legislation to amend the act to reduce the basic service qualifying period from six to five years full-time service, to increase the maximum amount of the loan to $80,000 and to extend eligibility to active and emergency reserve personnel. That change by the government has served us well. I will go through initially what people receive as a result of this. If you look at the entitlement of 40 per cent of the interest expense on a loan amount of $80,000 you are talking about a subsidy which is currently worth about $120 a month over a 25-year loan. And it is not just once you can access this as a member of the defence forces; you can access it repeatedly on subsequent homes that you may purchase. What a great incentive this is. One of the important things that you should consider is that, if you are married to someone who is also in the defence forces, you can access that amount of $80,000 twice—you can have a subsidy applying to a loan of $160,000. As things stand the act specifies a finishing date of 31 December 2006 to this loan, which is linked to the National Australia Bank. As I said, there is currently a review going on and honestly it just would not be possible to complete the review and get it signed off on prior to 31 December 2006, which is why we are looking at the bill today—to extend it by another year and to give the certainty that members crave. I did speak about the fact that there are particular advantages. Not only is there a five-year qualifying period for people who are in the services, who can access a loan of up to 20 years, but also for people who have operational or warlike service that five-year qualifying period is waived and the maximum period of the subsidy is up to 25 years. This program has a particular objective, which I have already touched on—to attract and retain ADF personnel, to encourage home ownership during service and to assist members who are in the ADF to reintegrate into the community on their return to service life. This program has been open to permanent Defence Force members who enlisted on or after 15 May 1985. To give members of parliament an idea about how well it is being taken up, the statistics show that the value of Commonwealth subsidy paid through this program in 2003-04 added up to $8.269 million; in 2005-06, $9.289 million was paid through this subsidy, up from a figure of $4.4 million back in 1999-2000. The number of payees has almost doubled in that time, from 3,970 back in 1999-2000 to 6,683 in 2005-06. Statistics for 2003-04 show that at that time 845 people were seeking to buy homes—that shows that it is an effective program—365 were refinancing, five were enlarging their homes, 160 were building their homes and 53 were renovating their homes as a result of this program. It really is a very strong incentive for Defence Force membership and something that I strongly endorse. However, as I said at the outset, there has been a request for quotation put out to the market by the Commonwealth to ask interested organisations—obviously banks and other lenders—to prepare a report on the Australian home loan market, to look at the current scheme and at issues such as calculating the net present value of the subsidy available under the defence home ownership scheme and to look at other facets such as a description of the types of home loan products and services out there. At the time that the former Labor government first initiated the home ownership scheme there was not the range of banking options people have today. There was not the range of home ownership and loan providers that are currently out there because of the immense growth that this government has generated in the economy, the immense positive development that we have seen and, of course, the new opportunities. So we want the scheme to be competitive. We want it to be out there in the marketplace doing what it can for these defence personnel so that we are getting the maximum benefit in terms of all those objectives I spoke about earlier. Four options are currently being considered for a scheme to replace the defence homeownership scheme. We are looking at issues such as providing a scheme under which subsidy assistance would not be tied to a particular home loan provider, assistance tied to a single home loan provider or a panel of home loan providers, deposit assistance linked to career retention or mobility points within the defence forces, and an allowance for owner-occupiers. These are the types of options that are out there. There is a website for defence personnel to give feedback on the defence homeownership scheme and this current review. I urge members who have not given their feedback to that—I am talking about Defence Force members—to do so, because we do want it to be competitive. I would like to compliment the Defence Families of Australia organisation, because if you go to the website you will find that this organisation has already had quite a bit to say about the shape of the scheme it sees as being worthy going forward. I have the submission of the Defence Families of Australia organisation with me. In their submission to General Evans they say that, of the range of options, they believe that more than one should be available to families because, of course, at different times in people’s lives there are different facets of those options that would be desirable. Let’s go through the options and talk about the kinds of things that Defence Families of Australia have had to say. The first option is an open market subsidy. Defence Families of Australia say that the idea of a wider panel gives greater choice in fees, interest rates and accessibility to the provider of choice. They make a very valid point about the great diversity of property values. They cite, for example, the case of considering the cost of housing in Sydney or in Rockingham. They want to see options that take that into account. One option, they say in their submission, may be to link the length of service to the subsidy amount. For example, if you had served in the defence forces for more than five years you might receive a subsidy on $200,000, but if you had served for 10 or more years you might receive a subsidy on $350,000. That sort of incentive, they say—and I think this is a very important point—would be a weighty consideration for someone at the seven- to eight-year mark in their stay with the defence forces. It would provide a real incentive for them to stay on, perhaps, for 10 years and thereby overcome what is currently a departure point for Defence Force personnel. The second option is a tied homeowner subsidy. The Defence Families of Australia organisation says that for a lender to qualify to be on a panel under such a program—although, as I said before, you could have just one provider or a panel of providers—that lender should bid for its position on the panel and be reviewed on a regular basis. I think that is a pretty good and perceptive suggestion by Defence Families of Australia. The way the market changes, you do want to have regular updates of their position to be assured that they remain competitive. Under the graduated deposit scheme the Defence Families association says that we could look at a tiered system. For example, if you have served five years you might get five points along the graduated deposit scheme program, but if in that time you have moved three times you might be given an extra three points, giving you a total of eight points towards your entitlement. I think that is a very incisive measure, too. They do speak under option 4, which is about owner-occupier allowances, about the issue of a redraw facility. On that, the Defence Families association makes what I think is a very interesting alternative submission. They say a concept which has not been covered in the papers but which has previously been floated with Defence is a part ownership and lease arrangement with the Defence Housing Authority. There could be a 49 per cent to 51 per cent ownership arrangement, with the member holding 49 per cent and the DHA owning 51 per cent. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I think you will recall only about a year ago this was an idea that was floated more generally by one of the think tanks—I cannot remember which one—suggesting ways by which we could encourage homeownership in Australia more generally. I think the defence homeownership scheme taking up such a suggestion would be a great way to advance the concept out there in the Australian community and perhaps pilot it. I urge the government to consider that opportunity, because of course you are completely reducing the threshold of what it means to get into homeownership in the first place. You are halving it. Why should it be that you have to have 100 per cent in effect to have title over your home? Why shouldn’t it be that you should be able to operate at a 51 per cent level? I think that is a very good submission that comes from Defence Families of Australia and I commend that to the House and to the defence department in considering the various options. 129 11:01:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I would like to rise to support the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006 today. In so doing, I would like to talk about the content of the bill but, importantly also, the context of the bill because very little operates in isolation. This bill has appropriate measures that have been taken by the government in respect of the context, the environment, that we are working in at the moment. I would then like to look, in contrast, at some of the alternative approaches. Firstly, the content of the bill, as previous members have described, is fairly simple in its outcome, which is to extend the operation of the Defence Home Owner Scheme from 31 December for 12 months. The immediate purpose of this is to permit certificates to be issued so that ADF members can access that assistance up until December 2007. It preserves the entitlement of those people who have not yet accessed it and it gives effect to an agreement between the Commonwealth and National Australia Bank to extend the franchise through until December 2007. This existing scheme provides members of the ADF with a subsidy on the interest and expenses incurred on a home loan to the maximum value of $80,000 and is currently tied to the National Australia Bank. The issue is that it is still tied back to a time when pretty much all home loan lenders were the banks. These days there are a range of institutions which are providing finance and, more importantly, there are a range of ways that finance is presented. I think one of the encouraging things about this review is that it is looking to try to find some of those more innovative ways that will encourage people to retain or remain in the service. In context, this is not a new issue. In fact we can go right back to the establishment of Australia and the First World War and we can see that there are a number of ways that we tried to tie homeownership or landownership with service as an incentive or a recognition of service by Australians. The soldier settler scheme is one. There were war service loans and some old schemes that were in place when I was still serving, such as the $25,000 that was available. In the context of the day, that was a sizeable deposit and contribution on the way to actually owning a home. Obviously in the context of today, $25,000 does not go very far at all, which is why this review is important because it is looking at the context of the cost of living, the style of living, the style of finance. Some of the ideas that are coming forward from the defence community itself are very innovative and I encourage the defence department to accept their comments and consider them seriously and be prepared to move beyond the paradigms that have perhaps governed how we have approached these things in the past. The world out there is moving pretty quickly, and if we want to attract people to remain in defence we need to be giving them the same kinds of innovative and flexible opportunities that many other employers and financial institutions are giving. One good example of that is the concept of a graduated scheme where we recognise what service life has imposed on people in terms of the number of moves or the number of years of service and graduating that towards the level of support that they are given. In context, these measures are important because the issues of recruitment, retention and resettlement are fundamental to the conditions of service for people who volunteer to sign up and serve Australia. These are not new issues. In the days when Britain ruled the waves, they got around their recruitment issues with things like press gangs, which went ashore with a squad of marines and rounded up whomever they could find, took them back to the ship, sailed off and that was it. You were then in the Navy and subject to all those forms of discipline. Even in Australia we have looked at conscription at various times—in World War I, although conscription was rejected; through to Korea and Vietnam, where conscription was adopted for a period to overcome recruitment issues. In respect of the contemporary Defence Force, in the late 1980s the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade held an inquiry into the number of people leaving the Defence Force. In a transcript of proceedings in November 1988, Senator Maguire said: ... the wastage rates in Australian Defence Force have for several years now significantly exceeded historical levels ... Even in our contemporary environment we can see that it is not a new problem to be looking for ways to encourage people to remain in the Defence Force. An issue that comes out later in that transcript is an important one for us to understand in the broader context of retaining people and maintaining a capability in the Defence Force. Senator Maguire said later: A central issue there is the pattern of wastage, that is, who is leaving and when. It is also important to remember that the lead time to replace a highly skilled and trained individual can be at least as long as that required to introduce into service an item of capital equipment. Further in the document, he said: The extent and magnitude of wastage in some areas is such that it will adversely affect the ADF for at least the next decade. In sum, the effects of wastage identified by the Joint Committee amount to a loss of operational capability. It is manifestly obvious that the prevailing excessive level of personnel wastage is damaging the organisational health of the ADF. Wastage is undermining the experience and competence levels of personnel. That finding was made back in the late 1980s and I guess that was the genesis for the development of some of these incentives, including the 40 per cent discount on home loans—the amount after May 1985 that went up to $40,000. It is interesting to note, though, that the press article in the Sydney Morning Herald that announced the 40 per cent discount also noted that a member of the public would pay 16 per cent whereas a member of the Defence Force would pay only 9.6 per cent. I am glad to say, in the context of today, that on the open market you can get interest rates of well under eight per cent without any subsidy. It is important to also consider, having recognised this problem with wastage—the loss of skills and competence in the ADF was affecting capability—what the Labor government did. A corporate support program was initiated in the early nineties, and the downsizing of the ADF from 1989 to 1995 by some 6,500 had a big impact on the capability, experience levels and moral of the ADF. Some of those impacts, particularly with CSP, continue today. They also have an impact on the recruitment and retention of people within the ADF. To contrast that, there has been a good investment by this government in obvious areas of the ADF. The 2006-07 budget committed some $194 million over four years to boost recruitment and retention, with bonus payments for key personnel in 31 selected trades; rehabilitation programs for injured personnel; the raising of the awareness of high school students and cadets in the large range of careers available within the ADF; and revisiting and reinvesting in options—whether through the regular forces or the reserve forces—for people to get a technical trades qualification with the ADF. So this boost in funding aimed specifically at recruitment and retention is important. The investment in raising two new battalions is important in reducing some of the pressures that are on people’s operational tempo, which has a direct impact on their families and on their willingness to remain in the ADF. Those are important measures. It is also important to see, though, that in the capital acquisition program for Defence, in the defence capability plan for 2006 to 2016, there is some $2.4 billion, which continues the additional three per cent funding over 10 years that was announced in the 2000 white paper. The important thing to notice here, though, is that we are not just talking about equipment. It is vital that in each of our equipment decisions we also consider the impact on personnel and the requirement of personnel to make that a capability. The Army for a long time has used the posted construct where it looks at a capability as consisting of the people as well as the organisation, the support, the training, the equipment and the doctrine that goes with that. So, as we look at things like the $3.7 billion that has been put aside to reduce the number of helicopters in ADF use, that is not just about modernising the fleet. It is important to see that one of the underpinning elements of that decision is to make sure that in terms of our training system and our support system—even through to operational levels—we are reducing the number of personnel and the number of trade sets that are required to support a capability. Where you can have common training systems and common logistic systems you are reducing the requirement for the total number of people, which frees us up to move those people into other areas of Defence that desperately need people to commit to the Defence Force. In a similar manner, the ADF’s maritime patrol aircraft, the replacement for the Orion, will be looking not only at a manned platform but at UAVs—unmanned aerial vehicles. I was recently down at Edingburgh at one of the trials that was launched out of Edinburgh to operate off the North West Shelf. That is going to see us obtain a reconnaissance and particularly a surveillance capability that will be operating for extended periods over remote areas with a requirement for far fewer people—both on the platform and maintaining it. So there are a number of ways we can be smarter about the way we purchase equipment such that we are smarter about our requirement for personnel within the ADF. Moving on from the purchase of equipment, the next area that is important to look at is the investment in defence industry, because defence industry forms an important part of our capability. Part of the skilling and training of our people is to give defence industry the capability to respond quickly to government requirements. And that quick response and appropriate equipment protects our people in the field and gives them the confidence that this government is looking after their interests and giving them the equipment they need to carry out the tasks that we assign to them. So, although it seems a bit far removed from recruitment and retention issues, even the investment that this government is making through the Skilling Australia’s Defence Industry program, SADI, is an important step to making sure that we are providing the right people with the right skills to support our men and women in uniform so that they have confidence, and so that their families have confidence that this is a place where their husbands and wives, and sons and daughters, should enlist and work to serve this country. So there are a number of ways that this government has taken significant decisions to support defence industry and the whole defence industry roundtable—which has been kicked off again—to look at the best way we can engage with industry. It is just one more plank. Again, from a systems engineering perspective it is one more interface that the government needs to be working with to make sure that recruitment and retention issues for our people are addressed. So, whilst I welcome this bill—and particularly the intent behind it to have a review to give our servicemen and servicewomen more options in terms of how defence can reward their service to the country, with options to support their housing—there is more to be done, particularly in the area of overcoming some of the unintended consequences of decisions from the late 1980s with the CSP program and the way that that has broken the chain of command in some areas. It has turned a lot of our leaders into managers and taken away their focus from command to managing stakeholder relationships. Both the department and the government need to be prepared to challenge some of the mores and the fads, if you like, in the business community of the late 1980s and bring back the balance, not only in the policies such as the housing assistance but also in the force structures and the personnel, to make our Defence Force a place of first choice to work for the young men and women of Australia. 