2006-10-16 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-10-16 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 COMMITTEES 1 1 1 12:31:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Defence annual report 2004-05, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —The inquiry into the review of the Defence annual report 2004-05 focused on the activities, achievements and undertakings of the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence during the period July 2004 to June 2005. During this period of time, Australian Defence Force personnel were involved in 17 offshore operations, two of which were particularly noteworthy: first, the strengthening of the presence in Iraq with the deployment of a 450-strong task group to the Al Muthanna province and, second, the humanitarian relief effort undertaken in response to the South-East Asian tsunami. The Al Muthanna Task Group contributed in a real and tangible way to the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Indeed, members of this committee were privileged to visit the AMTG and observe firsthand the commitment, pride and professionalism of these men and women and the positive impact they were having on the lives of Iraqis in the province. Mr Speaker, you will be aware that the Al Muthanna Task Group have now moved from Al Muthanna to join the Overwatch Battle Group-West, based in the southern Iraqi province of Dhi Qar, where they undertake a security overwatch role as part of a larger coalition force. We continue to wish them well in this new role. The second noteworthy operation during the 2004-05 period was the tsunami relief operation—another demanding mission and one that was completed with professionalism and compassion. Members of the House will recall that, sadly, the achievements of the Australian Defence Force during this relief operation were tempered by the tragic loss of nine personnel and the injuries of two others in the helicopter crash on Nias in April 2005. Such accidents are a reminder that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force do a dangerous job, often in unforgiving environments, through the spectrum of operations from humanitarian relief to peacekeeping to warlike. The four major topics reviewed in this report provided the committee with an opportunity to examine how Defence was commanded, managed and operated in the context of the strategic environment and the defence capability review extant at the time. The first topic examined was the attainment of a prescribed agency status for the Defence Materiel Organisation and the implications of prescription for the ongoing reform process. The committee was also updated on the progress of certain key capital projects and in this context discussed risk mitigation and the project management methodologies that had been developed by the DMO to ensure the effective and efficient management of these projects. Given the intensity and persistence of ADF operational deployments and the need to maximise the survivability and efficacy of our people and platforms, the committee also examined a range of issues in relation to the Chinook helicopter. In particular, we looked at upgrades to the helicopters and the implications for their deployed role in Afghanistan, as well as having a more general discussion in relation to the enhancement and modernisation of the Australian Defence Force helicopter fleets occurring under Project Air 9000. Topic three addressed the roles and responsibilities of the Joint Offshore Protection Command. This section focused on the people, the operational tasking and strategic command and control issues. Specifically, we considered the range of current operations, the impact on personnel of maintaining a high tempo and the management and effectiveness of the interagency relationships. Our final topic was an examination of the progress on the remediation of Defence’s qualified financial statements. While elements of this topic were considered during 2003-04, the ongoing nature of these issues was considered to be of such magnitude that they warranted further examination. To conclude, during the review of the Defence annual report 2004-05, the Acting Chief of the Defence Force, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, and the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr Ric Smith, made themselves available for a wide-ranging discussion on current issues in the department. The committee appreciated the candour and commitment displayed by the Defence leadership during this session. The committee would like to record their appreciation for the excellent work that continues to be done by the men and women of the ADF in support of operations in Australia, in our region and around the world. (Time expired) 2 12:36:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I am happy to support the comments of the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and to endorse his remarks on the committee’s report entitled Review of the Defence annual report, 2004-05. The committee looked at a number of different topics, as the chair emphasised. One topic of vital importance to Defence was the whole question of the Chinook upgrades and how they were proceeding. We also looked into the Joint Offshore Protection Command and its operation. As we did the previous year, we also looked at the question of Defence’s financial statements and how they could attempt to bring what used to be a cash accrual system into line with the new mode of operation that Treasury has imposed. That new mode of operation is, of course, accrual accounting. What was demonstrable a year ago was demonstrable this year also: accrual accounting just does not fit a department like the Department of Defence. This is due to the large amount of material they have still got stocked from the 1970s and 1980s and they simply cannot determine a price in relation to it. A year ago we suggested that this process needed to be foreshortened and we took an approach where we drew a line and said, ‘You don’t need to expend resources to continue to try to do this. Finance and Defence should come to an agreement to go forward on an accrual accounting basis instead of work being done that is immensely costly and does not assist in the defence of the Commonwealth.’ I want to look in particular at what we did with the Defence Materiel Organisation. I think it is extremely important. If you look at the upgrade of the Chinooks and also at the series of other programs that are in play at the moment—the upgrade of the F18, the future of the F111, the maintenance of Defence materiel and the very large purchase programs that we have in play at the moment—central to that process is the question of how our project management and reporting works. Here I want to congratulate not only the chair but also the other members of the committee for the manner in which they pursued questions and gained insights that had not been available anywhere else within the system. It is a demonstration that the parliamentary system, at a joint level with House of Representatives and Senate members, can work outside the Senate area as a probing committee to get to the core of what these questions are about. One of the committee members, Senator Johnston, who has some experience in this area, indicated, ‘We learned more in half an hour in our committee than we did through 400 questions in Senate estimates.’ It goes to the question of being vitally interested in the area of concern, knowing the right questions to ask, the way in which to pursue them, and having the end product across both sides of the parliament, in a bipartisan way, to get to the truth of the matter and to assist this most important Commonwealth agency to do its job, to do it better, and to make it more accountable. It goes also to the ability to effectively burn down through the layers of information to get to the truth of the matter. I want to compliment the other members of the committee on the way in which they pursued that. This review of the 2004-05 Defence annual report laid the basis for the rest of the year’s work for the committee. We pursued elements of what we dealt with here throughout the rest of our inquiries—particularly in relation to what should be our next major aircraft, the replacement for the F111 and the F18s, and the pursuit of the maintenance regime in relation to the F18 and the upgrade there; similar to the question in relation to the Chinook. What was learnt on that day was materially beneficial not only to the committee and the parliament but also to the Defence organisation itself and to the Australian people as a whole. It indicates that, when you can pursue matters in depth in a cooperative way, seeking the truth, you get the best for the parliament, the committee, the government and the agencies themselves, because it helps them to refine their knowledge of their own operations. I commend this report to the parliament and indicate that we are in a much better position now, given the level of coverage we have across the world, to assess just how well Defence is doing. (Time expired) 3 3 3 12:41:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report on the visit to Norfolk Island, 2 to 5 August 2006. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —This report is an addendum to a report that was done by the committee a few years ago. Many of the things that the report deals with were dealt with in the previous report, but I think that it adds to that report and certainly makes some fairly careful recommendations with regard to Norfolk Island. First of all, I thank the government and the people of Norfolk Island for the very cordial welcome they gave us to the island. We had a very close look at a number of things on the island that are concerning them and, I dare say, should also concern us as Australians. People would know that there has been a longstanding situation on Norfolk Island where there may be a stand-off and a lack of trust between the government of Norfolk Island and the government and ministers here in Australia. Having said that, I think it is imperative that we work together. Obviously, the only way we can progress and make sure that Norfolk Island is a viable community is to work very closely together as governments. One of the questions we looked at—and there was some comment from the minister previous to that—was the viability of Norfolk Island. There was, I would say, a disagreement by those on Norfolk Island to a report done by the Australian government into the long-term viability of the island. But I do believe that, if you look closely at the finances of the island, there is a need for islanders to work with Australia on the long-term viability of that community. Having said that, I think Australia also needs to take a very close look at the culture of Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island does have a different culture and history from that of Australia. Therefore, some of the things that we might automatically take for granted here on the continent do not necessarily apply to the people and to the governance of Norfolk Island. Being such a small community, I think that it has to understand that it is difficult to run a parliamentary system like we run in Australia. There needs to be some accommodation between the two to get something that might work effectively. I think the community itself was concerned about the fact that, if it was taken over in some way by Australia, it would become a welfare state. I do not think anyone in this parliament wants to see that. There is no doubt that Norfolk Island has long had a reputation of being an area where tourists can go to buy things. They are battling in the modern world in that sense, so there needs to be some help from the Australian government to ensure that that type of viability can be maintained. There are two areas that the committee looked at. If you look at the jetties around the island that are used for their trade, you see that they are limited. I know it is not an easy problem because, engineering wise, there is probably quite a lot of work that needs to be done for an all-weather jetty in Norfolk Island. But it is something I believe this government needs to look very carefully at. It is the same with the airport, which is obviously very important for tourism. We found to our astonishment that we could not get off the island because the airport did not have the facilities for planes to land in bad weather. I dare say that that has an effect on tourism. I think it is something this government should have a close look at. They have problems with airline viability. They have had one airline fail and, unfortunately, I think the present airline has had some problems in recent times. It is a real issue that we can look that. If the two governments work together, I have no doubt in my mind that Norfolk Island can be a viable community. But it does need the support of the Australian government. Other territories get support, and there is every reason that Norfolk Island should get some support. Working together we can flesh out exactly what can be done to help with not only the governance but also the long-term viability of a very unique community. 4 12:46:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I endorse the comments just made by the member for Page. I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for 10 years now and, over that period, I have got to know Norfolk Island reasonably well. It is a privilege for me to have the opportunity to speak on this report on the visit to Norfolk Island of 2 to 5 August 2006 by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. In doing so I want to first of all thank the Administrator of Norfolk Island, the Hon. Grant Tambling, his Official Secretary, Mr Owen Walsh, and their staff for their assistance during this visit and previous visits. I also wish to thank the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, the Hon. David Buffett, and members of the Norfolk Island government and legislative assembly for their time and assistance and particularly for their positive and constructive comments and reaction to our most recent visit. As the member for Page said, it is fair to say that the relationship between our standing committee and some of those on the island in recent times has been a little bit stretched. Norfolk Island is one of the most remarkably unique and beautiful places—historically, as well—that one could ever wish to visit. It is also very small and, because of its uniqueness in history, it has an attitude to itself that is remarkably independent. Whilst I admire that trait enormously, that independence tends to bring with it some challenges. The challenges facing that island are more remarkable and more obvious than ever, particularly in terms of its financial and social future. Many of the reports that our committee has done in the past have led us down the path of recognising those very difficulties as well. I think we are now at a point where some hard decisions are going to have to be taken by both the government and the parliament here and the government and parliament on Norfolk Island. But I am absolutely certain, and I am more optimistic now than ever before, that the decisions that have to be taken are going to be done in a bipartisan fashion. The reception that the committee got on the island during this most recent visit leads me to conclude that, despite the difficulties and the challenges, the outcomes that we are together going to reach will be reached for the benefit of the future of Norfolk Island, financially, economically and socially, and also for the wellbeing and future of the people who live on the island. The dependence that it has on tourism is obvious, and there are a lot of things that will have to be done to ensure that that can continue as an industry in a positive way. The process of reform has taken a substantial step forward. The current minister, the Minister for Territories, Local Government and Roads, Minister Lloyd, ministers before him and my colleague in the Senate, the shadow minister for local government and territories, Senator Carr, have all done a great deal of work across all of those areas with the Norfolk Island government to attempt to come to a model in the future that will ensure its continuing viability as a community. I understand there was a meeting between the NIG and Minister Lloyd here in Canberra on 21 August just gone. That meeting concluded, as we say in our report, with the Norfolk Island government indicating acceptance of a territory type model of self-government. There were positive indications of a compromise for future negotiations on matters of detail. Those matters of detail are where the hard work will happen and where a lot of negotiation and compromise will be required. But one has to believe it is going to happen because it simply has to. As a committee, we support the extension of the Australian taxation, social security and Medicare systems into the island. We also support business and consumer law, as we understand it, on mainland Australia to be effective on that island. However, it is really important to say that the committee is cognisant of the need to implement Australian law in a way that is sensitive to that unique circumstance that we talk about on Norfolk Island. Yes, there will always be a small number of people on the island who will resist any change in the future regardless, but they are a small minority. In our opinion, the overwhelming majority view on that island now is that something has to be done to secure its future. This visit and this report are very important steps in that process to ensuring that it is going to happen. I look forward, along with the other committee members, to seeing that outcome in the very near future. I wish everybody on Norfolk Island the very greatest of success in that process—a very important and historic process—which is now under way. 6 6 6 00:00:00 Jull, David, MP MH4 Fadden LP 1 0 Mr JULL —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida and Jemaah Islamiya. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. MH4 Jull, David, MP Mr JULL —I present the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security into the relisting of al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah as terrorist organisations. This review has raised a procedural question about the type of information presented by the Attorney in arguing for the continuation of a listing. It is the committee’s view that, on a relisting, it would be preferable to see arguments about the activities of the organisation in the period since the last consideration. Background information about the history of the terrorist activities of an organisation is useful, but the committee believes that the arguments for a relisting should concentrate on recent activities and information about what has changed since the last review, whether that be an increase or a decrease in terrorist activity. The relisting of an organisation is a fresh exercise of executive discretion and the committee believes there must, therefore, be a sufficient degree of currency in the evidence to warrant the use of the power. In this report, the committee also wishes to reiterate two issues raised in previous reviews. The first relates to the manner in which information is provided in the statement of reasons. The legal test for the listing of an organisation is set out in the Criminal Code. However, this test is broad and does not explain why particular organisations are selected for listing. ASIO has provided additional criteria which it uses. These criteria are provided in this report. The committee has found the criteria useful as a means of assessing the arguments provided by the government in each statement of reasons and, in previous reports, the committee has asked the government to address these criteria in future statements of reasons. This has not occurred to date. The request is repeated in this report. It is the committee’s view that a clearer exposition of the criteria would strengthen the government’s arguments, provide greater clarity and consistency in the evidence and therefore increase public confidence in the regime as a whole. It would greatly facilitate the committee’s review process if this change occurred. The question of community information regarding these regulations also remains a difficulty. On these current regulations there was no attempt to inform the community beyond the press release that was issued by the Attorney-General. Perhaps, on organisations of the profile of these two, this is not as important as in other cases. On the substantive question of the threat posed by the organisations themselves, the committee has sought to consider each against ASIO’s criteria. It is notable that not all categories in the criteria are covered in the statements of reasons. In this review, the committee has sought to understand the current circumstances of each organisation. In each case, there are complex forces at work. Each organisation has been under considerable pressure and yet structural decline has not led to a lessening of the threat. However, it is unclear whether the threat comes directly from the organisation as such or from some wider and widening response to the war on terrorism. The committee notes that all sources describe al-Qaeda as an organisation that is damaged and fragmented by the pressure that has been brought to bear on it since September 2001. Its capacity is now aspirational and ideological rather than material or advisory. However, all also argue that the influence of the organisation and its capacity to inspire jihadist activities have grown as a result of actions in the war on terrorism, particularly the war in Iraq. In particular, the Attorney-General’s statement of reasons quotes bin Laden who, in advocating terrorism, says that the bombings in Europe are revenge for invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. It is this capacity of al-Qaeda to inspire disconnected groups which remains a concern. On Jemaah Islamiah, the picture is also a complex one. The International Crisis Group notes that, while there is an intersection and overlapping of personal networks, there are divisions over tactics among terrorist groups in Indonesia and that individuals often operate on their own. The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulations relating to either al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah. I commend the report to the House. 7 12:56:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —I also rise to support the report of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that is entitled the Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida and Jemaah Islamiya, which relates to the relisting of al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah as proscribed organisations, and I endorse the comments made by the chairman. I emphasise to this parliament that it is a bipartisan committee and a bipartisan report. The power of proscription is a very important one and one that is obviously not used lightly by governments because it has such a profound effect on the community. It is an essential tool in the war on terror. When the committee examined the two organisations that have been brought forward for relisting, it noted that a couple of procedural concerns that it had raised on previous occasions when examining the relisting of 19 organisations have still not been dealt with by the Australian government. It is my contention to this House and to the community that we need public support for the use of such a large and strong power. The three procedural matters that we have raised consistently that have not been addressed include consultation, for example, with the states and territories. We note in this particular relisting that, instead of the premiers being consulted, as in accordance with the agreement, it is just the attorneys-general. There is also an issue about community consultation. These powers are very broad and strict. In previous reports in March, May, August and September last year, the committee made recommendations on information programs on the effect that these powers have on the community. We were assured by the Attorney-General’s Department that the programs were being developed, but there is no evidence of these programs being implemented in these particular cases. With respect to relisting in the statements of reasons, in the particular relisting of these two organisations it was the view of the committee that more contemporaneous information should be provided to the committee. Things change, and while it is great to get a historical overview and perspective, the fact is that, when we need to justify the proscription of an organisation or organisations to the community, more contemporary information would be useful, particularly in this environment of increased threat. We have seen, for example, the national intelligence assessment investigation into Iraq and its report which basically said that there is an increased terrorism threat to America and to its allies as a consequence of its involvement in Iraq. Thus, it needs to be very clear that, in restating the reasons why we need to continue to proscribe these organisations, we provide the most contemporary and up-to-date assessment possible, and the committee feels that it was lacking in this particular case. In addition, to provide continued public support for these particular listings and not for these organisations, ASIO provided the committee with a set of criteria that it uses to determine a proscription. Those criteria were an organisation’s: Engagement in terrorism; Ideology and links to other terrorist groups or networks; Links to Australia; Threats to Australian interests; Proscription by the UN or like minded countries; and Engagement in peace/mediation processes. We have been discussing the issue of a logical benchmark for proscription with ASIO and the Attorney-General’s Department for some period of time, and these matters have still not been resolved. As deputy chair of the committee, I believe that they should be resolved and that there should be clearly benchmarkable criteria that are used by ASIO and the Attorney-General’s Department when they come before the parliament to seek proscription. We must acknowledge that we are in a different environment. For example, look at a report by the International Crisis Group which talks about the war on terror and al-Qaeda. It says that, whilst two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s leadership have been killed or captured and: … this has undoubtedly diminished its organisational capacity, it hasn’t done anything to diminish its global following … If the war on terrorism as it has so far been conducted has been a success, that is a well kept secret. Terrorist attacks classified by the US government as significant more than tripled worldwide to 650 last year from 175 in 2003. We must be mindful that our threat environment has changed, and that changed threat environment should have been brought to the committee’s attention, in my view. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he keeps these changed environments— (Time expired) 8 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS 8 8 13:01:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 0 Mr SOMLYAY —I move: That the House: commends the people of Hungary as they mark the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, which set the stage for the ultimate collapse of communism in 1989 throughout Central and Eastern Europe, including Hungary, and two years later in the Soviet Union itself; expresses condolences to the people of Hungary for those who lost their lives fighting for the cause of Hungarian freedom and independence in 1956, as well as for those individuals executed by the Soviet and Hungarian communist authorities in the five years following the Revolution, including Prime Minister Imre Nagy; welcomes the changes that have taken place in Hungary since 1989, believing that Hungary’s integration into NATO and the European Union, together with similar developments in the neighbouring countries, will ensure peace, stability, and understanding among the great peoples of the Carpathian Basin; reaffirms the friendship and cooperative relations between the governments of Hungary and Australia and between the Hungarian and Australian people; and recognises the contribution of people of Hungarian origin to this nation. It is my great pleasure and honour to move this motion today, and I am pleased that my jet-lagged colleague Michael Danby, the member for Melbourne Ports, is going to second the motion. This motion mirrors a similar motion debated in the US congress earlier this year. I recommend that people read Mr Danby’s article in last week’s Financial Review and also the Hansard record of Prime Minister Menzies and Dr Evatt’s responses in 1956 to get a proper historical context. I acknowledge all members of the Hungarian community present in the gallery, many of whom have travelled a long way to be here today. I know that my friend Laci Kovassy has travelled down from Noosa. As the motion indicates, the people of Hungary and Hungarians everywhere are commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Last week, the member for Melbourne Ports and I attended a special commemoration ceremony in Budapest organised by the Hungarian parliament which involved tributes by 21 speakers representing parliaments around the world. Following the ceremony in parliament all participants travelled by bus to a wreath-laying ceremony at the national memorial. Delegations laid a wreath at the memorial and on two graves: firstly, on the grave of former president Imre Nagy—the heroic leader of the revolution, who was executed by the communist regime—and, secondly, on the grave of the unknown heroes. As we lined up to lay the wreaths, we took an emotional walk past scores of graves and headstones depicting dates of death in the years immediately following 1956. It is estimated that over 2,500 Hungarians lost their lives in the revolution. They became martyrs in the cause of democracy and freedom. A further 1,200 Hungarians were executed by the post-conflict communist government. The events of 1956 are well documented, and time does not permit me to go through the chronology of events of the revolution. Two hundred thousand Hungarians escaped the country—and probable imprisonment and possible execution—as refugees to be resettled in host nations worldwide. Australia agreed to accept 14,000 Hungarian refugees, a most generous humanitarian response. The people were the second wave of Hungarian refugees from communism to migrate to Australia. My own family was part of the first wave that escaped communism in Hungary in 1948 and came to Australia on the USS General Harry Taylor, one of the many wartime vessels used to transport refugees from Europe to other places in the world. One of my earliest recollections as an infant is of being inside a refugee camp in Italy looking at the outside world through a barbed wire fence. My family was one of the thousands from the first wave of refugees who settled in Australia before 1956. 1956 was a significant year in Australia. It was the year of the Melbourne Olympics. It was the year when television was introduced. That was an era when news came to people via print or radio. As a 10-year-old child in 1956, I remember the impact on Hungarians in Australia of events in Budapest in October. There was an air of joy, excitement and anticipation as many people prepared themselves, some to return to Hungary to join those who stayed to rebuild their nation. That joy and anticipation turned to despair and disappointment. Instead of Hungarians returning, as I said earlier, Australia indeed resettled some additional 14,000 refugees of the second wave, after the Soviet repression of the brave and courageous revolt. In 1956 the world of communications was different from 2006. For Australians, the only visual media in relation to international events was the film news in movie theatres before the showing of the feature film. I remember vividly sitting in a theatre in Sydney with my mother as tears rolled down her face as we watched the film of the Soviet tanks rolling back into Budapest, the city she loved passionately. Hungarians in Australia were angry with the West for not intervening. The people of Hungary felt betrayed. I know the Hungarians in Australia felt betrayed and felt, as a consequence, that many sacrifices had been in vain. There are about 23,000 Hungary-born people in Australia. There were two major waves of Hungarian migrants, post World War II and in 1956. It is my pleasure, on behalf of the parliament, to convey our warm wishes to the people of Hungary. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —I second the motion. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, I recognise in the gallery the Hungarian ambassador, His Excellency Mr Lajos Fodor. 10 13:07:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I acknowledge the presence of the mover of this motion, my friend the member for Fairfax, whom I joined in the Hungarian parliament last week for a very moving ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Hungarian people against the brutal communist regime of Matyas Rakosi. I also acknowledge the presence of the Hungarian Ambassador to Australia and the people in the gallery for the large number of Hungarian refugees who came to this country. Australia, as might be expected in those dark days, show generosity towards accepting refugees. There were about 14,000 Hungarians who came in that wave of immigration, and I think that was part of the reason why the Hungarian parliament thought it was important that there be representatives of Australia at last week’s gathering in Budapest. The member for Fairfax, as the head of the delegation, officially signed some papers with Katalin Szili, the Speaker of the Hungarian parliament and, as he said, we were both present at a very moving ceremony at the cemetery where we laid flowers on the grave of Prime Minister Imry Nagy, so cruelly murdered by the Stalinist thugs who took over Hungary on 4 November. This is the 50th anniversary of the unsuccessful revolution against the Soviet occupiers. Few countries have had a more traumatic history than Hungary. As I said in the Australian Financial Review, its history through the 1930s as a semi-authoritarian country under Admiral Horthy is well known. The tragedies of the Second World War, particularly the period in 1944 when the Nazi oppression of Hungary grew worse, are also well known. The Red Army liberated Hungary from the Nazis and from the Arrow Cross and then sought to impose its own form of totalitarianism on that country. Just a few days ago I went to one of the best museums I have seen throughout the world, the House of Terror in Andrassy Street in Budapest. At this new museum, Hungary commemorates the evil deeds of both the Arrow Cross and the Hungarian communists—especially the role of the Hungarian secret service. To see the kinds of tortures and depredations that were brought to the Hungarian people was very, very moving. The extreme brutality against members of the church, against all members of civic society and against intellectuals was very well documented. At the commemorative meetings for the 1956 Revolution in the Hungarian parliament, where many international representatives were present, as delegates saw the most dramatic and passionate black and white film which courageous young Hungarian filmmakers had made in the days before the Soviet tanks rolled back into Budapest on 4 November. That film had not been seen in the 50 years since it had been shot, because the young filmmakers had been seeking to show it in Budapest on that very day, 4 November. Of course they were not able to show it in Hungarian movie theatres because the Soviets were back in control of the country. One of the things that the member for Fairfax raised, which I think now has widespread acceptance, is that the Hungarian Revolution was not betrayed but that many people in the West might have done more. The fierce anti-communist John Foster Dulles—the then American Secretary of State—and President Eisenhower made what many people now would consider very anodyne comments. Perhaps the world was distracted and divided by events in Suez, but I am reminded very much of the theme of that cult American film Three Kings, that it is very unwise to call on and support people to rise up against authoritarian or totalitarian regimes if you are not prepared to follow through and help them. The Hungarian people were very grateful for Australia’s support at the time. Australia was one of the countries appointed by the UN to investigate the reasons for the suppression. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to carry out the UN mandate because of the Hungarian communist regime’s refusal to accept Australia in to investigate the events of 1956. But, after 40 wasted years for Hungary, ultimately the Hungarian people are now free; there has been a democratic government there for 15 years. I think the people of Australia and this parliament are very pleased that we were represented in Hungary last week and that we could celebrate the freedom of Hungarians with a people now free to demonstate their vital role in European history. (Time expired) 11 13:12:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I have always been a great admirer of Hungary. Many people would ask why, but as a young person I had some really good Hungarian friends who used to regale me with stories of what happened in Hungary both before and after the 1956 uprising. They introduced me to Hungarian cuisine, and I must confess that I suffered in the sense that I enjoyed it far too much. Hungary is a country where, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports said, we have had 40 wasted years, but now Hungary once again is free and once again is able to take its part in the world. It seemed to me for a long time that the essential genius of Hungary and Hungarians was smothered by the wet blanket of communism. Now that has been removed, of course, the opportunities for Hungary and Hungarians in central Europe are really unsurpassed and unlimited. It always touches me how, throughout world history, the concept of ‘freedom’ has provided such heightened motivation for the people who do not have it. People who have been denied freedom, stable government and security are prepared to risk much in order to attain these things, if not for themselves then for their children and others who will come after them. This was the case some 50 years ago in the Hungarian Revolution. It was an event in which the people of the nation spontaneously came together to launch a powerful and united offensive against Soviet rule and against communism. What had started as a well-meaning march by students captured the imagination of their fellow frustrated citizens. It was such that the inner anger of many individuals, suppressed for so long by the hand of communism, was simultaneously released to become one united force. One man—and I am going to blame my friend the member for Fairfax if my pronunciation of this name is incorrect—Arpad Szilagyi, a student at the time, wrote: … It was a revolution in the true sense of the word: A fight of the whole nation against repression and tyranny in the name of creating a better and more just society … In 1956, optimism swept through Hungary. Hopeful 13- and 14-year-olds enthusiastically joined the movement, using Molotov cocktails and small-calibre rifles to attack Soviet tanks and play their part in attempts to overthrow the occupiers and end years of communist rule. Yet, despite this reckless courage and desperation, the revolution understandably was soon crushed by the Soviet forces. The two-week uprising, from 23 October to 10 November 1956, left 3,000 dead in the capital, Budapest, and around the countryside. But the desire for change was not dead. As is most often the case, failure was to turn around to become a seed for future success. As George W Bush noted, of the event: Liberty can be delayed, but it cannot be denied. The winds of change, some theorise, had started with the death in 1953 of one of the fathers of communism, Joseph Stalin, and the appointment of Imre Nagy as Prime Minister. Mr Nagy immediately began to introduce reforms that were more in touch with the real needs of Hungary and the wishes of its people. However, he was dismissed from this position in 1955 and Hungary was quickly steered back onto the old path—the path that was not supported by the people of Hungary. The student procession in October 1956 aimed to present a petition of grievances to the then leader, Erno Gero. However, his confrontational speech in response to the students, together with shots fired towards the crowds by the state police, sparked riots that became the Hungarian Revolution. As one writer noted, the revolution was: ... a stark reminder throughout the Cold War that the nations of Eastern Europe were not communist by choice. Although short-lived in relative terms—just 18 days from start to finish—this uprising set the environment for the eventual end of communism some 33 years later. In Hungary, reforms initiated in 1989 led to the sanctioning of a multiparty system and competitive elections. The reforms that swept through eastern Europe culminated in the collapse of communism in Poland, East Germany and other states, and also, ultimately, in the Soviet Union. I wish to place on record in this House my condolences to the families who lost loved ones in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and in the years following when Soviet administrators punished a number of Hungarian loyalists with execution for their involvement. These people gave up their lives in the hope of achieving better things for their country. In February this year Hungary’s ambassador to the US said: ... the sacrifice of 1956 was not in vain and Hungarians ended up achieving more than the heroes had ever dreamed of. I salute Hungary and Hungarians. (Time expired) 12 13:17:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes; but, in this instance, we could add a third: the eventual end of communist regimes, whether in Europe or in the rest of the world. I commend the member for Fairfax, Alex Somlyay, for bringing this motion before the parliament. His motion recognises the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution and the fact that that failed revolution was the first major expression of massive discontent and the willingness to break free of the Warsaw Pact which had been imposed on eastern Europe. It was an attempt to break through the Iron Curtain which had descended between eastern and western Europe—as Winston Churchill intoned at Fulton, Missouri, in 1949. That Iron Curtain separated the peoples of the east and west, and separated the Magyar peoples who had formed the central core of the Austro-Hungarian empire. It separated those people in the east in not only Hungary but also Czechoslovakia, where they had their uprising in 1968, under Prime Minister Dubcek. They, like the people of Hungary, were put down through the use of steel and bullets. They, like the people of Hungary, said they wanted to be free people and that they did not want to live under the yoke of serfdom in a communist dictatorship. They were willing to put their lives on the line. It is just the same this very day for the people in Vietnam and those people who signed up to the Bloc 8406 group. In April this year those people said they wanted freedom. They wanted democracy just like the Hungarians did in 1956 and the Czechs did in 1968. They did not want to be subjected to a one-party dictatorship and a form of totalitarianism which says that you can only think in one way—in a way that is measured by your adherence to a philosophy based on Marx, Lenin and Stalin, in a way which admits no other thought at all. The Hungarian people have demonstrated in the 17 years since 1989 just how good they are at doing business and just how excellent they are at building on the native capacities of their people to build a modern, new and vibrant country that has been at the very leading edge of the Eastern bloc countries that have emerged from the grip of the Warsaw Pact and moved into the full light of freedom. These days, under the Bush doctrine, it is easy to say that freedom and democracy should be there for everyone in the world, but it is enormously hard to construct. Historically, the first thing that people had to do was to break free from a tyranny that was not only exercised throughout eastern Europe; it was a tyranny that had its adherents throughout the rest of the world. The movement of communism worldwide as an ideology was extremely broad and very deep. The year of 1956 was the year that Nikita Kruschev made his speech to the Communist Party congress in Moscow. He laid open the nature of Joseph Djugashvili Stalin’s regime and the fact that it had murdered tens of millions of its own people and had subjected people across Europe to an absolutely unnecessary brutal regime. The people in Hungary were some of the first victims of the attempt to escape from that. The depth of feeling that was around then was expressed by what happened during the Melbourne Olympic Games. In those Olympic Games in the water polo arena, Hungary came up against the Soviet Union. That pool ran with blood, as the streets in Hungary ran with blood when the Soviets subjected the Hungarian people to their revolution being crushed out of existence. The member for Fairfax has done the parliament a great service in bringing to our notice the 50th anniversary of this revolution and the fact that people can strive in the darkest conditions. As Arthur Koestler put it in Darkness at Noon: it is what prevailed in those communist societies, where there was no other way to see the world but what the regime imposed. It took enormous courage to stand up against the regime, just as it takes enormous courage this very day and these very months for the people in Vietnam to continue their fight to run their own country in their own way. I absolutely commend this motion to the House. 13 13:22:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, in your capacity as the member for Fairfax I commend you for bringing this motion before the House today. As I listened to your contribution I had visions of your parents bringing you to Australia in 1949 and how terrible the decision must have been for them to leave everything in their homeland, flee in order to be able to provide a better life for their family and spend time in a refugee camp before arriving in Australia as refugees. What a great Australian story it is that people can flee their homeland as refugees, arrive in Australia, rise to represent people in this place and be a minister within the Howard government. It is a great tribute to you and your family. It is a vindication of what they did all those years ago. Australia continues to have a very proud record of welcoming the world’s refugees, many of whom now end up in my electorate of Stirling. The Hungarian Uprising was of course a stark example of the brutality of the communist system as it was imposed on eastern and central Europe at the close of World War II. It is also an example of courage. It was a real David and Goliath battle that pitted the might of the Warsaw Pact, with all its tanks, artillery and war planes, against the ordinary Hungarian people, who were fighting with Molotov cocktails and small-calibre rifles. In 1956 there was a feeling that the monolithic power of the Soviet Union might be crumbling. Khruschev, the new leader of the Soviet Union, had denounced Stalin in a so-called secret speech earlier in 1956. This led to what was initially a student revolt that was brutally put down by the Hungarian state security police. The disgust amongst the population at that act led to a general uprising that toppled the hardline regime that had been installed in Hungary after the war. The new government of Imre Nagy formally disbanded the state security police. They pledged to conduct free elections, released political prisoners and declared that Hungary would no longer be a member of the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet response to this was a full-scale invasion that, as I said, included tanks and artillery. To ensure the loyalty of the Soviet troops, they were brought in from Central Asia and were told that they were fighting the German fascists in Berlin. They were resisted, extraordinarily courageously, by pockets of the Hungarian army, none of which sided with the Soviets, and rebels who were fighting with nothing more than Molotov cocktails and small arms. Obviously, this resistance had no hope against the might of the Warsaw Pact, although the resistance did continue sporadically until mid-1957. Two and a half thousand Hungarians died, thousands more were executed and imprisoned afterwards and 200,000 fled the country as refugees. In what was a stunningly crude move, the Soviets granted Nagy safe passage from his refuge in the Yugoslav embassy. After granting that safe passage, they seized him, imprisoned him in Romania and Russia and finally executed him in 1958 after he refused to denounce his actions and endorse the new Soviet-sponsored regime that was installed. These events are extraordinarily important in showing us the true face of Soviet communism. Many in the West flirted with the ideals. At that stage, in fairness to them, the monumental evil of that regime was not as clear as it is today, but, after the events of 1956, no thinking person could look at that system and believe that it offered anything for mankind. There is no question that those events contributed to the ultimate collapse of that system. Today in Hungary we have a nation transformed: it is a member of NATO and the EU. I have visited the country twice, and after 1989 you could not possibly be anything but impressed by the vibrancy that has been unleashed there. Hungarians have made a sizeable contribution to Australia. I would like to acknowledge that by acknowledging members of the Hungarian community in the House today. (Time expired) 14 13:27:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —The genesis of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution was, as some members noted earlier, the 20th Congress of the Communist Party speech by Khruschev. Unfortunately, some Hungarians are under the impression that his denunciation of Stalin’s methods actually meant that the Soviet Union would tolerate national independence. In fact, with that suppression it became very clear, if it was not already clear, that the Soviet Union utilised the international communist movement to basically conduct Soviet foreign policy. The brutal suppression drove home to many in the West the realities of the Cominform and Soviet policies. In 1989 a major gesture by the Hungarian people was to rebury Nagy, who, as an earlier speaker indicated, was jailed and killed two years after being given safe passage. In 1989 his skeleton, with bound feet and hands, was reburied at Uj Koztemeto, a cemetery in Budapest. His situation in life was indicative of the suppression of thousands of others. This motion has many other ingredients. It talks about the Hungarian contribution to this country. The quarter of a million people who fled suppression found homes in many countries, and one of them was Australia. Today, in the area of 150,000 to 200,000 Australians are of Hungarian extraction. Some of the realities of this community should be driven home. With regard to their English ability, the situation is that 85½ per cent who are Hungarian born say that they speak English well. The rate of citizenship at the last census was 97 per cent—unparalleled by many communities in this country. Whilst 52½ per cent of Australians are in skilled trades, in the Hungarian community it is 61½ per cent. A total of 46.2 per cent of Australians say that they have educational or occupational qualifications, while in the Hungarian population it is nearly 60 per cent. The median age, of course, is radically different from the Australian population and that reflects the fact that migration to this country was very much suppressed during the Soviet period. The median age for Australians today is 46 years and for Hungarians it is 62.2 years. Similarly, we have a situation where 42½ per cent of Hungarian-born people in this country are over the age of 65. This is a matter that affects many eastern European communities. In the past I have argued that this country should be more lenient with regard to family migration for members of the eastern European community, many of whose siblings—brothers and sisters—died in the intervening period. We should look to nieces and nephews to support older eastern Europeans in this country. As we know, there is a significant number of Australians of Hungarian extraction who have made major contributions in this country. In New South Wales politics, of course, there is Nick Greiner, who I was privileged to be with in the state parliament. I heard Les Murray on national radio during the World Cup talk about his biography and the realities of growing up in Wollongong as a young Hungarian. In the business sector, there was Peter Abeles and others. The other aspect of this motion is the entry of Hungary into NATO in 1999 and into the European Union in 2004. It is worth noting that many of the problems that we have spoken about concerning Bulgaria and Romania and the degree to which they can be accommodated in Europe were not present with Hungary. It had already advanced in human rights and there were no significant questions about its appropriateness in entering Europe. That is also an important point to drive home. In speaking to this motion, I think about my experience in Prague a few years ago on a study tour when I had the privilege of seeing the Samizdat exhibition at the national museum. I also saw the horrific scenes of Slansky’s show trial and watched the prosecutor demanding the death penalty for him and the other tortured defendants. It was a show trial that had basically been contrived around anti-Semitism and to reinforce the power of Klement Gottwald. In Hungary five years later, of course, we had Rakosi and the same kind of measures to suppress the rights of the people. In conclusion, I congratulate the member for Fairfax for driving home the realities of the contribution to Australia of those Hungarian people who fled and what they have done in this country, and for recognising the change in Hungary towards a Western liberal democracy after the defeat of communism. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 16 16 13:32:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I move: That the House: deplores the totally inadequate nature of Australia’s current broadband communications infrastructure; denounces the Howard Government’s piecemeal dithering with broadband over the past ten years; declares that Australia should be a world leader in broadband communications along with the Netherlands and South Korea, rather than one of the last to take up fast broadband; and demands a modern, 21st Century, national broadband communications infrastructure for Australia, as set out in federal Labor’s broadband plan to build a fast network for the whole of Australia. Paragraphs 1 and 2, which deplore what we currently have and denounce the Howard government’s inability to deal with the issue, go to the very core of our problem. Australia is a complete and utter laughing stock comparatively when you look at broadband take-up and what the government has done to amend the problem. If you look at the OECD rankings, Australia is 17th out of 30 countries surveyed by the OECD to take up 256 kilobits broadband. That is unchanged from last year because this government is simply not committed to providing the infrastructure that Australia needs for the present and the future. According to the World Economic Forum, Australia ranks 25th in terms of available internet bandwidth; Australia’s network readiness is 15th and falling. A recent World Bank study confirms that Australia’s average ADSL speed of barely one megabit per second is one of the slowest in the world behind countries like Britain with 13 megabits per second, France with 8.4 megabits per second, Germany with 6.85 megabits per second and Canada with 6.8 megabits per second. In the modern age, speed is everything. Currently every member of this parliament has the capacity to access the internet by broadband wherever they are in Australia. What were they allowed to have? Initially it was 28 kilobits per second. What were they allowed to have up until very recently? The absolute minimum if you are talking real broadband is 256 kilobits per second; it has just been doubled to 512 kilobits per second. What is the reality for most of Australia? People are at 256 kilobits per second or lower. It is possible that you could have a minimum of 1.5 megabits per second or faster—over 10 megabits per second—using the current infrastructure of copper and ADSL2 and if much faster units were put into Telstra’s exchanges. This should be across the board if the government provided all of the infrastructure, but they have not. Telstra—Australia’s biggest company—has done absolutely nothing to enter the fast broadband area. Instead it is regional Australia and companies like iiNet and iPrimus that have taken advantage of future speed and provided that to people for the same amount of money that it costs them for much slower services. Labor has seen what the situation is, looked at the past 10 years of government dithering and put forward a broadband plan for now and the future. Upon coming to government in 2007, Kim Beazley has indicated that by the time our first term is completed in 2010 we will provide a fast broadband service based on fibre to the node and DSLAMs which give ADSL2+ access so that the minimum access speed that 98 per cent of Australians should enjoy is six megabits per second, with most people enjoying much more. What does that allow? It allows video on demand. It allows people, wherever they are in Australia, to run their businesses with fast internet access. It allows a revolutionising of Australia’s broadband access and the sorts of things you can do with the internet. It allows Australia to catch up to South Korea, which already has an immense infrastructure provided by its government. It allows us to catch up to the Netherlands, which has gone from fibre to the node completely to fibre to the home. Fast internet access through fast broadband is absolutely essential for a modern, 21st century government infrastructure. We deserve it and Labor will give it. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Is the motion seconded? 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17 13:38:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —I reject the opposition’s claim that Australia is not a world leader in broadband communications. They are running a disingenuous line by saying that Australia should have broadband penetration rates comparable to those of geographically small countries—some mentioned those in Europe and others like Japan and Korea. It is time for Labor to come clean and admit that their policy will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, perhaps coming close to the $40 billion that the South Korean government spent rolling out its fibre. Australians understand the limitations of distance and the limitations of innovations. They are all part and parcel of living in the most sparsely populated country on the planet. What we have to do is use a mixture of technologies—not just fibre, which would be inordinately expensive. We need to look at other technologies. Despite our geographic challenges, the take-up of broadband services in Australia has now reached almost four million connections—the equivalent of about 80 per cent of Australian households and small businesses. As at 30 June this year, broadband take-up had increased by 1.4 million connections or 67 per cent from June 2005. That is according to the latest ACCC Snapshot of Broadband Deployment. Australia was also in the top five OECD countries for per capita broadband subscriber growth. If you want to rate us with the OECD, you want to look at where we stand in the equation and how fast we are rolling things out. We can expect continued growth in broadband take-up thanks to the government’s serious investment in rolling out broadband around this nation. Last year the coalition announced $3.1 billion in funding for telecommunications projects, including $878 million for Broadband Connect. This program, which has already provided an extra one million broadband connections to both homes and businesses in Australia, was to be a new launching pad. We have delivered $2 billion of that to the communications fund to provide an income stream to fund future upgrades of rural telecommunications infrastructure. That could also have an impact on broadband further down the track. The government also recently announced a second-stage program which will see $600 million spent on larger-scale infrastructure projects to deliver competitive wholesale prices in regional areas into the future. Let us get one thing straight: the Labor Party do not care about getting more broadband into the bush. In fact, Labor described the government’s $3.1 billion Connect Australia package as ‘one of the National Party’s slush funds’. Labor announced in May that, if they were elected to government, they would shut down Connect Australia—note that: they would shut down Connect Australia—including Broadband Connect and the $2 billion in the rural communications fund. Labor plan to use this money to subsidise broadband infrastructure in highly commercial and competitive metropolitan markets like Sydney—areas that the industry itself is prepared to invest in. The opposition cannot even decide what broadband is. First, the opposition communications spokesman, Senator Conroy, called for broadband of 10 megabits per second and faster, calling anything less ‘fraudband’. Then Kim Beazley came out with his plan for broadband of six megabits per second. It is no wonder that Senator Conroy quickly revised the fraudband definition. He then started talking about 100 megabits per second—a speed which at this point is enjoyed by almost no-one in the world. The coalition see broadband as a key component of national infrastructure and, as such, one in as much need of national policy oversight as roads, railways, ports and airports. We will need to ensure that services will be provided for into the future and that, where the market does not provide new technology, we have a $2 billion mechanism to provide new technology across rural and regional Australia. The National Farmers Federation has welcomed this new package, saying: ... this $600 million component has the capacity to significantly improve the services, and enhance the availability, of efficient and timely broadband outcomes for rural Australia ... (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Hinkler that he should refer to members by their title or their seat. 18 13:43:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Given that I have two minutes, I will now enter the debate, make some comments with respect to this motion and respond to some of the comments made by the member for Hinkler. This motion is a very important motion. I am glad that the member for Blaxland placed it on the Notice Paper. It is very important that, when we talk about broadband, we define our terms. Of course, what we have to define as much as anything else is the speed at which broadband access is delivered. I think it is pertinent in this debate, when we refer to broadband access, to be mindful of the vast gap between the slowest and fastest fixed broadband speeds. By way of example, in South Korea the majority of the population already has access to speeds of about 24 megabits. By contrast, Australia has about 3½ million households with access to broadband, but 80 per cent of them are at low speeds of less than 512 kilobits a second. In other words, we are far behind South Korea. Only five per cent of the households of our population have access to 24 megabits. It is that issue of speed as well as access that has to enter the debate, and the government has to become serious about this particular matter. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right when he said that Australia is left ‘trundling along on an IT goat track when the rest of the world is on an information superhighway’. In any comparison of the OECD nations, Australia is clearly behind the majority of them. It is about time the government acted. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 19 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 19 19 13:45:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —Just this morning when I was going through the mail from my constituents I came across something that I believe is of great concern. One of the local residents in the Adelaide electorate wrote to me about his shock at watching the races and seeing that there is a horse named General Yamashito racing in Australia. My constituent wrote to me saying that he believed it to be a deep affront and that the name of the horse should be changed. General Yamashita was tried, convicted and hanged for war crimes during World War II as a Japanese general and I think that my constituent is not the only one that will be offended by this choice of name for the racehorse. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Have you written to the Keeper of the Stud Book? That is what you ought to be doing. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —I believe that many people in our veteran community would share that feeling, as indeed would people in the broader community, and I assure the House that I will be chasing this up and I am writing to the registrar at the moment. Also, I place on the record that I think we should always stand up and show our respect for our veteran community in Australia. I think it is deeply offensive that the member for Canning cannot agree with me on this matter and show that together we stand up for our veterans. (Time expired) 19 19 13:47:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 0 Mr RICHARDSON —I rise today to talk about an issue very close to my heart. For some years now I have been the patron of the South Australian Disabled Surfers Association. As a result, I know first-hand the joy that can be brought to a young person, in particular a disabled young person, when they are able to be involved in an aquatic program. You can imagine my disappointment, Mr Speaker, when the South Australian state Labor government cut funding to the school swimming and aquatics programs. After much public outrage, the South Australian minister for education, Jane Lomax-Smith, announced that the swimming program would be re-funded, but she has ignored the plight of students involved in the aquatics program. The decision by the South Australian state Labor government to discontinue the funding for the swimming program and the aquatics program could be likened to Dumb and Dumber, by Minister Lomax-Smith. Last Friday I attended a rally organised by various schools and aquatics providers as well as the Australian Education Union in Adelaide. Despite its pleas of being apolitical, the AEU refused to allow me as the patron of the Disabled Surfers Association to speak at the rally because I was a federal Liberal member. The union members’ ownership of the Australian Labor Party has now reached a point where they are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of South Australian students for the Labor Party’s gain. This, accompanied by the Labor Party’s refusal to allow journalists who were not union members into their state conference in SA on the weekend, shows that the Labor Party are committed to ensuring—(Time expired) 20 20 13:48:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —My electorate covers a number of prominent eastern suburbs of New South Wales and Sydney, with beaches, headlands and other areas where people swim. With the summer season coming on, it is particularly important that people, both those in the electorate and those who visit the electorate, are well versed in water safety and are able to take advantage of the lifesaving services in the electorate. Last Friday, 13 October, I was able to launch the 2006-07 surf-lifesaving season for the Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club with Michael Daley, the member for Maroubra, and club president Matt Thistlethwaite. The year 2006 marks a century of service by the Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club, providing not only the local community but also visitors to Maroubra and to the beautiful beach there with the opportunity to surf and use the beach in safety. The season of 2005-06 saw 222 rescues, 5,162 preventative actions and 2,093 first aid actions. It shows that this is a particularly active club where there are large numbers of people on the beach, especially in summer. As well, with the growing Maroubra Seals program—now with over 450 junior members registered—this is a particularly large, very healthy and very active club which provides a vital service for the community. Naturally, sponsorship support is critical for the success of the club, and I particularly want to note the support of local businesses, including the Maroubra Seals club, that have done a wonderful job—(Time expired) 20 20 13:49:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 0 Miss JACKIE KELLY —Mr Speaker, you will recall that earlier this year the CFMEU trespassed on my home site to bully my husband over the federal government’s Work Choices package. Now they are attempting to intimidate friends and colleagues of mine. Last Friday, Jim Aitken, who is a known Liberal and a friend and associate of mine, had his work premises disrupted by an ugly union ‘Your rights at work’ campaign. Two double-decker buses bused the unionists in to stand over his real estate offices and protest against the federal government’s Work Choices laws. As usual, they arrived not to arbitrate with a cooperative, well-meaning employer who is highly regarded in the local community but to defame a known Liberal who associates with me, with the press in tow. The unions do not want to settle disputes with employers to the advantage of employees. They want to bully Liberals, and hence this government, into backing away from the reduction of union power contained in our Work Choices legislation. I stand by my Liberal colleague and friend Jim Aitken, who successfully took over a failed real estate agency and gave it new life and continuing jobs for existing employees who would have otherwise lost their jobs. One of these existing employees has resigned after 12 months with Jim Aitkin and has immediately gone to the unions. Instead of helping her with an unlawful dismissal action, which is what happens if someone is bullied with the threat of the sack if they do not sign an AWA, they organised the pathetic rent-a-crowd in Penrith with the local state member desperate to find some topic to run on in the next state election—given that Morris Iemma has made a mess of everything else. And you know the funny thing: Jim Aitken does not use AWAs. He would not know an AWA if he fell over one. (Time expired) 20 20 13:51:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —On a wet and wintry night in May this year I attended a meeting of parents in Caroline Springs concerned that the promise of sufficient places in Christ the Priest Catholic Primary School was to be thwarted by a decision not to give them land to build their second campus. Expecting to see about 20 or so attendees, you can imagine my surprise on entering the school hall to come upon 300 distraught parents. Twice since, I have raised in this place their concern about not having the land granted to them but instead to an outside company, ICA, which to date has not provided education to one student in Australia—yet ICA was to be given preference. Many constituents told me they moved to Caroline Springs on the undertaking that a second Catholic campus would be built. In order to find a solution, I met with local parents group CONNED, Melton council, Delfin Lend Lease, Christ the Priest Catholic Primary School, the Catholic Education Office and ICA. I am happy to inform the House that the local public school has now come to an arrangement with Delfin Lend Lease and has found a suitable parcel of land in the north of Caroline Springs, where a second Catholic campus will be built. I congratulate all the parties involved, particularly Anthony McCluskey, principal of the school, the Catholic Education Office, Pat Gurrie from CONNED, Martin Gaedeke from Delfin, Councillor Justin Mammarella, Andre Haermayer and all the parents who did not give up. This result shows not only the power of community protest but also the commonsense and goodwill of all parties concerned in ensuring that parents in Caroline Springs are provided with suitable choices for their children’s education. 21 21 13:52:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I would like to bring to the attention of the House an innovative business in the electorate of Canning called Custom Composts, off Lakes Road in the Peel region. This business has recently received a $361,000 government grant from the government’s Commercial Ready program. Custom Composts is a very innovative business. It has taken what is deemed to be a real problem—that is, the huge amount of pig manure generated by the Weston’s minimum disease piggery at the same location—and pelletised it so that it is now a very useful product, a soil improver. It is pelletised much like Dynamic Lifter, but it does not have the smell. For those looking for an environmentally friendly solution to the fertilising of their crops or even their gardens, I recommend Custom Composts. It is an innovative company that you might want to look at closely. It is not only dealing with a waste problem but also turning it into something very friendly and usable for all Australians. I suggest that it is a product that we will hear a lot more about in the future. I congratulate Custom Composts on finding a solution to what could be a very smelly waste product problem. 21 21 13:54:00 Corcoran, Ann, MP 009CW Isaacs ALP 0 0 Ms CORCORAN —The week before last I had the privilege of presenting a number of people in my electorate with awards as part of the National Day for Older Australians. Barbara Round has been the secretary of the Parkdale Women’s Club for many years. Her hard work and administrative skills are greatly appreciated. Cassie Morrison is the extremely hardworking president of the Parkdale-Mordialloc Combined Pensioners Association. She looks after all of the members, which includes visiting those who are sick, whether they are at home or in hospital. Gwen Warner has been secretary of the Parkglen Retirement Community social committee for the last four years. She organises monthly lunches and dinners as well as theatre parties and other outings. Joan Crabbe has been a member of the Parkdale Senior Citizens Club for over 20 years and has held various offices within that club. Linda Wolfe is Treasurer of the Keysborough senior citizens club, an active member of the Waverley Gardens probus club and a member of Wellsprings for Women. Nora Burridge is vice-president of the Keysborough senior citizens club. She works daily in the office and at functions. Rose Salmon has been president of the Life Activities Club at Long Beach, Chelsea, for 10 years. She has been editor of the club news-sheet for the last eight years. Pat Holmes—who is not well at the moment; we wish her all the best—is a member of the Kingston University of the Third Age. Theo Ioannou has served as an executive member of the Australian Cyprian Social and Sports Association of the southern suburbs for the last 15 years. 22 22 13:55:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 1 0 Mrs MAY —Yesterday the Currumbin Volunteer Marine Rescue service officially launched its new custom-built search and rescue boat at the Currumbim estuary. The Caesar cat will make it easier for the volunteers of the Currumbin volunteer rescue service to cross the Currumbin bar, which is ankle-deep at low tide. It will also take part in rescues up to five nautical miles out to sea. This is a very important first for the Currumbin volunteer rescue service. The South African built inflatable Caesar cat, worth $33,000, is believed to be the first in Australia. The official launch was conducted by Lesley Bryant, whose family donated the funds to buy the inflatable craft. The new vessel was launched with the name of Timana 3 in honour of her father Arnold Tiny Jones. The launch yesterday was also attended by Lesley’s brother, Ross, and her mother, May Jones. The naming was in recognition of Lesley’s father, who died many years ago, but of whom the vessel will remain a lasting reminder. The generosity of the family in donating the funds to ensure that the Currumbin volunteer rescue service has this up-to-date inflatable craft to assist in rescues in our area is certainly to be commended. 22 22 13:57:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I want to put on the record and commend the great work of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association, which I have met with over the last couple of months, particularly in Sydney and also here in Canberra. They are a great bunch of people that are working very hard. They are not only working hard on the land in remote, rural and isolated communities right across Australia but also working very hard to educate their kids. What they tell me and explain to me is just how difficult it is today to try to educate your kids when you live in remote, rural and very isolated parts of Australia—parts where the nearest school might be 300 or 400 kilometres away or, for some people on the land, 1,000 or more kilometres away. The message they are trying to give to this place—to the parliament and to members of parliament—is that we need to be more in touch with these issues. We need to do more. We need to ensure that their children have the same educational opportunities as every other child in Australia. I do not think there is an issue that is any more important. We need opportunities and the skilling-up of young people and to try to get into some of those rural and remote communities and ensure that they have the same opportunities that every other young person in Australia enjoys today. 