133 11:15:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr BILLSON —in reply—Thank you for your invitation to sum up the debate. I would like to thank all those contributors from both sides of the chamber. Many of the contributions remind us about the etymology of the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Amendment Bill 2006, how things have changed and the influences on what encourages and rewards members of the Australian defence forces to join, perform magnificently and then extend their career within the ADF. Many of the contributions, particularly the very insightful and well-informed contribution from the member for Wakefield, touched on those things. There is an interconnectedness of many themes and challenges and I tried to say that our goal should be to make sure that we have the world’s best ADF, involving world-class people that have fulfilling experiences in their careers with the defence forces. There are a range of influences on that, such as making sure that they are properly supported, properly equipped and properly remunerated in a contemporary and competitive labour market. We must have due regard, as I said in the House yesterday, for the fact that we might recruit the member but we need not only to retain the member but to retain their family. I know your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and Mrs Scott is probably as influential as Mrs Billson is, in that I might have many good ideas, but if she is in my earhole, as I imagine if Mrs Scott is in yours, that is very persuasive. This recognises the crucial role of families and the support of families in making sure that the assistance is there for those who are members of the ADF, recognising the many other aspirations they have for their lives. This particular bill touches on one of those matters. A number of speakers talked about the history and have shown some understanding of the changes not only in the property market and the finance market but in the nature and tempo of what is being asked of our men and women of the ADF. All of these have an impact on how well a benefit such as is embraced in the Defence HomeOwner Scheme plays out, rewards, recognises and supports those members of the ADF. That complexity and those interrelated factors are many, and that is why the review that the government has instigated to look at the best future shape of the homeownership assistance scheme is so important. But that complexity also means the work needs to be done well, and this bill seeks to provide that opportunity. Of course, we all would have liked this extensive review to have been concluded so that we could seamlessly transition from the current scheme to the future arrangements. But, given the complexity of the issues that have been touched on in the debate, that has not been possible, and that is why we are seeking this extension. I welcome the opposition’s contribution, where they largely echoed the government’s statements about what we are seeking to do, the aspirations we have for the homeownership assistance scheme for members of the ADF and the influences and options that need to be considered. My colleague the member for Blair has a very substantial population of serving members and their families in his electorate and his comments were quite insightful and very well placed and well informed as well. I commend him for that contribution. The member for Fisher I think addressed some of the incorrect assertions of the member for Barton, talking about military bases being placed willy-nilly around the country in marginal seats, and I am grateful for the member for Fisher’s considered response, because we all know that kind of loose talk is completely unhelpful and undermines the great deal of analysis that goes into placing military installations and equipping them to meet the national security and defence challenges of our nation. Let me remind us all of why we are here discussing this legislation. The Defence HomeOwner Scheme is being reviewed with the aim of updating the scheme to make it more supportive of personnel recruitment, retention and resettlement. Defence is seeking to identify ways of improving the current homeowner scheme, which has been in place since 1991. Our aim is to develop a contemporary homeownership scheme that will support Defence Force recruitment, retention and resettlement, recognising the changes in the property market, the finance market and other influences on the scheme itself. The existing loan franchise arrangement with the National Australia Bank was due to expire on 31 December this year. Agreement has been reached to extend the contract by 12 months while Defence finalises proposals for a new scheme. Of course, the Australian Defence Force members may still access subsidised housing loans while replacement arrangements are being contemplated and developed. Accordingly, enabling legislation for that purpose was introduced to extend the legal authority to issue certificates of entitlement until 31 December 2007. I look forward to being able to bring a revised arrangement for consideration into this place in the new year. All of us in this place would agree our combined intent is to recognise and support our outstanding men and women of the Australian defence forces. On that, we are one. We admire their work, we respect their competence, we commit ourselves to support them in their important work in our national interest and I commend the bill to the Committee. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 135 BILLS R2397 135 Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr McGauran: 135 11:21:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Mr HUNT —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the BSA, and the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Radcoms Act, to provide a framework to implement the model agreed with WIN and Prime for the conversion of their commercial television broadcasting services in regional and remote Western Australia from analog to digital. The bill will facilitate, as part of the digital conversion model, the joint provision by WIN and Prime of a new, third digital commercial television service under section 38B of the BSA for people living outside Perth. For the first time, regional Western Australians will be able to enjoy a level of television services similar to those currently enjoyed by viewers in Perth. The bill will extend the same arrangements to the commercial broadcasters in the other remote licence area, remote Central and Eastern Australia, should those broadcasters choose a similar digital television conversion model for their market. The BSA currently does not specify detailed measures for the introduction of digital television services in remote areas. This was in recognition of the need to give consideration to the special circumstances of remote areas. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA,  is required to make a legislative instrument—a Commercial Television Conversion Scheme—to set out the terms of that conversion process. In addition, section 38B of the BSA allows commercial broadcasters in licence areas with only two commercial licences to jointly—or one broadcaster individually—elect to provide a third, digital-only service. Under the current provisions, where they elect to do so jointly, they must provide each of the digital versions of their analog services, and the new joint service, on a separate television channel, and provide high definition television—HDTV—programs. Items 1 to 8 of schedule 1 to the bill contain amendments to the BSA that define the circumstances where remote area licensees can elect to provide a section 38B service. Remote area licensees who have elected to provide jointly a section 38B service will be able to multichannel the three commercial digital services on a single radiofrequency channel, with exemption from HDTV quotas. Similarly, if the section 38B service is provided by only one of the two licensees, that licensee will be able to multichannel the digital version of their analog service and the section 38B service on a single digital channel. This represents a significant saving for the licensees concerned. Instead of having to establish and maintain two or three sets of digital transmission infrastructure, with capacity for HDTV, they will be able to establish only one shared set of infrastructure, without the additional cost of investing in HDTV equipment. This also represents significant cost savings in respect of the public purse because funding assistance to the broadcasters under the government’s Regional Equalisation Plan, REP, to help meet digital conversion costs is reduced, corresponding with the reduced digital conversion costs to broadcasters. Nevertheless, the government will provide substantial REP assistance to WIN and Prime of $19.36 million over eight years to support the implementation of their digital conversion model in regional and remote Western Australia. Items 9 to 11 of schedule 1 to the bill contain corresponding amendments to the Radiocommunications Act relating to the transmitter licences that authorise the operation of WIN and Prime’s shared set of digital transmitters in regional and remote Western Australia.  Passage of this legislation will enable ACMA to proceed to develop the Commercial Television Conversion Scheme for Western Australian regional and remote areas, allowing digital broadcasting to commence in these areas and the new services to be provided. The digital television conversion model, which would be enabled by passage of the bill, represents a balance between public interest considerations and the special circumstances of remote area commercial television broadcasters. These broadcasters face significant cost pressures due to the wide geographic areas they service and the sparse population. Delivery of HDTV to all viewers in this market would be a very significant cost to broadcasters. Viewers will benefit from the new third digital service, delivering a substantially increased range of information and entertainment. Nevertheless, the bill makes specific provision for remote commercial broadcasters to change their digital transmission arrangements in the future to provide HDTV services, if they choose to do so. This bill represents a further demonstration of the government’s commitment to facilitate the availability of digital television broadcasting services throughout Australia. I congratulate the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, on her work. I thank the members of her department and I am delighted to commend this bill to the Committee. 136 11:28:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006. Labor welcomes the fact this legislation has finally made it to the floor of this Committee. This short bill contains a number of technical amendments, which should allow the commencement of digital television services in remote parts of Western Australia. If this legislation is passed, people in places such as Geraldton and Kalgoorlie will be able to enjoy a similar range of services to people who live in Perth. They will also, for the first time, be able to enjoy superior picture and sound quality offered by digital television. Labor supports the objective and will support this bill through the Committee. Digital television broadcast commenced in metropolitan Australia in 2001 and broadcasters in most regional areas of Australia began transmission in 2004. The rollout of infrastructure for digital broadcasting has progressed well since. The free-to-air digital TV is available to about 85 per cent of Australian households and the state capitals and around 31 regional centres have access to all of their existing free-to-air television channels in digital. However, there are currently no provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act which establishes a framework for establishing digital television in the remote parts of Australia. These are large areas of territory that are serviced by only two commercial broadcasters. In places like outback Western Australia, the population is disbursed over long distances and broadcasters need to invest in many transmission sites in order to reach their audience. This legislation seeks to reduce the costs of making that investment and improves incentives for remote broadcasters to invest in digital transmission equipment. I turn to a couple of specifics in the bill. The bill provides that, in remote licence areas, broadcasters will be permitted, either individually or through the establishment of a joint venture company, to broadcast a new digital-only service. The new service will also broadcast the digital version of the existing analog services on the same channel. In technical terms, that is what is known as multichannelling. Digital broadcasting is about six times more efficient than analog broadcasting in its use of specific spectrum. Broadcasters will also be able to comfortably transmit three digital services within the space occupied by one analog channel. The bill also contains a further measure to reduce the cost of establishing a new digital service in remote Australia. In metropolitan and regional markets, licensees are required to broadcast 1,040 hours per year in high-definition digital format. The costs of triple-casting—that is, broadcasting in analog, standard definition digital and high-definition digital—are of course substantial. This is particularly the case for small broadcasters. To address this issue, the bill allows remote licensees to elect to broadcast only in standard definition format. The ability to opt out of high-definition broadcasting will significantly reduce the cost of providing digital services in remote areas. Labor understands that, on the basis of the provisions of the bill, Prime and WIN have indicated that they will form a joint venture company to introduce a new digital-only service in remote Western Australia in 2007—next year. The new service will consist primarily of content from the Ten Network that is seen in Perth. Over time, these changes could lead to the commencement of digital services in other remote licence areas in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Labor welcomes these measures to give broadcasters and viewers an incentive to invest in digital television and will support their passage through the House. I would like to take the opportunity provided by this bill to also make some comments on broader aspects of digital television. The policy changes that are required in this area are obviously not limited to digital television. It is now more than five years since free-to-air digital television broadcasts began in this country. Unfortunately, the take-up has been disappointingly low and slow. According to industry data, about 25 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive terrestrial digital free-to-air broadcasts. If you add in the households that receive digital television through pay TV, take-up rises to around 30 per cent, but not all these households can receive the digital free-to-air channels as well. Back in 2000, the government set a target to switch off analog broadcasting by the end of 2008, which today is not too far away. Of course, it has been clear for some time that there is no way this target can be met. No government could turn off analog broadcasts and leave millions of families staring at blank screens, with useless equipment. The government has accepted that the digital television policies that it has pursued for the last eight years have failed. In July, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts announced that she had postponed the analog switch-off until some time between 2010 and 2012. For many in the community, the switch to digital television is a somewhat esoteric issue. There is a very low level of awareness in the community about the benefits of digital television and why it matters—not just for viewers but also for the broadcasting industry and the economy in general, and I think that is a view held by most people on both sides of the House. It is certainly my personal view as well as that of the broader Labor Party. As I mentioned earlier, digital broadcasting is far more efficient in its use of sparse spectrum. There are large gains to be made, though, from freeing up the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting for alternative services. Reclaimed spectrum could be used to provide a host of new services to the community. The part of the spectrum used by broadcasting is known in the industry as ‘the sweet spot’. Its characteristics mean that it is perfect for wireless broadband. In the future, business and consumers will want to be able to get broadband any time, anywhere. There is a clear direction and a path in view of that. We need to make sure that there is sufficient spectrum to provide these new services as they become needed. Reclaimed spectrum could also be used to deliver several new television channels and increase choice for consumers. This is particularly important, I think, for consumers in regional and rural areas or in remote parts of Australia. These could be community channels, channels catering to special interests or in fact new commercial networks. In the digital divide, the benefit of redeploying the spectrum currently used for analog broadcasting could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Australia. In Britain, for example, the government has estimated that overcoming the digital divide is worth up to £2.2 billion to their economy. We do not know what size the benefit could be for Australia because the government simply has not made an effort to calculate or pursue that. This is, of course, not a surprise: a study of the benefits of digital transmission would only highlight the real cost to Australia of the flawed policies that the government has pursued over the last few years which have in fact held back digital television. Rapid transition to digital is important for the local television production industry. In countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany, consumers are rapidly embracing digital applications like interactive television. We only need look at the internet and sites like YouTube and others that are making headlines around the world to see the rapid pace at which consumers will adapt and adopt new technologies if given the opportunity. I think Australia would be in that same category. Again, I say this would be a real bonus, a real choice for consumers, particularly in regional parts. I note the member for Hinkler in the chamber, and I am assuming he would agree that it would give more choice and more opportunities for rural consumers. If the producers of Australian content do not keep up with these developments this country is at risk of losing lucrative export markets. Exports have historically played an important role in underpinning domestic production. A lengthy transition to digital television also imposes a direct cost on the Commonwealth budget. According to the government’s own figures, every year around $75 million is required to meet the analog broadcasting costs of the ABC and SBS and to assist regional broadcasters. The economic case for switching to digital is clear—without putting a pun on it! It should be a national priority to achieve the switch-over to digital as soon as possible, as soon as practicable, and the government should be working very hard in that direction. If we are to achieve switch-over by 2012 the government needs to develop a set of policies to drive a rapid take-up, education and an explanation of what the benefits are. I do not think the vast majority of consumers have got any idea why they should spend any money to go to digital. We actually get quite a decent service as it is, so if they do not know the benefits they are not going to switch over. Digital take-up in Australia lags far behind comparable countries. As I said before, the United States, Britain, Germany, Ireland, Canada, Norway and Sweden are all countries way ahead of us in the game. Last month the minister announced that the government would develop a digital action plan for take-up. This plan is long overdue. Let us see what the government will provide. The government needs to provide some detail on how switch-over will be coordinated. Consumers need to understand how this will actually work. A concerted effort needs to be made to increase consumer awareness of the process of digital transmission and its benefits. A survey conducted last year by the Australian Communications and Media Authority shows that there is much work to be done. It found that about 17 per cent of responders had never heard of digital television, 45 per cent did not know if digital television services were even available in