22 22 13:58:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon to speak on the Australian Technical College Northern Tasmania and the typically dishonest and opportunistic behaviour of the Labor Party. Last week I was contacted by a media outlet which had heard rumours that enrolment numbers at the Australian Technical College Northern Tasmania campus were at low levels. The outlet was being backgrounded by a person indicating that the new ATC was ‘doomed’. This rumour has been shown to be a straight-out lie, as there are in fact more enrolment applications for next year than the 150 students the college can take in a year group. However, that is not the immediate issue here at all. What I am concerned about is how a Labor senator can shamelessly exploit a rumour about enrolments by turning this into an all-out attack on the technical college in Northern Tasmania and those that are working very hard to skill up the local workforce. The Labor Party have chosen to use their time in opposition to do nothing more useful than to simply oppose. The Australian technical colleges have been set up to help address the shortage of skilled labour in this country, a problem caused by consumer demand and historically low unemployment—not, as the Labor Party would have us believe, because of diminishing investment by the Australian government, whose record puts Labor’s record in office to shame. The Labor Party do not want to support the technical college. They would like to see it fail and with it the opportunities for younger people. (Time expired) 23 23 13:59:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —In the very short time I have available, I want to congratulate World Vision and the Oaktree Foundation, who on Saturday sent out a couple of thousand people to ‘knock out poverty’. The member for Deakin and I were there to welcome them. I want to say congratulations. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 23 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 23 14:00:00 23 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won’t the Prime Minister reverse the decision to abolish the solar rebate program beyond June 2007? Prime Minister, aren’t the Australians protesting against the abolition of the solar rebate through the Channel 7 Sunrise program’s ‘Cool the Globe’ campaign right? 23 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The changes that were made to that program were designed to make it available, albeit in a lesser amount, to more people. 23 23 14:00:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 Mr HENRY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how freedom of choice has been embraced by Australian workers? Is he aware of plans to roll back freedom of choice in the workplace? 23 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I think it is fair to say that freedom of choice is a golden thread that runs through the policies of the coalition. Of all the freedoms to which this side of politics is strongly committed, none is more important than the freedom of a man or a woman in this country to join or not to join a trade union. We believe that if you want to join a union you should be able to do so without penalty, but if you do not want to join a union you should be able to stay out of the union without penalty. We had an emphatic reminder at the weekend that the Labor Party does not embrace that principle. We saw in South Australia yesterday a vision of the world to come a la Greg Combet, when he said it was about time the unions resumed running Australia. We saw the South Australian state conference of the ALP refuse two journalists admission to the conference because they did not belong to a union. We had the explanation of the ‘no ticket, no start’ rule from the new senior vice-president of the ALP and Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, when he said, ‘If you joined the union you would be allowed in.’ Not only was the Leader of the Opposition forced into the humiliation of having a news conference in a park because he could not have the news conference in the conference hall but then some of the delegates got up and tried to reverse the policy, and the motion to reverse the policy was defeated on the floor of the conference. The image of the Leader of the Opposition in that park gave me a smidgen of a reminder of one of the most famous photographs in Australian political history, and that was Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam outside the Kingston Hotel in 1963 wanting to get instructions from the faceless men—and they were all men then—of the Australian Labor Party as to whether or not our American allies could establish a communications station in the North West Cape in Western Australia. The Leader of the Opposition pathetically bowed to a ban on the right of people to join or not to join a union. Instead of saying to the ALP conference in South Australia, ‘You change this stupid rule in the name of freedom of choice,’ he pathetically went along with it. When he was asked about it, he said, ‘It’s really got nothing to do with me; it’s got everything to do with the state conference.’ Here is a man who wants to be the Prime Minister of Australia but who cannot say boo to the South Australian ALP. I think it is a pathetic example of exactly what life would be like under a future Labor government. Greg Combet said it all when he said, ‘The unions used to run Australia and it wouldn’t be a bad idea if they did again.’ It is pretty clear that the unions run the Leader of the Opposition. It is our job to make sure they do not end up running Australia. 24 24 14:04:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not the case that the government’s failure to increase the renewable energy target has meant that the Roaring Forties company has cancelled projects in Tasmania and South Australia worth $550 million that would have employed 200 Australians and the Vestas renewable energy assembly plant in northern Tasmania is closing, with the loss of 100 jobs? Prime Minister, is there any other country on the planet where renewable energy projects are being closed? 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The government made its position in relation to the MRET very clear when it brought out its energy white paper. It is the view of the government that many contributions need to be made to solving the problem of global warming. Renewable energy is part of the solution, but another very important part of the solution is nuclear power. Until those on the other side who spruik their commitment to solving the problem of global warming admit that one of the things that needs to be looked at very seriously is in fact the possible contribution of nuclear power, I would invite the member for Grayndler— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked: is there any other country on the planet where renewable energy projects are being closed? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler has asked his question and the Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The government acknowledge, and we always have, that renewables are part of the response; but so are other energy sources. The point I would make to the member for Grayndler is the point I would make to all of those who sit opposite: if you are really serious about tackling the problem of global warming, you have got to be serious about looking at the potential contribution of all of the energy sources, including nuclear power. 25 25 14:07:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the benefits of ongoing reform in the workplace? Are there threats to these reforms? Where do they come from and what would the consequences be if these threats were carried out? 25 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question, and I can tell him that the government believes that industrial relations reform is absolutely critical to Australia’s economic future. One of the most significant reforms which the government has introduced is the reform which gives each and every worker the right to join, and the right not to join, a trade union. Both rights are protected in legislation under the policies of this government. The proportion of people in the private sector who exercised their right to join a union at August 2000 was 17 per cent. Seventeen per cent of workers in the private sector had exercised their right to join a trade union. The proportion of Labor MPs in this House who are members of trade unions is 100 per cent—every single one of them—because you cannot sit as a Labor MP until you have joined the particular union that you are eligible to join. On the weekend, we saw one of Labor’s policies put into practice at the South Australian Labor conference: the notorious Labor policy of ‘no ticket, no start’. If you were not a member of the journalists union, if you did not have a ticket, you were not allowed to get into the ALP conference in South Australia. This had the effect of banning journalists who had exercised their freedom of choice not to join a union from getting in and covering the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. As we have just heard from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition had to go across to a park to address the journalists who did not have a ticket and had therefore been banned from the ALP conference. Just in case you thought this was some one-off from the South Australian Labor conference, this morning Labor frontbenchers were asked on their way into parliament what they think about this policy. According to AAP, Labor MPs arriving at Parliament House were confronted by a media pack demanding to know why non-union reporters were banned. First in for the morning was Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson. He was asked whether he supported ‘no ticket, no start’ and he said, ‘I’d have to make inquiries about that. The first I’ve heard about it is you raising it with me this morning.’ The next person in was Julia Gillard, and she was asked whether she agreed with ‘no ticket, no start.’ She said, ‘It’s a South Australian branch conference; therefore the South Australian branch sets the rules.’ It was as if she was saying, ‘It’s got nothing to do with me—it’s all South Australia!’ The next one in was Mr Kevin Rudd, who said, ‘I’ve just got off a plane from Brisbane and I’m not fully aware of the issue. I’d rather be briefed on what’s gone on.’ The next one in was Anthony Albanese. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are usually very diligent in requiring the opposition to refer to members by their correct titles. I would ask you to require the Treasurer to refer to members by their correct titles. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne raises a valid point of order. In calling the Treasurer, I would ask him to uphold the standing orders. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —The next one in was the member for Grayndler, Mr Anthony Albanese. Mr Albanese said that he was ignorant of what had happened in South Australia on the weekend. I then went looking for the person who does a doorstop every single morning—old Gilligan over there. I went looking for others who do doorstops every single day, and I could not find them. I went through the transcript, I looked for their views, and then I went back to the AAP report, which said this: ‘A number of Labor frontbenchers who usually appear at the morning doorstop were nowhere to be seen today.’ So we had four out of four who did not know anything about it, the others were nowhere to be seen, and the Leader of the Opposition was doing his doorstop out in the park—just in case somebody on the doors this morning did not have a ticket. If you were in any doubt as to what the Labor Party’s policy is, you saw it in South Australia. It is ‘no ticket, no start’, and because the Leader of the Opposition will not stand up to it, for him it is ‘no ticker, no start’ in relation to these matters. 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 14:13:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform members that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Doug Blake, a former Clerk of the House, and also Mr Charles Winnifrith, formerly a Clerk of the UK House of Commons. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to them. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 26 Questions Without Notice 26 26 14:14:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —It’s the election on ticker, I assume. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson is warned! The Leader of the Opposition will be heard when he asks the question. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Didn’t the Prime Minister have intelligence that cast doubt on Iraq’s WMD status at the time he took Australia to war in Iraq? 26 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I stand by all the statements I have made in the past. I stand by all the remarks I have made and, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I draw attention to a statement made by the member for Griffith, the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, when addressing the Zionist Council of Victoria. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: its relevance. I asked whether he had intelligence that said there was doubt about whether Iraq possessed— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has only just begun to answer his question. The Prime Minister was in order. I call the Prime Minister, and I remind all members that the Prime Minister will be heard. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The member for Griffith, the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, had this to say to the State Zionist Council annual assembly— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This was a very short, sharp question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. He will not debate points of order. If he has a point of order he will raise it; otherwise he will resume his seat. I will give the same ruling I just gave to the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has barely begun his answer. The Prime Minister is in order and he will be heard. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —In addressing the State Zionist Council on 15 October, the member for Griffith had this to say. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will be heard or I will take action. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He had this to say, amongst other things: First and foremost: Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Shortland! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Second, and this is the member for Griffith on 15 October 2002— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Gellibrand too! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Bear in mind he is addressing the State Zionist Council in Victoria. He had this to say: In other words, the debate then was not about the possession of weapons of mass destruction; the debate was about what should be done. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister had intelligence that this was an inconclusive matter and he took us to war— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. The Prime Minister is responding and he is in order. The Prime Minister will be heard or I will take action. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I have been asked a question about the intelligence available to me. That is a matter that I answered fully questions on, and my position has not altered. There was intelligence available justifying the decision we took. The debate three years ago was not about the possession or the accuracy of the intelligence; the debate was about what should be done in the light of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. The government and the opposition were at one in believing Saddam had those weapons. We disagreed about what the response would be. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley will withdraw that. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —I withdraw. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of Opposition made the same interjection as the member for Lilley and he should also be required to withdraw it. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —I withdraw too, Mr Speaker. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan will withdraw that too. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie —I withdraw. 27 27 14:19:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister advise the House how my electorate of Bass in northern Tasmania is benefiting from the government’s workplace reforms? Is the minister aware of any threats to these benefits? 27 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 Bass for his question. In answering it I note that in 1996 the unemployment rate in Bass was 9.9 per cent. Today the unemployment rate in Bass is 5.5 per cent. Indeed what we have seen in the last six months throughout Australia since the introduction of Work Choices is the creation of 205,000 jobs in Australia—184,000 of those jobs being full-time jobs, which is great news for Australian workers and their families. I was asked by the member for Bass whether there were any threats to the workplace reforms. We heard earlier in question time the policy of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party of ‘no ticket, no start’. The Leader of the Opposition’s policies were being dictated to him, once again, over the weekend by the union bosses in Australia. There are other examples, of course, of this. Recently the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Combet, addressed the National Press Club, at which he let the cat out of the bag, stating that collective bargaining under Labor would not rely on a majority of employees wanting it. After that we had the member for Perth and the Leader of the Opposition twisting and contorting things, trying to say this in different ways—that perhaps you require a majority of members in the workplace in order to have this draconian policy put in place. Last week the ACTU released their blueprint. What it did was reconfirm that collective bargaining under Labor would not rely on a majority of employees wanting it. So a number of employees could march into a business as part of this policy and require the opening up of the books of account of the business and demand a union collective agreement whether or not that was the choice of the majority of workers in the business. As the Treasurer pointed out, every morning we see the member for Lilley and the member for Swan out on a doorstop. They were missing this morning. This is the day that will go down in parliamentary history as the morning on which the roosters failed to crow, because neither of them was there. Unlike the member for Griffith or Mr Thomson, the member for Wills—who were simply ignorant about this policy—the member for Perth and the member for Lilley obviously knew about this policy and, therefore, were taking their marching orders from the ACTU. They were not prepared to turn up to a doorstop in case some of the ladies and gentleman of the media were not members of the relevant union. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked in the park about this particular ‘no ticket , no start’ policy, his weak and incipient response was, ‘We stand shoulder to shoulder with the union movement in our struggle on industrial relations.’ I know banning journalists from the ALP conference is serious, but this has a serious implication for every business in Australia. The serious implication is compulsory union collective agreements, opening up the books of account, if the Leader of the Opposition were to ever lead a government in Australia. It heralds a return to the closed shop in Australia. It is union rights over the rights of the individual. A return to ‘no ticket, no start’ is a return to compulsory unionism. 28 28 14:23:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister and follows part of the answer he gave to a previous question. Did the Prime Minister previously say that opposing the dictator Saddam Hussein did not in itself justify the war? 28 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I said a range of things and so did those who sit opposite. I will return to the speech made by the member for Griffith because it is apposite to this very debate. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He said: This person, Saddam Hussein is no Sunday school, Sabbath school teacher. This is a seriously evil dude. Let us not pretend he is anything other— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before calling the member for Grayndler on a point of order, I will point out that the Prime Minister is entirely in order in answering that question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr President, my point of order goes to relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has only just begun to answer his question. He is speaking to the subject of the question. He is in order and he deserves to be heard. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The member for Griffith said: Three years ago it was the belief of the government, based on intelligence assessments, that Saddam did possess weapons of mass destruction. That was the belief and that was the belief of our coalition partners. It was also my belief, articulated in the major speeches I made at the time, that we should— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hotham is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —always take into account our close alliance and friendship with the United States in determining our attitude on these matters. I also drew very heavily to attention the evil character of the Saddam Hussein regime. I do not resile in any way from the decision the government took three years ago, nor will I be reluctant in reminding this House that if the advice of the Labor Party had been followed Saddam would still be brutalising Iraq. Government members interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members are holding up their own question time. 29 29 14:26:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 Mr McARTHUR —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services update the House on his discussions with banks about the financial impact of the ongoing drought? How will this assist farmers in rural communities, particularly in the drought affected northern part of Corangamite? 29 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and recognise that some of the safest agricultural parts of Australia are currently being affected by the severity of the drought that has beset the country, including parts of the member for Corangamite’s area of responsibility. As he indicated, the northern parts of Corangamite are normally associated with lush green pastures and now they are not. I understand that these are the worst conditions in that area of his electorate since 1967 and, of course, the terribly hot days last week have just about ended any prospect of a reasonable spring. A lot of focus and attention is being given to the plight and the circumstances of the working families, the farming families, in the rural areas of Australia that are suffering from drought at the moment. It is important that all Australians understand that the average farmer can work all year and pay their mortgage, their kids’ school fees and all their bills and, at the end of that, there is no salary, no cash flow and nowhere to go. It was pleasing this morning that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry announced the extension of exceptional circumstances assistance until March 2008 to give a lot of the people in those parts of Australia confidence, knowing that the government is going to stand beside them and look after them and their interests as they go through this very difficult time. The member for Corangamite asked about financial institutions and banks. Last week I wrote to the major banks and financial institutions across Australia asking that they be considerate and sympathetic towards the circumstances of a lot of their clients as they confront this severe drought. The response has been very positive. In fact, I managed to speak to the representatives of some of those banks at a conference here in Canberra over the weekend. They have already taken pre-emptive action in contacting their clients and getting them to understand how to best communicate their problems to their banking institutions at an early stage. During the course of the conference, I had the opportunity of meeting personally with a couple of them and talking about how we can best assist them in that process. Incidentally, I know the member for Corangamite, with his interest in industrial relations, will be pleased to know that at this particular conference all the media were welcome to participate in every session. In fact, the conference was held at the National Press Club so that we could ensure that there was plenty of media participation in and coverage of all the debate and the discussion that took place at the conference. It is important that the member for Corangamite reminds farmers in his electorate to talk to their financial institutions when problems begin to grow, so that they can try and nip them in the bud, find mechanisms to address them and help manage the farmers through those problems. 30 30 14:30:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My further question to the Prime Minister is: didn’t the CIA find that Saddam Hussein used illegal kickbacks under the oil for food program to buy military goods and equipment? 30 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —It was quite obvious that the oil for food program was shamefully rorted by Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is also obvious that, if Saddam’s regime had not been overthrown, we would never have got to the bottom of the rorting of the oil for food program. It is also the case that the only government in the world that has had the courage to establish a proper inquiry— PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. Did the CIA find that fact or not? I mean, going to war in order to investigate AWB—fair dinkum! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has barely begun his answer. He is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The only government in the world that faced the full impact of having a proper royal commission style inquiry into the oil for food scandal is the government that I lead. I am precluded from saying anything about the processes of the royal commission until the royal commissioner brings down his findings on 24 November. Then we will know the considered findings by Mr Terence Cole, a very eminent Australian lawyer. But until then I am not going to comment on what he may or may not find. But I will say this: the government I lead is the only government in the world that established a full, transparent inquiry. It is the only government in the world whose ministers appeared and answered questions under oath. It is the only government in the world that has had the courage and fortitude to face a proper inquiry. I am very proud of the way the government has responded to the findings of the Volcker inquiry. 30 30 14:33:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What is the government’s reaction to UN Security Council resolution 1718 adopted over the weekend condemning North Korea’s nuclear test and imposing sanctions? 31 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. I think it is the second question he has asked me about North Korea, and I appreciate his interest. The government welcomes the unanimous passage of Security Council resolution 1718, which was passed over the weekend. It is a very positive and significant step that the Security Council should unanimously take such strong action against North Korea in the wake of the nuclear test by the North Korean regime. This is a Security Council which includes China and Russia. China of course, in particular historically, has been very close to North Korea. Around half of all North Korea’s trade is with China and about 80 per cent of its aid and its energy comes from China. So there is a very deep relationship there, also born out of history. Yet China was prepared to go along with this tough resolution, a resolution that imposes measures, under chapter VII, which are binding on all members. There will be a ban on the exports of North Korean arms related material. There will be a ban on North Korea’s imports of similar kinds of material and material related to missile programs as well. There will be a freeze on transactions of individuals and identities who have been involved in North Korea’s WMD activities. The UN members are also being called on to take cooperative action—consistent, of course, with international law—including through inspection of cargo. In terms of Australia’s direct involvement in the inspection of North Korean cargo, this is a matter that we will be discussing with our friends and our allies once the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee has been established. But it is worth saying that the Proliferation Security Initiative, which this government has strongly supported from the outset and which now embraces something like 60 different countries, offers a very good framework within which inspections can take place, though of course those inspections will have to be fully consistent with international law. I add that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and I have agreed today that we will introduce in Australia a ban on North Korean vessels visiting Australian ports, except in the most dire of emergencies. I think this is appropriate. Members may recall a few years ago the so-called Pong Su incident, where a North Korean vessel unloaded large quantities of heroin on the Victorian coast. That vessel was eventually apprehended by the Royal Australian Navy and sunk by the Royal Australian Air Force. So the experience we have had of North Korean vessels visiting our shores is an unhappy one. If we are to ban North Korean vessels from visiting Australian ports, then I think that will help Australia make a quite clear contribution to the United Nations sanctions regime. 31 31 14:36:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Wasn’t AWB the single largest supplier of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein under the oil for food program? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —That is why we set up a royal commission. 31 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I think that was the finding of the Volcker inquiry and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs quite properly interjected, it is the reason we established the Cole inquiry. 31 31 14:37:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 Mr LINDSAY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister outline to the House the government’s initiatives to increase the number of Australians entering the Australian Defence Force and, in particular, what the benefits will be for young Australians in Defence Force service? 32 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Herbert for his question and his very strong commitment to the Australian Army, in particular in Townsville. In the last year the Howard government has announced that an additional $11 billion will be invested over the next 10 years alone in putting another 4,000 soldiers into the Australian Army—two more battalions and 1,500 more soldiers for hardening and networking our army to protect our country and our interests, not only on our borders and in our region but also throughout the world. Very shortly the government will be undertaking major reform of the recruiting process to the Australian Defence Force. There will be significant increases to the funding for the marketing of Defence careers and of wearing the Australian uniform, major reforms to the way in which we go about recruiting young and not so young Australians to the Australian Defence Force and changes to the way in which Defence careers are managed. One of the gaps we have at the moment is that we have 25,000 young Australians who have joined the Australian Defence Force Cadets. If we could have the Labor state governments be more enthusiastic about it, we could have more cadet units in Australian schools. We also have 51,000 Australians who are serving in our three services and another 20,000 reservists. But at the moment there are 34,000 young Australians who, having finished year 12, go off for a gap year. Those young Australians do a variety of things. They work in itinerant jobs, they go overseas and work as nannies or coach rugby teams, they do a whole variety of things, including aid projects—all of which is very good—but one of the things that is not currently open to them is the opportunity to wear the uniform of the Australian Army, Royal Australian Air Force or Royal Australian Navy, and to do so for a year. The government, commencing in 2008, will offer up to 1,000 places for young Australians to undertake basic training in Army, Navy or Air Force and then to have further training and service experience in a limited way for the remainder of that year. We will then offer financial and other incentives to those young Australians to continue their service or, alternatively, to come back to Defence within a five-year period. It is also important to appreciate that the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and other employers are looking for the very skills that are provided by service in the Australian military—commitment and courage and integrity and teamwork, access to new and emerging technologies, and all of the things that are important for self-discipline and for team leadership. It is very important to appreciate that not only is it a part of what will be a large suite of measures for recruiting into the Australian military but also it is about building character in young Australians and exposing more of them and their families to Australian Defence Force life. The member for Dawson might be interested to know that when I was reading the Daily Mercury this morning I noticed a quote from Corporal Cadet Phillip Matthews, who is 14. Phillip is a member of the cadet unit in Mackay. He said he would look forward to taking up the opportunity himself in four years. He said: I think the Army teaches you strong morals and good discipline. All I can say is that you are right, Phillip, it builds character, and anything that is good for young people and good for Defence is great for Australia. 33 33 14:41:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Didn’t the government have intelligence before the war warning that invading Iraq would increase the global terrorist threat? 33 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —There were a range of views available to the government, and those views were exposed by the inquiries that were conducted, and those inquiries demonstrated a number of things. They demonstrated that there had been no massaging of the intelligence by the government and they also found that the public comments made by spokesmen for the government in relation to the intelligence available were restrained and moderate. 33 33 14:42:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 Mrs ELSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House what the government is doing to help those Australians suffering with breast cancer? 33 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I do thank the member for Forde for her question and I note that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer is still the most common invasive cancer affecting Australian women, with about 13,000 new diagnoses expected in the coming year. I regret to say that new diagnoses of breast cancer have increased quite significantly over the last two decades, from about 5,000 a year then to 13,000 a year now, but it is not all bad news. The five-year survival rate for people with breast cancer has increased from 71 per cent two decades ago to 86 per cent today. Today Australian women have a one in 56 chance of dying of breast cancer compared with a one in 43 chance two decades ago, and Australia’s breast cancer mortality rate is significantly better than those applying in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Since the year 2000, this government has invested some $55 million in breast cancer research through the National Health and Medical Research Council. As most members would by now be aware, on 1 October the government listed Herceptin for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, and this will increase the survival rates of women who qualify for the treatment by about one-third. Since 1995 the government has provided some $34 million to the National Breast Cancer Centre. The NBCC has played an important role in coordinating breast cancer research, in helping to develop clinical guidelines and in raising awareness of this disease in the community. I congratulate the National Breast Cancer Centre on its work, particularly the role of the Chair of the National Breast Cancer Centre for the last decade, Janet McDonald, who is now retiring. 33 33 14:44:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Wasn’t the British Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, right to say about Iraq that ‘our presence exacerbates the security problems’? 33 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —In reply to the Leader of the Opposition: Sir Richard Dannatt said a number of things. He also said: We all want to get out, but until there is a sufficiently stable environment to allow democracy to flourish we can’t. I agree with him. The question in October 2006 that both the government and the opposition have got to appropriately answer is simply this: what would happen if the coalition left Iraq now? Would that be a boost for terrorism or would it be a defeat for terrorism? It would be a boost for terrorism. Would it be likely to promote democracy in Iraq? It would be likely to promote further chaos in Iraq. Would it be a defeat for the terrorists? No, it would be a victory for the terrorists. It would be an enormous boost for the jihadist cause all over the world. The jihadists would cheer. They would say: ‘We have beaten the Americans. We have beaten the British. We have beaten the West. We have beaten the coalition. Let us go on and carry our cause to the four corners of the earth.’ I cannot think of anything more calculated to give the terrorists a boost than the cut-and-run defeatist philosophy of the Leader of the Opposition. 34 34 14:46:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 Mr BARRESI —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Would the minister inform the House of progress with the establishment of the Australian technical colleges? How will they help young people get a start in the traditional trades? 