their area, 42 per cent said they were just not interested in switching to digital and 38 per cent were not aware that digital television would replace the current analog service. They are pretty frightening figures. There is still no requirement that analog equipment will be properly labelled so that consumers will know that it needs to be replaced or converted when the switch-over occurs. Another significant policy gap is the fact that no details have been provided on what assistance will be available to the disadvantaged who are left behind when the switch-over occurs. In the US, the congress allocated nearly $US1 billion for subsidies for the purchase of set-top boxes. In Britain, £400,000 has been set aside from the BBC licence fees to assist the disadvantaged to switch over. So the task of achieving digital switch-over is a huge policy challenge and does involve a cost to government. In the UK, where 72 per cent of households have access to digital TV, it has been estimated that only 40 per cent of televisions have actually been converted. Evidence from Australia and around the world has also shown that the best way to drive up digital take-up is to allow media companies to provide consumers with access to attractive new content. So far the government has made only modest steps in this direction. The government has said that there will be new digital services but has provided little detail on the services that will be permitted. On Tuesday the minister stated that the new in-home digital channels will be datacasting or narrowcasting services. Labor is concerned that the conditions on the minister’s promised new and innovative services will be so restrictive that they will not be attractive to media companies or prospective viewers, and you can easily understand any associated problems if that were to be the case. The minister has talked about niche services like a boating channel or a classified advertising channel. While these services will attract some consumers, it is highly unlikely that narrow services like these will attract significant numbers of people to invest in digital set-top boxes. You also have to ask whether it is good value for taxpayers to tie up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of valuable spectrum providing services of such narrow appeal. Labor does welcome the government’s decision to allow free-to-air broadcasters to run a second digital-only channel. In the UK, multichannelling has been the main driver of digital take-up, and it should be noted for Australia. For the one-off cost of a set-top box, British consumers are able to access around 30 digital channels. The government has sought to restrict multichannelling, however, in a way which will limit the potential of the new multichannelling to drive consumer take-up. Until 2009, broadcasters will be able to multichannel only in high-definition format. High-definition equipment is at least three times more expensive than standard definition equipment, a cost that most family households cannot afford. Only around seven per cent of Australian households have actually got HD equipment. It must be doubtful whether any commercial broadcaster will target a market so small in size. The government has also agreed to relax the absurd genre restrictions which currently limit what the ABC and SBS can show on their digital channels. Labor welcomes this direction. Lifting the genre restrictions is a policy that the opposition has advocated since before the last election. As always, it is good to see government taking up good opposition policies in areas such as this and others. Under the current rules the ABC and SBS are permitted to multichannel. The ABC has used these provisions to establish ABC2, and SBS has launched a World News Channel. Labor commends the ABC and SBS for trying to drive digital take-up despite their limited resources and challenges from government. To date, the efforts of the national broadcasters to stimulate consumer interest in digital TV have been hamstrung by the restrictive rules which limit their programming. The ABC cannot show a national news bulletin, national current affairs programs or drama on ABC2. Similarly, while SBS can broadcast foreign language bulletins on its World News Channel, it is not able to broadcast English language bulletins from countries like Germany, Israel or New Zealand. The genre restrictions make distinctions which are arbitrary and illogical. For example, ABC2 is permitted to broadcast public policy programs, such as Insiders, but not current affairs programs, like The 7.30 Report. In the UK, extra channels and interactive services offered by the BBC have made an important contribution to generating consumer demand for digital. Under its new charter, the BBC will be given a leading role in building a digital Britain. Labor believes that our national broadcasters need to be given the regulatory freedom and financial resources to undertake a similar task in Australia. In July, the minister announced as part of her media package the government’s intention to relax the genre restrictions. As I said, the announcement is welcome, but extra funding is also needed if the ABC and SBS are to make the most of digital broadcasting. In the last budget, however, the government rejected bids by the ABC and SBS to produce new digital content. The government should go back and re-examine this decision so that the national broadcasters can play a significant role in driving digital take-up across the country. In conclusion, it does have to be noted that the government has been extremely tardy in progressing the changes contained in this bill through the parliament. We hear a lot of noise from those opposite about their commitment to regional and remote Australia, but the practical measures contained in this bill have been very low on their list of priorities. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) was introduced into the other place in June 2005. It was not until August 2006 that the government saw fit to bring it on for debate. Since July 2005, the Howard government has had a majority in the Senate. Since it took control of the Senate, the government has made time in the program for things that it really cares about but not for others. It made time to ram through the legislation for the full sale of Telstra. It has made time to pass its extreme industrial relations legislation. These are the things that have been the government’s priorities this term: setting up the fire sale of Telstra, cutting workers’ penalty rates and allowing workers to be unfairly dismissed. This is the real reason why sensible, practical measures like the ones contained in this bill have been delayed for so long. Labor is pleased that the government has finally given this legislation an opportunity to be debated. Labor will be supporting this bill so that remote digital television services can begin to be rolled out across remote parts of Australia. 141 11:44:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 will help expand the range of television services available to people living in remote areas of Australia and was developed with communities in remote Western Australia specifically in mind. In effect, the bill was developed to allow commercial television broadcasting licensees in remote licence areas to jointly multichannel their digital services, if they chose to do so. It will also give a single broadcaster the option of providing a third digital-only service as an individual entity under section 38B of the Broadcasting Services Act. These amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 will give licensees an exemption from any mandatory high-definition quotas where they elect to provide a third digital-only commercial service and multichannel their digital television services. This bill was developed with the specific cases of WIN and Prime in Western Australia in mind, where they are converting their television services from analog to digital in remote areas of Western Australia. It will allow these two broadcasters to adopt more flexible technical and programming solutions in the outlying areas of Western Australia by letting them share digital transmission infrastructure. I commend this. I think it is a very practical and sensible measure. The government recognises that regional commercial broadcasters face proportionately greater costs in establishing digital television compared, say, with those in metropolitan areas. It just stands to reason that anywhere in regional Australia, in country areas, economies of scale will be a lot more strained, but when you get to Western Australia they are strained even further. To illustrate this, in Prime’s case I understand that around 200 digital transmitters are needed to stretch across regional Australia for it to reach a potential audience of 4.8 million people. In comparison, a mere half-a-dozen transmitters are required by Sydney metropolitan broadcasters to reach almost the same number—a potential, in that case, of 4.3 million people. So here you have 200 transmitters for 4.8 million people and there you have six or so transmitters for nearly 4½ million people. When you consider the costs associated with broadcasting digital transmissions, licensees in remote areas have the additional expense of installing satellite and microwave bearer networks, which are needed to deliver the broadcast signal to the transmitters. Of course, other things like maintenance are also a quite heavy burden. I welcome the government’s contribution of $19 million towards this program. It was long awaited and will be of great benefit to people in the remote parts of Western Australia—in fact, just about all of Western Australia outside the Perth area. The measures contained in the bill have been drafted to allow incumbent broadcasters in a two-commercial operated regional market to jointly or individually provide a third digital-only television service. That is not just for Western Australia; parts of the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales have similar problems. Licensees electing to provide a third jointly operated service will do so using a full seven megahertz digital channel and will be subject to the requirements to provide a quota of programming in high-definition digital mode. However, if one of the licensees individually provides the additional service, under section 38B that licensee can choose to multichannel the digital transmission of the parent service and provide the new service in standard definition digital mode using a single seven megahertz channel, with an exemption from high-definition television requirements. Some purists will say, ‘That’s not good enough for the bush.’ I think this is a very good compromise. Standard definition is going to be such an improvement over the current analog services, especially in a remote area, that I think most people will be more than happy and grateful to have it. I, for one, am not a great devotee of the high-definition medium itself, although I recognise that a lot of people want it. I like digital television for the range of services that it can potentially provide. The arrangements we have been talking about, which would soften the rules, might not have been in the best interests of the television stations—or the viewers in remote parts of Australia—if the stations had been pinned down to more prescriptive transmission requirements. Had there not been common sense on the part of existing broadcasters and the government, people in the remote areas of Western Australia may never have seen the best features of digital television. The needs of audiences in regional Australia coupled with the regulatory requirements for local content prohibit regional broadcasters from simply providing a homogenised program and advertising feed to all regional areas. They should not be allowed to do that anyhow. As much localism as possible should be introduced into news bulletins, for example, and advertising should be relevant to the market. It is a criticism of some of the satellite services that you get advertising that is in no way relevant to your area. Regional broadcasters have an obligation to service their smaller submarkets in order to meet audience need and to comply with government regulations. They must also be able to maintain their commercial viability, which is the other side of the coin. All Australians, regardless of where they live, should have access to a superior television viewing experience, and that superior experience comes from digital services. Digital television offers viewers greater picture clarity and enhanced sound. Digital television is broadcast in wide-screen format—the 9:16 ratio—which certainly gives you a greatly enhanced picture. It also has the capacity for subsidiary channels, multichannelling and interactive services and will eventually deliver different forms of datacasting which will extend the function of our television sets. The member for Oxley made some interesting points. I stand to be corrected on this, but I think the government’s original intention was that the switch-off date would not be for 10 years and that either an agreement with, or an amendment by, the Democrats brought that back to 2008. Certainly 2010 is a more realistic date. I hope that it does not go out to 2012. I favour some further relaxation of multichannelling. I know there are balances in multichannelling between the free-to-airs—the ABC and SBS and the commercials—on the one hand and pay television on the other hand. I am not suggesting that there should be a bloodbath in that respect. But while I welcome the multichannelling announcement of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts I urge her and the government to bring that forward as much as possible. If we want people to take up digital television we must provide them with a greater television experience. My view is that, notwithstanding the fact that the ABC’s second channel and SBS’s news channel are both good services, they need greater enhancement. I welcome the lifting of the genre restrictions on the ABC and SBS and I think, as the member for Oxley said, there is a case for increasing the funding of the ABC so it can build good programming formats around the lifting of the genre restrictions. I welcomed in this year’s budget the extra $88 million to the ABC which allowed it to put $13 million into country areas and $30 million into drama. I thought that was a great thing. If the ABC is not doing drama at a high standard it will be hard to get other people in Australia to do it. We should provide avenues for the young people we train in this country to have a future in theatre and television. We can do that only if we enhance the new mediums in such a way that drama is called for. A second digital channel—not only for the ABC and SBS but perhaps even for the commercials—would give the drama and production industry of television a great boost. As I have said, we need localism wherever possible. We need diversity and we need competition. In Western Australia, for example, there will now be three commercial channels to choose from. We should bring forward the multichannelling agenda. That is important from the point of view of encouraging the public to buy sets. If I were a passive person—identified, like the member for Oxley was, from that survey—I do not think that I would be rushing out to buy a digital television set. One of the things I would like to see in the three commercial sectors would be a subsidiary channel showing two football games on a Sunday. Why are we restricted to one? Why can we not have the game of the day in high definition and the second game on a subsidiary channel? Say there is a game of state or interstate interest. In the NRL, for example, if the Broncos are playing the Cowboys there will be great Queensland interest. If two South Australian teams are playing in the AFL there will be a great deal of intrastate interest. It is a bit strange that we cannot have a second game on the subsidiary channel. It is a great medium. We have great sport in this country. All three of the commercial channels from time to time have paid huge money for broadcasting rights. It is churlish to have tough or tougher antisiphoning rules on the one hand and to restrict the ability in some ways of the television stations to be able to get the maximum benefit out of live television on the other. I am not suggesting, in using a multichannelling facility, that we should necessarily allow two night games. I am talking about Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. Perhaps at night the channels should be required to show a regular program and one game. These things have to be kept in balance. Also, as I said before, the brakes on these things should be taken off with consideration being given to keeping a spirit of balance between the commercials and pay television in the market. You cannot just throw all the balls in the air and hope they will come down with a spirit of fairness. I also welcome channel A, the digital data facility. I think there is a great opportunity there. In addition to good data services, stock exchange and weather information, rural reports and so on, news with 10-minute film inserts will be of great benefit to busy people who want to get things on the television set. There is a good case for multichannelling. I may be speculating, but a little further down the track, in the markets we have just been talking about in today’s debate, we could give incentives to extend digital data services into remote areas. That might be something that the minister and the department could look into now, rather than have the criticism we have experienced today of leaving this a bit late. We will also have channel B, which will be for handheld devices. You have only to see how young people are engaging with these new forms of communication—the internet, television, iPods and all sorts of other things—to know that that will eventually become a very popular medium. I also welcome the minister’s announcement that channel B will go onto a neutral platform and that there will be strict access arrangements. I think access arrangements in Australia could be a lot better in a lot of fields, not just in broadcast communications but also in telecommunications. I have great ambivalence about what has been going on with Telstra; I also think that the pay agenda on television could have been handled a lot better and a lot more fairly when that was rolled out some years ago. I will not comment further on that, because it is a matter before the courts, other than to make that general observation. You can see that we are moving into very interesting times, and for people in remote Western Australia this is the first step forward. I would encourage the government and the department not only to look at providing this third channel for people in remote Western Australia and later on in other remote parts of Australia but also to see how we can get other services to them so that in the fullness of time they too can enjoy the benefits of digital television. I commend the bill to the Main Committee. 144 12:01:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —I will take the opportunity to respond to some comments from the member for Hinkler which I found resonated very much with those of us who sit on this side of the political divide. When the member referred to considering the matters of diversity, localism and competition to be of great importance, all I can say is hear, hear and amen. He went on to remark later in his speech that he had some ambivalence about Telstra; I think we share some of that ambivalence. I do want to acknowledge that the member for Hinkler has played a very constructive role, particularly for his constituents, in the debate and in the deliberations and policy outcomes as a consequence of the activity in this parliament, and in the introduction of other legislation concerning media which has been the subject of an enormous amount of public interest. But notwithstanding his comments, as he would be well aware, Labor still retains very strong concerns about the impact of the overall media package. I also want to make some reference to the remarks of the member for Hinkler in encouraging the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to consider both the timelines on the switch-off from analog to digital and those issues that both the minister and the department need to give some consideration to in order to expedite that. I will return to that a little later on in my comments when I refer to the inquiry into the uptake of digital television in Australia, which I, the member for Werriwa and others sat on and which brought down some recommendations that we thought were pretty useful in this debate. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 amends the Broadcasting Services Act and it will allow commercial television licensees in remote licence areas the opportunity to multichannel their digital service—and that certainly will be a good thing for people in these remote licence areas. The fact that we have the possibility, in fact the likelihood, of a third commercial service coming into a remote licence area is certainly something Labor support and, as a consequence of course, we support the bill. I want to make one comment at the beginning of this speech—that is, to encourage licensees, in particular if using Channel 10 material, to consider the broadcasting requirements which I think are both implicit and explicit in parts of the act but certainly are implicit in the exercise of the licence, particularly going into remote areas. A number of these areas will be places with high Indigenous populations, and it is very likely that over time, given population growth amongst Indigenous communities in remote Australia, particularly in Northern Australia, there will be a substantial viewing audience that is constituted by Indigenous people. I think any licensee has a primary responsibility to respond to that audience—and I know they will certainly wish to be aware of that audience’s needs—but also to be aware of the circumstances that those communities find themselves in, particularly with their viewing patterns and viewing habits and the kind of material and information that they may need delivered in the best way that media can, not only to entertain but also to inform and educate. It strikes me that that is an extremely important part of the overall responsibilities that a licensee would have. If, in fact, it is Golden West Network and WIN in Western Australia that will jointly launch a digital service to remote parts of Western Australia, this obviously becomes important. With towns like Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland and Geraldton getting the benefit of a new service commencing in 2007, as we understand, with a lot of Ten Network sourcing material, it will be particularly important for the licensees to consider the nature of the material they are sourcing and the impact and good purpose that that material will serve to that viewing audience. But there is no doubt that regional viewers will get high-quality digital TV and an extra commercial television service, and that is a good thing. We also hope that these changes will lead to other digital services being taken up in other remote licence areas, including the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmania. Certainly, the take-up of digital television means that spectrum can be returned for other services. We are really on the cusp of a quite exciting period, albeit challenging and in some ways frustrating because of some of the policy deficiencies of the Howard government. Nevertheless, it certainly is an exciting period more generally in terms of media access, media delivery, content delivery and the different technological models that are going to be available particularly once we have a freeing up of spectrum. I certainly see a very valuable role to be played in remote Australia for community broadcasting in particular, and that is something to be greatly encouraged. I was alarmed to see that the one aspect of the community broadcasting program delivery content that was not given the support that it needed in the last budget brought down by the Treasurer related to the Australian music programs which could be networked across community broadcasting. I think they have played a very valuable role for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous performers and musicians to have their music heard in remote areas, and it was regrettable indeed that the resources for that program in particular were greatly reduced in the budget allocation. I want to pick up very quickly on one of the comments from the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, when he spoke about the desirability of making sure that the ABC, in this rapidly changing media landscape, is given sufficient resources to enable it to fulfil its functions, particularly with the additional capacity that it now has. I make the point that the additional funds that were made available in the last budget, including those funds that were directed into remote Australia and, in addition, the funds that would be identified for the production of drama content, were welcomed by us, but I think it needs to be acknowledged again here that they came on the back of some significant funding restrictions that had been part of the Howard government’s policy since the time that it took office. So, really, that was the government playing a little bit of catch-up, recognising in fact that by starving the ABC of funds up to that point in time it had to do something, particularly given the deficit of local drama and local stories appearing on the ABC, which traditionally had been one of the nurseries of film talent, television talent, writing, producing, acting and so on. I very much want to endorse the remarks of the member for Hinkler when he pointed out that the need for a greater enhancement of the ABC’s capacity is an absolutely essential prerequisite for the ongoing policy output in this new and changed media landscape. One of the things that is interesting in this debate is that digital TV has not been taken up in any big way by the Australian population. Even though digital free-to-air TV is available to about 85 per cent of Australian homes, the take-up has been particularly poor here. I think the government must bear some responsibility for that, including the business of dates of switch-off, which has confused many of the public. In any event, under this bill, hopefully there will be more incentive for remote broadcasters because there is the capacity for multichannelling. In metropolitan and regional areas now, they have a requirement to broadcast over 1,000 hours per year of high-definition digital signal. Now that remote broadcasters are enabled and, in fact, required to broadcast in standard digital format their costs have come down, but it means that the take-up of digital as a consequence, hopefully, will be greater. It certainly means that remote broadcasters have an incentive to invest in digital TV whereas previously the costs were considered to be fairly high. Other members have spoken of the benefits of digital and I agree. I think the fact that we focus on the availability of sporting events and we want to see more sporting events on television is natural in this country. I have a great affection for sport, as I know most members of parliament do and the public does as well. But, as we explore and examine the capacity for events of that nature to be seen more frequently and more accessibly, we also should think about other events including—in my capacity as shadow parliamentary secretary and Labor spokesman for the arts—arts events, which would probably generate a greater audience pick-up and interest than people might expect. Why do we lag behind the world in standards of the take-up of digital TV? In the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report Digital television: who’s buying it? that I referred to earlier, we found that take-up rates in the UK were 63 per cent, 17 per cent in Italy and 15 per cent in the US. The switch-off date that Senator Coonan has announced is intended to try and increase that amount of take-up, but there is clearly a lot of work to be done in the meantime. Labor does support this legislation, but it recognises the kind of work that has to be done by the government in providing sufficient public information and education about digital. It is really a shortfall and a shortcoming of the minister. ACMA released research last year which found that some 17 per cent of respondents did not know about digital TV at all, 45 per cent did not know if they could access it, 42 per cent simply were not interested and 38 per cent did not know that at some point in time digital TV would replace analog TV. We have a long way to go. The minister has a lot of work to do. On the broader question of media reforms, I hope members will be granted many opportunities to debate more fully the so-called reforms that the minister has introduced and that are travelling through this House. I want to put on record the very high level of concern that I have about the likely impact of the reforms as announced in their final form by the government. In particular, I want to note the possible and likely impacts upon the journalists’ profession in potential job losses. Most clearly, there is the likelihood of the reduction of a diversity of voices, particularly in the metropolitan markets. It is the lifeblood of our democracy. There have been many comments of this sort made, but it is true and it needs to be said. The lifeblood of democracy is to have a diversity of voices, particularly in news and current affairs, and information available to people to enable them to participate and make judgements about civil society. As a consequence of those reforms and those laws that are coming through this parliament, we have had our democratic capacity as consumers of media significantly truncated and reduced. I do not think there is any doubt that a number of the arguments that were put up by the government were not about diversity or new technologies or anything of the kind; they were arguments that had been driven by a need to do something. And it will be commercial interests, more than anything else, that will drive what the media landscape will look like in a few years time. On the basis of those comments, to which I hope I will have the opportunity to refer again later on, we do support this bill. We recognise that the government has a great deal of work to do in educating and speeding up the switch-over from analog to digital. Additionally, we do urge licensees to consider the kind of material that they are able to provide to people in remote communities. For my part, I very strongly urge them to consider their Indigenous audiences in that respect. 147 12:15:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 is important legislation, and of course it is doubly important to people like me and the member for Canning, who sits alongside me, as it contains specific references to the dissemination of digital television services and additional services within remote areas. That is particularly so for those in the footprint of the two commercial stations that cover virtually all of rural Western Australia, impinging on areas of responsibility for the member for Canning and covering my electorate entirely. So I welcome this initiative. Nevertheless, there are other comments that I am anxious to make, the first of which is that, in digital technology, the set-top box does a huge amount of the interpretation, allowing for all sorts of mixed signals to be sent over the airwaves—the spectrum as we know it—that can be sorted out at the point of receival. That is in great contrast to analog television, where the signal has to travel in its entirety through the air to effect the operations of the TV set. As a consequence of course, as has been reported in the past, the amount of spectrum required to distribute an analog television signal represents the same area needed for 100,000 mobile telephones. So the spectrum is a very important issue. Interestingly enough, as I understand it, in my electorate the transmission via satellite into the footprint is already digitised. But clearly the problem arises when that signal arrives on the ground. If you are in an individual homestead somewhere with your own receiver dish, presumably the signal that arrives from the satellite presently will be transferable into your equipment. But what we find in the small communities that I represent—for instance, there are 50 individual local authorities, many of which have two or three towns—is that the townsfolk do not want a dish apiece; they want some locally transmitted service which has typically been provided by the community and, in particular, local government. I sincerely trust that when, as this legislation provides, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, is required to make a legislative instrument relating to a commercial television conversion scheme to set out the terms of the conversion process they will make sure that every time we get a technological change these community bodies are not forced to spend more money to be able to retransmit the new service, as has occurred in the past. That is quite a serious issue because that is where some of the complexity resides, and it has been my experience that when the digitised signal came down from the satellite these community facilities were literally handed a domestic set-top box and told to put in their little television station—their little retransmission facility. Now that is just not of a quality sufficient to do the job in that circumstance, and is less so if one is talking about a high definition digitised signal. That is a matter I hope those at ACMA who might review the speeches made in this debate take note of: that when they set the rules for this purpose they make sure that there is an obligation on those who get a substantial income from these services to ensure that the smaller retransmission services—the stations providing the service in the larger communities—are not financially disadvantaged again in retransmitting that service. That is an important factor that has to be taken into account. I noted a number of comments made by the member for Kingsford Smith to which I would like to respond, but I support his argument that there should be something different on the additional channels that are being provided. I saw GWN, as we know it, virtually covering my electorate. They were consequently able to cherry pick the most popular programs of the three commercial stations, and with one dish and one set-top box you got the lot. Then all of a sudden along came WIN to improve the service, and suddenly one had the rugby and the football. Of course, the retransmission of the WIN service took time, and people who had been able to make that choice on a single service were suddenly without the service. It was just too bad if you preferred AFL to rugby league or whatever—you suddenly only had half of it. But the other point was about what else they got. One mob got Neighbours and the other got—what is the other program called? PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Days of Our Lives? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Yes. For a while I referred to the program as ‘dissatisfied wives’; I think it is— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Desperate Housewives. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —Desperate Housewives, yes. The last thing in the world we want is another channel representing another advertising stream that runs the same sort of rubbish. Yes, they have got plenty of that; certain people enjoy it. But for goodness sake! As the member for Canning is well aware, there is a significant debate going on in the coalition about wheat marketing. You might wonder what in the hell that has got to do with this. Those who use the internet as a means of communication can, with the appropriate skills, access the website for the Chicago Board of Trade. They have discovered that in fact the price that someone could afford to pay them for their wheat in this era of drought, if they have that thing, is about $40 per tonne more than the monopoly marketing system is offering. And if you are down to a third—or luckily a half—of your ordinary production, 40 bucks a tonne means a lot. Of course, that is a contradiction to the argument that this process always delivers better returns. But the point I make in this debate is that if everybody can turn on channel 3, or whatever it is going to be called, the datacasting channel under these new arrangements, and get that information on their television screens—and of course you can, particularly if the broadcaster is prepared to provide it—then everybody knows about it and they become a much more informed body. I note today that the Canadian government has just issued an order upon its monopoly wheat marketer to stop it spending money on promoting itself and its benefits—in other words, the government wants an open debate. It is a pity we have not had one here yet. I say to the members of the opposition present that it is about time your representatives asked our ministers a few questions about the $40 differential. This has nothing to do with the philosophy of a single desk. How is it that the perfect system is going to cost one grower, a very big grower in my electorate, $1 million? That will not make him want to approach it. The point I am making is that, if this legislation— 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke interjecting— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —and if you bothered to listen—provides for datacasting that would assist more growers to become aware of where the dollars are, that might help. Please keep giving us the usually unsubstantiated information about individual workers, considering only 11,000 change their jobs every week in Australia, instead of looking at, for instance, the rights of people in other areas. That is your choice as the opposition. I have made the point that I hope that this legislation will provide an adequate opportunity for datacasting and also the information that people require, not another series of Neighbours or Down Our Street or whatever else. That is an important thing. I was interested to hear the member for Kingsford Smith say—I think in a broader reference—that he was concerned about the jobs of journalists if changes coming up in other legislation were accepted. Everyone worries about media proprietors dictating what journalists should write. I am not sure that that happens. I think journalists have significant control over the products we hear over the airwaves or we see in print journalism. The possibility of who will own a newspaper is open slather, except if you own a television station. Those sorts of matters are of importance. But I always thought that the best way for a journalist to keep their job— 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask my friend the member for O’Connor a question in relation to that? 10000 Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Is the member for O’Connor willing to take a question? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —I would be delighted. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Are you aware that all of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, Australia and the United Kingdom gave universal editorial support for participation of the coalition of the willing in the war in Iraq? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —If that is your question, I am more than happy to answer it. I would not be at all surprised about that. I am further informed of a matter of history of which the member may not be aware. On one occasion when a former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, gave an address to the nation, nearly all the newspapers in America had printed two front pages before the speech was made—one applauding it and another condemning it. As the speech ended, the pollsters hit the phones and the community said, ‘We like the one applauding the address,’ and all the newspapers ran that page. You tell me that that was a decision of the media proprietor. Yes, the media proprietors, including Mr Murdoch, had two pages ready and ran the one that they thought the community wanted to hear. So, if you do not think the community has some effect on that and that it is all in the hands of a single media proprietor, you are mistaken. Also, I know that the ‘single media proprietor’ is not very popular with the Labor Party because in the first instance—and this question is using up your time—he supported Whitlam, because Whitlam promised him that he could import newsprint. Whitlam broke his promise and the proprietor took him to the cleaners the next time. If you want to play those sorts of games, you suffer that sort of problem. I believe that I have adequately answered that question with historical fact and that I should come back to the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith. It interested me that the member for Kingsford Smith talked about the future of journalists. I think there are two factors to this. If I am a critic of the new legislation, it is because it continues to restrict the issuance of certain licences. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for O’Connor that we are almost to adjournment time. Would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks later? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —I probably will not continue my remarks. I have made the points that are of concern to me—that is, adequate datacasting and the way the changeover will be funded at the community level. Debate (on motion by Mr Murphy) adjourned. 150 ADJOURNMENT Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) 12:30:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 150 150 12:30:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —In the adjournment debate I wish to place on record my absolute praise and delight at the news that Norm Gibbs, Mr Waverley himself, has been nominated for and awarded the Premier’s seniors award for 2006. I know Norm personally and I can think of no more deserving person in our community to receive this award. Norm Gibbs has been an active community member all his life. Norm is the epitome of a volunteer. No task is too great or too small and all who ask will receive. I can speak with personal authority on this truly fantastic member of the community. Norm has been a vital asset to my annual Caroline Chisholm Awards as chair of the committee. I rely upon Norm greatly as a sounding board about the needs of our community. Norm began his community involvement as a Sunday school teacher and gym instructor at the Hughesdale Community Church, where his involvement lasted for 15 years. When Norm married Topsy—Topsy is also a fantastic community member and a great asset to Norm; much of his work could not have been achieved without her—and they moved to Mount Waverley, he was a charter member of the Waverley JCs. He became very involved with St Phillip’s Anglican Church in many groups but was instrumental in the formation of its youth group. In 1970 Norm became an honorary probation officer and is the longest serving honorary in this field. He still works as an honorary probation officer to this day and attends the Oakleigh police station once a week to provide JP services. Norm worked tirelessly and visited many homes in his role as honorary probation officer and this role earned him the tag of ‘Mr Waverley’, the man who would be able to help. He was often called out at many hours of the night and it was never too great or too small a task; Norm would always attend. Next for Norm was the establishment of the Zodiac Dance and Zodiac Youth Group. He and Topsy were heavily involved in the Life Be In It campaign. Norm secured a bus for youth activities through local fundraising. Zodiac turned its attention to fundraising for relief after Cyclone Tracy and Norm spent three weeks in Darwin. As a trained plumber, he was a vital asset in part of the rebuilding process up there. This experience led Norm to think of a career change and when he returned from Darwin he applied and became a welfare officer with the Waverley City Council. He spent many years in that vital role. Norm first got involved with the Rotary Club of Waverley in 1976 and continues that association to this day. Norm exemplifies the rotary motto of ‘service above self’. Norm became a Paul Harris Fellow in 1998 and named a Companion of the Australian Rotary Health Research Fund for his unceasing work for this organisation. Zodo the clown was born in 1978 and he continues to this day. Norm, as Zodo, entertains the elderly, the young and the disabled—anyone who is in need of cheering up. A visit from Norm as Zodo never fails to achieve this end. Norm also spends a lot of time as Santa or the Easter bunny, visiting kinders, schools, nursing homes and hospitals—any special occasion and Norm is there in his trusty MG in full costume to please and delight. It is quite a sight to see Zodo the clown zipping around Waverley in his MG. Norm is always on call to help and respond whenever asked. Off his own bat, he travelled to Portsea to visit the Kosovo refugees when they were here, as he knew the children could do with cheering up. Norm is very active to this day with Very Special Kids, the Down Syndrome Association, Camp Quality, Copeland Street, the Variety Club, the Rotary Club of Waverley, the Child and Family Care Network, the Monash volunteers association and many more we do not even know about. Norm has been actively involved in the Monash City Council for many years, where he served as councillor and mayor in its previous incarnation as the Waverley City Council, and attends all council meetings. You cannot go to a Monash City Council meeting and not see Norm in the audience. Norm is the most worthy recipient of this award and I cannot sing his praises highly enough. Quite simply, Norm is one of the reasons Waverley is such a great place to live in. It was an absolute delight to hear that he was awarded the Premier’s Senior of the Year award for 2006. I know it was an absolute privilege and delight and the making of his life. We should all bear in mind that Norm is a spritely 79. Two other people in my electorate were also nominated for these awards: Marion MacKenzie, who is 93 and attends St Christopher’s Primary School in Syndal each week, where she volunteers as a teacher assistant; and Dot Schmidt, who is a younger 79. Dot is also a fantastic member of our community who works with many organisations including the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Clean Up Australia and Meals on Wheels in Glen Waverley. Without these sorts of volunteers in our electorates, in our communities, our communities would not be the great places they are. We often talk about community being dead, but I know it is not because I have such great people in my electorate who are giving of their time generously as volunteers. I would like my remarks in Hansard to show the great respect I have for these individuals. 152 152 12:35:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —I rise to make comments on and support the statement that has just been delivered by the Prime Minister on providing assistance for skills shortages and skills training. I rise to support his statements particularly. The world has changed. There are many mature age workers out there whose skills have become redundant because of the changing technological advancements in society and also the fact that they may have been away from the workforce for a long period of time—for example, mothers who have stayed home for a number of years to rear children or who left school at a time when a limited number of skills were required and many people left school in the junior year. The way that things have changed in the workplace today, many of those skills need to be updated. When I go around and speak to employers, what is becoming increasingly obvious to me is the skills gap that exists out there. Many employers express a great deal of frustration to me, particularly when young people applying for positions do not have the literacy skills to fill out an application form. That is of great concern. It is important that we make sure that those literacy skills and also other job skills are updated. More so now than ever before, the technological age has meant that there are many careers that are no longer applicable, and one that I can think of is the old-fashioned world of cartography and map drawing. It is now being surpassed by computer technology. That particular industry is a bit of a dinosaur. In cases like that, there are many people out there who would have originally trained in the old ways that now have to come on board and embrace the new technology. We have such a strong economy at the moment that employers regularly say to me they have trouble finding employees. I was speaking to a company the other day that was having extreme difficulty in attracting truck drivers. We have such a low unemployment level that the workers of this country, which is in a period of unprecedented economic strength, are in the greatest position of bargaining power that has ever existed in terms of the types of jobs that are out there, and employers are very mindful of that. It is a terrific situation to be in, but it does cause skills shortages and skill demands. So this $837 million policy that has been announced by the Prime Minister I would like to endorse. Anyone over the age of 25 without year 12 equivalent skills will be eligible for a $3,000 voucher. The cost of funding the voucher is $408 million and the voucher will be able to be used in places like TAFEs, private providers or community colleges. It will upskill unemployed workers and welfare recipients, it will give them a chance to participate in the workforce and it will also give them a formal qualifications path and a career path. This is the type of educational opportunity that people are looking for in this very modern, robust and strong market. Workers who have gone into specific jobs in the past now want changes of directions and want to supplement their skills through their working lives. The training that they require must be flexible and it must be deliverable in the classroom or the workplace—whatever is needed. It is a much more flexible work environment. The days of apprenticeships only being for younger people are over. As I travel around, more and more mature age people are wanting to become apprentices and we have invested $307 million over five years to support mid-career workers. We have seen successful examples of that in the defence industry, where mature age workers are going into technical and electrical areas and the Department of Defence has embraced that wholeheartedly. From 1 July 2007, the incentives will be available each year for up to 10,000 people aged 30 and over who are starting an apprenticeship at the certificate III or certificate IV level in an occupation of high demand, and those 30 and over undertaking apprenticeships in these occupations in July 2007 will also be eligible. The amount paid by the government will be $150 a week, or $7,800 a year, in the first year and $100 a week, or $5,000 in a year, in the second year. I endorse this important measure because it will have a profound effect on the skills and the upgrading of skills in this country. It will mean greater engagement for mature age people and it will help many in the workforce who, through no barrier other than a financial barrier, will be able to participate again. (Time expired) 153 153 12:41:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I wish to bring to the attention of the House the events of Friday, 6 October this year in my home town of Rockhampton. Our local paper’s headline on Monday the 9th read ‘Massive street fight erupts’. The paper went on to say: Up to 50 people are believed to have been involved in the disturbance on Johns Street on Friday night with Police alleging some were fighting with metal bars, bottles and fence palings. On the face of it this could be said to be a law and order matter, and indeed the Queensland police are to be congratulated not just for their quick response but for the work they are doing to defuse the situation. Last year all of Australia watched in horror as the riots in Sydney’s western suburbs were flashed around the nation, and here we are now with the quiet streets of Rockhampton being turned into virtual battlegrounds. The question is whether there are any similarities between the riots in Macquarie Fields and the events in Johns Street, Rockhampton. Sadly, the answer is yes. The riots in Sydney were sparked by the death of a young man, while the events in Rockhampton last week were triggered by the tragic suicide death of a young woman. I ask myself: how many other towns and cities around Australia are seeing these human tragedies played out on their streets? I believe that we in this place need to consider these frightening disturbances not as law and order issues but for what they really are. They are an expression of the hopelessness felt by some sections of our community. We had a government minister tell the House yesterday that we are living in a glorious age and that we have never had it so good. This may be true for the Howard and Costello families and it may also be true for the families of the CEOs of Telstra, of Qantas or of our major banks; but hidden just under the surface of our society are pockets of overwhelming misery and a sense of frustration and hopelessness that we never thought we would see in the land of the fair go. We have to ask ourselves: how did we get to this sad point? The Howard government has abandoned a basic maxim of all Australian governments since Federation. Whether you talk about Deakin, Lyons, Chifley or Menzies, all of our previous governments believed that we must set a standard below which we would not allow Australians to live or to work. I have to say that the Howard government is guilty of abandoning this sacred principle, and the result is social alienation and even the violence that we are seeing in some of our towns and cities. John Howard’s mindset and rhetoric are stuck in the 1950s, but he does not seem to understand that the policies of his government have destroyed much of the fabric of society that existed to help and support people in that earlier time. In Mr Howard’s world of the 1950s, there was a safety net for people of church, community and government. In the world of 2006 that John Howard has created, you are on your own and good luck to you. I know that, had the families involved in the tragic events in Rockhampton last week been given support in their time of need, there would not have been the battle that we saw in Rockhampton on 6 October. We now hear the completely out of touch Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, referring to a class of people out there who need to get off their backsides and go to work. I say to Mr Hockey: as I move around my electorate I cannot find these people who do not want to work. Indeed, Mr Hockey is welcome to come to Rockhampton and I will introduce him to young men in their 20s who have no drivers licence, who have no Medicare card, who are at odds with Centrelink and whose teeth are in such bad shape that they cannot eat an apple or any proper food. Mr Hockey wants these men to work, but the Howard government, thanks to its policies of neglect, has abandoned them and consigned them to life on the margins of our society. I would say to Mr Hockey and to all members of the government that it is the Howard government that needs to get to work to address the results of its failed policies of the last 10 years and help bring these people back from the margins of society into the mainstream, where they can do what this government requires them to do. In short, the task which is obviously going to be left to the next Labor government is for us once again to set standards below which we will not allow people to live or work. The sooner we have a Labor government which will set about this task, the sooner we will all be safer on our streets. 154 154 12:45:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I rise in the chamber today to express my extreme anger at the decision by Telstra to close the Beach Road, Maroochydore call centre in about eight to 10 weeks, along with another call centre at Cairns in Far North Queensland. I appreciate that Telstra operates as though it is a private company, that for many years it has been corporatised and that these decisions are, as far as the management of the company is concerned, handled by the board of directors. But, as the local member, I was very annoyed that there was no sense of consultation and there was no talking to the local staff. The decision to close the award and winning call centre came right out of the blue. An announcement was made late on Tuesday, and I have to say that this decision is entirely unacceptable. I do not understand why Telstra would look at closing a call centre in a rapidly growing area like the Sunshine Coast or, for that matter, in Cairns. These call centres have highly skilled people and, while I am aware that because of the high level of skills of the people at the call centre many of them will be offered jobs quickly, the timing of the Telstra announcement was absolutely appalling. I understand that 83 Sunshine Coast families will have a bleak Christmas insofar as the jobs will come to an end very close to the yuletide season. Telstra clearly is diversifying in a range of ways, but I am quite sure that Telstra will not be diversifying into a public relations consultancy business. It is one thing for the chief executive of Telstra to be paid such an enormous amount of money—and it is a matter for the board of Telstra as to whether he is worth that; I have to say, looking at the performance of Telstra, that I find it interesting that the board has clearly gone through that process and come to that decision, but I recognise that the board of Telstra does in fact operate the Telstra company—but I thought it was absolutely appalling that, without consultation with the workers, without consultation with the local community and without consultation with local members of parliament and local councils, such an appalling and outrageous decision was announced by Telstra, which will see the breadwinners of 83 coast families no longer bringing home pay packets. Not only will this affect the 83 families who lose their jobs on the Sunshine Coast and about the same number at Cairns but there will be a multiplier flow-on effect for the Sunshine Coast economy. These people who work at Telstra shop locally, go to local restaurants and use local services, so the effect on the broader community will be very substantial. I think it is unfortunate that Telstra is able to make these sorts of announcements without taking into consideration the effect on local people and local communities. I have been telephoned by quite a substantial number of people who are losing their job. It is rather interesting, actually. Those people who are losing their jobs I think got advice only yesterday that they were being offered discounted shares in the T3 offer. They are obviously part of the family for one purpose but not part of the family for another purpose. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Are you recommending that they buy? 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —That is a decision that individuals in our Australian community will have to make with respect to investing in Telstra. Telstra has said that those staff who face job losses will be offered redundancy packages, that where possible alternative employment will be given—hopefully on the Sunshine Coast—and that there will be assistance from Telstra to help the employees find positions with other employers. When I was telephoned by Jason Law, the Telstra Country Wide manager, who I must say does an absolutely outstanding job—he was the messenger; he was notified and had no role in this decision—I asked him whether the jobs were being exported to Bangalore in India. But I was told that that was not the case and that Telstra does not actually have offshore call centres. To sum up: this is an appalling decision which adversely affects the financial situation of coast families who have undertaken commitments and bought houses with the expectation of an ongoing role with Telstra. Telstra’s public relations exercise is appalling. The board stands condemned. 155 155 12:50:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I want to use this time this afternoon to make a few remarks about the state of tourism, an industry I have been a close observer of for some time now, even before I accepted responsibility as the shadow minister on behalf of the opposition. Tourism is a marvellous industry, contributing significantly to Australia’s economic prosperity. Most of us by now are familiar with the figures. For example, tourism employs over 550,000 people nationally, it contributes about four per cent to Australia’s GDP and it injects $18.8 million into our economy. It is an industry built on the fine reputation of the predominantly small to medium sized businesses that define it and that are often based in regional areas, producing a quality service. It is in understanding the significance of the industry that I raise serious concerns this afternoon about its ailing health. Over the past year, we have seen fewer international arrivals to Australia and an increase in outward-bound travel, which is a recipe for an unhealthy sector back home. The latest overseas arrivals and departures figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics earlier this month show a drop in short-term visitor arrivals to Australia, down 2.9 per cent in August 2006 from the same time last year. The drop continued a worrying trend. While those figures were bad enough on the surface, a more thorough analysis revealed that the problem is much worse. Real gains have been made in attracting more Chinese and Korean tourists, but that has come at a heavy loss, with a bleeding of the highly lucrative and long-term Japanese market down 10.5 per cent. The alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. Replacing the Japanese market with the new emerging Chinese and Korean markets is not like trading apples for apples. Japanese visitors are traditionally considered high-yield tourists, since they spend more than the average visitor. Chinese and Korean tourists, conversely, are considered low-yield tourists and often travel in tightly planned tours that do not allow for the maximum possible spend dispersal amongst businesses. This was not the only worrying truth in the report. As the international market shrinks, in contrast the figures show consistent monthly increases in resident departures for the last 12 months at an unprecedented level. From March 2004 to March 2005, the number of Australians heading overseas for their holiday rather than spending time in their own backyard increased by a massive 26 per cent. This is at a time when fewer and fewer of us are actually taking time out. As a nation we have stockpiled—and this is an incredible figure—70 million days of annual leave. It is about time that people started thinking about having a holiday back home. The report confirmed the speculation by many within the industry that the decline in tourism health experienced over recent times was not just unfortunately a temporary downward glitch but a reflection of a serious problem. Domestic tourism has stagnated, and this has serious ramifications not just for the capital cities but perhaps more importantly for regional Australia. The domestic tourism sector makes up 70 per cent of the industry’s GDP. Industry is predicting that the tourism slump is about to plateau and may even very marginally rise, but any growth is only in comparison with its recent poorest performance period on record. It should not be forgotten that the results are well down on the general trend levels and well under par for the industry’s full potential. The opposition has given bipartisan support to Australia’s much touted ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign. It was launched in February this year, but results appear thin on the ground. Enough time has elapsed for questions now to be asked. I therefore suggest to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism that it is about time she gave an explanation. Where are the international visitors? Why aren’t Australians spending holidays in Australia? Why aren’t they taking their holidays, and what is the government going to do about it? There have been recent reports about Korean tourists being ripped off on the Gold Coast—actually being charged to walk on our beaches. There was a Queensland state government system in place which is about accreditation with respect to proper standards of tourism providers. The Tourism Services Act must be picked up by the Australian government and spread across all states and territories so as to protect our future by making sure that unsuspecting tourists are not ripped off. Imagine reports of charges of $150 per tourist to walk on a beach on the Gold Coast. This will only further harm our international reputation and further diminish our capacity to actually attract not only low-yield tourists but also high-yield tourists. (Time expired) 157 157 12:55:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —Last month I wrote to all of the high schools in my electorate of La Trobe to invite two students from each school to attend a Make Poverty History forum at the Belgrave Heights Christian School in my electorate. The forum was organised in conjunction with Vision Generation, VGen—the 15- to 24-year-old arm of World Vision—and generously hosted by Belgrave Heights Christian School. I thank Andy Callow and all his staff and students for doing a fantastic job in hosting this function. VGen aims to ‘inspire, educate and empower young people in the fight against global poverty and injustice’ through fundraising and advocacy initiatives. In attendance were VGen chair, Miss Alana Smith, and vice chair, Mr Mark Cox. I congratulate Alana and Mark. I have met them on numerous occasions. They are exceptionally passionate, have a great vision and are fantastic ambassadors for VGen. The forum, which was held last Wednesday, 4 October 2006, was a great success. It provided an excellent opportunity for the young people of La Trobe to share their views with each other. Students from each school represented delivered presentations to the forum, voiced their opinions, passionately debated ideas and exchanged views. It was an incredible thrill to see how inspired our young people are to make poverty history. There was a real buzz in the room. Students Tim Streckfuss and Erica Brant and teacher Mr Colin Payne represented Kambrya College. Tim handed out candles and sang a song he had written about poverty, and I congratulate him for doing so. Erica asked the forum to imagine the horrors of poverty. St Joseph’s Regional College was represented by students Joshua Hore and Lukas Lum and teacher Mr Michael Turner. Joshua and Lukas performed a role-play comparing a child from the USA with a hungry child from Ethiopia. Representing St Francis Xavier College were students Beauheme Prussner, Joshua McKendry-Dow and Alyce Johnson and teacher Mr Adrian Peacock. Alyce and Beauheme discussed Third World debt relief. Hillcrest Christian College was represented by students Bevan Wang and Adele Teden and teacher Mr Geoff Grace and actively participated in group discussions. Beaconhills College was represented by students Sarah McNeilage, Lauren Prosser and Madelaine Brooke and teacher Mr Will Hones. The girls delivered a very passionate presentation about what could be done and what they were intending to do at their school to make poverty history. Students Liam Harris and Jacqui Ryder, accompanied by the principal, Wayne Burgess, represented Emerald Secondary College. I congratulate Wayne as a principal for getting involved with this project. Liam and Jacqui talked about Millennium Development Goal No. 1. Belgrave Heights Christian School was represented by students Amber Thiele and Isabell Holt as well as the principal, Andy Callow, who hosted the event, and teacher Mr Lance Davidson. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr Broadbent —Andy Callow is a top man. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —He is a good man, isn’t he? Amber and Isabell talked about good and bad aid and concluded that microcredit is an excellent form of aid. Students Samantha Royce, Justine Glover and teacher Mr Grant Nichol from Upwey High School also actively participated in group discussions and debate. I was delighted to be able to inform the forum of aid initiatives the government has recently announced to make poverty history. Overall, this was a fantastic occasion. Again I congratulate World Vision VGen on their great work and their participation. The way they have dealt with me has been exceptional. They are very young, passionate people—very persuasive too. I congratulate all those participants from all the schools and the teachers on making this a fantastic day. I have made many speeches now on Make Poverty History and I fully support the MDGs. I congratulate our federal government on the recent announcement which the Treasurer made in South Africa. Australia made a commitment of $136 million to the World Bank to relieve debts of some of the world’s poorest countries. This payment was in addition to the $12 million which Australia has already provided to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for debt relief. Again, this is a big issue and I congratulate all those young people involved. They have my full support. Keep up the great work. Main Committee adjourned at 1.01 pm 159 Answers to Questions on Notice 159 159 2738 supplementary 159 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 29 November 2005: For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio, what was the total staffing level in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005. For the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio for (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004, and (e) 2005 how many New Apprentices (i) had commenced and (ii) were employed. How many of the New Apprenticeships referred to in part (2) were traditional apprenticeships (as defined by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research as an apprenticeship in an occupation in Australian Standard Classification of Occupations Group 4 – Tradespersons and Related Workers – at AQF level 3 or above with an expected duration of more than 2 years full time). How many traditional apprenticeships does the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio intend to offer to commence in 2006. 159 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: Telstra has advised that the information included in the answer to question 2738 tabled on 28 January 2006 in relation to Telstra was incorrect. Telstra has supplied the following corrected answer: Telstra has advised that its employment levels for each of the years nominated are outlined in Telstra’s annual reports. These reports are available at http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/investor/annual_reports.cfm Telstra has provided the following table: Financial Year Number of New Apprentices Commenced Number of New Apprentices Employed 2000/01 n/a n/a 2001/02 n/a n/a 2002/03 n/a n/a 2003/04 n/a n/a 2004/05 n/a n/a 2005/06 (to end Feb 2006) n/a 1531 Telstra has advised that for the years prior to 2005/06 no apprentice employment data is available. Nil. Telstra has advised that it does not consider the people identified in the above to be traditional apprentices. Nil. Telstra has advised that it does not consider the people identified in the above to be traditional apprentices. —————————— 1 Of the 153 New Apprenticeships, Telstra has advised that 80 were employed directly by Telstra, with the remaining 73 employed by Telstra shop franchises 160 160 3763 160 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 22 June 2006: Why has the Government decided to continue the differential taxation of some forms of commercial residential accommodation. How will the retrospective change to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 affect persons who have entered into an investment in good faith after the Federal court’s decision and prior to his announcement. How will the amendment affect persons who have an Indirect Tax Concession (ITC) claim pending with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Will the Government seek to ‘claw back’ ITCs that have previously been granted by the ATO to affected investors. 160 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. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Supplies of accommodation in commercial residential premises are taxable, unless the existing option to input tax long‑term accommodation in commercial residential premises is exercised. The decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Marana Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 307 (Marana) was about whether the sale of a unit, which was previously a room in a motel, was the sale of ‘new residential premises’ and thus subject to GST. A person who entered into an investment following the Marana case will be treated in the same way as the majority of taxpayers who relied upon the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO’s) published view in GST Ruling 2000/20. They will not be able to claim an input tax credit on the purchase price. However, as the supply is input taxed, they will not be required to remit GST on a later sale of the property, nor on rent received. and (4) There is only a very small number of input tax credit claims in respect of premises in question that are pending with the ATO. There is only a handful of taxpayers who will have to repay input tax credits as a result of the amendments. 160 160 3775 160 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr Rudd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 22 June 2006: In respect of the department’s provision of Medical Treatment Visas, will the Minister provide a breakdown of the nationalities of (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applicants in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998, (iv) 1999, (v) 2000, (vi) 2001, (vii) 2002, (viii) 2003, (ix) 2004, (x) 2005 and (xi) 2006. 160 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: A breakdown of nationalities of successful Medical Treatment visa applicants for the years 1996 to 2006 (inclusive) is provided in Appendix A. Please be aware that records of these visa grants are not available prior to 1 July 1996. A breakdown of nationalities of unsuccessful Medical Treatment visa applicants for the years 2002 to 2006 (inclusive) is provided in Appendix B. Visa refusal data for before 2002 is not available. Appendix A A breakdown of nationalities of successful Medical Treatment Visa applicants for the years 1996-2006 (inclusive). Total Number of Grants For Visa Subclass 675 & 685 By Calendar Year and Citizenship Period: 1 July 1996 to 30 June 2006 Source: Reporting Assurance Section - Tr_visa (EOY 2006) Reference No.: T8789 Subclass 675 Visa Subclass Code Calendar Year Citizenship Total 675 1996 Belgium 3 675 1996 Bosnia-Herzegovina 2 675 1996 Brazil 1 675 1996 Brunei Darussallam 5 675 1996 Burma (Myanmar) 3 675 1996 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 675 1996 Canada 11 675 1996 Chile 1 675 1996 China, Peoples Republic of 8 675 1996 Cyprus 1 675 1996 Ecuador 1 675 1996 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2 675 1996 Fiji 293 675 1996 Finland 1 675 1996 France 734 675 1996 Germany, Federal Rep. of 5 675 1996 Ghana 1 675 1996 Greece 1 675 1996 HKSAR of the PRC 7 675 1996 Hungary 1 675 1996 India 31 675 1996 Indonesia 655 675 1996 Israel 1 675 1996 Italy 1 675 1996 Japan 3 675 1996 Kiribati 1 675 1996 Korea, Republic of 1 675 1996 Malaysia 73 675 1996 Malta 2 675 1996 Mauritius 7 675 1996 Nauru 116 675 1996 Nepal 6 675 1996 Netherlands 1 675 1996 New Caledonia 1 675 1996 Oman 5 675 1996 Pakistan 19 675 1996 Papua New Guinea 207 675 1996 Philippines 25 675 1996 Romania 3 675 1996 Russian Federation 1 675 1996 Samoa 7 675 1996 Singapore 5 675 1996 Solomon Islands 23 675 1996 Sri Lanka 17 675 1996 Stateless 1 675 1996 Sudan 1 675 1996 Switzerland 2 675 1996 Thailand 4 675 1996 Tonga 3 675 1996 Turkey 1 675 1996 Tuvalu 2 675 1996 U.S.S.R. 1 675 1996 Ukraine 2 675 1996 United Kingdom 21 675 1996 United States of America 29 675 1996 Vanuatu 13 675 1996 Vietnam 7 675 1996 Wallis and Futuna 1   1996 Total (July to Dec)   2381 675 1997 Albania 1 675 1997 Australia 1 675 1997 Austria 1 675 1997 Bangladesh 2 675 1997 Barbados 1 675 1997 Bosnia-Herzegovina 13 675 1997 Brazil 2 675 1997 Burma (Myanmar) 8 675 1997 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 675 1997 Canada 17 675 1997 Chile 1 675 1997 China, Peoples Republic of 24 675 1997 Croatia 1 675 1997 Cyprus 2 675 1997 Denmark 1 675 1997 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 675 1997 Fiji 342 675 1997 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 5 675 1997 France 1360 675 1997 Germany, Federal Rep. of 6 675 1997 Ghana 3 675 1997 Greece 2 675 1997 HKSAR of the PRC 10 675 1997 India 36 675 1997 Indonesia 649 675 1997 Iran 7 675 1997 Iraq 3 675 1997 Irish Republic 1 675 1997 Israel 1 675 1997 Italy 4 675 1997 Japan 27 675 1997 Jordan 2 675 1997 Kiribati 6 675 1997 Korea, Republic of 2 675 1997 Kuwait 4 675 1997 Lebanon 7 675 1997 Luxembourg 3 675 1997 Malaysia 107 675 1997 Mauritius 9 675 1997 Mongolia 4 675 1997 Nauru 208 675 1997 Nepal 3 675 1997 Netherlands 7 675 1997 New Caledonia 1 675 1997 Nigeria 1 675 1997 Oman 14 675 1997 Pakistan 26 675 1997 Papua New Guinea 324 675 1997 Philippines 52 675 1997 Poland 1 675 1997 Portugal 1 675 1997 Russian Federation 5 675 1997 Samoa 4 675 1997 Seychelles 1 675 1997 Singapore 4 675 1997 Solomon Islands 58 675 1997 Somalia 1 675 1997 South Africa, Republic of 2 675 1997 Sri Lanka 29 675 1997 Suriname 1 675 1997 Switzerland 8 675 1997 Syria 2 675 1997 Taiwan 4 675 1997 Thailand 17 675 1997 Tonga 8 675 1997 Trinidad and Tobago 1 675 1997 Tuvalu 1 675 1997 U.S.S.R. 1 675 1997 United Kingdom 39 675 1997 United States of America 104 675 1997 Uruguay 1 675 1997 Vanuatu 20 675 1997 Vietnam 12 675 1997 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1 675 1997 Zimbabwe 2   1997 Total   3641 675 1998 Austria 1 675 1998 Bangladesh 6 675 1998 Belgium 1 675 1998 Bolivia 1 675 1998 Brunei Darussallam 1 675 1998 Burma (Myanmar) 3 675 1998 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 675 1998 Canada 11 675 1998 Chile 1 675 1998 China, Peoples Republic of 33 675 1998 Croatia 2 675 1998 Ecuador 1 675 1998 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 675 1998 El Salvador 1 675 1998 Estonia 1 675 1998 Ethiopia 2 675 1998 Fiji 289 675 1998 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 1 675 1998 France 1509 675 1998 French Polynesia 1 675 1998 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 675 1998 Ghana 1 675 1998 HKSAR of the PRC 5 675 1998 India 36 675 1998 Indonesia 585 675 1998 Iran 7 675 1998 Irish Republic 3 675 1998 Italy 2 675 1998 Japan 10 675 1998 Kenya 3 675 1998 Kiribati 2 675 1998 Korea, Republic of 2 675 1998 Kuwait 1 675 1998 Lao Peoples Democratic Rep 2 675 1998 Lebanon 1 675 1998 Malaysia 61 675 1998 Maldives 2 675 1998 Malta 1 675 1998 Mauritius 22 675 1998 Nauru 196 675 1998 Nepal 7 675 1998 Netherlands 8 675 1998 New Caledonia 1 675 1998 New Zealand 2 675 1998 Nigeria 1 675 1998 Oman 5 675 1998 Pakistan 36 675 1998 Papua New Guinea 270 675 1998 Philippines 40 675 1998 Poland 2 675 1998 Portugal 1 675 1998 Russian Federation 4 675 1998 Rwanda 1 675 1998 Samoa 4 675 1998 Seychelles 1 675 1998 Singapore 2 675 1998 Solomon Islands 75 675 1998 Somalia 1 675 1998 Sri Lanka 39 675 1998 Stateless 4 675 1998 Sweden 1 675 1998 Switzerland 2 675 1998 Syria 1 675 1998 Taiwan 3 675 1998 Thailand 5 675 1998 Tonga 5 675 1998 Tuvalu 1 675 1998 Uganda 1 675 1998 United Arab Emirates 1 675 1998 United Kingdom 35 675 1998 United States of America 62 675 1998 Unknown 2 675 1998 Vanuatu 50 675 1998 Venezuela 2 675 1998 Vietnam 26 675 1998 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1   1998 Total   3514 675 1999 Albania 7 675 1999 Argentina 1 675 1999 Austria 1 675 1999 Bangladesh 14 675 1999 Belgium 1 675 1999 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 675 1999 Brazil 1 675 1999 Brunei Darussallam 1 675 1999 Burma (Myanmar) 12 675 1999 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 675 1999 Canada 4 675 1999 Chile 3 675 1999 China, Peoples Republic of 32 675 1999 Croatia 1 675 1999 Czechoslovakia 1 675 1999 Egypt, Arab Republic of 3 675 1999 Fiji 293 675 1999 Finland 2 675 1999 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 1 675 1999 France 1574 675 1999 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 675 1999 Greece 1 675 1999 Guyana 1 675 1999 HKSAR of the PRC 10 675 1999 Hungary 1 675 1999 India 28 675 1999 Indonesia 957 675 1999 Iran 4 675 1999 Irish Republic 1 675 1999 Italy 4 675 1999 Japan 6 675 1999 Kenya 1 675 1999 Kiribati 4 675 1999 Korea, Dem Peoples Rep of 1 675 1999 Lebanon 1 675 1999 Malaysia 63 675 1999 Maldives 1 675 1999 Mauritius 41 675 1999 Mexico 1 675 1999 Micronesia, Fed States of 2 675 1999 Nauru 294 675 1999 Netherlands 5 675 1999 Netherlands Antilles 1 675 1999 New Caledonia 3 675 1999 New Zealand 1 675 1999 Oman 7 675 1999 Pakistan 43 675 1999 Papua New Guinea 329 675 1999 Peru 7 675 1999 Philippines 42 675 1999 Poland 6 675 1999 Portugal 1 675 1999 Samoa 3 675 1999 Singapore 3 675 1999 Solomon Islands 60 675 1999 Somalia 2 675 1999 South Africa, Republic of 4 675 1999 Spain 2 675 1999 Sri Lanka 30 675 1999 Stateless 2 675 1999 Thailand 4 675 1999 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 6 675 1999 Tonga 14 675 1999 Tuvalu 2 675 1999 United Kingdom 36 675 1999 United States of America 73 675 1999 Vanuatu 50 675 1999 Venezuela 2 675 1999 Vietnam 26 675 1999 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 2   1999 Total   4145 675 2000 Albania 5 675 2000 American Samoa 1 675 2000 Argentina 1 675 2000 Austria 1 675 2000 Bangladesh 14 675 2000 Belgium 1 675 2000 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 675 2000 Brazil 2 675 2000 Burma (Myanmar) 8 675 2000 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 5 675 2000 Canada 5 675 2000 Chile 4 675 2000 China, Peoples Republic of 29 675 2000 Croatia 3 675 2000 Czech Republic 1 675 2000 Egypt, Arab Republic of 3 675 2000 Eritrea 1 675 2000 Ethiopia 2 675 2000 Fiji 306 675 2000 Finland 2 675 2000 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 675 2000 France 1706 675 2000 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 675 2000 Ghana 1 675 2000 Greece 1 675 2000 HKSAR of the PRC 7 675 2000 Iceland 1 675 2000 India 32 675 2000 Indonesia 684 675 2000 Iran 8 675 2000 Iraq 1 675 2000 Irish Republic 10 675 2000 Italy 2 675 2000 Japan 5 675 2000 Jordan 5 675 2000 Kenya 3 675 2000 Kiribati 6 675 2000 Korea, Dem Peoples Rep of 2 675 2000 Korea, Republic of 1 675 2000 Kuwait 4 675 2000 Lebanon 3 675 2000 Malaysia 68 675 2000 Maldives 1 675 2000 Marshall Islands 1 675 2000 Mauritius 46 675 2000 Mexico 1 675 2000 Micronesia, Fed States of 1 675 2000 Mongolia 3 675 2000 Nauru 388 675 2000 Nepal 6 675 2000 Netherlands 1 675 2000 New Caledonia 0 675 2000 New Zealand 2 675 2000 Niger 1 675 2000 Pakistan 9 675 2000 Papua New Guinea 249 675 2000 Philippines 51 675 2000 Poland 1 675 2000 Portugal 3 675 2000 Romania 5 675 2000 Russian Federation 4 675 2000 Singapore 9 675 2000 Solomon Islands 35 675 2000 South Africa, Republic of 3 675 2000 Spain 2 675 2000 Sri Lanka 38 675 2000 Switzerland 3 675 2000 Syria 2 675 2000 Tanzania 3 675 2000 Thailand 1 675 2000 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 59 675 2000 Tonga 12 675 2000 Turkey 1 675 2000 Tuvalu 1 675 2000 United Arab Emirates 1 675 2000 United Kingdom 27 675 2000 United Nations Organisation 1 675 2000 United States of America 70 675 2000 Vanuatu 46 675 2000 Vietnam 25 675 2000 Wallis and Futuna 1 675 2000 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 3 675 2000 Zimbabwe 1   2000 Total   4066 675 2001 Albania 3 675 2001 Argentina 1 675 2001 Bangladesh 7 675 2001 Belgium 1 675 2001 Burma (Myanmar) 7 675 2001 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 675 2001 Canada 4 675 2001 China, Peoples Republic of 19 675 2001 Egypt, Arab Republic of 5 675 2001 Fiji 273 675 2001 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 675 2001 France 1821 675 2001 French Polynesia 1 675 2001 Germany, Federal Rep. of 5 675 2001 Ghana 3 675 2001 Guyana 1 675 2001 HKSAR of the PRC 5 675 2001 Hungary 1 675 2001 India 25 675 2001 Indonesia 579 675 2001 Iran 3 675 2001 Iraq 9 675 2001 Irish Republic 1 675 2001 Israel 1 675 2001 Italy 5 675 2001 Jamaica 1 675 2001 Japan 8 675 2001 Jordan 6 675 2001 Kiribati 7 675 2001 Lebanon 7 675 2001 Malaysia 52 675 2001 Malta 2 675 2001 Mauritius 27 675 2001 Micronesia, Fed States of 2 675 2001 Mongolia 4 675 2001 Nauru 267 675 2001 Nepal 11 675 2001 Netherlands 2 675 2001 New Caledonia 1 675 2001 New Zealand 2 675 2001 Nigeria 2 675 2001 Oman 6 675 2001 Pakistan 10 675 2001 Papua New Guinea 250 675 2001 Peru 2 675 2001 Philippines 47 675 2001 Poland 1 675 2001 Portugal 4 675 2001 Romania 1 675 2001 Russian Federation 6 675 2001 Rwanda 3 675 2001 Samoa 10 675 2001 Singapore 14 675 2001 Slovakia 1 675 2001 Solomon Islands 43 675 2001 Somalia 3 675 2001 South Africa, Republic of 2 675 2001 Sri Lanka 42 675 2001 Sweden 1 675 2001 Switzerland 4 675 2001 Syria 3 675 2001 Taiwan 1 675 2001 Thailand 3 675 2001 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 41 675 2001 Tonga 8 675 2001 Turkey 5 675 2001 Tuvalu 1 675 2001 United Kingdom 43 675 2001 United States of America 113 675 2001 Unknown 7 675 2001 Vanuatu 44 675 2001 Vietnam 32 675 2001 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1 675 2001 Zimbabwe 1   2001 Total   3937 675 2002 Albania 18 675 2002 Bangladesh 15 675 2002 Belgium 2 675 2002 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 675 2002 Brunei Darussallam 3 675 2002 Bulgaria 1 675 2002 Burma (Myanmar) 12 675 2002 Canada 15 675 2002 Chile 2 675 2002 China, Peoples Republic of 18 675 2002 Croatia 2 675 2002 Cyprus 1 675 2002 Egypt, Arab Republic of 5 675 2002 Ethiopia 5 675 2002 Fiji 224 675 2002 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 675 2002 France 1948 675 2002 Germany, Federal Rep. of 3 675 2002 HKSAR of the PRC 7 675 2002 Hungary 2 675 2002 India 19 675 2002 Indonesia 545 675 2002 Iran 3 675 2002 Irish Republic 2 675 2002 Israel 6 675 2002 Italy 7 675 2002 Japan 6 675 2002 Kiribati 11 675 2002 Korea, Republic of 4 675 2002 Kuwait 3 675 2002 Malaysia 49 675 2002 Mauritius 15 675 2002 Mexico 1 675 2002 Micronesia, Fed States of 1 675 2002 Morocco 1 675 2002 Mozambique 2 675 2002 Nauru 343 675 2002 Nepal 6 675 2002 Nigeria 3 675 2002 Oman 5 675 2002 Pakistan 15 675 2002 Papua New Guinea 203 675 2002 Philippines 38 675 2002 Poland 4 675 2002 Portugal 1 675 2002 Russian Federation 3 675 2002 Samoa 9 675 2002 Saudi Arabia 3 675 2002 Sierra Leone 2 675 2002 Singapore 5 675 2002 Solomon Islands 47 675 2002 Somalia 3 675 2002 South Africa, Republic of 2 675 2002 Spain 1 675 2002 Sri Lanka 37 675 2002 Stateless 1 675 2002 Sudan 1 675 2002 Sweden 1 675 2002 Switzerland 2 675 2002 Taiwan 2 675 2002 Tanzania 2 675 2002 Thailand 5 675 2002 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 31 675 2002 Tonga 9 675 2002 Turkey 2 675 2002 Ukraine 1 675 2002 United Kingdom 36 675 2002 United States of America 74 675 2002 Vanuatu 48 675 2002 Venezuela 1 675 2002 Vietnam 30 675 2002 Virgin Islands (U.S.A.) 1 675 2002 Zambia 1   2002 Total   3939 675 2003 Albania 7 675 2003 Angola 2 675 2003 Bangladesh 12 675 2003 Belgium 2 675 2003 Brazil 3 675 2003 Brunei Darussallam 3 675 2003 Burma (Myanmar) 1 675 2003 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 3 675 2003 Canada 14 675 2003 Chile 1 675 2003 China, Peoples Republic of 19 675 2003 Colombia 1 675 2003 Croatia 3 675 2003 Czech Republic 1 675 2003 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2 675 2003 Ethiopia 1 675 2003 Fiji 206 675 2003 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 675 2003 France 2043 675 2003 Ghana 5 675 2003 Greece 1 675 2003 HKSAR of the PRC 9 675 2003 Hungary 1 675 2003 India 18 675 2003 Indonesia 606 675 2003 Iran 2 675 2003 Irish Republic 1 675 2003 Italy 7 675 2003 Japan 2 675 2003 Kazakhstan 2 675 2003 Kenya 2 675 2003 Kiribati 3 675 2003 Lebanon 2 675 2003 Malaysia 55 675 2003 Maldives 3 675 2003 Mauritius 12 675 2003 Nauru 91 675 2003 Nepal 4 675 2003 Netherlands 9 675 2003 Niger 2 675 2003 Nigeria 1 675 2003 Norway 1 675 2003 Oman 4 675 2003 Pakistan 5 675 2003 Papua New Guinea 194 675 2003 Philippines 26 675 2003 Poland 1 675 2003 Russian Federation 1 675 2003 Samoa 7 675 2003 Seychelles 1 675 2003 Singapore 3 675 2003 Slovakia 1 675 2003 Solomon Islands 52 675 2003 Somalia 6 675 2003 Spain 1 675 2003 Sri Lanka 21 675 2003 Switzerland 4 675 2003 Syria 1 675 2003 Tanzania 1 675 2003 Thailand 15 675 2003 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 23 675 2003 Tonga 14 675 2003 Trinidad and Tobago 1 675 2003 Turkey 2 675 2003 Uganda 1 675 2003 United Kingdom 22 675 2003 United Nations Organisation 1 675 2003 United States of America 77 675 2003 Vanuatu 44 675 2003 Vietnam 25 675 2003 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1   2003 Total   3720 675 2004 Albania 12 675 2004 Argentina 1 675 2004 Austria 2 675 2004 Bangladesh 8 675 2004 Belgium 1 675 2004 Bosnia-Herzegovina 2 675 2004 Brazil 2 675 2004 Brunei Darussallam 5 675 2004 Burma (Myanmar) 2 675 2004 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 6 675 2004 Canada 12 675 2004 China, Peoples Republic of 17 675 2004 Czech Republic 5 675 2004 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2 675 2004 Ethiopia 2 675 2004 Fiji 259 675 2004 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 675 2004 France 2322 675 2004 Ghana 1 675 2004 HKSAR of the PRC 8 675 2004 Hungary 2 675 2004 India 20 675 2004 Indonesia 515 675 2004 Iran 5 675 2004 Irish Republic 1 675 2004 Italy 9 675 2004 Jordan 1 675 2004 Kiribati 1 675 2004 Lao Peoples Democratic Rep 1 675 2004 Lebanon 3 675 2004 Madagascar 1 675 2004 Malaysia 44 675 2004 Maldives 3 675 2004 Mauritius 23 675 2004 Nauru 22 675 2004 Nepal 2 675 2004 Netherlands 7 675 2004 New Caledonia 1 675 2004 Nigeria 1 675 2004 Oman 2 675 2004 Pakistan 6 675 2004 Palestinian Authority 9 675 2004 Papua New Guinea 175 675 2004 Philippines 28 675 2004 Portugal 6 675 2004 Russian Federation 2 675 2004 Rwanda 1 675 2004 Samoa 14 675 2004 Singapore 3 675 2004 Solomon Islands 65 675 2004 Somalia 4 675 2004 South Africa, Republic of 12 675 2004 Sri Lanka 29 675 2004 Sweden 1 675 2004 Syria 1 675 2004 Tanzania 2 675 2004 Thailand 18 675 2004 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 12 675 2004 Tonga 45 675 2004 Turkey 1 675 2004 U.S.S.R. 1 675 2004 Ukraine 1 675 2004 United Kingdom 21 675 2004 United States of America 70 675 2004 Vanuatu 39 675 2004 Vietnam 24 675 2004 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1   2004 Total   3926 675 2005 Albania 6 675 2005 Algeria 1 675 2005 Bangladesh 5 675 2005 Belgium 1 675 2005 Brazil 2 675 2005 Brunei Darussallam 6 675 2005 Bulgaria 1 675 2005 Burma (Myanmar) 3 675 2005 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 5 675 2005 Canada 2 675 2005 Chile 2 675 2005 China, Peoples Republic of 15 675 2005 Colombia 1 675 2005 Croatia 2 675 2005 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 675 2005 Fiji 230 675 2005 Finland 1 675 2005 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 3 675 2005 France 2143 675 2005 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 675 2005 Ghana 1 675 2005 Greece 1 675 2005 HKSAR of the PRC 3 675 2005 India 35 675 2005 Indonesia 380 675 2005 Iran 1 675 2005 Iraq 5 675 2005 Irish Republic 2 675 2005 Israel 2 675 2005 Italy 2 675 2005 Japan 1 675 2005 Kenya 2 675 2005 Kiribati 4 675 2005 Korea, Republic of 1 675 2005 Lebanon 2 675 2005 Malaysia 34 675 2005 Maldives 4 675 2005 Mauritius 30 675 2005 Namibia 2 675 2005 Nauru 34 675 2005 Nepal 4 675 2005 Netherlands 1 675 2005 New Zealand 1 675 2005 Niger 1 675 2005 Nigeria 3 675 2005 Norway 1 675 2005 Oman 2 675 2005 Pakistan 13 675 2005 Palestinian Authority 3 675 2005 Papua New Guinea 214 675 2005 Philippines 15 675 2005 Poland 1 675 2005 Portugal 17 675 2005 Romania 1 675 2005 Russian Federation 6 675 2005 Samoa 11 675 2005 Serbia and Montenegro 1 675 2005 Seychelles 1 675 2005 Singapore 4 675 2005 Solomon Islands 50 675 2005 Somalia 6 675 2005 South Africa, Republic of 5 675 2005 Spain 1 675 2005 Sri Lanka 32 675 2005 Stateless 1 675 2005 Syria 1 675 2005 Thailand 23 675 2005 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 27 675 2005 Tonga 26 675 2005 Turkey 1 675 2005 Tuvalu 1 675 2005 Uganda 1 675 2005 United Kingdom 20 675 2005 United Nations Organisation 1 675 2005 United States of America 72 675 2005 Unknown 6 675 2005 Uzbekistan 1 675 2005 Vanuatu 53 675 2005 Vietnam 30 675 2005 Zambia 2   2005 Total   3638 675 2006 Afghanistan 1 675 2006 American Samoa 1 675 2006 Bangladesh 2 675 2006 Belgium 1 675 2006 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 675 2006 Brazil 2 675 2006 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 4 675 2006 Canada 5 675 2006 China, Peoples Republic of 9 675 2006 Ethiopia 2 675 2006 Fiji 96 675 2006 Finland 2 675 2006 France 1090 675 2006 Germany, Federal Rep. of 1 675 2006 HKSAR of the PRC 2 675 2006 India 10 675 2006 Indonesia 187 675 2006 Iran 2 675 2006 Iraq 1 675 2006 Irish Republic 2 675 2006 Italy 2 675 2006 Japan 1 675 2006 Kenya 1 675 2006 Kiribati 1 675 2006 Korea, Republic of 2 675 2006 Kuwait 2 675 2006 Lao Peoples Democratic Rep 1 675 2006 Luxembourg 1 675 2006 Malaysia 14 675 2006 Mauritius 38 675 2006 Nauru 9 675 2006 Nepal 1 675 2006 Netherlands 1 675 2006 Oman 2 675 2006 Pakistan 10 675 2006 Palestinian Authority 1 675 2006 Papua New Guinea 111 675 2006 Philippines 5 675 2006 Portugal 2 675 2006 Samoa 5 675 2006 Senegal 1 675 2006 Serbia and Montenegro 1 675 2006 Sierra Leone 1 675 2006 Solomon Islands 17 675 2006 Somalia 2 675 2006 South Africa, Republic of 5 675 2006 Sri Lanka 22 675 2006 Switzerland 2 675 2006 Syria 2 675 2006 Thailand 8 675 2006 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 41 675 2006 Tonga 17 675 2006 Turkey 2 675 2006 United Kingdom 12 675 2006 United States of America 33 675 2006 Vanuatu 31 675 2006 Vietnam 19 675 2006 Zambia 2   2006 Total (Jan to June)   1849   Grand Total   38756 Subclass 685 685 1996 Albania 2 685 1996 Bangladesh 2 685 1996 Brazil 2 685 1996 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 685 1996 Chile 4 685 1996 China, Peoples Republic of 14 685 1996 Colombia 3 685 1996 Croatia 1 685 1996 Czech Republic 2 685 1996 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2 685 1996 Eritrea 1 685 1996 Fiji 56 685 1996 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 685 1996 France 22 685 1996 Germany, Federal Rep. of 5 685 1996 Greece 6 685 1996 HKSAR of the PRC 3 685 1996 India 19 685 1996 Indonesia 15 685 1996 Iran 12 685 1996 Irish Republic 2 685 1996 Israel 1 685 1996 Italy 7 685 1996 Japan 28 685 1996 Kenya 2 685 1996 Korea, Republic of 2 685 1996 Lebanon 8 685 1996 Malaysia 33 685 1996 Malta 1 685 1996 Mexico 1 685 1996 Nauru 8 685 1996 Netherlands 2 685 1996 New Caledonia 2 685 1996 Pakistan 6 685 1996 Papua New Guinea 22 685 1996 Philippines 21 685 1996 Poland 3 685 1996 Romania 1 685 1996 Russian Federation 1 685 1996 Samoa 1 685 1996 Singapore 1 685 1996 Solomon Islands 2 685 1996 South Africa, Republic of 2 685 1996 Sri Lanka 5 685 1996 Stateless 5 685 1996 Switzerland 1 685 1996 Syria 1 685 1996 Taiwan 4 685 1996 Thailand 3 685 1996 Tonga 7 685 1996 Turkey 1 685 1996 U.S.S.R. 2 685 1996 United Kingdom 47 685 1996 United States of America 11 685 1996 Unknown 7 685 1996 Vanuatu 2 685 1996 Vietnam 10   1996 Total (July to Dec)   437 685 1997 Albania 2 685 1997 Argentina 1 685 1997 Australia 4 685 1997 Bangladesh 1 685 1997 Belgium 1 685 1997 Burma (Myanmar) 2 685 1997 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 4 685 1997 Canada 2 685 1997 Chile 4 685 1997 China, Peoples Republic of 24 685 1997 Cote d’Ivoire 1 685 1997 Croatia 2 685 1997 Egypt, Arab Republic of 4 685 1997 El Salvador 1 685 1997 Fiji 80 685 1997 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 685 1997 France 83 685 1997 Germany, Federal Rep. of 7 685 1997 Greece 18 685 1997 HKSAR of the PRC 11 685 1997 Hungary 1 685 1997 India 19 685 1997 Indonesia 70 685 1997 Iran 15 685 1997 Iraq 1 685 1997 Irish Republic 5 685 1997 Israel 8 685 1997 Italy 12 685 1997 Japan 42 685 1997 Jordan 3 685 1997 Kenya 1 685 1997 Korea, Republic of 10 685 1997 Lebanon 13 685 1997 Malaysia 37 685 1997 Maldives 4 685 1997 Malta 3 685 1997 Mexico 3 685 1997 Nauru 33 685 1997 Nepal 5 685 1997 Nigeria 1 685 1997 Northern America (so stated) 1 685 1997 Pakistan 10 685 1997 Papua New Guinea 25 685 1997 Peru 2 685 1997 Philippines 53 685 1997 Poland 3 685 1997 Romania 1 685 1997 Russian Federation 7 685 1997 Samoa 12 685 1997 Singapore 9 685 1997 Solomon Islands 4 685 1997 South Africa, Republic of 6 685 1997 Spain 3 685 1997 Sri Lanka 34 685 1997 Stateless 2 685 1997 Switzerland 1 685 1997 Syria 2 685 1997 Taiwan 1 685 1997 Thailand 2 685 1997 Tonga 22 685 1997 Turkey 5 685 1997 Tuvalu 1 685 1997 U.S.S.R. 3 685 1997 United Kingdom 87 685 1997 United States of America 11 685 1997 Unknown 1 685 1997 Vanuatu 5 685 1997 Venezuela 2 685 1997 Vietnam 21 685 1997 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 5 685 1997 Zimbabwe 2   1997 Total   883 685 1998 Albania 2 685 1998 Argentina 1 685 1998 Australia 6 685 1998 Bangladesh 8 685 1998 Bosnia-Herzegovina 5 685 1998 Brazil 1 685 1998 Burma (Myanmar) 4 685 1998 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 685 1998 Canada 2 685 1998 Chile 7 685 1998 China, Peoples Republic of 20 685 1998 Colombia 1 685 1998 Croatia 2 685 1998 Cyprus 1 685 1998 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 685 1998 El Salvador 3 685 1998 Fiji 72 685 1998 Finland 1 685 1998 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 3 685 1998 France 39 685 1998 Georgia 3 685 1998 Germany, Federal Rep. of 9 685 1998 Ghana 1 685 1998 Greece 12 685 1998 HKSAR of the PRC 11 685 1998 India 24 685 1998 Indonesia 77 685 1998 Iran 12 685 1998 Iraq 1 685 1998 Irish Republic 6 685 1998 Israel 6 685 1998 Italy 12 685 1998 Japan 36 685 1998 Kiribati 2 685 1998 Korea, Republic of 18 685 1998 Lebanon 11 685 1998 Malaysia 30 685 1998 Maldives 2 685 1998 Malta 5 685 1998 Mauritius 11 685 1998 Nauru 57 685 1998 Nepal 3 685 1998 Netherlands 2 685 1998 New Zealand 1 685 1998 Pakistan 8 685 1998 Papua New Guinea 21 685 1998 Peru 1 685 1998 Philippines 48 685 1998 Poland 3 685 1998 Portugal 4 685 1998 Romania 3 685 1998 Russian Federation 5 685 1998 Samoa 9 685 1998 Singapore 17 685 1998 Solomon Islands 11 685 1998 South Africa, Republic of 5 685 1998 Sri Lanka 29 685 1998 Stateless 2 685 1998 Syria 4 685 1998 Taiwan 5 685 1998 Tonga 15 685 1998 Trinidad and Tobago 1 685 1998 Turkey 4 685 1998 U.S.S.R. 6 685 1998 Ukraine 1 685 1998 United Kingdom 75 685 1998 United States of America 12 685 1998 Unknown 2 685 1998 Uruguay 1 685 1998 Vanuatu 2 685 1998 Venezuela 3 685 1998 Vietnam 27 685 1998 West Bank 1 685 1998 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 3 685 1998 Zimbabwe 1   1998 Total   862 685 1999 Albania 6 685 1999 Australia 6 685 1999 Bangladesh 6 685 1999 Bolivia 1 685 1999 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 685 1999 British Indian Ocean Terr 1 685 1999 Burma (Myanmar) 4 685 1999 Canada 5 685 1999 Chile 4 685 1999 China, Peoples Republic of 31 685 1999 Colombia 1 685 1999 Croatia 2 685 1999 Cyprus 1 685 1999 Egypt, Arab Republic of 7 685 1999 El Salvador 1 685 1999 Ethiopia 2 685 1999 Fiji 87 685 1999 Finland 2 685 1999 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 3 685 1999 France 40 685 1999 Georgia 4 685 1999 Germany, Federal Rep. of 7 685 1999 Greece 6 685 1999 Guinea 2 685 1999 HKSAR of the PRC 9 685 1999 India 47 685 1999 Indonesia 138 685 1999 Iran 11 685 1999 Iraq 4 685 1999 Irish Republic 11 685 1999 Israel 2 685 1999 Italy 9 685 1999 Japan 46 685 1999 Kiribati 1 685 1999 Korea, Dem Peoples Rep of 5 685 1999 Korea, Republic of 8 685 1999 Kuwait 1 685 1999 Lebanon 11 685 1999 Libya 2 685 1999 Malaysia 40 685 1999 Malta 2 685 1999 Mauritius 13 685 1999 Morocco 1 685 1999 Nauru 46 685 1999 New Zealand 1 685 1999 Nigeria 2 685 1999 Oman 2 685 1999 Pakistan 9 685 1999 Papua New Guinea 53 685 1999 Paraguay 1 685 1999 Peru 3 685 1999 Philippines 33 685 1999 Poland 4 685 1999 Romania 1 685 1999 Russian Federation 7 685 1999 Samoa 10 685 1999 Singapore 8 685 1999 Solomon Islands 11 685 1999 Somalia 2 685 1999 South Africa, Republic of 11 685 1999 Sri Lanka 26 685 1999 Switzerland 3 685 1999 Syria 3 685 1999 Taiwan 1 685 1999 Tanzania 1 685 1999 Thailand 5 685 1999 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 685 1999 Tonga 16 685 1999 Turkey 3 685 1999 U.S.S.R. 1 685 1999 Ukraine 6 685 1999 United Kingdom 96 685 1999 United States of America 13 685 1999 Unknown 7 685 1999 Vanuatu 4 685 1999 Venezuela 4 685 1999 Vietnam 41 685 1999 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 3 685 1999 Zimbabwe 2   1999 Total   1032 685 2000 Albania 8 685 2000 Australia 8 685 2000 Bangladesh 11 685 2000 Belarus 1 685 2000 Bosnia-Herzegovina 3 685 2000 Brazil 2 685 2000 Burma (Myanmar) 4 685 2000 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 3 685 2000 Canada 2 685 2000 Chile 6 685 2000 China, Peoples Republic of 47 685 2000 Cyprus 1 685 2000 Czechoslovakia 1 685 2000 Denmark 4 685 2000 Ecuador 1 685 2000 Egypt, Arab Republic of 8 685 2000 El Salvador 1 685 2000 Eritrea 10 685 2000 Ethiopia 1 685 2000 Fiji 91 685 2000 Finland 1 685 2000 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 5 685 2000 France 65 685 2000 Germany, Federal Rep. of 5 685 2000 Ghana 1 685 2000 Greece 8 685 2000 HKSAR of the PRC 5 685 2000 India 23 685 2000 Indonesia 68 685 2000 Iran 3 685 2000 Iraq 4 685 2000 Irish Republic 4 685 2000 Italy 4 685 2000 Japan 72 685 2000 Kazakhstan 1 685 2000 Kenya 2 685 2000 Korea, Dem Peoples Rep of 1 685 2000 Korea, Republic of 11 685 2000 Kuwait 3 685 2000 Lebanon 14 685 2000 Malaysia 32 685 2000 Malta 2 685 2000 Mauritius 8 685 2000 Mexico 2 685 2000 Nauru 95 685 2000 Nepal 1 685 2000 Netherlands 3 685 2000 Netherlands Antilles 2 685 2000 New Caledonia 1 685 2000 Pakistan 13 685 2000 Panama 1 685 2000 Papua New Guinea 30 685 2000 Peru 4 685 2000 Philippines 47 685 2000 Poland 5 685 2000 Russian Federation 6 685 2000 Samoa 6 685 2000 Singapore 5 685 2000 Slovakia 1 685 2000 Solomon Islands 8 685 2000 South Africa, Republic of 11 685 2000 Sri Lanka 24 685 2000 Switzerland 4 685 2000 Syria 5 685 2000 Taiwan 2 685 2000 Thailand 17 685 2000 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 7 685 2000 Tonga 16 685 2000 Trinidad and Tobago 1 685 2000 Turkey 3 685 2000 Ukraine 4 685 2000 United Kingdom 96 685 2000 United Nations Organisation 1 685 2000 United States of America 19 685 2000 Unknown 28 685 2000 Vanuatu 3 685 2000 Vietnam 29 685 2000 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 1 685 2000 Zimbabwe 3   2000 Total   1059 685 2001 Albania 7 685 2001 Armenia 1 685 2001 Australia 2 685 2001 Bangladesh 22 685 2001 Belarus 1 685 2001 Belgium 1 685 2001 Bosnia-Herzegovina 2 685 2001 Brazil 3 685 2001 Burma (Myanmar) 2 685 2001 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 685 2001 Canada 9 685 2001 Chile 5 685 2001 China, Peoples Republic of 40 685 2001 Croatia 5 685 2001 Cyprus 1 685 2001 Czechoslovakia 1 685 2001 Denmark 1 685 2001 Egypt, Arab Republic of 7 685 2001 Fiji 99 685 2001 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 5 685 2001 France 55 685 2001 Georgia 2 685 2001 Germany, Federal Rep. of 15 685 2001 Greece 5 685 2001 HKSAR of the PRC 12 685 2001 Hungary 4 685 2001 India 31 685 2001 Indonesia 57 685 2001 Iran 8 685 2001 Iraq 7 685 2001 Irish Republic 4 685 2001 Israel 6 685 2001 Italy 24 685 2001 Japan 42 685 2001 Jordan 2 685 2001 Kenya 3 685 2001 Kiribati 3 685 2001 Korea, Republic of 30 685 2001 Lebanon 7 685 2001 Liberia 2 685 2001 Malaysia 27 685 2001 Malta 2 685 2001 Mauritius 11 685 2001 Nauru 91 685 2001 Netherlands 9 685 2001 New Caledonia 2 685 2001 New Zealand 1 685 2001 Pakistan 6 685 2001 Papua New Guinea 53 685 2001 Peru 2 685 2001 Philippines 36 685 2001 Poland 2 685 2001 Portugal 1 685 2001 Romania 1 685 2001 Russian Federation 14 685 2001 Samoa 5 685 2001 Seychelles 1 685 2001 Singapore 4 685 2001 Slovakia 2 685 2001 Slovenia 1 685 2001 Solomon Islands 13 685 2001 Somalia 2 685 2001 South Africa, Republic of 14 685 2001 Spain 1 685 2001 Sri Lanka 38 685 2001 Sweden 1 685 2001 Switzerland 3 685 2001 Syria 3 685 2001 Taiwan 2 685 2001 Thailand 19 685 2001 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 6 685 2001 Tonga 12 685 2001 Turkey 3 685 2001 Tuvalu 1 685 2001 Ukraine 4 685 2001 United Kingdom 124 685 2001 United States of America 30 685 2001 Unknown 24 685 2001 Vanuatu 6 685 2001 Venezuela 1 685 2001 Vietnam 20 685 2001 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 2   2001 Total   1135 685 2002 Albania 11 685 2002 Argentina 1 685 2002 Bangladesh 12 685 2002 Belgium 1 685 2002 Brazil 1 685 2002 Burma (Myanmar) 5 685 2002 Canada 9 685 2002 Chile 2 685 2002 China, Peoples Republic of 32 685 2002 Colombia 4 685 2002 Croatia 2 685 2002 Czech Republic 1 685 2002 Czechoslovakia 1 685 2002 Denmark 1 685 2002 Egypt, Arab Republic of 11 685 2002 Ethiopia 1 685 2002 Fiji 54 685 2002 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 4 685 2002 France 42 685 2002 French Polynesia 1 685 2002 Germany, Federal Rep. of 15 685 2002 Greece 14 685 2002 HKSAR of the PRC 11 685 2002 India 37 685 2002 Indonesia 79 685 2002 Iran 11 685 2002 Iraq 5 685 2002 Irish Republic 6 685 2002 Israel 3 685 2002 Italy 7 685 2002 Japan 33 685 2002 Kiribati 3 685 2002 Korea, Republic of 15 685 2002 Lebanon 4 685 2002 Liberia 1 685 2002 Malaysia 36 685 2002 Malta 2 685 2002 Mauritius 3 685 2002 Nauru 74 685 2002 Nepal 1 685 2002 Netherlands 2 685 2002 Nigeria 3 685 2002 Pakistan 9 685 2002 Papua New Guinea 32 685 2002 Peru 1 685 2002 Philippines 17 685 2002 Poland 4 685 2002 Portugal 4 685 2002 Russian Federation 5 685 2002 Samoa 12 685 2002 Sierra Leone 2 685 2002 Singapore 5 685 2002 Solomon Islands 8 685 2002 Somalia 3 685 2002 South Africa, Republic of 9 685 2002 Sri Lanka 26 685 2002 Stateless 1 685 2002 Sweden 3 685 2002 Switzerland 2 685 2002 Syria 2 685 2002 Taiwan 1 685 2002 Tanzania 2 685 2002 Thailand 24 685 2002 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 685 2002 Tonga 5 685 2002 Turkey 5 685 2002 Ukraine 2 685 2002 United Kingdom 124 685 2002 United States of America 41 685 2002 Uruguay 1 685 2002 Vanuatu 6 685 2002 Vietnam 28 685 2002 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 5 685 2002 Zimbabwe 1   2002 Total   953 685 2003 Albania 7 685 2003 Bangladesh 12 685 2003 Belgium 3 685 2003 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 685 2003 Brazil 3 685 2003 Bulgaria 1 685 2003 Burma (Myanmar) 7 685 2003 Canada 6 685 2003 Chad 1 685 2003 Chile 2 685 2003 China, Peoples Republic of 15 685 2003 Colombia 2 685 2003 Croatia 1 685 2003 Denmark 1 685 2003 Egypt, Arab Republic of 6 685 2003 Ethiopia 1 685 2003 Fiji 66 685 2003 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 4 685 2003 France 33 685 2003 French Polynesia 1 685 2003 Germany, Federal Rep. of 21 685 2003 Ghana 4 685 2003 Greece 7 685 2003 HKSAR of the PRC 9 685 2003 India 18 685 2003 Indonesia 81 685 2003 Iran 7 685 2003 Iraq 2 685 2003 Irish Republic 2 685 2003 Israel 6 685 2003 Italy 11 685 2003 Japan 30 685 2003 Kenya 1 685 2003 Kiribati 3 685 2003 Korea, Republic of 15 685 2003 Lebanon 8 685 2003 Malaysia 24 685 2003 Malta 2 685 2003 Mauritius 8 685 2003 Nauru 16 685 2003 Netherlands 10 685 2003 New Caledonia 1 685 2003 New Zealand 1 685 2003 Nicaragua 1 685 2003 Nigeria 2 685 2003 Norway 1 685 2003 Pakistan 9 685 2003 Papua New Guinea 33 685 2003 Philippines 21 685 2003 Poland 4 685 2003 Portugal 1 685 2003 Russian Federation 4 685 2003 Samoa 9 685 2003 Sierra Leone 2 685 2003 Singapore 4 685 2003 Solomon Islands 9 685 2003 Somalia 4 685 2003 South Africa, Republic of 12 685 2003 Spain 2 685 2003 Sri Lanka 24 685 2003 Stateless 1 685 2003 Sudan 1 685 2003 Sweden 2 685 2003 Switzerland 5 685 2003 Syria 1 685 2003 Taiwan 3 685 2003 Thailand 11 685 2003 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 685 2003 Tonga 6 685 2003 Turkey 2 685 2003 Ukraine 2 685 2003 United Kingdom 106 685 2003 United States of America 22 685 2003 Uruguay 1 685 2003 Vanuatu 5 685 2003 Vietnam 25 685 2003 Zambia 1 685 2003 Zimbabwe 2   2003 Total   800 685 2004 Afghanistan 1 685 2004 Albania 5 685 2004 Austria 1 685 2004 Bangladesh 3 685 2004 Belgium 1 685 2004 Bosnia-Herzegovina 3 685 2004 Brazil 2 685 2004 Burma (Myanmar) 1 685 2004 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 6 685 2004 Canada 6 685 2004 Chile 5 685 2004 China, Peoples Republic of 20 685 2004 Croatia 3 685 2004 Cyprus 1 685 2004 Czech Republic 1 685 2004 Egypt, Arab Republic of 4 685 2004 Fiji 76 685 2004 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 685 2004 France 49 685 2004 Germany, Federal Rep. of 8 685 2004 Ghana 1 685 2004 Greece 5 685 2004 HKSAR of the PRC 14 685 2004 India 34 685 2004 Indonesia 47 685 2004 Iran 3 685 2004 Irish Republic 5 685 2004 Israel 10 685 2004 Italy 11 685 2004 Japan 12 685 2004 Kenya 1 685 2004 Kiribati 2 685 2004 Korea, Republic of 16 685 2004 Lao Peoples Democratic Rep 1 685 2004 Lebanon 16 685 2004 Malaysia 24 685 2004 Mauritius 9 685 2004 Nauru 10 685 2004 Nepal 1 685 2004 Netherlands 4 685 2004 New Caledonia 1 685 2004 Pakistan 6 685 2004 Papua New Guinea 25 685 2004 Philippines 16 685 2004 Poland 5 685 2004 Portugal 1 685 2004 Romania 2 685 2004 Russian Federation 9 685 2004 Samoa 10 685 2004 Singapore 3 685 2004 Solomon Islands 17 685 2004 Somalia 3 685 2004 South Africa, Republic of 11 685 2004 Spain 1 685 2004 Sri Lanka 39 685 2004 Stateless 2 685 2004 Sweden 1 685 2004 Switzerland 2 685 2004 Syria 1 685 2004 Taiwan 1 685 2004 Tanzania 1 685 2004 Thailand 7 685 2004 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 4 685 2004 Tonga 10 685 2004 Turkey 1 685 2004 Ukraine 1 685 2004 UN Convention Refugee 1 685 2004 United Arab Emirates 1 685 2004 United Kingdom 121 685 2004 United States of America 15 685 2004 Uruguay 1 685 2004 Vanuatu 1 685 2004 Vietnam 20 685 2004 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 3 685 2004 Zimbabwe 2   2004 Total   769 685 2005 Albania 5 685 2005 American Samoa 1 685 2005 Bangladesh 7 685 2005 Belgium 1 685 2005 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 685 2005 Bulgaria 1 685 2005 Burma (Myanmar) 1 685 2005 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 7 685 2005 Canada 2 685 2005 Chile 5 685 2005 China, Peoples Republic of 25 685 2005 Colombia 2 685 2005 Croatia 2 685 2005 Cyprus 1 685 2005 Czech Republic 1 685 2005 Denmark 5 685 2005 Egypt, Arab Republic of 4 685 2005 Ethiopia 4 685 2005 Fiji 79 685 2005 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 685 2005 France 34 685 2005 Germany, Federal Rep. of 7 685 2005 Greece 6 685 2005 Guinea 1 685 2005 HKSAR of the PRC 9 685 2005 India 33 685 2005 Indonesia 39 685 2005 Iran 7 685 2005 Iraq 4 685 2005 Irish Republic 4 685 2005 Israel 2 685 2005 Italy 11 685 2005 Japan 10 685 2005 Kenya 1 685 2005 Korea, Republic of 11 685 2005 Lao Peoples Democratic Rep 1 685 2005 Lebanon 11 685 2005 Liberia 1 685 2005 Malaysia 21 685 2005 Malta 2 685 2005 Mauritius 6 685 2005 Nauru 1 685 2005 Netherlands 13 685 2005 Nigeria 1 685 2005 Pakistan 9 685 2005 Palestinian Authority 4 685 2005 Papua New Guinea 52 685 2005 Philippines 14 685 2005 Poland 4 685 2005 Portugal 2 685 2005 Romania 3 685 2005 Russian Federation 2 685 2005 Samoa 9 685 2005 Serbia and Montenegro 4 685 2005 Seychelles 2 685 2005 Singapore 5 685 2005 Slovakia 1 685 2005 Solomon Islands 15 685 2005 Somalia 6 685 2005 South Africa, Republic of 9 685 2005 Spain 1 685 2005 Sri Lanka 24 685 2005 Stateless 1 685 2005 Switzerland 3 685 2005 Syria 2 685 2005 Taiwan 1 685 2005 Thailand 8 685 2005 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 3 685 2005 Tonga 13 685 2005 Ukraine 1 685 2005 United Kingdom 91 685 2005 United States of America 21 685 2005 Unknown 4 685 2005 Uruguay 1 685 2005 Vanuatu 6 685 2005 Vietnam 33 685 2005 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 2 685 2005 Zimbabwe 4   2005 Total   752 685 2006 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 685 2006 Canada 2 685 2006 Chile 3 685 2006 China, Peoples Republic of 9 685 2006 Croatia 1 685 2006 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 685 2006 Fiji 41 685 2006 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 3 685 2006 France 20 685 2006 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 685 2006 Greece 1 685 2006 HKSAR of the PRC 3 685 2006 India 14 685 2006 Indonesia 31 685 2006 Iran 3 685 2006 Iraq 3 685 2006 Irish Republic 2 685 2006 Israel 2 685 2006 Italy 5 685 2006 Japan 9 685 2006 Kiribati 2 685 2006 Korea, Republic of 4 685 2006 Lebanon 3 685 2006 Malaysia 9 685 2006 Malta 1 685 2006 Mauritius 2 685 2006 Mexico 1 685 2006 Nauru 8 685 2006 New Caledonia 1 685 2006 Nigeria 2 685 2006 Pakistan 3 685 2006 Palestinian Authority 2 685 2006 Papua New Guinea 7 685 2006 Peru 1 685 2006 Philippines 10 685 2006 Poland 4 685 2006 Romania 2 685 2006 Russian Federation 5 685 2006 Samoa 1 685 2006 Sierra Leone 1 685 2006 Singapore 2 685 2006 Solomon Islands 2 685 2006 Somalia 2 685 2006 South Africa, Republic of 4 685 2006 Sri Lanka 15 685 2006 Thailand 1 685 2006 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 685 2006 Tonga 2 685 2006 Ukraine 1 685 2006 United Kingdom 55 685 2006 United States of America 8 685 2006 Vietnam 11 685 2006 Zimbabwe 3   2006 Total (Jan to June)   334   Grand Total   9016 Total 675/685 Grants   47772 Appendix B A breakdown of nationalities of unsuccessful Medical Treatment Visa applicants for the years 1996-2006 (inclusive). Total Number of Refusals For Visa Subclass 675 & 685 By Calendar Year and Citizenship Period: 1 Jan 2002 to 30 June 2006 Source: Reporting Assurance Section - Global Visa Activity (EOY 2006) Reference No.: T8789 *Refusals data not available prior to July 2002 Subclass 675 Visa Subclass Code Calendar Year Citizenship Total Refused 675 2002 Afghanistan 2 675 2002 Albania 1 675 2002 Bangladesh 6 675 2002 Burma (Myanmar) 2 675 2002 China, Peoples Republic of 7 675 2002 Colombia 1 675 2002 Eritrea 1 675 2002 Ethiopia 1 675 2002 Fiji 12 675 2002 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 1 675 2002 France 1 675 2002 India 1 675 2002 Indonesia 6 675 2002 Iran 4 675 2002 Iraq 2 675 2002 Kazakhstan 1 675 2002 Kenya 1 675 2002 Lebanon 2 675 2002 Nepal 3 675 2002 Pakistan 10 675 2002 Papua New Guinea 1 675 2002 Philippines 5 675 2002 Singapore 2 675 2002 Sri Lanka 9 675 2002 Thailand 1 675 2002 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 3 675 2002 United Kingdom 2 675 2002 United States of America 4 675 2002 Vietnam 9 675 2002 Yugoslavia, Fed Rep 2 2002 Total 103 675 2003 Bangladesh 2 675 2003 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 3 675 2003 China, Peoples Republic of 8 675 2003 Egypt, Arab Republic of 1 675 2003 Ethiopia 4 675 2003 Fiji 9 675 2003 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 1 675 2003 India 4 675 2003 Indonesia 10 675 2003 Jordan 1 675 2003 Lebanon 2 675 2003 Nauru 5 675 2003 Nepal 3 675 2003 Nigeria 1 675 2003 Pakistan 5 675 2003 Philippines 6 675 2003 Russian Federation 2 675 2003 South Africa, Republic of 1 675 2003 Sri Lanka 1 675 2003 Stateless 1 675 2003 Taiwan 1 675 2003 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 675 2003 Vietnam 4 2003 Total 77 675 2004 Bangladesh 19 675 2004 Brazil 1 675 2004 China, Peoples Republic of 1 675 2004 Croatia 1 675 2004 Ethiopia 1 675 2004 Fiji 9 675 2004 France 5 675 2004 India 8 675 2004 Indonesia 8 675 2004 Iraq 2 675 2004 Jordan 1 675 2004 Lebanon 2 675 2004 New Zealand 1 675 2004 Pakistan 6 675 2004 Philippines 1 675 2004 Serbia and Montenegro 1 675 2004 Slovenia 1 675 2004 South Africa, Republic of 4 675 2004 Sri Lanka 5 675 2004 Stateless 1 675 2004 Syria 1 675 2004 Thailand 1 675 2004 Tonga 2 675 2004 United Kingdom 2 675 2004 Vietnam 3 2004 Total 87 675 2005 Bangladesh 13 675 2005 China, Peoples Republic of 2 675 2005 Eritrea 1 675 2005 Ethiopia 2 675 2005 Fiji 30 675 2005 India 3 675 2005 Indonesia 9 675 2005 Kuwait 2 675 2005 Lebanon 1 675 2005 Libya 1 675 2005 Nigeria 1 675 2005 Pakistan 7 675 2005 Samoa 1 675 2005 Serbia and Montenegro 1 675 2005 Solomon Islands 2 675 2005 Sri Lanka 1 675 2005 Sudan 6 675 2005 Sweden 1 675 2005 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 2 675 2005 Tonga 1 675 2005 United Kingdom 1 675 2005 United States of America 4 675 2005 Vanuatu 1 2005 Total 93 675 2006 Afghanistan 1 675 2006 Albania 2 675 2006 Bahrain 1 675 2006 Bangladesh 2 675 2006 Burma (Myanmar) 1 675 2006 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 675 2006 Fiji 9 675 2006 India 2 675 2006 Indonesia 6 675 2006 Iraq 11 675 2006 Irish Republic 2 675 2006 Mongolia 2 675 2006 Nepal 1 675 2006 Pakistan 3 675 2006 Papua New Guinea 1 675 2006 Russian Federation 1 675 2006 South Africa, Republic of 1 675 2006 Tanzania 1 675 2006 Tonga 1 2006 Total (1 Jan ‘06 to 30 Jun ‘06) 49 675 Total 409 Subclass 685 685 2002 Albania 1 685 2002 Argentina 1 685 2002 Bangladesh 1 685 2002 Burma (Myanmar) 2 685 2002 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 2 685 2002 China, Peoples Republic of 15 685 2002 Egypt, Arab Republic of 7 685 2002 Ethiopia 2 685 2002 Fiji 3 685 2002 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 4 685 2002 France 4 685 2002 Ghana 1 685 2002 Greece 3 685 2002 HKSAR of the PRC 2 685 2002 India 3 685 2002 Indonesia 1 685 2002 Irish Republic 1 685 2002 Italy 1 685 2002 Jordan 3 685 2002 Korea, Dem Peoples Rep of 1 685 2002 Korea, Republic of 7 685 2002 Lebanon 2 685 2002 Libya 1 685 2002 Malaysia 1 685 2002 Mauritius 1 685 2002 Nauru 7 685 2002 Netherlands 1 685 2002 Nigeria 5 685 2002 Papua New Guinea 3 685 2002 Philippines 6 685 2002 Poland 1 685 2002 Portugal 1 685 2002 Samoa 2 685 2002 Saudi Arabia 1 685 2002 Singapore 1 685 2002 Solomon Islands 2 685 2002 South Africa, Republic of 1 685 2002 Sri Lanka 7 685 2002 Switzerland 1 685 2002 Thailand 1 685 2002 Timor-Leste, Dem. Rep. of 1 685 2002 Ukraine 1 685 2002 United Kingdom 8 685 2002 United States of America 2 685 2002 Vietnam 9 2002 Total 131 685 2003 Bangladesh 2 685 2003 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 685 2003 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 685 2003 China, Peoples Republic of 11 685 2003 Egypt, Arab Republic of 4 685 2003 Eritrea 1 685 2003 Fiji 3 685 2003 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 1 685 2003 France 1 685 2003 Germany, Federal Rep. of 2 685 2003 HKSAR of the PRC 3 685 2003 India 3 685 2003 Indonesia 3 685 2003 Irish Republic 1 685 2003 Israel 1 685 2003 Japan 3 685 2003 Korea, Republic of 6 685 2003 Lebanon 6 685 2003 Malaysia 2 685 2003 Nauru 13 685 2003 Netherlands 2 685 2003 Pakistan 7 685 2003 Papua New Guinea 1 685 2003 Philippines 2 685 2003 Poland 1 685 2003 Romania 1 685 2003 Samoa 1 685 2003 Solomon Islands 2 685 2003 Sri Lanka 12 685 2003 Thailand 1 685 2003 Tonga 1 685 2003 Turkey 1 685 2003 United Kingdom 7 685 2003 United States of America 2 685 2003 Vietnam 4 2003 Total 113 685 2004 Bangladesh 2 685 2004 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 685 2004 Burma (Myanmar) 1 685 2004 Canada 1 685 2004 Chile 1 685 2004 China, Peoples Republic of 8 685 2004 Croatia 1 685 2004 Ethiopia 2 685 2004 Fiji 9 685 2004 Fmr Yugo Rep of Macedonia 2 685 2004 France 1 685 2004 Germany, Federal Rep. of 1 685 2004 Greece 2 685 2004 HKSAR of the PRC 1 685 2004 India 7 685 2004 Indonesia 6 685 2004 Irish Republic 3 685 2004 Italy 2 685 2004 Japan 3 685 2004 Kenya 1 685 2004 Kiribati 1 685 2004 Korea, Republic of 7 685 2004 Lebanon 5 685 2004 Malaysia 7 685 2004 Nauru 5 685 2004 Netherlands 2 685 2004 Norway 1 685 2004 Papua New Guinea 2 685 2004 Philippines 4 685 2004 Singapore 2 685 2004 South Africa, Republic of 3 685 2004 Sri Lanka 2 685 2004 Sweden 1 685 2004 Tanzania 1 685 2004 Thailand 1 685 2004 Tonga 3 685 2004 Trinidad and Tobago 1 685 2004 United Kingdom 17 685 2004 United States of America 8 685 2004 Vietnam 1 2004 Total 129 685 2005 Albania 2 685 2005 Bangladesh 4 685 2005 Brazil 3 685 2005 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 1 685 2005 Canada 2 685 2005 China, Peoples Republic of 5 685 2005 Ethiopia 1 685 2005 Fiji 10 685 2005 Greece 1 685 2005 HKSAR of the PRC 3 685 2005 India 7 685 2005 Indonesia 6 685 2005 Iraq 3 685 2005 Irish Republic 2 685 2005 Italy 1 685 2005 Korea, Republic of 1 685 2005 Lebanon 5 685 2005 Malaysia 1 685 2005 Mauritius 4 685 2005 Nigeria 3 685 2005 Pakistan 1 685 2005 Papua New Guinea 4 685 2005 Philippines 2 685 2005 Romania 1 685 2005 Samoa 4 685 2005 Solomon Islands 1 685 2005 South Africa, Republic of 2 685 2005 Sri Lanka 7 685 2005 Syria 1 685 2005 Taiwan 1 685 2005 Thailand 5 685 2005 Tonga 2 685 2005 United Kingdom 12 685 2005 United States of America 2 685 2005 Unknown 2 685 2005 Vietnam 2 2005 Total 114 685 2006 Bangladesh 2 685 2006 Cambodia, the Kingdom of 3 685 2006 Canada 2 685 2006 China, Peoples Republic of 2 685 2006 Fiji 4 685 2006 France 1 685 2006 Germany, Federal Rep. of 1 685 2006 Greece 2 685 2006 HKSAR of the PRC 1 685 2006 Indonesia 1 685 2006 Iraq 3 685 2006 Israel 4 685 2006 Japan 1 685 2006 Korea, Republic of 1 685 2006 Lebanon 3 685 2006 Mauritius 1 685 2006 Papua New Guinea 1 685 2006 Philippines 1 685 2006 Somalia 1 685 2006 Sri Lanka 2 685 2006 Thailand 1 685 2006 Tonga 1 685 2006 Turkey 1 685 2006 United Kingdom 6 685 2006 United States of America 2 685 2006 Vietnam 2 2006 Total (1 Jan ‘06 to 30 Jun ‘06) 50 685 Total 537 Grand Total 675 & 685 946 201 201 3803 201 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 August 2006: Is the Australian Defence Force currently prescribing or has it prescribed, the anti-malarial drug Mefloquine Hydrochloride (Lariam) to personnel deployed overseas; if so, when was it prescribed and to how many personnel; if not, which anti-malarial drugs are currently being prescribed, and which have been prescribed since 1990. 201 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Doxycycline is the principal anti-malarial prophylaxis prescribed by the Australian Defence Force to Defence personnel deployed overseas. Mefloquine Hydrochloride (Larium) is only prescribed where doxycycline is not tolerated well by an individual. Mefloquine is also not approved for use by Australian Defence Force aircrew. Mefloquine was introduced into the Defence pharmaceutical inventory on 13 September 1990. The information sought in the honourable member’s question on how many personnel were prescribed Mefloquine is not readily available. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. 202 202 3990 202 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 Mr McMullan asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 4 September 2006: Further to the reply given by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence to question No. 3010 (Hansard, 22 June 2006, page 128): (a) did the investigation of the incident referred to in part 6(b) conclude that a breach of the procurement policy had occurred; if so, how serious was the breach considered to be; (b) what action was taken against the officer or the company involved in the breach; (c) was his department aware of the breach of proper tendering processes prior to the close of tenders for the project; (d) on what basis was “retrospective approval” given for the officer’s off-duty employment; and (e) when was this retrospective approval (i) granted and (ii) applied for. Is he aware of the report published on 14 December 2005 in the Australian Financial Review that the officer claimed “signed approval” to do the work; if so, is the officer’s claim correct. Was it originally indicated that the project tendering process referred to in Part 1 would be determined by May 2006. When is it expected that the tendering process will now be determined. 202 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: The investigation concluded that a breach of procurement policy had not occurred. The investigation also concluded that the individual did not possess or previously have access to privileged information pertaining to Defence Regional Information Communication Technology (ICT) service management. Formal administrative sanctions were imposed on the member as approval to work in off-duty hours should have been sought before the work was undertaken. There was no action taken against the company involved. Notice that the Inspector General was investigating a possible breach of the tendering processes was received by the Regional ICT Market Testing Project (tender authority) a few days prior to the close of the tender. The work in question was undertaken during a period of long service leave and did not conflict with the member’s official duties. 24 November 2005. 23 November 2005. Yes. The member received signed retrospective approval for the work undertaken. The Australian Financial Review article did state that an announcement of the preferred tenderer was expected by May 2006. This was based on an estimate derived on the number of anticipated responses from industry. The number of responses received exceeded expectations and the period required to undertake a full assessment has had to be increased. It is now expected that a recommendation will be made to the internal Defence Information Technology Board by December 2006.