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— 34 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 Deakin. The member for Hunter said, ‘Don’t forget Singleton,’ because he wants to see more at the Australian technical college in the Hunter. We already have record numbers of people starting in the Hunter for next year. The member for Hunter’s intervention is interesting because in Newcastle and in Maitland enrolments are brimming—it is almost oversubscribed. We are going to do some work in Singleton to make sure that people in that area get the opportunity. To the member for Deakin: at Ringwood Secondary College we are going to see at least 180 students next year starting at the Australian technical college that we established there. Indeed, in Deakin we have already seen a 149 per cent increase in the number of apprenticeships—from 1,090 in 1996 to 2,710 people right now training in apprenticeships. This government has spent more money than any other government in Australia’s history on dealing with matters relating to skills and vocational trades. The Australian technical colleges are a key initiative in dealing with skills needs for Australian industry. It will create a new tradition, where the sense of reward for effort for years 11 and 12 students will be re-established. Five colleges are already open and $343.6 million will be spent over the program time. In the operational year of 2007 there will be at least 20 colleges operating, with over 2,000 students at those 20 colleges. By every measure, the Australian technical colleges program is not just on track; it is in fact ahead of the program time allowed for it because the remaining colleges will open in 2008—well within the program guidelines. Nineteen funding agreements have already been signed. We are currently negotiating funding agreements with the other four regions. This government has spent more money when it comes to vocational and technical education than any other Australian government in this nation’s history. All we need is for the state governments to actually realise that it is a partnership between the Commonwealth and the states that will make a difference. Even before the Skills for the Future announcement by the Prime Minister last week, we had such things as the $43.7 million to support Australian apprentices in the form of a living away from home allowance—never under Labor, but only under this government; the Commonwealth trade learning scholarship—never under Labor, but under this government; and the $28.2 million for the Tools for your Trade initiative for Australian apprentices—never under Labor, but under this government. We had 403,600 Australian apprentices in training up to the March quarter 2006. That is a 161 per cent increase since the coalition was elected in 1996. Apprenticeship completions are up 361 per cent— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —Yes, traditional trades are 28 per cent of all Australian apprenticeships. In fact, we have come a long way. The member for Batman gives me an opportunity to make the point— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Grayndler is warned! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —that we have come a long way since the member for Brand was the minister in charge of training in 1993, when the numbers were down to just a pathetic 122,000. 35 35 14:50:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question follows the previous answer of the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister cut and run from Afghanistan before the job was done and despite the warnings of the Afghanistan government? 35 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —We did not cut and run from Afghanistan. The decision taken at that time was consistent with the advice we had. I might also remind the Leader of the Opposition that that decision was endorsed and lauded by the then Leader of the Opposition. 35 35 14:51:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 Mrs GASH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on the government initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions while maintaining economic growth? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches? 35 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and also for her strong advocacy in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions are lowered while at the same time protecting economic growth. When it comes to greenhouse policy, this government has the balance right between emissions reduction and economic growth. Consider for example our $500 million investment in the Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund and our $100 million energy fund announced as part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—a global partnership which particularly involves countries like India and China. As well as that, there is the $75 million Solar Cities program, which recently saw both Adelaide and Townsville announced as the nation’s first solar city hosts—a signal of real determination from this government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technology. These initiatives are all part of the government’s $1.9 billion strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—a strategy which unashamedly focuses on technology to deliver real and economically sustainable greenhouse gas solutions. Of course, any discussion on low-emission technology cannot ignore nuclear power. Across the world, nuclear power accounts for 16 per cent of the energy produced and it is already saving, in CO emissions, some 2.4 billion tonnes every year. The government believe Australia is ready for a debate on nuclear energy—a debate based on facts, not fear. We are looking forward to seeing the results from the PM’s task force on this very matter. While the government works towards practical solutions for greenhouse challenges, those opposite show they are not up to the task. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne is warned! WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —They hide behind their ideology. They do not have the courage to come out and debate the energy issue. They think that by signing Kyoto and putting taxes on Australians they will solve the greenhouse gas emission issue. They will not. Under the reign of Kyoto, emissions globally will increase by 40 per cent. What is needed is technological solutions. Imposing carbon taxes, as the Labor Party proposes, will simply export Australian industry and jobs to countries not bound by greenhouse targets. Labor is simply not prepared to do the hard work or make the difficult decisions to find the real answers to climate change concerns. By contrast, this government gets on with the job, taking a world-leading role in developing lasting technological solutions to the greenhouse challenge. 36 36 14:55:00 Beazley, Kim, MP PE4 Brand ALP 0 Mr BEAZLEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why did you take Australia into a war when you knew it would make Australians a bigger terror target? 36 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I totally reject the claim that is implicit in the Leader of the Opposition’s question. As I told the Leader of the Opposition in reply to an earlier question, at the time we decided to join the United States and the United Kingdom in the coalition operation in Iraq in 2003, we believed, as did the shadow spokesman, the member for Griffith, that it was an empirical fact that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that this country was a terrorist target long before the coalition operation in Iraq. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition of the words that were in Samudra’s laptop on 13 October 2002 before the attack that claimed the lives of 88 Australians in Bali. This is what Samudra said: As long as Coalition forces do not leave Afghanistan, there will continue to be casualties from your countries, wherever they may be. Thus spoke the words of somebody convicted of involvement in the attack that claimed 88 lives. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting, on the basis of that, that we should leave Afghanistan? Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the foreign policy of this country should be dictated by terrorists? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lalor! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —It remains the belief of the government that if we were to precipitantly withdraw from Iraq there would be every justification morally for the United States and the United Kingdom to do the same thing. If all the coalition forces leave Iraq, that would be an enormous victory for terrorism, not only in the Middle East but around the world. That is the reason why we believe that we should remain there until we are satisfied that the Iraqi forces have a capacity to provide adequate security in that country, standing on their own. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —How long is that? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lalor is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I say simply to the Leader of the Opposition that if his policies had been followed, if his entreaties had been listened to three years ago, Saddam would still be ruling in Baghdad; he would still be financing Palestinians to carry out suicide bombing attacks against the Israeli— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Grayndler then left the chamber. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The decision that we took was the right decision based on the intelligence available to us at the time. 37 MISCELLANEOUS 37 Mr BEAZLEY (Brand —Leader of the Opposition) 14:58:00 —by leave—I move: That this House censure the Prime Minister for: sending Australian troops to war in Iraq on a lie; contributing to the spread of radicalism spawning a new generation of Islamic terrorists; committing Australian troops to a war with no end; and exposing Australians to an increased risk of terror at home and abroad. There is nobody in the United States administration or the British administration, from the leadership of the United States administration through to the leadership of the British administration—and I dare say the public servants that advise this government—who now believes that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do; none of them. All of them profoundly regret it. All of them understand completely, along with Sir Richard Dannatt, that the decision to go to war in Iraq has, more than any other act over the course of the last few years, produced a situation which has encouraged, exacerbated and given succour to the worst elements in the Islamic fundamentalist movement who aim to commit terrorist acts against us. This and all those other activities associated with it has been the single biggest recruiting device. The Abu Ghraib scandal and the fights between the Shiites and the Sunnis—the whole panoply of disaster that has surrounded this war—has put those of us in the West who are struggling for a decent outcome to protect ourselves and to encourage a victory for mainstream Muslims on the back foot. When you look at those comments by Sir Richard Dannatt, before he had to expand on them a little later, you actually see a senior policy maker—in public, extraordinarily—getting to grips with the consequences of what it is that they have done. Comments like that we have to: ... get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems. …         …         … I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them. …         …         … We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren’t invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time ... the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. …         …         … Whatever consent we may have had in the first place may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance. He goes on: I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning. …         …         … The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition. It was in agony that Sir Richard Dannatt spoke about the circumstances in which his British soldiers—many of whom have been killed—find themselves. You get the same sorts of responses, I might say, from various American generals. Some of them have the view that things could have been better if you had put in a huge number of troops. Many of them have the view that they should not have gone there in the first place. All of them now attest to the sorts of pressures that were on generals, defence department officials and intelligence officers to produce an outcome in advice that set a particular political course—the political course that was followed by John Howard, the Prime Minister of this country, among others. One thing that this Prime Minister has done is to act in a way to encourage the United States into this disaster. I have said before that he may well be the ally that this particular administration wants, but he is not the ally that the United States needs. There is no more proof positive of that fact than what we have seen here today. He comes into this place with slogans: ‘You don’t cut and run’ and ‘You don’t haul up the white flag.’ There are never any exact historical parallels, but there are always historical lessons. I remember those sorts of phraseologies used around the period of the Vietnam War in the 1960s. What was being suggested then, arising out of the political justifications being presented by the leadership of the various nations as they sent their young men to war and to their deaths, bore no relation to the actual politics on the ground, the real situation on the ground and the things that were happening which were determining the outcome of the war. The same is happening here. The war that is talked about by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not the war that is taking place. What is taking place on the ground now is a full-blown ethnic struggle. The proportion of it that relates to al-Qaeda has increasingly become a minor component. What the United States is being invited to do and what we are being invited to do—what the Prime Minister is being invited to do—through the troops that are on the ground is to play some role in adjusting the political relationship between those two forces which have absolutely nothing to do with the global struggle on terror and everything to do, in the answers that we provide, with endangering our reputation further in the Islamic world and our capacity to build allies in the Islamic world and to protect our own people because we can establish those right relationships. It is causing large numbers of people in Iraq to be killed and causing substantial numbers of American forces to be killed as well. I have on my heart all the time those 3,000 young Americans who have been killed and the 14,000 young Americans who have been maimed—more than a division’s worth of American soldiers. These are ordinary folk—the Alabama National Guard and the New York National Guard—and the best of Americans. These are the best young people in the United States: people who are prepared to put their lives on the line for a cause. If you put them in a situation like this where they know that the judgement that is being put in place by their politicians is putting them on the line, you will produce a situation in the United States where the sort of view of further overseas commitments that emerged after the Vietnam War will emerge again. That will be to the detriment of the security of this nation and our people. Remember the world before John Howard and others helped in the process of putting pressure on President Bush to go to war? Remember the world after 9-11? The world was full of sympathy for the United States. We activated ANZUS and NATO—the first time that both of those treaties had been activated—in Afghanistan. Supporting the United States in Afghanistan was not just its old traditional allies; the successor of the Soviet Union put pressure on the ex-Soviet states around the borders of Afghanistan to allow American and other allied bases to operate from within those borders. Despite centuries of Chinese objection to being encircled, the Chinese took the view that putting bases in those places was acceptable as far as the Chinese government was concerned. Immediately after 9-11 we even saw the late Chairman Arafat—who I will not hold a candle for, I might say—out there giving blood to deal with the problems of the wounded arising out of the 9-11 struggle. We found all of the Islamic powers endorsing the action in Afghanistan. Never has the United States stood so large or had such immense sympathy in the public mind. Everything has been trashed. We had opportunities, as a result of that, to win this war and win it quickly; to deal with the minority Islamic fundamentalist movement; and to ensure that those Arab states which have the biggest role to play, along with Pakistan, were able to easily stand alongside us without having their religious commitment questioned in the streets by their people. All of that was before the Iraq war was in place—all of it. Since the Iraq war and events like those at Abu Ghraib—which even President Bush identified as a continuing and serious problem for him—all of that has now been fatally undermined by the decision that was taken by this government. The war that goes on in Iraq is a war that does not have the sorts of consequences that the Prime Minister outlined. That component of it associated with al-Qaeda has tended to drift. That component of it associated with ethnic cleansing and divisions between various tribes—between the Shiite and Sunni groups—has come massively to the fore. That is what we are increasingly engaged in. I can tell you the strategic outcomes of the war in Iraq, and the strategic outcomes continue to be both emphasised and developed: (1) the power of Iran has increased massively—that is the first consequence; (2) the various circumstances in which the United States and its allies need to act have been compromised—that is, our capacity to influence affairs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. All of those states, our good friends, are now holding us at arm’s length, understanding that to reach out and grab our hands at this point in time puts their own regimes under threat. That is, of course, when we are not lecturing them on the need that they have to establish democracy in their own kingdoms at the same time as they are trying to handle the uprising elements amongst their own populations. You have a situation developing around Israel where, increasingly, massive pressure is being brought to bear on Israel, as Iran is able to flex its muscles in a way it has never been able to do before and as we intervene decisively in the Shiite-Sunni balance in the gulf in favour of the Shiite community. Nobody talks like this in this country, but these are the realities. We talk about this as though we are dealing with some sort of dispute between France and Germany in the early part of the 20th century. We talk in a culture and in terms that have absolutely no meaning in the actual situation now on the ground. There is no understanding amongst policy makers about what they are handling in Iraq. As they steadily come to understand it, they walk back in horror and come to conclusions like those of people like General John Abizaid, General Peter Pace and William Patey, the former British Ambassador to Iraq and now the chief of the British defence forces. You can see them struggle with their consciences on what it is that they are asking their young men to do, in circumstances where they no longer believe that the political and strategic judgements being made by their political leaders are the correct ones. There has been no role in international affairs played by this Prime Minister more meretricious or rotten than this one. You have to understand this about this Prime Minister: firstly, he and his ministers—and they are so darned proud of it—turned a blind eye to what the Wheat Board was doing. They rorted a set of terms of reference for the royal commission, so they are all going to get off scot-free. We have been saying it, and the member for Griffith has been pointing it out for months. They have rorted it so that they get off. The one thing that President Bush got absolutely right in his judgement—we disagreed with the consequences of it; whatever we believed about WMD, we did not think this was the way to deal with it—was that the sanctions regime on Iraq had been traduced. It had been traduced by you lot—the government. That is exactly what had happened. This is one major factor which sent the United States to war, very much against the interests now, as it turns out, of their own people and very much to the security detriment of this nation. I will not accept any excuses from the government. I have seen the documents that went to Gareth Evans. I know darned well the sorts of reports that were coming up to ministers at that point in time. It would not have changed when we left office. Gareth Evans dealt with those problems. Gareth Evans was a serious person as foreign minister, not like this weak individual that we have here running affairs for us now. That is the first indictment of their actions in undermining their ally’s situation. Here is the second. I can recollect well in the middle of 2002 being in Washington with the then leader of the Labor Party and going around getting the briefings on what was going on inside Washington at the time. I learned then, as he learned, about the deep doubts that existed with senior figures in the Department of State, including some of the closest and most loyal friends that this country has ever had. We got that understanding, so why wasn’t the Minister for Foreign Affairs getting it at the time? I believe he was. The reason that he acted as he did was that he saw an opportunity to embarrass the then Leader of the Opposition by saying that he was some sort of wimp, that he was not prepared to go to war, and that the Labor Party always scuttled away from that. There was not an interlocutor then who did not wish they had taken the sort of advice that was being offered by Mr Armitage and Mr Powell. One person in the state department said to me, ‘We have gone down this road and we have got Iraq, which we will do like that, of course’—with a snap of the fingers—‘now what do we do with it?’ Then there is the fight itself. When you are in a fight, Mr Prime Minister, as we were when we were in Vietnam, you take responsibility for the whole fight. When we were in Vietnam, taking responsibility for the whole fight, we had things like the Australian civil aid project and all sorts of bodies going out there attempting to pacify the country. We took a different view of the way in which we ought to conduct our operations and the tactics that we ought to pursue within our department in the area for which we were responsible for covering from the view the United States took. We had a different tactic. We thought things through. We felt obliged to think through the issues that confronted us and the right way to fight the war in Vietnam. I do not think it was the right war to fight. Nevertheless, we had a differing point of view from that of the United States. What advice did the Prime Minister give the Americans about dealing with the looting which took place after the additional win? You see, the looting was what actually wrecked Iraq in the immediate aftermath. The US defense secretary said at the time that freedom is a ‘bit messy’ and you must expect a bit of this. Was the Prime Minister on the phone saying: ‘Mr Rumsfeld, that will not do. We are involved in this as much as you are. You do this sort of thing and you will not be able to set up an administration.’ Then what role did you play in advising how they should handle ex-members of the Baath Party when they trashed the police and the army, depriving themselves of the capacity to maintain any sense of law and order? You ought to read the book Fiasco, Mr Prime Minister; it is a worthwhile book to read, because fiasco is your policy. A fiasco is what you are responsible for. You cannot run away from it just because you have got few troops there, compared to the Americans, and just because they are the dominant player in this. When you accept moral responsibility you accept it not only for the fight but also for advice about this conflict. What is the upshot, Mr Prime Minister, of all you have done for this country with this? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to address his remarks through the chair. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr BEAZLEY —Through you, Mr Speaker, what is the upshot of all of this? Our ally has had the oxygen sucked out of its foreign policy. Our ally is not as strong as it was. Our ally finds itself, throughout the Middle East, unable to play the predominant and substantial role that it used to be able to play—thank you, John Howard! What else do we find? We find that our position is less secure that it was. I do not believe in beating these things up. We are a safe country and I have said it many times, but we owe that to our geography and the character of our society. We owe nothing of it to this government, nothing at all. Even because you happen to be relatively safe compared to other countries that find themselves in this position, you can be made less safe. These things are not absolute; they are relative. We are much less safe, much less influential and much less effective as a result of what this Prime Minister and this government have done. This Prime Minister and this government have played a small but substantial role in creating a set of conditions which has played right into the hands of terrorists. They are always fond of quoting terrorist websites and the joys they have as we commit ourselves to more and more actions in Iraq. More events like this just build up their numbers. They have got a thing or two to say about all this and it is not all that dissimilar from the things that the Prime Minister says. But we ought to be much more cautious about it when we see them. We are not as safe a nation as we should be. The Prime Minister stands up and says that he stands for the security of the Australian people. I am afraid to say, the Prime Minister does not. The Prime Minister has materially undermined the security of the Australian people by the decisions he has taken and is therefore deserving of censure. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan is warned! 41 15:19:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I listened quietly and I listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Believing as I do in the parliamentary system, I think that a censure motion against a Prime Minister, whatever his politics may be, by the Leader of the Opposition on matters relating to national security is a serious issue. For 20 minutes I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and one thing came through to me loud and clear: the Leader of the Opposition had not a word to say, not a sentence to offer, not a second to dedicate to the question of what would be the consequence of his policy in October 2006. Whatever debate there may be—and I will debate in a moment all the allegations that were made by the Leader of the Opposition against me and my government about our decision to become involved in Iraq—and whatever may have been the debate three years ago, it is incumbent on all of us to face the consequences of the policies we now advocate. And it is incumbent on the Leader of the Opposition to face the consequence of the policy he now advocates. In a rather conflicting way he said that we have a small but significant role. If we have a small but significant role in Iraq, it means that if we leave Iraq it is morally okay for the Americans to leave Iraq and it is morally okay for the British to leave Iraq and it is morally okay for everybody to pack up and leave Iraq. I invite the House, using the criterion of safety with which the Leader of the Opposition ended his speech, and I invite everybody in this parliament and in the general public to ponder for a moment the consequence of the course of action now being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition imagines that there would be a costless consequence of our leaving Iraq. If we go, the Americans could go and the British could go. If that is to happen before the Iraqis are able to look after themselves, does anybody seriously doubt that that would be an enormous psychological and actual boost to terrorism not only in the Middle East but also around the world? The Leader of the Opposition talked about the safety of this country, a country whose safety he declared on a radio program in Sydney a couple of weeks ago to be the best in the world. He talked about the safety of our nation. Does he imagine that the safety of Australia would be enhanced by an action that gave an enormous psychological boost to Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia? Does he imagine that the safety of this country would be enhanced by an action that would allow al-Qaeda to proclaim to the world that they had not only defeated their enemies in Iraq but also defeated their enemies in the United States and the United Kingdom? The consequences to the safety of this country of an American humiliation in Iraq would be immense. The Leader of the Opposition has made no attempt to deal with that issue. He can lambast me as much as he cares to about our decision three years ago—and I will come to that—but the heavier burden on him is to explain the consequences of the policy he now advocates. He cannot be allowed, through personal vitriol and historical distortion, to escape the heavy obligation of explaining to the Australian people how an allied defeat in Iraq enhances the security of Australia. Because that is what the Leader of the Opposition is advocating. Does anybody pretend for a moment that if the Americans and the British left Iraq the place would not descend into chaos? Does anybody pretend for a moment that if the Americans and the British left it would not be an enormous boost to the terrorists in Iraq? Yet that, in reality—unless the Leader of the Opposition is devoid of any kind of international morality, and I hope he is not—would be the consequence of our departing. Because, if it is good enough for us to go, it is good enough for the Americans and the British to go. That is unless, of course, we have acquired a new morality, unknown to the Australia that I believe in, that it is all right for anybody else to do the heavy lifting but we must not participate in any way. This is the failure of the Leader of the Opposition in this censure motion. He can talk about three years ago. He can unload his vitriol on me. He can accuse me of all sorts of things. But let me just put that to one side. His obligation is to tell the Australian people how an allied defeat in Iraq would make this country safer. He is talking about the safety of Australia, he is talking about the security of our nation, yet he is advocating a policy that would give an enormous boost to the terrorist cause not only in the Middle East but also in our part of the world. That is the central failure of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. He has not explained, let alone justified, how the policy that he advocates could in any way make this country safer. I cannot imagine a more catastrophic defeat for the cause of the West and the anti-terrorist cause than a precipitate allied withdrawal from Iraq which plunged that country into chaos, yet that is the policy, stripped of all its verbiage, devoid of all its rhetoric, that is being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. He had 20 minutes to justify to the Australian people, through this parliament, how it would make Australia safer for us to withdraw from Iraq but he said nothing about the present or the future. He spent 20 minutes talking about the past—a past, Mr Speaker, let me remind you, that is falsely encapsulated in the motion that he put forward. He started off by saying that we sent Australian troops to war in Iraq on a lie. That itself is a lie. And I call as witness for the prosecution of that charge none other than the member for Griffith himself, who made this very self-important speech to the Zionist Council annual assembly on 15 October 2002. I will say this very quietly and slowly, because it is a relevant reminder of the character of the debate three years ago. He said: Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr Speaker, if I was lying three years ago when I said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, so was the member for Griffith. He went on—it got better; it is unbelievable in the light of what they now say he said three years ago. He said: That is a matter of empirical fact. If you don’t believe the intelligence assessments, you simply read the most recent bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which lists Iraq among a number of States in possession of chemical, biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program. Many of those States have concerns to the broader international community. That was the belief—the informed, received and official foreign policy belief—of the Labor opposition three years ago. Their argument with us was not whether Saddam had the weapons but what we should do about it. That was the argument. The argument then was whether or not you would rely on the existing resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations or whether you would seek further resolutions. The debate was not about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Even Jacques Chirac believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction three years ago. That disposes of the central charge made. It was not a lie; it was the belief of this country, it was the belief of the opposition, it was the belief of the Americans, it was the belief of the French and it was the belief of most of the international community. The real debate then was whether or not we should take action in advance of a further resolution of the United Nations Security Council. We went and joined the military operation in the war in Iraq based on our belief at the time that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was a belief that was shared by those who sit opposite, although not all of them. I know some of them did not believe it, but those who claim authority and knowledge in foreign affairs—and all of those are represented in the member for Griffith—argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We also joined the coalition operation because of our belief in the United States alliance. I do not make any bones about that. I did not make any bones about it three years ago and I will never make any bones about the close relationship between this country and the United States. We also shared in common with the rest of the world a detestation of the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and it still is the heavy burden of those who sit opposite that, if their advice had been followed, that bloodthirsty dictator would still be butchering people in Iraq. It is still the heavy burden that is carried by those who sit opposite because, when you carry a particular responsibility, you have an obligation to follow through on the consequences of the policies you advocate and, just as the Leader of the Opposition refused in 20 minutes to explain why a policy that would make Australia less safe should be embraced, so it is that the opposition have continued over three long years to pretend that the consequences of their policy, if followed, would not have kept Saddam Hussein in office and in power over the last three years, with all the consequences that would imply. As I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition the other thing that struck me, apart from his total refusal to say anything about the consequences of his policy, was the way in which he tried to establish the case that Australia had become a terrorist target as a result of the operation in Iraq. The Leader of the Opposition knows that this country was a terrorist target even before 11 September 2001. He knows that the Bali attack, which remains the greatest single terrorist attack in its impact on Australian lives and its impact on this nation, occurred before the operation in Iraq. Not even the Leader of the Opposition can somehow or other in a convoluted fashion retrospectively establish that the real reason that the Bali attack took place was our involvement in Iraq. I read out in question time the remarks that were punched into Samudra’s laptop by that person responsible, along with others, for the murder of 88 Australians, indicating that while ever coalition forces remain in Afghanistan then coalition people, foreigners, Westerners, Australians, Americans, British and Europeans would be subject to attack. If I may return to what I said at the beginning of my speech, it remains the case that I have an obligation, the Leader of the Opposition has an obligation and all of those who participate in this debate have an obligation to tell the Australian people the natural consequences of the policies they advocate. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that what he is now advocating would result in a humiliating defeat for our greatest ally. What he is now advocating would result in a humiliating defeat for the values and the causes in which we believe. Does the Leader of the Opposition really imagine that it would make Australia safer to give the terrorists a victory in Iraq? Does he really imagine that, by giving the terrorists a victory in Iraq, they would not trumpet that around the world, that they would not go the length and breadth of Indonesia recruiting people for JI as a result? Wouldn’t they be able to say to the young recruits in Indonesia, ‘We defeated the Americans, the British and the Australians in Iraq; why don’t you please come and join us?’ The reality is that the policy of the Leader of the Opposition is a policy of surrender, a policy that would make Australia less safe and a policy which is devoid of the moral responsibility for which this country is widely respected and rightfully acclaimed. 44 15:34:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 0 Mr RUDD —The problem with this Prime Minister is that once the Australian people actually believed him. They heard him as a man responsible for this country’s national security and it did not cross their minds that he would tell them blatant lies. But what they have seen over the last 3½ years is a Prime Minister who ducks and weaves around the truth at each opportunity. Each time he is pinned down and asked a difficult question, each time as a clever politician he slips and slides his way around it, never answering it directly—as he slips and slides his way out of this parliament right now. Your credibility on this war, Prime Minister, collapsed a long time ago and it is no wonder you cannot bear to face this parliament in the context of this debate. The Prime Minister said today that his credibility rests on the fact that the intelligence community assured him, the government, the parliament and the people of Australia of the accuracy of the government’s claims about prewar intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Here is the problem: the Australian people, the opposition and the parliament actually believed him. This is the problem. We actually believed that the Prime Minister of this country would not exaggerate, that on something as grave as taking his people to war he would not be loose with the truth and that he would actually level with us, the Australian people. What we now know is not through any agency or accusation on our part. What we now know from their own side is exactly what happened with the misleading information they provided this country and this parliament. I turn to the Jull committee. Most of us in this place know David Jull. He is a member of the Liberal Party and the Chair of the investigation of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s into prewar intelligence in Iraq. This is where this Prime Minister’s entire argument collapses in one smouldering heap, because the Prime Minister and his claims to the parliament about Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons were put to the test by Mr Jull. What did Mr Jull and his committee find? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will refer to the member by his title. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What did Mr Jull and his committee find? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Griffith will refer to— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What the joint intelligence committee, led by the member for Fadden, found is a conclusion along these lines. This is the committee known as the ‘Jull committee’. It is difficult to refer to it by any other name. In section 5.13 of its report, the Jull committee concluded: The specific intelligence cited to support these assertions is from three major sources: the intelligence from the Australian Intelligence Community, the intelligence from partner agencies, especially in the US and the UK, and the information from United Nations inspections processes. On occasions the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister specifically quoted Australian intelligence. However, the speeches also directly quoted from overseas sources. The Prime Minister argued on 4 February 2003 that there was ‘compelling evidence … within the published detailed dossiers of British and American intelligence. This evidence is the most specific and emphatic within the speeches ... It made a series of claims about Iraqi WMD including: Iraq’s current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons. What was the Jull committee’s conclusion on this? Chaired by the Liberal Party, dominated by the Liberal Party, it was in section 5.20: The statements by the Prime Minister and Ministers are more strongly worded than most of the AIC judgements. This is in part because they quote directly from the findings of the British and American intelligence agencies. In particular, in the 4 February 2003 speech to the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister quoted the findings of Joint Intelligence Committee of the UK and the key judgements of the National Intelligence Estimate of the CIA. It goes on: In both of these documents the uncertainties had been removed and they relied heavily on the surge of new and largely untested intelligence, coming, in the US at least, from Iraqi defectors. I repeat: In both of these documents the uncertainties had been removed ... It means that the intelligence was exaggerated. It means that politically the government stood here at the dispatch box, made an argument to the Australian people and exaggerated what was in their possession. That is the core conclusion here when it comes to the use and abuse of national intelligence information. It is not our conclusion; it is the joint intelligence committee of the Australian parliament’s conclusion. It is that of a majority committee chaired by the government’s ruling party. But it does not stop there. Exhibit 2, which torpedoes this Prime Minister’s credibility amidships, also from the Jull committee, states in section 5.29: Other significant intelligence not covered in the government presentations included an assessment in October 2002 that Iraq was only likely to use its WMD if the regime’s survival was at stake and the view of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the UK, available at the beginning of February 2003, that war would increase the risk of terrorism and the passing of Iraq’s WMD to terrorists. This information according to the Jull committee, chaired by the Liberal Party, dominated by the Liberal Party, again was not conveyed to the Australian people. These are two clear conclusions by a government chaired and dominated committee. Firstly, on prewar intelligence on Iraqi WMD, the government exaggerated. This is not our conclusion; it is the government committee’s own conclusion. Secondly, the government did not provide the Australian people with clear evidence that if you go to war on Iraq it is not going to reduce the terrorist threat, it is going to compound the terrorist threat. The government sat on both these pieces of information because it did not suit the political case they were about to make to the Australian people. That is why, when this Prime Minister stands at the dispatch box and they see his lips move, the Australian people now conclude that this is simply a clever politician—a clever politician who can no longer be trusted with the actual truth of Australia’s national security circumstances. Could you imagine a John Curtin doing that with this nation’s secrets? Could you imagine a Bob Hawke doing that with this nation’s secrets during the first Gulf War? Could you imagine a Bob Menzies doing that with this nation’s national security information? When it comes to going to war, the decisions about going to war, I have to say, Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, on these questions you finally take the cake when it comes to ritualistic use and abuse of national security information and, simply, outright damn lies with the use of national security information. The Prime Minister spent a large slice of his defence against the censure motion saying that we should talk about a strategy for Iraq’s future. Foreign Minister, you are about to stand on your feet after this. You know how long it is since you— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will direct his remarks through the chair. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Do you know how long it is since the foreign minister actually made a statement to this parliament about the government’s future strategy on Iraq? When was the last time the Prime Minister stood at this dispatch box and told us what the future game plan is for Iraq? Can anyone remember? I think it is getting on for two or three years since we had a comprehensive statement from this mob on Iraq. Here are the questions, Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister has laid the challenge here—a future strategy on Iraq. Last time I looked, you were still the foreign minister doing such a good job in PNG and the Solomons in the last few days. You are still the foreign minister— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will direct his remarks through the chair. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Prime Minister has posed this question, so here it is. You have the strategy, Foreign Minister, which is along these lines. It consists of two sets of propositions. The first is do not cut and run, and the second is stay till the job is done. Do you know something, Mr Speaker; that is not a strategy but a key line and theme from Mark Textor. Because the Prime Minister says he is interested about the future in Iraq, here are some questions for you, Foreign Minister. How many Iraqi troops should be trained by foreign troops before we think of packing up and going? How many? Where should they be trained—in what locations? Foreign Minister, where should they be deployed right across the country? Foreign Minister, what level of training in specific circumstances should they achieve before other troops should consider leaving the country? What also should be the precise state of political relationships within the Iraqi parliament between the Sunni, the Shiah and the Kurds before we believe there is sufficient confidence to be had which would justify our exit from Iraq? While the foreign minister is at it, perhaps he could also tell us how many more tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians should be blown to bits before it is time to go. These are some basic questions that we have at present. There is a key line and theme which is along the lines of, ‘Don’t cut and run; stay till the job is done.’ It rhymes; that is terrific. But, when it comes to an actual strategy for this country to remain committed to a war, what are the benchmarks for the future? What are the national security benchmarks to be achieved in Iraq? How are they to be measured? How are they to be analysed? In other words, what is the mission statement? What is the mission? How can you evaluate when it has been achieved? This Prime Minister stands up here and cants political rhetoric, because that is what is being delivered by his pollsters and those who brief him from the dispatch box. He does not have a strategy for this country’s future in Iraq; he simply has a political issue management team running. This Prime Minister’s primary axiom, his prism for looking at national security, is simply: how do I manage the issue? How do I get myself through to tomorrow? This Prime Minister could not give a damn about the future of Iraq. If he did, we would have a detailed, truthful strategy on the ground about civilian reconstruction, the state of the economy, the state of the power infrastructure, the provision of border security and the provision of proper training for the armed forces—and at what density and location. Because we do not have any of that from this government we know that it is not serious about it. So here is the challenge for the foreign minister when he stands up to deliver his response to the censure: why don’t you, on behalf of the government, deliver a formal statement to the parliament on this government’s future strategy for Iraq and the conditions of national security and domestic political arrangements that must be met in order to justify a future drawdown? There is the challenge; we have not had one for a long time. When you look at the entire debacle that is Iraq, it is important to put it into the context of the foreign policy and national security management—or mismanagement—of this government over the last 10 years. If you stand back from it all and examine it in its cold, hard, gory detail, you can be left with no conclusion other than that this is the worst exercise in national security mismanagement and the worst case of foreign policy mismanagement this country has seen since Vietnam. This is a gold medal winning performance when it comes to national security policy mismanagement. When you go to the criteria this government advanced prior to going to the war, each of those criteria registers as a fail. We were told by this government that we were going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction did not exist. We were told that we were going to war in order to reduce the overall global terrorist threat. The global terrorist threat did not go down; it went up. We were told that we were going to liberate an oppressed people; 50,000 of those oppressed people now lie dead. We were told, particularly by the foreign minister, that the function in going to war was to set up a cavalcade, set up a domino theory—a new avalanche of democracy across the Arab world and the Middle East. Well, that is going a treat, isn’t it? Have you had a look at what happened in the Palestinian Authority’s recent elections? Hamas are doing are good job on that one! What about some of the others? Take Southern Lebanon: Lebanon is doing well since the ‘cedar revolution’. Democracy is kicking along quite nicely! Against that criterion—this domino theory of democracy across the Middle East—it would be interesting to see what the benchmarks of success are as well. We were also told when we went to war that the function of this operation was also to send a clear, unequivocal, intimidatory message to any other country out there in the wider Middle East contemplating a WMD option. That worked well with Iran, didn’t it? That has gone an absolute treat with Iran! This government’s comprehensive foreign policy failure has achieved the unique strategic policy outcome of emboldening the government of Iran into an order of magnitude that the world has never seen since the Persian empire. This takes singular talent to, basically, better Darius, Xerxes and the whole crew back there. A mega state has been created in Iran which now dominates the geopolitics of the Middle East. What a terrific outcome! And you wonder why people do not believe your strategy. We were given another benchmark—that our troops would be in Iraq for a matter of months, not years—but that was 3½ years ago. That was also $1.9 billion ago. We were also told that we could go to a war in Iraq without depleting the rest of our strategic engagements in the region and beyond. What we did not know at the time, of course, was that that was the basis on which they cut and ran from Afghanistan. When I visited Afghanistan with the member for Bruce, guess how many Australian Defence personnel were in Afghanistan at that stage? There was one; I think his name was Ted—Ted, the Australian. He was looking after Australia’s strategic policy interests in Afghanistan and doing a fine job. They cut and ran from Afghanistan in order to backfill into Iraq. Then, on top of it all, we had the great granddaddy of them all: the $300 million wheat for weapons scandal, in which the foreign minister of Australia was responsible for signing off on each contract. All that cash bankrolled the dictator he then proceeded to bomb, and could be used for buying bombs, buying bullets, providing cash to the Rafidain Bank in Oman and Jordan and funding the Palestinian suicide bombers—and this foreign minister sits here smirking and giggling. His hands are guilty through the negligence he demonstrated in the discharge of his office as foreign minister, because that money went to cross-subsidise terrorism and buy guns, bombs and bullets for later use against Australian troops. (Time expired) 49 15:50:00 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr DOWNER —I appreciate the opportunity of this debate being brought on today. I would urge members to vote down this censure, and I think the majority will. The first thing I would say in a general sense is that one of several reasons why somebody who has always been interested in politics would never join the Labor Party is that the Labor Party, as I said in the Earl Page lecture, has always been a little weak when it comes to tyranny and has never wanted to stand up and confront people until it has ended up with no choice. The proposition about how we should not stand up to Saddam Hussein, which has been the basic working hypothesis of the Labor Party, is just a continuum of a long history in the Labor Party of not wanting to stand up to anybody very much because it might be a little frightening. This is the Labor Party which, by the way, preaches and moralises and, if I may so—and I think you can in a censure motion—has issued a tissue of lies on the issue of Iraq. This is the Labor Party that received $500,000 in funding from Saddam Hussein for its 1975 election campaign. It is the only party in the history of Australian politics whose leader has gone to an apartment block in Sydney and tried to get half a million dollars out of Saddam Hussein to fund the party’s election campaign. Even Bob Hawke was very ashamed of that. But that is the measure of the Labor Party: that it would take money to fund its election campaign in 1975 from Saddam Hussein. Excuse me if I say that I do not much warm to lectures from the Labor Party about Saddam Hussein. The second thing I would say is that the Leader of the Opposition, who often makes these claims, makes the claim that the government went to war on a lie—that is, a lie about the weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister in his remarks talked a little about the speeches that the member for Griffith had made and he used one particular example. I could dig out many others. A person who for the time being is more significant in the Labor Party is the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said, when writing in the Financial Review on 7 February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq: No foreign office or defence department official anywhere on the globe entertains the view that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. The Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed about this because he comes to the dispatch box and accuses Australia, Germany, France, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain of lying, but he himself used precisely the same sort of formulation and is exposed—and I will come back to that—for what we all know he is. The Hansard of the federal parliament of 3 June 2003—this is after the fall of Saddam Hussein, whom Labor wanted to keep in power: remember, the person whom they got the $500,000 promise from for the 1975 election— 5K6 Ellis, Annette, MP Ms Annette Ellis interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Thirty years ago it was all right, was it? This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in June 2003: Personally, I believe that weapons of mass destruction— this is the Leader of the Opposition speaking to this House— ... will be found. Some already have been found in regard to the mobile biological laboratories which have been identified. He also said, on 19 July 2002: Much discussion of US intentions in Iraq revolves around the credibility of claims that the Iraqi dictator is developing nuclear weapons. He may be. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said: What he has done unquestionably is establish a substantial biological capability. I make the point that the Leader of the Opposition—and I often make this point in question time—rushes up to the press gallery and sells the line that he is some sort of world expert on national security issues because he was a lecturer in national security issues or something at university. I think he is a world expert on opportunism. This is a man who is a weak leader—if you could call him a leader—of a political party who will never take a difficult brief and go out and argue it. Back in 2002-03 he was pounding his fist with the faux anger that we are so used to these days. Because the pollster told him to do it—and we know that—he went out there and said, ‘Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; it’s a terrible thing.’ Today he accuses the government of lying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Excuse me, Mr Speaker, if I just draw the attention of the House to the cant and hypocrisy of a weak leader—a weak leader who has never taken a tough brief. One of the observations I would make in foreign policy, which is not an observation that the Labor Party would ever make, because weakness is their constant friend, is that in these difficult decisions you never have easy or perfect choices. There is not a perfect choice. There is a cost of action but there is also a cost of inaction. If the world had given Saddam Hussein a great victory back then in 2003, would he have become a benign funder of Australian Labor Party campaigns? I think not. I do not think any sensible analysis—not emotive or opportunistic analysis but sensible analysis—would conclude that in the struggle against terrorism we would have had the benign support or indifference of Saddam Hussein and his regime. The Leader of the Opposition sometimes makes the argument that Saddam Hussein did not have anything to do with terrorism. That is sometimes his argument. That was not his argument on 28 February this year, though. In this very chamber he said of Saddam Hussein: ... he was supporting terrorists in Israel and in the areas controlled by the Palestinians. We know that for a fact. So he was supporting terrorists. He went on to say: We know at least he had a research program associated with weapons of mass destruction ... So it was all right to have a program associated with weapons of mass destruction, Mr Speaker. I think not; I think it was not all right. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition was heard without interruption. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The Leader of the Opposition appears to want to make several speeches. It is the old tradition of the Labor Party: if you do not agree with them, close them down. You have to be a member of the union—that is, be associated with the Labor Party—to observe the Labor Party conference. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —That is right, interject; close it down. You do not want to hear any criticism. The Labor Party fails to explain what would have happened if its wishes had come true. If the Labor Party’s wishes had come true there would have been a price as well. That price would have been the continuation of Saddam Hussein’s regime in power. There would have been the continuation of that ugly, cruel dictatorship. Although weapons of mass destruction, true, were not found, it was concluded comprehensively—as the Leader of the Opposition said himself in February—that Saddam Hussein continued to maintain weapons of mass destruction research programs. Let me make one other point about Iraq, because the people who are often ignored in these debates are the people who are most affected. The people who are most affected are the Iraqi people. I wonder whether the Labor Party, other than thinking about what their pollsters have been telling them—which presumably is why they have suddenly brought on the debate today—have ever given a thought to the views of the Iraqi people. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley interjecting— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The Leader of the Opposition may think the Iraqi people are just a funny subject for little interjections, but I actually think this is a very serious issue. The vast majority of Iraqi people are glad that their dictator was overthrown. Although they know that this is a difficult environment—and of course in the Sunni triangle it is a particularly difficult environment—Iraqis are glad their dictator is gone. That should not be ignored. The Leader of the Opposition, in his comments, thought there should be a re-emergence of Sunni dominance in Iraq. He thinks that is the right approach. If he reads through the Hansard of his remarks, he will see that that is the case. That brings me to the last point I want to make, and it comes back to what the Prime Minister has said. Although the hypocrisy of the Labor Party has been exposed here, claims of lies and so on have easily been refuted—and, by the way, if you claim someone is lying and you are lying yourself, that is not a good look, and that is what we have seen from the Labor Party—but the Labor Party never answers the question about what to do next. The Labor Party thinks that the best strategy is not just for Australia to leave Iraq but for Britain to leave Iraq and for the United States to leave Iraq—and to leave now. If that were to happen, there would be a human catastrophe in Iraq. But, more than that, it would give enormous energy to the terrorists. To have defeated the United States of America in Iraq, to have defeated Great Britain, to have defeated the international community, to have defeated Western interests in Iraq, to have won that war against our allies, in particular the United States of America, would be the greatest victory achieved by people of that ilk in the history of humankind. It would be a massive victory. I find it almost unbelievable that the leader of a political party, who claims to be some sort of an expert on strategic policy, thinks that that would be a good idea. That would be an absolute catastrophe and I do not think there is any doubt about that. Sir Richard Dannatt has been quoted endlessly by the Labor Party today. Bits are quoted here, other bits ignored there. I will tell you what Sir Richard Dannatt said: The mission in Iraq that we have been getting on with for the last 3½ years is important to see through a conclusion. You talk about craven surrender, I’m a soldier, we don’t do surrender, we don’t pull down white flags, we’re going to see this through. So the Leader of the Opposition does do white flags. He does do surrender. His strategy is not just for Australia to surrender, not just for us to wear the ignominy of defeat and surrender, but his strategy is to go to Washington, as he explained on 28 August, and tell the Americans—just imagine it—‘You should surrender in Iraq.’ Imagine we have a new Australian Prime Minister who wins an election in glorious Labor circumstances, jumps on his plane and goes to Washington. The President says: ‘What is your message, Mr Beazley? We’re going to try to get on with you. We haven’t found the Labor Party very sympathetic to the cause of freedom, but we are prepared nevertheless to make friends with you.’ That is what they would do, and what is the Leader of the Opposition, the new Prime Minister, going to say? He is going to say, ‘You, the United States of America, should surrender in Iraq.’ I can only say that I regard that as absolutely contemptible. Of course, the only political party that would have a policy of weakness like that is the Australian Labor Party. I think the Labor Party has done its polling and it thinks maybe this is a bit of an issue worth running. I think in the end this is the wrong judgement because, as I have often said, I do not think the Australian people take kindly to the idea of surrender and they do not take kindly to the idea of defeat. The challenge here is quite simple: to ensure that the brave and good people who went out to vote, to democratically elect the government of Iraq, are able to see their government sustain itself in office and sustain itself with the support of their own army and their own police. We will provide them with support until their own army and their own police can do the job on their own, which is obviously the optimal outcome. But Labor’s plan is to dump them in it—to get rid of the government, to get rid of the international troops, to allow the international support for the Iraqis to fade away and to ensure, therefore, that the terrorists and insurgents are able to take over the country. ET4 Bevis, Arch, MP Mr Bevis —How many Iraqi battalions do they need? 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —Yes, Member for Brisbane: imagine going to the Army in Brisbane and saying you want to surrender. Weak! (Time expired) 52 16:05:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —On 6 March 2003 I moved a motion in this House: That the House: recognise that President Bush has flagged 14 March as the deadline for a decision to be made on an invasion of Iraq; recognise that such a decision could well be taken in defiance of a veto by any permanent member of the UN Security Council; recognise that such a strike could constitute a breach of international law; recognise that chief UN weapons inspector … said … that Iraq is cooperating proactively … I immediately moved that the House should consider a motion that, while agreeing with the Prime Minister’s statement on our armed forces and the role that they play in our defence, it could not and should not support our engagement in Iraq without the specific endorsement of the UN Security Council. I said at the time that that motion was supported by the Australian people, concerned as they were about the likely illegal war. Five hundred thousand people subsequently went to the streets to say exactly that. I said in that debate that, despite the so-called debate in parliament on Iraq, it was always intended to be nothing more than a motion to note the Prime Minister’s statement. Nowhere in this parliament did we have a full and open debate on Iraq at the specific time when it was crucial to do so. We had British MPs challenging their Prime Minister, with 199, I think it was, voting against the Tony Blair Iraq stance, and we had a vote in the American House of Representatives and Senate on the very same issue. But there was none of that here, where we had such overpowering and continuing opposition from the Australian public to our engagement in Iraq. America has humiliated itself in Iraq. It was a pre-emptive strike based on deliberate lies, dragging us in, in defiance of 80 per cent of Australians and, importantly, the UN Security Council. There was an ugly and cruel dictatorship in Iraq prior to the war. It has been replaced by an ugly and cruel civil war. The PM asked what we are supposed to do now—do we leave the Iraqis to look after themselves? The Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites have historically not been able to look after their joint interests. Probably only a three-nation state will solve that dilemma. But the US is unable to either stifle the current insurgency or effect any outcome that would lead to that three-nation solution. An allied defeat in Vietnam did not bring an end to the region, nor to America’s role in the world, apart from the failure of the US to learn the lessons from the disastrous Vietnam campaign. Its military-politico judgement was severely dented in Vietnam, and so too has it been in Iraq. Terrorism can be defeated with right and justice, not selective pre-emptive strikes. That is exactly the situation that we have now, where we have exacerbated rather than helped solve that situation. The involvement in Afghanistan and the first Iraq conflict in 1991 was endorsed by specific UN resolutions. But the Iraq pre-emptive strike was not, whatever the attempt by the UN to try and salvage an outcome from the wreckage to help the Americans with a subsequent resolution. A majority of Australians in 2003 said no; a majority now believe it is still wrong. There has been no plan by the Americans. We have just blindly followed their request and embroiled ourselves in an imbroglio that I said at the time was a repeat of the Vietnam situation. The situation is getting worse. Anywhere from 60,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths has been the result. The survey of the Johns Hopkins medical centre on this must give some credibility to that latter figure, whatever statements are made to the contrary. Australia had a role to play in brokering peace in the Middle East. Instead, it has blindly supported the deeply flawed American position—so discredited, so lacking objectivity. Indeed, I think it was Paul McGeogh—or one of the Fairfax journalists—who wrote after the start of the recent Lebanon conflict, or indeed the pre-emptive strike against the Lebanese people, that Condoleezza Rice was ‘dawdling’ her way to the Middle East. Why? The US delivery of its latest batch of Hellfire missiles was still being delivered. She did not arrive until such time as those missiles were in place to be used against the Hezbollah—and, indeed, to be so tragically used against innocent civilians in the Lebanon. How, under those circumstances, can America be seen as any objective broker of peace in the Middle East, for heaven’s sake? How can it engage in pre-emptive strikes in Iraq—or elsewhere, as it may be tempted to do—and maintain any credibility as a broker of peace, along with Australia, Great Britain and any other country that wants to join such a folly? The Iraq engagement has exacerbated rather than assisted the Middle East crisis. The head of the British Army is right, whatever Mr Blair’s frantic spin to try and correct it. We should get out of Iraq. The US have created the mess, told the lies, spun the falsehoods. They and they alone can determine how and when they exit. We should get out now. 53 16:11:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I listened to this censure debate of the Prime Minister with a degree of cynicism. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition decide that, as a matter of strategy and tactics, he wanted to make a point of demarcation with the government’s position, that he would decide that he would betray the nation and the nation’s troops who are fighting on our behalf. He has decided that his political strategy is far more important than adhering to the strength of the nation and the commitment that we have made. As I listened to the points that were put forward, again I listened with cynicism. But, as I listened to the speakers on the government side, I listened to people speak with passion and with commitment. I listened to a Prime Minister who had to make that decision to say that Australia would commit troops to the war. I listened to and I remembered well the comments of the opposition when that occurred, trying hard to be in our shadow and not too far out in front, not to cop the flack, but not at that stage to take a strong position. But today they come out and say that they have decided that tactics and strategy are far more important to them than to stay the course, as the rest of us think is necessary. ET4 Bevis, Arch, MP Mr Bevis —What is ‘the course’? Tell us what the course is. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —There is a moral course of action to be followed here. We made the decision that we would go into Iraq. We made the decision that, on the basis of evidence before us, it was the right decision to make. We made that decision and you hid in the shadows of that decision. You hid in the shadows and you have continued to do so, sticking to us on issues of national security so as not to be seen to be outside the national spirit. But now you have decided as a matter of tactics that you want to run long and hard. Now you have decided that you want a point of demarcation. That is an act of betrayal of our Australian troops. The one thing I do share with the Leader of the Opposition is him having been a Minister for Defence and me having been Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. It is a sharing of working with those service people and understanding their integrity, their courage and their commitment. In talking to some of those men who have returned from Iraq, they have said, ‘The message that comes back to us from the Iraqi people is: please don’t go; we need you to stay.’ What mess would we leave behind if we pulled out and cut and run? Where indeed is the strength and courage of this Leader of the Opposition when strength and courage has been shown by other Labor leaders? Those leaders are long since gone, I am afraid. Here is a leader who says: ‘No, courage is not for me. Strategy and tactics will be my commander.’ This is a man who says, ‘We are prepared to run up the white flag and pull out.’ This is the same reflection the Labor Party made at the end of the Vietnam War when our troops were pulled back, given short shrift and treated badly. Whitlam was the name of the man who brought them back and Whitlam was the name of the man who treated them so badly. It has taken decades for those people to be honoured and for the service they gave to this country to be recognised. The opposition would do that again. They would pull out our troops on a political stunt, on a matter of tactics and on a matter of differentiation from the government’s position. I heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs quote Sir Richard Dannatt, the British Chief of the General Staff. They were wise words and they reflect the thinking of our troops: ‘We are soldiers. We don’t do surrender. We don’t put out white flags. We’re going to see it through.’ That is the attitude of our men and women who fight for us and on our behalf in Iraq. They allow us to do the sort of work that we are doing now which is of benefit to the Iraqi people. This work has seen a growth in Iraq’s GDP of four per cent for this year; the launch of a new currency; the first World Bank loan in 30 years; a debt relief agreement to forgive 80 per cent of the Saddam era debt; more than seven million mobile phone subscribers; 54 commercial television stations—up from nil in the Saddam era; 36,000 new teachers trained; a nationwide program which has vaccinated 42 per cent of eligible children against polio; and a measles vaccination program in which 70 per cent of children have been vaccinated. They are the sorts of things that are able to occur while we stay in Iraq. If we pull out of Iraq then instability steps in, and the opposition would be the masters of that instability. Instability would grow and increase and mean that the improvements made would in fact cease. When you say, ‘Let’s pull out our troops,’ you are saying—as the Prime Minister pointed out so well—that it is time for everybody else to pull out. The fact of the matter is that you are saying to the Iraqi people that we are not prepared to stay and see the improvements made that need to be made in order to help the people reach that point of democracy that we enjoy here. The opposition say: ‘We will pull out. We will go. We will surrender because we feel it is a point of tactics.’ The opposition make a distinction between themselves and the government with a pitch that says, ‘We will bring the troops home.’ The opposition hope that that will be seen as a populist move. The moral and courageous option is to remain—to stay in Iraq to assist the Iraqi people to attain the sort of freedom to which they aspire. To go and to encourage others to go would cause the future for those people to regress and regress. It is a moral stance that we are debating here, and the opposition are failing in moral courage. The opposition are led by Mr Beazley. He liked to be known as Bomber Beazley when he was Minister for Defence. Today, he is certainly Withdrawing Beazley or Surrendering Beazley. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will refer to members by their title or their seat. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —The Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Defence, used to be known as Bomber Beazley. Today, as Leader of the Opposition, he is advocating withdrawal and he is advocating a point of tactical difference. He is a man who thinks that he can in fact surf his way into office by saying that a point of demarcation is what is needed here. It is the wrong tactic. The Australian people are wiser than that and can see that this is a simple tactic. The Australian people saw that what was done at the end of the Vietnam War was wrong. They will see that the Labor Party would again make the same error and again pull out in a way that will not treat people in the way that they should be treated for the courage that they have shown. I began by saying that when I heard the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition I listened with a degree of cynicism—certainly, a very high degree of cynicism. I think it disappoints the Australian people to hear the statement from the alternative Prime Minister—as he would like to see himself—that he does not have the moral courage to continue a commitment which was made in good faith by a government and which was supported by the Australian people. We have an obligation to the people who touch the shirt of an Australian soldier and say: ‘Please don’t go. Please stay.’ Perhaps, Leader of the Opposition, you might listen to their pleas if you will not listen to the members on the government benches. Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 16:20:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 16:24:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 80 Abbott, A.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. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Howard, J.W. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. 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. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 16:30:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. 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. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. 80 Abbott, A.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. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Howard, J.W. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. Question negatived. 16:24:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 80 Abbott, A.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. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Howard, J.W. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. 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. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. Question agreed to. 16:30:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. 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. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. 80 Abbott, A.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. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Howard, J.W. Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. * Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. Question negatived. 57 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 57 16:37:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I do claim to have been misrepresented, as do my Independent colleagues, having been described as bugs by National Party Senator Ron Boswell in today’s media. I take grave offence at this description, especially when it comes from a gnat, which by definition is the lowest form of insect life, an insignificant annoyance— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member has made his point. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Being called a bug by a gnat is a compliment. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. 57 BUSINESS 57 57 16:38:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 0 Dr STONE —I 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 p.m. on Tuesdays, and so much of standing order 34 (Order of business) be suspended to provide for government business to have precedence between 12.30pm and 2pm on Tuesdays, and that these arrangements apply for the remainder of this period of sittings. Question agreed to. 58 PETITIONS 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers: ET4 7K6 CK6 HK6 Mr Bevis Mr Entsch Mr Hardgrave Mr Lindsay 1935 58 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Witnesses, including an investigative journalist and a veteran military doctor have revealed that Falun Gong practitioners are being held in at least 36 concentration camps in China where they are routinely subject to the forced removals of their organs which are then sold for transplants. The bodies are quickly cremated to destroy all evidence. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Call for the Australian Government to fully support the International Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG), and demand that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) immediately open the doors of all concentration camps, forced labour camps, hospitals, prisons and detention centres throughout the People’s Republic of China in order to allow independent teams to investigate the charges of illegal detention, torture and live organ removal for transplants. Demand that the CCP regime release all detained Falun Gong practitioners immediately. 386 ET4 Mr Bevis Mr Bevis (from 386 citizens) 145 7K6 Mr Entsch Mr Entsch (from 145 citizens) 1220 CK6 Mr Hardgrave Mr Hardgrave (from 1,220 citizens) 184 HK6 Mr Lindsay Mr Lindsay (from 184 citizens) DZS Mr Bowen 276 58 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House a treatment available for some types of Breast Cancer. Some breast cancers test positive for a growth factor or protein called Her2. This Her2 tells breast cancer cells how to grow. A drug called HERCEPTIN stops Her2 from working, so the breast cancer cells stop growing. This means that Herceptin would help greatly in further reducing risk of future recurrence of breast cancer. However, Herceptin is NOT supplied on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for all stages of breast cancer and incurs a cost of $66,000 for 1 year of treatment. This cost is prohibitive, meaning women either do not use this treatment, or they suffer tremendous financial hardships on top of their cancer struggle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to include the drug Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) for use by women at any stage of breast cancer who test positive to Her2. 276 DZS Mr Bowen Mr Bowen (from 276 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 3 58 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that Carers of disabled veterans take care of their veteran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week of the year. For their dedicated work, these carers receive the sum of $6.76 per day Carers’ Allowance. As a consequence of the heavy work involved in the caring process, carers find themselves suffering physical disabilities and depression and often need similar care to that which they are giving to disabled veterans. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: Administer and pay Carer’s Allowance to Carers of Veterans through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Provide a health programme for carers of Veterans to cover all aspects of their well being. Provide transport assistance to veteran’s Carers for their return trip home when the veteran is hospitalised and does not return with them. Provide relief from parking fees for Carers when visiting hospitalised veteran. Subsidize accommodation to enable the carers to stay nearby the veteran if their veteran is hospitalized away from their home town. Increase the amount of respite available to Carers of disabled veterans. Remove the abolition of payment of the Carer’s Allowance which ceases after a period of six weeks if the Carer’s veteran is required to stay in care outside antis home. 3 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 3 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 717 59 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The petition of residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to residents’ right to: want airports to impact less on their quality of life; complain against how airports affect their quality of life; have complaints heard fairly, independently and impartially; see that airport businesses are not above the law. The petitioners call upon the House to establish an Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman who will: investigate residents’ complaints fairly and impartially; communicate with residents promptly and honestly; and see that airport companies abide by the law. 717 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 717 citizens) 83Y Ms Hoare 106 59 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: David Kilgour, a former MP and Secretary of State for Asia Pacific of Canada, and international human rights lawyer Mr. David Matas initiated an independent investigation into the allegations of organ harvesting from live victims in China. The report released on 6 July 2006 has come to the conclusion that Chinese officials have been committing crimes against humanity; that the authorities have been harvesting vital organs from thousands of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners and killing them in the process. Their vital organs, including hearts, Kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.” —Pg. 44 of the report On August 2006 both the Australian Government and Opposition agreed to ask the Chinese communist party to allow an independent investigation into the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Australian Government to urge the CCP to immediately release all Falun Gong practitioners; and to give full access without impediment to the Coalition to Investigate Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) to conduct an independent investigation into all jails, 610 Offices, labour camps, detention centre, and related hospitals in China. Australian Government to initiate a Senate Committee Inquiry into the allegation of Organ Harvesting; Australian Government to inform and discourage Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants; and prevent companies, institutions and individuals providing goods and services and training to China’s organ transplant programmes; until such time as the CIPFG is satisfied that no organs used have been taken by force against the will of the donor. 106 83Y Ms Hoare Ms Hoare (from 106 citizens) GK6 Miss Jackie Kelly 1349 60 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of members of the Australian dance profession draws the attention of the House to an issue identified in 2001 by the Cultural Ministers Council. While we applaud recent investment in the major performing arts sector, we also note that the CMC identified the value of all performing arts to the broader cultural ecology. Since then numerous reports have pointed to unsustainable levels of funding in the small to medium enterprise sector, particularly in dance. This is preventing long-term investment in Australia’s internationally-recognised creators and innovators, and limiting their capability and the potential to provide arts opportunities locally and across the nation. Your petitioners urgently request Members, through bilateral action with the States and Territories, to enhance Federal funding levels to enable recognition of, and investment in, Australian creativity and performance at all levels. We request Members to recognise that creative artists make a significant contribution to the innovation economy, and that this contribution occurs not only in the major performing arts sector, but equally significantly in small to medium arts enterprises. We remind Members that investment in a sustainable and viable performing arts industry is essential if Australia is to even maintain current levels of cultural creativity, innovation and development, and remain competitive in the international arena. 1349 GK6 Miss Jackie Kelly Miss Jackie Kelly (from 1,349 citizens) YU5 Mr Tanner 18 60 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia asks the House to demand of the government of Israel that it must: stop its slaughter of Lebanese civilians stop destroying their homes, villages and cities stop attacking the civil infrastructure of Lebanon stop its unjustified, illegal and barbaric destruction of Lebanon. 18 YU5 Mr Tanner Mr Tanner (from 18 citizens) YU5 Mr Tanner 384 60 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia asks the House to demand of the government of Israel that it must: stop attacking Palestinians and their infrastructure stop its siege of the Gaza Strip stop construction of its illegal wall and its siege of the West Bank stop its ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem and the West Bank release the kidnapped Hamas parliamentarians negotiate for peace with the democratically elected Palestinian government. 384 YU5 Mr Tanner Mr Tanner (from 384 citizens) E0F Mr Wood 1070 60 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria, including but not restricted to the Shire of Yarra Ranges draws to the attention of the House the licence issued by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) that authorises trials of Genetically Engineered blue roses to take place in the Shire of Yarra Ranges. The OTGR, auspiced by the Department of Health and Ageing, has issued licence number DIR 060/2005 to Florigene P/L a subsidiary of Suntory Corporation of Japan, for the release of three imported rose lines that have been genetically engineered to alter flower colour. The trial would continue in the Shire of Yarra Ranges until April 2009. These trials would undermine the Yarra Ranges Shire Council’s GE free policy which precludes the growing of genetically engineered organisms in the municipality. The policy was passed in 2001 with the popular support of most residents living in the shire. If the trials are allowed to proceed they would threaten markets for our top quality clean and green horticultural products, which depend on the shire’s GE free reputation and may prevent growers from opening new markets, especially for organic produce. Your petitioners therefore request the House and its individual members to take all measures within their powers to rescind the licence for trials of Genetically Engineered roses in the Shire of Yarra Ranges. 1070 E0F Mr Wood Mr Wood (from 1,070 citizens) Petitions received. 61 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS 61 61 16:40:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —I move: That the House: expresses its concern at the tragically high incidence of extreme poverty in the world; supports the Australian Government’s commitment to the Millennium Development Goals; recognises recent increases in Australia’s commitment to overseas aid; and urges continued efforts towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and the halving of world poverty by 2015. It is too easy from the comfort of our own relative affluence to tune out to the devastating impact of world poverty. Yet surely none of us would find it remotely acceptable that over one billion people live on less than $1 a day, that 10 to 12 million children die each year from largely preventable illnesses, that the maternal mortality rate of 670 per 100,000 live births in developing countries is 50 to 60 times the rate that we experience in affluent countries, that over 100 million children do not attend school or that some 50 million people are living with HIV-AIDS as it rages through many developing countries. Thus the agreement of the United Nations members, including Australia, in the year 2000 was to strive towards halving world poverty by the year 2015 by addressing the eight agreed Millennium Development Goals. Specifically, these goals aim, by 2015, to halve the number of people living on less than $1 a day; to achieve universal primary education; to eliminate gender disparity in education; to reduce by two-thirds the childhood mortality rate; to reduce by three-quarters the maternal mortality rate; to reverse the spread of HIV-AIDS, malaria and other major diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability and reverse the loss of environmental resources, including halving the number of people without safe drinking water; and to develop a global partnership for development which includes a fairer trading and financial system. I welcome the increased efforts of the Australian government in recent years. The year before last, in the 2005-06 budget, we increased our overseas aid giving by $358 million—an increase of some 12 per cent. In this year’s budget we increased our overseas aid program by another $455 million, some 15 per cent. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last year to doubling Australia’s aid commitment to $4 billion by 2010. I also welcome the announcement by the Treasurer just last month of another $136 million for the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. That is in addition to earlier relief of bilateral debt under the HIPC program, to which we contributed some $112 million. I welcome Australia’s leadership in trying to liberate world trade and reduce the trade barriers which severely impede the efforts of developing countries to benefit from world trade. We are also leading by example in this by applying zero tariffs to all imports from the world’s 50 poorest countries. These are very significant initiatives. However, there is still more to be done. I urge the Australian government to continue to increase the quantum of overseas aid to work towards the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015. We need to continue our work with developing countries to build effective systems of governance to ensure that the best use is made of this aid. We need to continue our leadership in the push for more equitable trading regimes which will allow developing countries to access world markets as an important means of stimulating economic growth. But we also need to remember our own responsibility as individuals in this matter. It is easy for us to sit back and expect the government to do what we are often not willing to do ourselves. Yet tax deductibility for donations to accredited aid organisations effectively means that the Australian government heavily subsidises an individual’s aid-giving. If we expect the government to give then we as individuals also need to give to assist the world’s poor. The tragic effects of world poverty make it incumbent on us all to carry our share of the weight and work towards reducing the suffering of those far less fortunate than us. The human cost of inaction is just far too great. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? E07 Markus, Louise, MP Mrs Markus —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 62 16:45:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —The member for Macquarie is to be congratulated on continuing to bring this issue into the House, and I note that he moved a motion in similar terms in 2005. It comes at a particularly important time in the ongoing debate and growing campaign for the relief of debt for Third World countries and, naturally, for the encouragement that is necessary for the world community to make poverty history. This week, 15-21 October, is Anti-Poverty Week, and International Anti-Poverty Day is on 17 October. Today, outside Parliament House, I and other Australians, including the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, gathered to record our support for tackling poverty with a world record attempt for standing up; Stand Up is a campaign to send a clear message to world leaders that we must take a stand against poverty, and it was a message that members on all sides of the House wanted to send through to leadership here. Whilst it is true that the federal government has identified the need and, as the Chief Government Whip has said, has offered a modest increase in the aid budget this year, it is a fact that Australia still rates poorly when compared to other developed countries. That is a challenge for the Howard government. If it is fair dinkum about aid, it must lift its proportion of aid in relation to other equivalent countries in order to give the terms of this motion some effect. We still sit about 18th or 19th in aid expenditure and, whilst it is recognised that the debt forgiveness packages that the member for Macquarie referred to are welcome, a number of the amounts in relation to the debt forgiveness packages have gone towards the campaign in Iraq and that has inflated Australia’s overall commitment. The Millennium Development Goals advocate a halving of global poverty by 2015. But currently the federal government’s commitment in the aid budget of only 0.35 per cent of GNI by 2010 means that we will fall short of this goal. Indeed, a report issued on 14 August of this year by World Vision, How are the neighbours, showed that nearly six years on from the commitment to the Millennium Development Goals a number of countries in the region are struggling and at least eight countries, including Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, Timor Leste and Laos, are significantly off track. Of some criticality, goal 4 of the Millennium Development Goals, reducing infant mortality, stands out as being a goal which a number of nations have been unable to reach. It is very clear that, for low-income countries in particular, aid remains an important determiner of service provision and, notwithstanding issues that relate to governance or debt levels—and they are important issues—providing additional significant investment and support for people in low-income countries, particularly in terms of reducing infant mortality, is absolutely critical. I have raised previously in the House the government’s failure to properly commit to microcredit. Microcredit means small business loans which can be used to help start or expand small businesses. Only 0.6 per cent of Australia’s aid budget is for microcredit programs. Compare that to the United States, where the figure is closer to 1.25 per cent. I do urge the government to consider increasing its commitment to microcredit. Last week one of the founding fathers of microcredit, Professor Muhammad Yunus, and the bank he set up, the Grameen Bank, were honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘their efforts to create economic and social development from below’. It is absolutely critical that we provide additional assistance to those efforts. Finally, in order to be serious about poverty we also need to be serious about climate change. Climate change and development, particularly as we go forward, are critical. Unless we not only address climate change and seriously tackle poverty in the region in tandem with assisting people but also have rigorous policy from the national government here in Australia to address climate change, then rates of infectious diseases, increases in the incidence of extreme weather events and temperature increases in the region will affect our neighbours there. Labor have a response to the government’s aid white paper. We call for a legislative charter for Australia’s development assistance. We identify the need for a global development institute, separate to AusAID, to improve transparency, and we seek a Pacific development trust which would facilitate microcredit loans. Incremental increases in aid, which the government has made, are acknowledged, but for the government to be really serious about making poverty history it will have to make substantial commitments in policy, funding and approach, and that is what we urge with this motion. 63 16:50:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —Australia must continue to assist with achieving the Millennium Development Goals and tackling global poverty. The Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, endorsed the Millennium Declaration at the Millennium Summit in 2000. In September last year he also attended the United Nations World Summit, where he endorsed world summit outcome documents. He also announced in 2005 that the overseas aid allocation would increase to $4 billion a year by 2010. I welcome this announcement which underlines the government’s commitment to poverty reduction, sustainable development and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. Australia will meet the Millennium Development Goals by assisting developing nations through supporting health and education systems, promoting broad based economic growth and recognising the importance of the private sector and effective governance, democracy and anti-corruption measures. The World Bank estimates that corruption costs the world $1 trillion every year. However, any reform of corrupt systems must be led from within. There must be a will within the governments to make the necessary changes to remove corruption. The MDGs emanated from the Millennium Declaration in 2005, which focused on poverty and hunger, education, gender equality, child and maternal mortality, and health and the environment. Achieving progress towards the MDGs is a complex challenge. Australia’s approach is to focus on promoting the conditions and building blocks necessary for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, as outlined in the Australian 2005 Millennium Development Goals progress report. The main Millennium Development Goal, the first goal, is to eradicate extreme hunger by enabling the poor to access benefits and opportunities provided by economic growth—for example, in Cambodia, by improving the food security of the 212,000 established farming households under the Agricultural Quality Improvement Project. The NGO community also supports the Millennium Development Goals through the Make Poverty History campaign, which focuses on areas of aid, trade and debt relief to achieve progress towards the MDGs. Aid alone will not be sufficient to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Trade liberalisation, backed up by supportive domestic policies and good governance, offers particularly significant benefits. This campaign in Australia is supported by a coalition of more than 50 aid agencies, community groups and religious organisations. The campaign focuses on the areas of aid, trade and debt relief to achieve the MDGs. In addition, there is the Micah Challenge, a worldwide church campaign launched on 25 October 2004. It involves a worldwide network of relief and advocacy groups consisting of three million churches and 267 groups in 111 nations. The second Millennium Development Goal focuses on promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women. Australia’s response to the HIV-AIDS epidemic has targeted women and girls, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, as they represent an increasing proportion of people living with this disease. Also, countries that adopt specific measures to protect women’s rights and increase their access to health services, resources and schooling have less corruption and achieve faster economic growth than countries that do not. Placing value upon women will boost a nation’s economic, social and political strength. Australia also recognises that violence can severely disadvantage women, which is why there is Australian aid funding for institutions such as the Women’s Crisis Centre in Fiji, which the government provided $1.7 million to this financial year. AusAID also supported empowering women’s decision making, especially in Tonga and the Solomon Islands. AusAID also supports Opportunity International in their empowerment of poor women through a microfinance project. This project operates in the Philippines, Indonesia and India. However, it is a continuing concern that of some 65 developing countries only half have achieved gender parity in primary education, about 20 per cent in secondary education and eight per cent in higher education. Parity in education is critical for women to engage fully in society and the global economy. Looking at the sixth goal, continuing to combat HIV-AIDS, the pandemic shows no sign of abating. The spread of HIV-AIDS threatens people’s lives and regional stability and could reverse the gains in economic progress in many countries. The World Bank recently concluded that the future of global HIV-AIDS will be determined in Asia. While the focus has been on Africa, and that is important, it is as important that we place greater focus on our region, the Asia-Pacific region. Australia’s focus on the Asia-Pacific region will continue. For example, the government’s multi-year $600 million HIV-AIDS commitment directly addresses goals to halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV-AIDS. The Australian government is committed to doing all that it can to ensure that world poverty is halved by 2015, not only by providing aid financially but also, and as importantly, by assisting with good governance and economic integration. (Time expired) 65 16:55:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the House for the opportunity to address the issue of the UN Millennium Development Goals this afternoon. In speaking to this issue in the people’s house, the House of Representatives, I stand with many Australians and millions of people globally from almost 100 countries, both rich and poor, in standing up against poverty. Stand Up is just one event organised by Make Poverty History that seeks to raise the awareness of the need to urgently act to help the world’s poorest. Earlier today, a collective of politicians, staff and the community stood up in front of Parliament House as part of this global event. That included the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley. Stand Up is an event that has been largely led by young people, and they are to be commended for their empathy in wanting to help those most in need. Over 1.1 billion of the world’s 6.5 billion people live on less than $1 a day. As the gap between the world’s wealthy and poor continues to widen, it is more important than ever for us to face up to the issues of inequality both abroad and in our own backyards—for example, in our Indigenous communities—so as to try to do something practical to assist the less privileged in the global community. Labor’s participation in Stand Up reflects our commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. They are, clearly, goals worthy of implementation. They seek to halve extreme poverty, enable the provision of universal primary education and gender equality, reduce child mortality, AIDS and other diseases, and improve mental health and environmental sustainability—wonderful objectives for all of us to embrace. I remind the House that it is just over one month before the Treasurer will host the G20 finance meeting in Melbourne. It is an opportunity for the world’s richest nations, such as Australia, to help come good on promises it and other developed countries like the United States and England made as part of the millennium goals. The government’s commitment to increase aid from the present 0.28 per cent of gross national income to 0.36 per cent by 2010, as outlined in the aid white paper, is a welcome, if overdue, initiative. But the opposition and many in the Australian community also believe it is not enough. We have to do more. In this month’s Make Poverty History second report on Australia’s performance under the Millennium Development Goals, a review has found that, yes, Australia has taken some significant steps towards more effective aid in the last 12 months. However, on a global level, more has to be done to increase our commitment internationally to realise the millennium goals. It is a start, but it is not enough. Obviously, our increased contribution is a positive step forward, but it is still considerably less than leading European donors in the OECD. The OECD predicts, for example, that if we do not increase our aid budget it will leave us 18th out of 22 donors in terms of our aid to gross national income ratio. These facts speak for themselves. Where we want to be as a nation, and what is decent and proper, is leading us in this debate. It is about continuing Australia’s long-held spirit of mateship at home and a question of a fair go abroad. Therefore, the question is: does the spirit of equality stop at our shores? I argue that it does not. Britain, France and Spain are all increasing their aid contribution to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2010, while Denmark, Sweden and Norway have all either equalled or exceeded the target. That is what leadership is about and that is where Australia should aspire to be. In hosting the G20 finance meeting on 18 and 19 November, the Treasurer has a unique opportunity to show leadership in ensuring the G20 move forward on the debate on debt relief. That would be real leadership we could all be proud of as Australians. Real leadership would say to the global community that we care about doing something practical. It would demonstrate that we are about achieving our fair share of aid relief in the 2007-08 budget by continuing Australian momentum with a repeat of this year’s increase. Wouldn’t that be a great announcement for the Treasurer to make in the lead-up to the G20 meeting? I challenge the Treasurer to give serious consideration to that proposition in cabinet deliberations. If we can actually do something on that front, then we can do more, as we all want to do something about halving poverty, overcoming the problems of a lack of education and gender in equality, reducing child mortality, AIDS and other diseases, and improving mental health—all objectives, including environmental sustainability, that we can make progress on at home and internationally. It is about doing something about our aspirations as a nation—a promise by rich nations such as Australia to the world’s poor that we actually understand and appreciate their problems and can do something better to help them. (Time expired) 66 17:00:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —‘Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural; it is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.’ This is a statement by Nelson Mandela, and how true it is. The effects of global poverty are massive. Every year more than 11 million children, most under the age of five, die of hunger and preventable diseases—that is over 30,000 per day and one every three seconds. More than six million die annually from completely preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhoea and pneumonia, and another six million will die from malnutrition before their fifth birthday. Over 300 million children who go to bed every day—more than 90 per cent—are suffering from long-term malnourishment. The really disturbing thing is that these children do not have to die. The malnutrition and disease are preventable. So I welcome the chance to speak on this motion put by my friend the member for Macquarie. That the Australian public has taken on this cause, whether through the Micah Challenge or the Oaktree Foundation’s Knock Out Poverty day, is something that needs to be welcomed. Make Poverty History is, indeed, a cause that every Australian and every humanitarian minded individual on this globe should embrace. I dare say the only people who could possibly disagree with the eight Millennium Development Goals are those despots who have vested interests in making people remain in poverty. I had the chance to speak to a group of young people in my electorate over the weekend. The Oaktree Foundation and those in the churches through the Micah Challenge banded together and over 200 predominantly young people made a small sacrifice in an attempt to make poverty history. They committed to doorknock sections of my electorate of Deakin on Saturday afternoon in an attempt to raise awareness about the Millennium Development Goals. I congratulate those young people for their passion. It is fantastic to see a cause that can bind people together with one goal in mind—and that is to raise awareness and, more importantly, to achieve action in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. I was impressed by the maturity with which the group approached this problem. They understand the importance of effectively communicating their message in a bipartisan, apolitical way, and for that they are to be congratulated. These young people have a cause that they believe in and that they are prepared to fight for. This cause is not self-serving, it is not egotistical; it is compassionate and altruistic. We as a government need to commit our attention to these young people, follow their example and heed the call that they and many others around Australia and around the world have been making upon us as the decision makers. Of course there has been a response at government level. I note the comments from those on the other side who have acknowledged the move by this government to increase aid, but I also note their comments that more needs to be done. Of course more can always be done, but we do need to recognise where a response has been made. Last year the Prime Minister announced that the aid allocation would be increased to about $4 billion a year by 2010. It shows this government’s commitment to poverty reduction, sustainable development and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. We have also seen that in 2006-07 Australia will provide just under $3 billion in official development assistance. This is an increase of $455 million. We are committed to providing targeted debt relief. I note, in the response of the Make Poverty History campaign to the white paper on aid, a table of where the nations in our part of the world lie on the various goals. The example that struck me was that of Papua New Guinea. The table shows that on every goal they are languishing. We need to be reminded that Papua New Guinea is the greatest recipient of aid from this country; over $500 million per annum goes to Papua New Guinea. What this demonstrates to me is that money is not the only answer to resolving poverty in this world. If money were the answer we would not see campaigns like this needing to be waged over and over again. There are other aspects to it, and that is why I believe the Millennium Development Goals are a refreshing change to what is required, because they do tackle the issue of trade and they do tackle the issue of governance and partnerships. (Time expired) 67 17:05:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —It is appropriate, during Anti-Poverty Week from 16 to 22 October and the day before the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, that we should be discussing a motion such as the one moved by the Chief Government Whip, the honourable member for Macquarie. Of course we do express our concern at the high incidence of poverty throughout the world and, as citizens of a developing country, a lucky country, we should see an opportunity for us to be involved in the campaign to rid the world of poverty. One of the things that has really heartened me is that this is being led at a community level. Other members in this debate have made mention of those campaigns, broadly under the umbrella of the Make Poverty History campaign, but, like the member for Deakin, I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Oaktree Foundation, and the week before last I had representatives of local churches come to me under the banner of the Micah Challenge. They presented me with letters and petitions from a couple of hundred of the constituents of my electorate of Scullin in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and I believe that this was a great expression of the concern that abounds in the community. The parishioners were from Epping, St Johns Anglican, South Morang Assembly of God, Plenty Valley Salvation Army, Plenty Valley Uniting Church, Greensborough Calvary Lutheran, Greensborough Uniting and Greensborough Church of Christ—a broad representation of the electorate. This follows my ability earlier in the year to present that large, 13-metre banner with 1,400 signatures from the whole community of Parade College in Bundoora. So certainly this is an issue where the people of Australia are saying to government, saying to their members of parliament, ‘This is a campaign that we should be involved in.’ And they are starting to really understand the thread that runs through the eight millennium goals and the challenge that has been thrown down to achieve those outcomes by the year 2015. This is not a debate for some sort of partisan point-scoring. And I acknowledge that, in this motion, we acknowledge and recognise the increased effort that has been made. But, simply put, if we look at our nation in a ladder of nations, in the OECD we rank 18th of 22, even in the projection to 2010. And if we look at the goal we require to aim at—and people talk about a benchmark of 0.7 per cent of GNI—we see that it is only the Benelux countries and the Scandinavian countries that will have achieved that goal by 2010. So when we look at these levels we have to ask, ‘What is required to reach those levels?’ The Micah Challenge set a goal of 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2010. Even at the annual increase for this year of 15 per cent—if, each year through to 2010, we had a 15 per cent increase—we would only reach 0.49 per cent. I do not want to fall into the trap of saying that resources are the only thing. I do not want to fall into the trap of saying that the size of the bucket of money is important. There is one thing that the member for Deakin said that I applaud him for expressing in this debate, and that is that when we look at countries like—I agree—PNG, one has to say that this goes beyond the amount of resources; this has to go to the way in which we engage with countries. If we look at this Make Poverty History document, a response to the white paper on aid and a submission on the budget to the Australian government of September 2006, and look at table No. 1, which looks at our neighbours in South-East Asia and the Pacific, it is really chilling. If we look at Papua New Guinea, it is off-track on every indicator. The Philippines is off-track on five of the millennium goals. The Solomons is off-track on four of the goals. Timor Leste is off-track on two of only three on which there is information. So there has to be a better way in which to engage. We cannot be seen to be patronising in our engagement with these countries, but we have to bring them forward. We have to bring them forward as trading partners and we have to bring them forward by showing example. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 68 68 17:10:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this House: notes: the Parliament’s and the Government’s abhorrence of suicide terrorism as a tool of any organisation or movement; the global prevalence of suicide terrorism as the most lethal method of murder for many terrorist groups; the critical roles that actors other than the perpetrators play in the process, providing incitement through: education of youth; statements and encouragement by religious and political leaders; and inflammatory materials broadcast by media outlets and made available on Internet websites; and the vital necessity of defining terrorism for the purpose of international criminal law, and particularly suicide terrorism; and the benefits for international law enforcement and Australia’s national security in establishing such a multilateral enforcement framework; and calls on the Government to: promote initiatives for the drafting of an International Convention on Suicide Terrorism, which would: provide a definition of suicide terrorism, including the meaning of the word ‘terrorism’; and create an offence of suicide terrorism; and ensure that the content of such an offence would: be defined as a ‘crime against humanity’, attracting universal jurisdiction and the international legal consequences associated with such status; include ‘direct and public incitement to commit suicide terrorism’ as a punishable offence by the same criteria as incitement under Article 3(c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention); be punishable against constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals in the same form as Article 4 of the Genocide Convention; include a provision requiring mandatory enactment of the offence in the domestic jurisdiction of contracting parties, in the same form as Article 5 of the Genocide Convention; and exclude the defence of political crimes for the offence, in the same form as Article 7 of the Genocide Convention; and commit to sponsoring a completed Convention, and actively promoting its adoption by the international community. Can I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Dr Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Liaison of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre based in Paris. This motion seeks to address a critical gap within the international legal framework to deal with suicide terrorism. The threat is distinct and immediate. Suicide terrorism attacks have sharply increased over the last two decades, from an average of three per year in the 1980s to 150 attacks in 2004. Indeed, new figures based on Iraq indicate one attack on average each and every day. These figures are startling and the associated fatality level is also appallingly high. Although representing just three per cent of overall terrorist events between 1980 and 2003, they have accounted for a massive 48 per cent of all deaths from suicide incidents. This makes them, effectively—to adopt a macabre figure—12 times deadlier or more effective than any other form of terrorism. Suicide terrorism has therefore become the deadliest challenge in the global struggle against terrorism. And the struggle is truly global, with this particularly abhorrent form of violence being experienced across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and, increasingly, in our very own region. The carnage wreaked by both waves of bombings in Bali, for instance, was a clear message to Australians that we cannot simply leave this matter for others to fix; it is an enormous challenge that confronts us all. A coordinated international response is necessary, and an international convention would unquestionably enormously strengthen the international response. It is most unsatisfactory that there remains uncertainty as to whether the act of suicide terrorism is covered under the crimes against humanity, and it is also unclear whether the act can be regarded as a war crime. Clearly there should be no ambiguity. It is also important that international and domestic law is framed to attack all vital components in the chain of responsibility. It is unacceptable that there is no international legal sanction for those who incite the perpetrators of suicide attacks. A continuous and oppressive environment of indoctrination must be created before a human being will voluntarily kill themselves in order to kill innocent civilians. This indoctrination is done through a network of media, political and educational encouragement. The most obvious examples are already well known, with incitement to commit suicide terrorism by extremist leaders in Iran and encouragement to martyrdom in many educational resources for children across the Middle East, which I have actually seen. The extent to which incitement is responsible for terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region is also a major concern for Australia. Indonesia’s most wanted terrorist, Noordin Mohammed Top, relied heavily on a network of fanatics who were alumni of the Jemaah Islamiah pesantrens, which are religious boarding schools, throughout Indonesia. A large proportion of the bombers, planners and organisers of the terrorist attacks on the Marriott Hotel, the Australian Embassy and the second attacks in Bali were lecturers, teachers or students of both of these schools. Defining incitement as a crime of universal jurisdiction would force signatories to either prosecute or extradite the perpetrators. It would also add to the growing body of law that is slowly defining the overall crime of terrorism. Alongside the new convention on nuclear terrorism, a convention dealing with suicide terrorism would clarify definitional issues associated with the comprehensive convention against terrorism that is currently being negotiated at the United Nations—and I recently read an excellent speech, made to the United Nations General Assembly by my friend and colleague the member for Denison, promoting the cause of an international treaty against terrorism. This would be an important step—a building block, if you like—towards achieving that comprehensive treaty. I commend this motion to the House and urge the government to act on it as swiftly as possible. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr Hayes —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 70 17:15:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I congratulate the honourable member for Barton for raising this very important issue. I might not have exactly the same views as he does on every aspect of the motion but he has certainly highlighted a major world problem and, by raising this matter in the parliament, he helps us to think through the issues and hopefully look forward to appropriate responses. Terrorism and the associated killing of innocent people is today a very real and disturbing issue. Unfortunately, the murder of unsuspecting bystanders as a means of achieving a political or religious goal is today so common that it could almost be regarded as the norm each week in the press and broadcast news services—and the member for Barton indicated the number of suicide bombings in the Middle East. Despite its growing commonness, terrorism as an instrument of ideological urging is nothing short of callous, cowardly and weak—and, I would argue, ineffective. It seems clear that terrorism causes not only death and destruction but also, as its name suggests, terror. However, it is not difficult to argue that, in reality, it achieves nothing of substance. It generates worldwide animosity toward those who initiate such killings. It generates fear, creates social and economic instability and causes pain and suffering for the loved ones of the victims. The subgroup of suicide terrorism is even more disturbing. This is an ideological platform whose presence has been greatly enhanced since September 11, 2001, in which an extreme version of suicide terrorism attack took place. The death of the suicide bomber himself or herself is the absolute final stage in a process that involves a number of people, from those who recruit future bombers through to educators, advisers, supporters and financiers. It regularly involves political or religious leaders and teachers who, unfortunately, also have the young and impressionable among their targets. One website notes that suicide terrorism is seen to benefit the initiating organisation because such attacks generate widespread media coverage and this in turn ‘indicates a display of great determination and inclination for self-sacrifice on the part of the terrorists’. But I would add that this is of doubtful, even negative, benefit. The suggestion that widespread media coverage and notoriety generated by a suicide terrorist attack could somehow be an effective bargaining chip for the initiator to achieve specific goals is a strong indicator of how peculiar this particular form of terrorism is. It seems unlikely that a forceful or strong-arm approach that demands that the world sit up and take notice would have the effect that terrorist organisations hope for and have convinced themselves that it would have. In fact, terrorism today certainly attracts the ire of most governments around the world, and most people do not want governments to deal with terrorists on the terrorists’ terms. Indiscriminate killing is not helpful in conveying the ideas of maturity, respect and cooperation, which are requirements at any negotiation table. Peaceful, sensible and mature negotiation is, in the long term, the most effective means of resolving a dispute and reaching the most acceptable solution for all concerned. Organisations and governments that support and promote suicide terrorism succeed only in alienating themselves from the global community and, in essence, alienating themselves from the very organisations and governments they wish to influence. The Australian government is strongly outspoken against all forms of terrorism because the taking of innocent human life and the destruction of property in the pursuit of a self-centred goal is totally unacceptable. For this reason, the government has laws in place that clearly define a terrorist act and also make it illegal to be involved in terrorist activities. As I have said in the House on previous occasions, Australians are peace-loving people. Australia, on the whole, is a nation where all people are determined to live in harmony and are prepared to respect the views and beliefs of others. In general, we support the notion of a fair go for everyone. For these reasons, we strongly object to activities—and to those who carry them out—that will come between us and our reasonable objectives. Terrorist activity is an example of one such impediment. It has the potential to derail the good things that nations such as Australia stand for. Therefore, it is an offence in Australia to have any involvement at all in terrorism, to be involved in a terrorist act or to train for, prepare, plan, finance or otherwise support terrorist activities. It is, in my view, unnecessary for Australia to draft its own international convention to rebuff and reject suicide terrorism, because a number of other documents are already in existence. It is important to remember that suicide terrorism is a subset of the overall terrorism movement. Terrorism is a stain on the world and it must be rejected. (Time expired) 72 17:21:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —I rise in support of this very important motion by the member for Barton. No matter what group and no matter what cause, suicide bombing as a means of protest, or as a method of getting an organisation’s message across to the wider populus, must be condemned by this parliament in the strongest possible terms. No matter how geographically far we are from individual occurrences of suicide terrorism, it not only instils fear in the minds of the general population but also affects the treatment and characterisation of members of communities from which the suicide bombers have come. No matter how one describes it, the act of suicide bombing is nothing but the deliberate targeting of innocent people in order to deliver a political message. No matter how groups try to rationalise their use of the technique of terror, no matter how they might try to defend their actions, suicide bombing is nothing short of a criminal act and should be declared a crime against humanity. I acknowledge that it would be virtually impossible to stop a determined suicide bomber. No matter how stringent the checks put in place may be, a determined bomber could possibly get through the net with the express purpose of delivering his—or, on rare occasions, her—payload of death. Suicide terrorism may seem senseless and irrational to most of us, but to those leaders and groups, religious and political, who view this as a tool of their trade, it is a powerful weapon against whoever they consider to be their enemies. Suicide terrorism has increased. Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, has collected data on acts of suicide terrorism. Between 1980 and 2004 there were 462 acts of suicide terrorism worldwide. Obviously, given the activities in Iraq of late, this number is now significantly higher. The data that he has collected indicates, contrary to popular opinion, that religious beliefs are not the principle driver of these attacks. For instance, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are the world’s leaders in suicide terrorism and, as every member of this parliament would appreciate, their motivation is not religion. Pape concludes that it is not religion but rather a desire to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from lands which the terrorists consider to be their homeland that is the primary motivator. One interesting aspect of these attacks which I would like to draw to the attention of the House is that, again contrary to popular belief, until the United States’ invasion of Iraq there had never been a suicide terrorist attack in the whole history of Iraq. No matter the motivation, Australia must play a role in bringing this form of terrorism—and any other form, for that matter—to an end. The terms of the motion before the House are pretty straightforward. The motion calls on the Australian government to undertake simple actions that will clearly state the manner in which the international community views suicide attacks. While of itself the drafting and the adoption of an international convention on suicide terrorism will not bring an end to attacks, while it will not bring an end to the incitement of action on behalf of extremists, it will clarify the world’s condemnation of this form of terrorism. Enough time has passed and enough innocent lives have been lost for the world community to properly clarify the international standard by which suicide terrorists, and in particular their backers, will be judged. The threat of suicide terrorism is more likely to grow rather than diminish. While Australia and most Western nations have yet to see this tactic of protest used on their own soil, that is no reason to dismiss the possibility. It was only a little over four years ago that we saw suicide bombing attacks in Bali targeting Western tourists. They resulted in the deaths of 202 people, including 88 Australians, and the injuring of more than 300 others. The Australian government owes it to those who lost their lives in Bali and owes it to the families of everyone who has suffered at the hands of suicide bombers to take every action possible to lead the charge of ridding the world of this threat of suicide terrorism. If the Australian government is to provide the leadership required to combat terrorism, this leadership has to extend beyond military action and it must address some of the fundamental issues that go to the heart of terrorist activity. 73 17:26:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —The Australian government absolutely condemns all forms of terrorism and is committed to fighting it wherever it occurs. The first priority of course must be to protect the Australian people. Few would disagree with the description within this motion by the member for Barton, Mr McClelland. It is outstanding in defining some of the aspects of terrorism, and particularly suicide terrorism, which concern everybody. It mentions the education of youth, statements by religious and political leaders to encourage or incite terrorism, and inflammatory material—all of that contributes to the process. Here in Australia, all of the current offences in the Criminal Code already capture all types of terrorist activity. So the first priority of the Australian government is to make sure things are right here at home. The Australian government has, step by step, been able to achieve that and is in the process of further extending the capacity of the Criminal Code to make sure that every area is covered off. The definition of a terrorist act under the Australian Criminal Code covers actions—such as those that will cause serious physical harm or death; endanger a person’s life; create a serious risk to public health or safety; cause serious damage to property; or seriously interfere with, disrupt or destroy an electronic system—with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and with the intention of coercing or influencing by intimidation the government of Australia, a foreign government or the public. That is what the Australian government has done and that is pretty comprehensive. On the international scene, the motion is about Australia taking some sort of initiative in the United Nations. I wish I had as much confidence in the United Nations as the members of the opposition appear to, but the intention is excellent. The purpose is good. The only problem is that there are 13 international conventions on terrorism already in place. Australia started signing these conventions as long ago as 1963. The first one was the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. In 1970 we signed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. That was followed in 1971 by the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. All sorts of events—and we can think of events such as the Olympic Games here—have created the necessity for these conventions. Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. That was signed in 1973. Another convention was signed in 1979 on the taking of hostages: the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. In 1980 the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was signed. In 1988 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation was signed. In Rome, also in 1988, there was the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. In 1997 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, in 1999 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and in 2005 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The only one that Australia is currently negotiating was one instigated in 1991—the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection—which is currently being considered by the Australian government. I would contend that, good as this intention is, there is a range of conventions already in place. There are good definitions being sought. Australia has excellent definitions and is contributing towards the process of refining what is already occurring at the United Nations. I believe—and it is the view of the government—this new convention does not appear to add anything to what is already being done. There is already a comprehensive convention and it seeks to strengthen the international legal framework to combat terrorism, and that is in place. 74 17:31:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I wish I could say the member for Mitchell was right, but he is wrong. There are two key reasons why the member for Mitchell misunderstands what this motion by the member for Barton, Mr McClelland, is about. The first—and he shares this with a number of people on the government side—is he has no faith in and no fundamental commitment to the United Nations as an agency for binding together the varied nations of this earth to take concerted action. Why is this asking for an international and binding convention? So that it can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague; not so that Australia, Britain, France or any other individual country would have to do the work on its own and have no International Criminal Court to seek to take these matters to. In relation to genocide in the Balkans, Milosevic was able to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague and to be brought to justice because of the crimes in relation to genocide whilst he was in charge of his country and the crimes that he perpetrated. It is a simple proposition. We live in a world that is composed not of individual countries that have no relationship to each other but of individual countries bound together in the United Nations. They can, if they sign up to an international convention, then try not just to outlaw but to take positive action against people who are associated, firstly, with genocide. That is how the international convention works in relation to that. Secondly, as the member for Barton and shadow minister for defence has argued, it is something novel, not historically but in terms of an international convention on suicide terrorism, that we should establish this in order to allow all the serried countries of the world to go to the International Criminal Court at The Hague and seek to prosecute not just the people who engage in suicide terrorism—if they are successful, they are dead—but the people who are supportive of them, those people involved with the education of youth or those religious and political leaders who make statements and give encouragement. We are dealing with the matter of inflammatory material broadcast by media outlets and made available on internet websites. This motion goes not only to those people who aid and abet attempts at suicide terrorism but also to the key issue: so far, we do not have a single convention that focuses totally on suicide terrorism and these associated activities that allow it to happen. We cannot take a single head of state to task before the International Court of Justice in The Hague because we do not have a convention that would pin them to it. You can do that in relation to genocide but you cannot do it in relation to suicide terrorism. If you look specifically at what is proposed here, section 2(b)(iii) says: ... be punishable against constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals in the same form as Article 4 of the Genocide Convention What the member for Mitchell misunderstands—and I am sure certain other members of the government would not misunderstand, including the chair of the defence committee—is that the series of conventions already in operation, which he iterated, from the early 1970s on were in response largely to single incidents or campaigns of terrorism. These go right back to suicide terrorists who had grabbed a plane and said: ‘Okay, we’ll take the plane. We’ve got all these people—we’ll hold them hostage.’ They either operated in airports or on planes. A lot of that went back to Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Most of those conventions were in relation to those individual attempts. This says there is a new category. We have seen that particularly in the last five years in Iraq, Palestine, Israel and elsewhere. We need a new mechanism to tie it together and to bring it to justice at the International Criminal Court. 75 17:36:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to talk about a motion put forward by the member for Barton relating to suicide terrorism and its lethal nature. Not only has suicide terrorism become more prevalent, it is a senseless waste of innocent human life. Suicide terrorism, and indeed all forms of terrorism, is certainly something this government condemns. We are committed to playing our role in combating terrorism wherever it occurs in the world. There are two parts to this motion. I support the first element, which is calling on the House to note the dreadful nature of suicide terrorism and its increase around the world. But I do have a problem, as other members on this side of the House have spoken about, with the second element. Let me explain the reasons for that for the benefit of the House. This government has developed a strong holistic legal framework to meet the new terrorism threats which have emerged since 9/11 and which focuses on deterring terrorists from Australia and apprehending terrorists and punishing the perpetrators of terrorism. The Criminal Code also makes it an offence to engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or otherwise support terrorist activities. The government has also defined a terrorist act in the Criminal Code Act—and the member for Mitchell outlined those words and I want to repeat them: … an action or threat of action that causes serious physical harm or death to a person; or endangers a person’s life; or creates a serious risk to public health or safety; or causes serious damage to property; or seriously interferes with, disrupts or destroys an electronic system with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and with the intention of coercing or influencing by intimidation the government of Australia or a foreign government, or intimidating the public. This definition has been supported by the Security Legislation Review Committee in its report of June this year. To further illustrate the government’s commitment to fighting terrorism, there are 13 international conventions on terrorism, of which Australia is signatory to 12. Currently, this government is also taking steps, as a matter of priority, to sign the treaty which relates to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. That was a treaty discussed in Montreal as far back as 1991. We have also introduced legislation to parliament implementing the obligations under the convention on 7 September 2006. These international conventions cover all types of terrorist acts and behaviours and do not single out specific acts of terrorism like suicide. Because suicide terrorism is extremely specific in its actual nature, defining it in legislation would set a precedent for motions like this to be brought forward in the future to define all specific acts of terrorism. In any event, the Criminal Code covers all conceivable acts of terrorism, and I believe that this is adequate. The more definitions described in legislation, the easier it will become for new acts of terrorism—ones that we have never seen or even thought of before—to fall outside the definition in the legislation. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 76 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 76 76 17:40:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —I rise tonight to talk about an issue that is vexing our community in the suburbs, in the cities and in our rural and regional areas—that is, the effects of global warming. For some time I was lukewarm on the issue of human induced climate change. I knew, for example, that the world’s leading climate scientists were predicting changes—a few degrees here, sea level rises there—but, despite these warnings, I still thought things would sort themselves out sooner or later. It was not until last week that the evidence of climate change stopped me in my tracks. East of my electorate, Gippsland was ablaze with temperatures in the mid-thirties—well above the average for early October—and wind speeds reaching 100 kilometres per hour. Firefighters had an unenviable task of taming some of Victoria’s 40 fires. And three other states have declared themselves in extreme fire danger some six weeks earlier than at the same time last year. Other extreme weather events that I have witnessed this year include: two category 4 cyclones—which resulted in bananas on the shelves at my local Coles costing $14 a kilo—one of the worst snow seasons on record; water stresses in our cities; unseasonable snap frosts devastating stone fruit crops; a relentless El Nino, lowering most grain yields; and, now, according to the Treasurer, we are officially in the worst drought ever. If all of these things were written into a Hollywood movie, they would end up being on the cutting room floor for being far too fantastical. Yet, these examples are happening here in Australia, and they are happening now. Human induced global warming and its resultant changes to our climate system is no longer an intellectual issue discussed by urban greenies—it is mainstream; it is empirical and it is happening now. I get it, Labor gets it and an overwhelming number of Australians also get it. The recently released annual Lowy Institute poll reveals Australian concern over global warming to be the big sleeper of national affairs—a problem that worries Australians more than Islamic fundamentalism. The poll found that Australians ranked improving the global environment as the top foreign policy goal and that respondents strongly believed that the federal government should now be taking steps to tackle global warming, regardless of what costs are involved. Australian public convictions on climate change have crept up on the government and have now overtaken it. This is clearly demonstrated by public interest and awareness, apparently, in mainstream media where, for example, Channel 7’s Sunrise program—which my daughter and I watch religiously every morning—has initiated a Cool the Globe campaign. To date, over 40,000 viewers have signed the petition to stop the Howard government slashing solar electricity rebates in its plan to phase them out completely in mid-2007. But John Howard chooses to ignore what Australians believe is important to their role in global warming, having stated that he is sceptical about the gloomy predictions. However, the gloomy predictions are fast becoming a reality whilst John Howard dismisses expert opinion, preferring to follow suit with America in refusing to sign the Kyoto protocol. In 2000, among other timely commitments to addressing climate change, Labor committed to ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Although only a small step in helping reduce greenhouse pollution globally, it remains a significant symbol of international diplomacy and one to which Labor remains committed, very much like the chlorofluorocarbon signal that was sent which changed how major manufacturers used chlorofluorocarbons. The government says that, if Australia ratifies the Kyoto protocol, Australian jobs will be lost to places without the same market conditions such as India and China. From what I can see, Australian jobs are going to these countries largely because the government has failed to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is evident in the fact that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, will officially open a wind farm of an Australian company, Roaring Forties, worth over $300 million in China tomorrow. Three months ago this same company stated that it could not afford to go ahead with wind power projects in Tasmania and South Australia due to a lack of support from the federal government. Roaring Forties wind farms in Tasmania and South Australia alone were worth $550 million and had the potential to create 200 full-time jobs—jobs that will now be created in China. The Howard government’s policies have lost hundreds of jobs, stalling the development of the renewable energy industry in Australia, and this opening is going to add further insult to injury. John Howard’s policies are closing renewable energy projects, but he dismisses this fact, in my view, through sheer arrogance. Just today the Prime Minister failed to identify any other country where renewable energy companies are closing despite the undisputed fact that the only way Australian companies can access investment under the Kyoto protocol is to set up offices in other countries that have ratified the protocol such as New Zealand and Fiji. How can he claim to offer other alternatives to renewable projects, and subsequently Australian jobs, when he chooses to allow our companies, like Roaring Forties, to set up in China? John Howard knows that closing the solar rebate program and freezing other energy initiatives will kill Australian jobs. Being locked out of the protocol’s mechanisms means Australians are unable to create worthwhile business opportunities from reducing greenhouse pollution. As an example, if Australia had ratified the Kyoto protocol, farmers would be able to claim large financial rewards for permanent revegetation projects. How? By selling to Kyoto countries, and their companies, credits created by locking up carbon in trees and soil. But, under the Howard government, farmers miss out yet again. In a similar way, any local business, even a school, that undertook an energy efficiency upgrade could sell its carbon credits into a carbon market and be financially rewarded for its efforts. In the first half of this year the European carbon market was worth $15 billion. The government’s continued isolationist position on international action is stopping Australian businesses accessing global markets and it means that jobs in new markets—the markets of the future; the jobs of the future—are being created offshore and not here in cities, suburbs or regions. So where are all the opportunities arising if not in Australia? Some 60 per cent of the world’s 40 million household solar hot water systems are in China. Chinese companies are currently building solar equipment factories in the US and other countries worldwide. Why isn’t Australia doing this? Brazil is a world leader on ethanol production, requiring 100 per cent of gasoline to be blended with ethanol. Indonesia has set a 10 per cent biofuels target by 2010. India ranks a global fourth after Germany, Spain and the US with 3,595 megawatts of wind power—three per cent of its overall energy supply. Of course, business strategies in these countries did not change overnight. Their governments introduced policies to phase in emissions targets and low carbon technologies, creating massive opportunities for local labour markets and export growth. The disappointing element of this is that Australia was once a leader in solar power, but is no longer. We were poised to become the wind power manufacturing hub of Asia. Now we are looking at importing our first wind turbines from China in 2007. What are we doing in Australia? We are assembling V8 and four-wheel-drive cars, and we are very good at that—we have a very good car manufacturing industry—but what about hybrid cars? Is the government procuring efficient cars? No, it is not. What does this all mean for a suburban electorate like mine? Ultimately, it means that fruit and vegetable prices are moving up, there are higher energy prices, sudden industry adjustments are hurting specific communities and there are water restrictions. With water shortages, of course, comes the consumption of even more greenhouse polluting energy to extract, purify and transport water to areas needing it. There is a lack of options for householders to tackle their own emissions. They are purchasing imported cars because they are more efficient than our own home-grown ones The Labor Party has a plan to reverse this, to do something about it, and it wants to reverse the upward trend of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the government’s rhetoric that we are one of the biggest spenders on reducing greenhouse pollution, our emissions continue to spiral out of control. After a spend of over a billion dollars, voters would expect some results. What do we need to do? Labor wants to stimulate innovation. That is why the ALP’s greenhouse package includes a cap on carbon supported by a national emissions trading scheme—a market instrument for stimulating private sector innovation and helping Australia find least-cost, prompt solutions for reversing the upward trend in greenhouse pollution. That is why in the 2004 election Labor committed to a five per cent renewable energy target, well above the government’s paltry two per cent. It is not a smart way of building business confidence. There has been some discussion about whether or not the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and these more efficient forms of energy consumption will cost more. Not necessarily. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change commissioned research which shows that delaying action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be more costly and concentrated over a much shorter period, leading to a major disruptive shock to the Australian economy. (Time expired) 79 79 17:51:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I grieve for the Indigenous people of Palm Island. Palm Island is an Indigenous community off the coast of Townsville in my electorate. There are about 3,500 people on Palm Island. Exactly how many people there are at any given time no-one knows. There are probably, at the most, 150 houses. Where people live, no-one knows. The Palm Island community originated through policies of the Queensland government many years ago where up to 50 different tribes were relocated to the island. There has been difficulty ever since. Not so long ago there was some very nasty rioting on the island and the island’s police station was burnt to the ground. The rioting occurred because one of the Palm Islanders died in custody. There has since been a coronial inquiry that has made certain findings and that has caused the Indigenous community to have a fairly direct reaction. But there are dark clouds on the horizon. The matter is not finished by a long way. In fact, things will get worse before they get better—if ever they get better—hence my grieving for the people of Palm Island. The process from here is that the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions will decide whether the police officers involved have a case to answer and whether they should be charged with something. The Queensland DPP is a fiercely independent person who has a clear track record of deciding cases on their merits, not on emotionalism, political direction or whatever else. She is a highly professional lady. It is entirely possible that the Queensland DPP will decide not to prosecute this particular case. We could then well see another riot on Palm Island. The people of Palm Island are very pleased to see the coroner’s finding, but a coroner’s court finding is entirely different to having a charge laid against you and it being heard by the normal court process. In a coroner’s court, hearsay evidence can be admitted, but it cannot be in the other court system. It could well be that there is not enough evidence to find or even initiate a charge. But, even if a charge were initiated and a court case came to its conclusion, it may well be that the police officer or officers involved would be found not guilty. And, again, we may well see another riot in Palm Island. I plead with the people of Palm Island: in your own interest, focus on the main game. Do not focus on the emotionalism of all of this. Do not focus on the black racism that is occurring on Palm Island. Do not focus on a hatred of the Queensland Police Service. Focus on why Mulrunji died in the first place. Why was he so full of alcohol? Why was it? What is wrong with Palm Island? Why is there so much domestic violence? Why is there so much alcoholism when there does not need to be? Fix the problem. Look at what other Indigenous communities can do. Look at Warburton in Western Australia. There is not a millilitre of alcohol in that community and they are a very happy and very cohesive community. They are proud of their Aboriginality; you cannot say that of Palm Island. Palm Island is a hopeless, dysfunctional community. I grieve that, in 100 years time, it will be the same unless the Indigenous leadership takes some responsibility and action to stop looking backwards and to look forward and to do something about it. After the riots, the Beattie government instituted a future directions report. I am really disappointed that it is now claimed that that report, with its 32 recommendations, has been shelved. In fact, after the recent re-election of the Beattie government, the stand-alone Indigenous affairs ministry was dumped. It was absorbed into the Department of Communities. We will now lose sight of all of that. The report’s recommendations wanted to bring governments, the community and the council to the table to negotiate and to tackle issues such as land tenure, housing shortages, unemployment and policing. The two key issues there of course are land tenure and policing. There has to be respect, rule of law and proper governance in these communities, but there also has to be the opportunity for Indigenous Australians to own their own little piece of land and not live in a soviet society. That cannot happen on Palm Island. People aspire to that on the island, but the Beattie government will not discuss land tenure. Certainly, the federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, has been talking a lot about that in the Northern Territory and has been warmly applauded for adopting a particular policy. If there were land tenure, people could deal in their land, and that would bring a bit of integration between the mainland and the island. It would enable people who could run businesses to take advantage of the many fabulous attributes of an idyllic, beautiful island in the Barrier Reef lagoon. That would bring jobs and solve the unemployment problem. At the moment, on Palm Island, there is no prospect of any more jobs. The Indigenous community has no self-respect. It drinks away its sorrows. I am telling this parliament that if the community does not adopt a leadership it will be existing in the same way in 100 years time. What a terrible way to live your life. Indigenous Australians are just as capable as any other Australian of a very high level of achievement. We have seen many Indigenous Australians who become doctors, advocates to government and policymakers, and they do very well. There is the view that if you are an Indigenous Australian you will never succeed. That is rubbish. But Palm Island and its residents will never succeed until rule of law, governance, policing, land tenure and the like are addressed in a meaningful way to get an outcome. I call on the people of Palm Island and their leadership to recognise that if they do not do something about it now their people, their children and their children’s children will face an absolutely awful fate. 80 80 18:00:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —The recent foray of the Minister for Education, Science and Training into the development of a national curriculum once again sparked the debate about federalism and the modern role of the Commonwealth government in areas ordinarily considered to be the primary responsibility of the states and territories. This is not the first time that members of this government have decided it is okay to extend their reach beyond their traditional areas of public policy. In fact, extending beyond the boundaries of the responsibilities of the Commonwealth has become a default position for many members opposite, particularly, as I see it, those in New South Wales. It seems to me that whenever a New South Wales coalition member gets into political hot water or is less than enthusiastic about promoting the decisions of their own government they grab for any policy area and try to launch an attack on state or local governments. You need only to look at some of the suburban newspapers, particularly in the south-west and the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney, in the weeks following a tough week for this government. You invariably find articles in which federal Liberal members attack the New South Wales government or their local council over one thing or another. They just cannot help themselves. I think you will find that after this week the same thing will replicate itself in local newspapers. When asked about their views and the concerns of their constituents when it comes to the government’s extreme industrial relations laws, they quickly respond by criticising state governments for holding back employment growth, an attack that any reasonable person would simply know is just not true. This is just a diversion. When it comes to overreacting on state issues, the actions of this government are, I have to say, second to none. This government has systematically set about introducing programs that allow members to inject themselves into state debates and areas of state or local government responsibilities. I will take you through a few of those. For instance, there is the Investing in our Schools program, a program aimed, quite frankly, at nothing more than handing out cheques to local schools. It is a requirement that any opening ceremony of capital works that have been funded must be conducted by a coalition member. That ensures two media hits. While the spending is welcome, it is widely acknowledged by local school communities that the deeper agenda for this program is allowing coalition members to sprout about how much the federal government is investing in capital works in schools and using it to look good on education spending, while it cuts money from the education budget at every other opportunity. There is no point in reminding you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when this government came to power it cut eight per cent in real terms from education budgets. It is quite clear that this is less than a covert attempt to prop up the poor cousins that the Liberal Party has in oppositions in every state and territory around this country. Then we come to the flagpoles program, which is nothing more than another photo opportunity for coalition members. It is a requirement under this government that a coalition member be in attendance for the dedication of a flagpole, notwithstanding the fact that it may not have been in their electorate. We could go on. There is the Australian technical colleges program—the poor cousin of the state TAFE system, no doubt, but it allows for government members to say that they support technical education while trying to cut funding to state governments in relation to technical and further education. So much for their commitment to the skills shortage, although I do know that Mr Hockey did not see that there was a skills shortage the other day. Road funding is also used by the federal government, using the power of the almighty dollar, to force other levels of government to undertake expenditure by holding the funding gun at their heads. I have had direct experience with seeing what the government has done with its road funding in my electorate. The federal government forced the Campbelltown City Council to introduce a special funding levy for the Hume Highway on and off ramps at Ingleburn, simply because it paid only two-thirds of the construction cost. The ramps connect a very important part of business to a national highway. The federal government has always conceded that the Hume was its responsibility; nevertheless it forced the council to raise a special funding levy on local businesses. If they had not done that, the alternative was that these ramps would not have been built at all. When the federal government was criticised by the mayor for its approach to road funding, the member for Macarthur responded on behalf of the government by saying: They’re embarrassing. I work hard to get funding and when I do ... they can’t get anything done. When the very same member was asked to get full funding for the Ingleburn on and off ramps, his response was to blame the state government. The Hume is not a state funded road. This is a federally funded road, one that this government has total responsibility for but for which this government wanted to blame the state government. I find it interesting that, whenever there is a question about the adequacy—or rather the inadequacy—of federal government infrastructure spending, suddenly it becomes the fault of the states or territories. Once again the approach of this government is to accept the accolades when it is good news but blame the bad news on somebody else, whether it be the states, councils, the Reserve Bank, in terms of interest rates, or whoever. The member for Macarthur is not alone when it comes to using the state government or local council to deflect attention. Other serial offenders include the member for Lindsay, the member for Macquarie, the member for Dobell, the member for Wentworth and the member for Paterson. They have made it almost a pattern of behaviour to deflect criticism from their handling of their responsibilities for local, electoral and federal issues by initiating issues against other areas of government. The single greatest contributing factor to the problems of state and federal relations is the vertical fiscal imbalance. It is not a new problem but it is one that clearly so many members opposite are just completely unaware of. While members opposite attack state governments or, in the most extreme cases, their local councils, they stop short of calling on their federal colleagues to loosen the purse strings. Members talk tough in their local media yet they must be like mice when they get to the party room. At the core of their desire is their own political longevity. Naturally, when attacked about the lack of action on the part of the Commonwealth, their rapid response is that everyone should be working together, conveniently forgetting their previous contributions to local public policy debates. The Treasurer has recently complained that the current state of play means that the Commonwealth writes a cheque and hopes that things get done. The Treasurer may criticise this approach but it seems to be the preferred approach of most of his coalition colleagues, provided it allows for media opportunities. This just builds further foundations, quite frankly, for deteriorating state and federal funding relationships. When making funding decisions, it seems that little consideration is given to the performance of local community groups and little recognition is given to the need for consistency. Rather, consideration is given to the media opportunities that funding may present for the local coalition member. To simply defer funds or wind up funds for one project to initiate the replacement in another allows local coalition members the opportunity to trot out the cheque and claim that this is a new initiative. Changing the organisation, which is often highly detrimental to those dependent on the service, presents another photo opportunity, and that is what this is all about. Probably the most succinct summary of the approach of this government to governing was given by the member for Macarthur recently. While comments were made in respect of the proposed Badgerys Creek airport, the member for Macarthur told the Penrith Press on 7 July: We’re in government to govern, but no one’s prepared to make a decision. What I’m interested in is facts and good policy decisions, and we’re not getting that at the moment. I could not agree with the member for Macarthur more. (Time expired) 83 83 18:10:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon in the grievance debate to talk about a topic which I know is at the very forefront of the minds of many members of the House. I know that this issue is impacting on many of my rural and remote communities in Maranoa. Many people know that I represent a landmass in Queensland that is just under 50 per cent of the landmass of Queensland. There is a huge network of roads across my electorate, from the remote parts to what we call the inner suburban areas in the Darling Downs—not suburban in the context of the ACT, Sydney or Brisbane but certainly suburban by any criteria you can measure it against, such as in places like Birdsville, Bedourie and Windorah in the outback of my electorate. Roads in any community are a vital link. They are a vital link for access to education, commerce, health, social interaction and tourism for those communities. They are the very conduit that brings economic activity to any community. Many of the roads in the outback of my electorate remain unsealed. They are generally main road responsibilities of the state of Queensland. We know that the state Labor government have very little regard for the people who live anywhere west of the Great Dividing Range. They are paying little attention. Although I must admit they have put some money into some of these roads, it is not enough to make the big difference we require in this part of my electorate. The local councils themselves are putting all of the money they receive from this government under the Roads to Recovery program into those roads to try to extend the bitumen on what has been dirt roads since the original settlement took place out in the outback of my electorate. One of the initiatives of a previous coalition government was the establishment of beef roads in outback and north-west Queensland. Those roads have made a tremendous difference to the beef industry but, unfortunately, those roads were only partly completed because the coalition lost government, which ended that program back in 1974. So in many parts of the outback in my electorate there has not been any great program to extend sealed road access to these towns since 1974. We have tourism playing an increasingly important role in the economies of these communities as people seek to discover the wonders of outback Australia and all that it has to offer. The great early poets of Australia, such as Lawson or Paterson, described it more adequately than I can. All of that spirit and beauty of the outback is captured in the outback of my electorate. But the people who visit it and see it find themselves on many dirt roads. Unfortunately, the people who travel out there have not had the experience of driving on dirt roads and on some occasions they find themselves in difficulty on these roads. In fact, nearly every week there will be a rollover on the road going west of Windorah to Birdsville because of the state of the roads, notwithstanding that the local councils out there are putting all the resources that they can muster, out of our Roads to Recovery money and their own rates revenue, into those roads. The other aspect of these roads out in the outback of my electorate is the fact that the beef industry rely on being able to get their products into these remote communities in the Channel Country and get them back out. In fact, in many ways there is an environmental aspect to having good roads, because when droughts occur in that part of my electorate the important thing is to be able to get the cattle out of the Channel Country, out of the affected areas, to relieve the stock pressure on that land. If you do not have a good road, you cannot get the cattle out. You only have to read any early history of the outback and of Sir Sidney Kidman’s pursuits as a pastoralist. He went out of the outback and he bought many large properties in the Channel Country but, unfortunately, when drought set in in those days they were unable to get the cattle out. There was no grass and there was no water. The waterholes were drying up and they did not have roads. I am sure the member for Mitchell can recall that program for the beef roads, which ended in 1974— SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr Cadman —Yes, I can. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —because I am sure he was in the parliament at that time; he may correct me. It started the process of putting the ‘blacktop’, we call it, out into that part of my electorate so that people could get their cattle in and get them out when the seasons turned against them. So there is a very important environmental aspect to having good roads and being able to bring your cattle in and take them out rather than leave them there to die because you are unable to move them in their weakened state. Out there, you do not know when the season may turn in your favour. There is another aspect to the outback of my electorate, and that is the oil and gas industry. We all know the importance of oil to our nation and to the world. Out in the outback of my electorate, in the Cooper Basin and the Jackson oilfields, the oil company Santos will be drilling some 1,000 holes over the next two years looking for oil. They have taken huge machinery out there to drill these holes for oil, which is going to benefit our nation and the economy as a whole. They take these huge machines over what could be described as little more than a road you might expect to see in a Third World country, a dirt road with gibbers and stones on it and huge bulldust patches on it. I believe we can do better as a country and a government, because that oil is vital to us. It creates jobs and it creates wealth when they are out there in the remote part of my electorate, west of Thargomindah and Eromanga, drilling for oil. Also, it is the home of the great gas reserves of this nation. The Moomba gas fields and the Jackson and Ballera gas fields feed gas into Brisbane, Townsville, Mount Isa, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne. These companies have got to not only explore for more but maintain the installations out there. So any money that we were to put into upgrading these roads would benefit not just the people who live there, the beef industry out there and the tourists who visit the outback but also the oil and gas industry, which is a vital industry, so that we can continue to find more of the energy reserves that we need in Australia and find gas that we can export to overseas markets and create export wealth. So I say as I rise in this House today that, as a government—and I am proud to be part of a government that has addressed the economic and the budget situation that we inherited; we have one of the strongest economies in the world—it is time that we now focused on more infrastructure spending, be it road or rail, to ensure that the legacy that we leave to future generations is going to bring a benefit to the communities who live in these parts of the world, in these wealth-creating areas of our nation. I refer today to the Diamantina Development Road between Windorah and Bedourie and the Birdsville road from Windorah to Birdsville. I also refer to the road from Thargomindah right out to Innamincka, feeding into the Moomba oil and gas fields. They are dirt roads. I would like to see more money made available through our strategic Roads to Recovery program. I would like to create another category of strategic rural development roads, because we are talking about the development of the outback. We are talking about development that is essential in the long term to assist in growing our nation. In the remaining time, which has nearly expired, I commend the programs that we have in place now, spending some $15 billion through the AusLink program. I have spoken to the new incoming Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister about this issue. There are other roads of strategic importance in my electorate, such as the Mitchell to Roma road, which if it were widened would allow type 2 road trains to travel on it, bringing cattle into the markets in Roma. I will be pushing hard over the coming months to get more money for roads for my electorate. (Time expired) 10000 Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Before I call the honourable member for Gorton, I might just say to the honourable member for Maranoa that I had the privilege of visiting your electorate today on the Next G wireless network that is throughout your electorate. I was able to visit a cattle property and see the dam, turn on pumps and so on, through the new Telstra system. It was great. 85 85 18:20:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope I am not interfering in your conversation with the previous member, but I understand your sentiments. Can I turn to the matter before me and the grievance I have to raise this evening. This week is Anti-Poverty Week and tomorrow is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Therefore, it is timely to assess the effectiveness of the Millennium Development Goals. They are, of course, noble and well intentioned, but looking at the progress towards those targets I have to say it is very unlikely that any of them will be reached by 2015. Some say that is partly because not enough support is provided, and that may well be true. This might have some validity, but we need to challenge the types of solutions proposed. Don’t get me wrong—I join with others who, in debating a private member’s motion today, were criticising the shortfall of support provided by the Howard government, but I think it is important that we get the prescriptions right. Let us dispassionately determine the best approach. When measuring the likely success of the Millennium Development Goals we must apply some simple economic principles. In my view, it is an application requiring a soft heart and a hard head. I am not convinced of the economic prescription of, for want of a better term, the Geldof–Bono bunch, but they have an important role: they highlight the plight of the poor and the starving throughout the world, they inspire citizens of wealthy nations to acts of generosity and tell them its their problem as much as anyone’s. But it is far more important that the actions of Australia and of the international community are guided by hard-headed analysis and by an honest look at the evidence. It must be said that sub-Saharan Africa’s progress towards the MDGs is lagging behind with respect to every single goal. Food insecurity is still high, universal primary education is the exception for many children and the health situation is inadequate, especially for birthing mothers and young children. This poor overall performance can mainly be explained by the poor economic performance in many African countries. In the 1990s the region experienced a decline in GDP per capita of 0.6 per cent per year. Even improved government regulations and policies cannot accomplish the task of reaching the MDGs with this weak economic performance. It is therefore crucial to face up to the possibility that foreign aid as it stands and the way that it is delivered might not be a sufficiently effective means of achieving MDG1. The growing consensus is that there is no relationship between foreign aid and economic growth. That raises three interesting issues. Why does aid fail? Why has the World Bank persisted in describing aid as growth oriented and what do we make of that persistence? And do the MDG aims or goals in some way avoid aid failure? Aid fails—insofar as there is no detectable systematic relationship between aid and growth—for several reasons. Aid can fail because of corruption. Aid can fail because it is of the wrong type. Thus no-one expects emergency humanitarian aid to effect economic growth. Similarly, no-one regards the massive US aid to Israel as having anything other than US foreign policy objectives. According to the Geldof-Bono view, aid fails because it has not been tried—that is, the reason for the failure of aid is that its magnitude has been grossly insufficient. But that last explanation really is unconvincing. There are many countries, for example Bangladesh, for which aid has been massive and sustained, and the development impact has been negligible. Finally, aid fails because aid is fungible—that is, it is interchangeable with similar items. I will use an example to illuminate that contention. Imagine that the recipient government intends to build a school. Imagine that the aid donor bears the cost of that. That frees government resources to, for instance, buy tanks and guns so that, in effect, the aid finances the purchase of the tanks and guns. More generally—and this remark applies particularly to program aid—aid might leak into tax cuts or lower tax effort, or into non-developmental programs and objectives. Second, why has the World Bank persisted in describing aid as growth oriented and what do we make of that persistence? The World Bank has focused its activities this past dozen years around a proposition, statistically buttressed by a now famous 1996 study, which seemed to show that, while aid fails on average, this average relationship conceals a pattern where aid works when accompanied by good governance and good economic policies and it fails badly when these conditions are not met. The truly disastrous news for the World Bank is that this complacent approach has been fundamentally and fatally undermined. The key statistical result is not robust to small variations in the data or in the method of measuring governance or policies. It is not robust. It is not reliable. It is, in retrospect, appalling that the World Bank based its activities so heavily on such a flawed foundation. Finally, do the Millennium Development Goals in some way avoid aid failure? There is good news and bad news here. The bad news is this: there is much in the statements surrounding the MDGs which attempts to elude the aid-growth problem and to assuage ‘Chicken Little’ environmentalists by saying that the goal is not growth but poverty reduction. I believe that is patent nonsense. As an aid community, we have no means of targeting income inequality in developing countries. We have never had any means of doing so. Growth is the only game in town. The only way in which you will get substantial numbers of people out of poverty is by growth. There are, to my knowledge, no historical counterexamples. Advocates of the view that this objective can be achieved through poverty reduction and not growth do a grave disservice to the aid effort with their claims to the contrary. The good news is this: imagine that we admit that aid is not always the best tool to produce economic growth. That is fine; we need other means. But what that argues for is a thoroughgoing reorientation of aid as a vehicle of international economic statecraft. We should stop trying to promote growth with aid and instead turn aid to the other MDGs, especially clean water, better healthcare, lower infant mortality. Carefully targeted and well-managed aid can improve these problems substantially. It is just not so good, apparently, at provoking sustained economic growth. I must raise the question of debt. There are circumstances in which international debt might constitute a debt trap. And there are circumstances in which it might be immoral to insist on debt service, particularly when debts were incurred by corrupt, oppressive, undemocratic regimes and when the funds were stolen by the regime leaders rather than invested for the benefit of the population. But it is important to apply sensible economic principles in the analysis of the role of debt cancellation. Three arguments can be made which indicate that debt cancellation might be of secondary importance. First, debt cancellation is weak aid. Debt cancellation is analogous to program aid, and program aid is probably the least effective form of aid. It is analogous in that debt cancellation frees resources for other uses in precisely the same way that program aid does. It is least effective because it carries the broadest scope for fungibility—that is, the interchangeability with similar items. I raised the example before about the way in which aid can pay for a school and governments then go on to spend that money on arms. Second, debt is not always bad. There is a compelling but utterly unconvincing analogy with personal debt which is made in much of the anti-poverty proposals—that is, that debt servicing is a drain on resources. But the analogy is not always convincing. PNG is a resource-rich, capital-poor country. To develop those resources requires access to a pool of capital. That pool is not generated domestically in PNG. Of necessity, PNG development requires international debt or some equivalent claim on part of the future stream of output. We see nations like PNG running up debt. That does not imply exploitation. It does not mean that resources are being wasted on debt service. The debt service is the price to be paid for the development which it permits. Third, debt is an imperfect resource allocation indicator. Development resources and effort should be guided by need and by scope or capacity for success. These things do not necessarily or even approximately correlate with indebtedness. The volume of foreign debt is a bad method to decide the allocation of resources between countries. It is an important week and it is important for us to assess the real methods we should use to eradicate poverty in this world. (Time expired) 87 87 18:31:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 1 0 Mr ENTSCH —On December 7 last year, I am proud to say that I voted for the Work Choices legislation in this chamber. I voted to support the legislation because I very strongly agree with the government’s position that Australia cannot afford to take its economic prosperity for granted. Just as today’s prosperity is a product of yesterday’s reforms, tomorrow’s prosperity can only be a product of today’s reforms. Despite the dire predictions by the union movement, there was no ‘green light for mass sackings’ and the sky did not fall in on workers. In fact, the figures tell a vastly different story. Since March 175,800 new jobs have been created—almost 85 per cent of those are full time; the unemployment rate in August was 4.9 per cent—near 30-year lows for the 4th consecutive measurement; participation rates spiked at a record 65.1 per cent; and real wages are up two per cent. The number of industrial disputes has fallen to 3.1 working days lost per 1,000 employees. That is the lowest rate since comparable statistics were first collected in 1970. No matter how many times the unions get caught out telling their little porkies, as we saw with the Cowra and Spotlight examples, they persist with their dishonest scare campaign. Unfortunately, this activity is not confined to the national arena. In my own electorate of Leichhardt, the Electrical Trades Union has taken up the call to arms with some gusto, with its campaign apparently supported and subsidised—and this is where I have a serious concern—by its major employer, the state owned instrumentality Ergon Energy. So far, we have had the Leader of the Opposition, ACTU President Sharan Burrow, Senator Penny Wong and our local ALP hopefuls all turn out in my electorate to rally the troops. I have been challenged to debate the new IR laws at times when it was known that I would not be in town. More recently, a so-called invitation demanding that I attend at a certain time and place turned up at my office without so much as a return contact number for RSVP purposes. Clearly, this is a political stunt, and I am certainly not going to dance to the unions’ tune. I remain unapologetic about refusing to be a part of it. I can understand the unions and the Labor Party wanting to push their own agendas, but the complicit approach taken by Ergon Energy, in my view, is a real concern. When I receive my bill from Ergon, it bothers me that my electricity account is going up by 3.3 per cent. How much of that increase is due to the current political activities of many of its employees? Ergon appears to have allowed itself to become involved. Despite apologetic overtures and assurances of a full investigation by Ergon Energy’s manager of regional services for northern operations, Geoff Bowes, to date I have had no formal response to my complaints. My office received verbal advice from Mr Bowes suggesting that he could find no evidence to support claims of inappropriate use of Ergon assets in union activity, despite being forwarded a resolution from an ETU meeting that was sent to me by union steward Stuart Traill during work hours from his Ergon email account. My office has also provided Mr Bowes with photographic evidence of the activities of their employees which included a photograph of 42 Ergon Energy vehicles, many of which had political slogans stuck on them, parked along Mulgrave Road during an ETU protest rally outside my electorate office in August. He also has photographs of unauthorised signage and posters which mysteriously found their way to the top of electrical poles amongst the power lines and high in palm trees on public land across Cairns—in defiance of local council rules, I might point out. They were fixed onto these poles by very thick cable ties, commonly used by the electrical workers. I note that these signs have even made their way down here to Canberra, obviously through the ETU campaign. It is little wonder some of my colleagues have been asking me how much I am paying these guys to help raise my profile on a national basis. It is just another example of the Queensland government putting its political ideology ahead of the delivery of essential services. As my colleagues would be aware, Queensland joined other state Labor governments earlier this year to fund a multimillion-dollar High Court challenge to the IR laws. Not content to wait for the outcome, Mr Beattie is now squandering more taxpayers’ dollars on a so-called inquiry into IR laws by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The first regional sitting was in Cairns a fortnight ago. I understand that just one independent witness—and I use the term ‘independent’ very loosely—appeared before it. While I do not begrudge that witness the right to put a case, I do wonder whether the Office of Workplace Services would have been a more meaningful way of having the matter dealt with. To me, the inquiry is just another taxpayer funded political stunt—a travelling roadshow designed to give the union mouthpieces up and down the Queensland coast a quick headline. I support workers and their right to be part of the trade union movement. As a former trade unionist—and I am very proud of it—I despair that never in the history of trade union leadership has it been so completely unrepresentative and contemptuous of its own membership. Just as the ACTU’s phoney advertising campaign has been exposed, I believe my constituents will see the ETU campaign as nothing more than a blatant, politically motivated exercise to win votes for the Labor Party. So far, despite all the publicity and my repeated offers to hear the concerns of individuals adversely impacted by government legislation, the ETU has not come forward with a single case. In fact, the only calls I have received were to congratulate me for not kowtowing to the bullyboy tactics of the ETU. One electrical contractor called to report his own experience of being singled out and branded a ‘government sympathiser’ when he had the temerity to suggest to his fellow contractors that they might like to negotiate their own enterprise bargaining agreement without the union. He was subjected to personal attacks and victimisation by the ETU. When he complained to his employer and this was passed on to Ergon Energy, again Ergon could find no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by the union. The man had to be moved off the site by his employer, and life has certainly been made very difficult for him ever since. This is the type of behaviour that we have come to expect from the unions and I certainly have no intention of participating in their media stunts. We have seen another classic example of bullyboy tactics, if you like, and dominance of the unions over the Labor Party in South Australia recently, where journalists who did not carry a union ticket were refused access to the opposition leader. That just shows you the extent to which the unions totally control the Labor Party. I think it is a damning example of that sort of control and it is something that I think the broader Australian community finds grossly inappropriate. I have said quite openly to these union activists that my door is always open to any employee—or any employer, for that matter—who feels that they have been disadvantaged under the new legislation. To date I have received none. Absolutely none have come through my door to raise issues about it. I believe Australian workplaces deserve better than the lowest common denominator available under the old system of compulsory collective bargaining. Work Choices, in my view, gives employees and employers an opportunity to achieve just that. 89 89 18:40:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —In 2003 and 2004, Ms Sonja Scherer worked for the Sydney area consultative committee known as GROW. In May 2003, her chief executive officer, Mr Paul Goodwin, asked Sonja Scherer to get $30,000 for her budget for corporate social responsibility work through arrangements with the marketing manager and to remove money from several different line items in such a way that the Department of Transport and Regional Services would not detect it. She refused to do so. Mr Goodwin told her to forget it and that he would deal with it. On 18 July 2003, Sonja Scherer and Paul Goodwin met with Will Jones from the Marine Discovery Centre in Bondi, Sydney. Mr Goodwin instructed Ms Scherer to assist Mr Jones to obtain $500,000 in funding for this project. On 23 July, Sonja Scherer discussed the project with Mr Jones further. Mr Jones produced a contract between himself and the Marine Discovery Centre which worried Ms Scherer because it said that income, including grants, to the Marine Discovery Centre could be used to repay outstanding consultancy fees to Mr Jones personally. Ms Scherer formed the view that the contract was retrospective and involved repaying a debt to Mr Jones which the Marine Discovery Centre was accumulating. She believed the Department of Transport and Regional Services would not fund the project, as it was repaying a debt and this was not allowed under the criteria. On 28 July, she told her CEO, Paul Goodwin, about the contract. Mr Goodwin said, ‘Well, you don’t have to mention the contract.’ Ms Scherer said: ‘Yes, I do. I have to inform the department of anything I know.’ Mr Goodwin asked, ‘Have you informed them?’ He later said: ‘Leave it with me, but don’t say anything to anyone. This is an important project for the region for Peter King, and he supports the project so we should make sure it gets the funding.’ At the time, Peter King was the Liberal member for Wentworth. This conversation is evidence of Mr Goodwin’s willingness to withhold information from and deceive the Department of Transport and Regional Services, and for an apparently political motive. Later that day Mr Goodwin told Ms Scherer to develop a business plan for the corporate social responsibility side of her job, and said, ‘I’ll look after Marine Discovery for you in the meantime.’ He gave her one week to complete the task then did not read the plan after she handed it in. In September 2003 Sonja Scherer informed Paul Goodwin that she had had several meetings with a Mr Larcombe from Liverpool council and was working with him on a hub for the area. Mr Goodwin listened and then said, ‘Good, good—but just leave that for a moment and concentrate on Macarthur.’ This smells of political bias by Mr Goodwin in favour of Liberal-held electorates. Liverpool council is not Liberal, but Macarthur is. On 18 September Mr Goodwin and Ms Scherer discussed projects for the Macarthur area. Paul Goodwin said: ‘The projects need some work to make them fit the criteria and I am sure you’ll be able to do that—just do it so that the project fits the criteria. This is a good project and important for Macarthur. Pat Farmer supports the idea and we need to support this project.’ Paul Goodwin suggested that Ms Scherer just put down a figure in terms of council support for the project, without supporting information. On 1 October Paul Goodwin asked Sonja Scherer how the Macarthur projects were coming along. Sonja said she was waiting for a marketing and business plan for the Cedar Creek apple orchard project. Paul Goodwin said: ‘Can’t you do it? Can’t you write the marketing and business plan?’ Sonja said she could not; she would not know what their plans were. Later, on 27 October, they visited the apple orchard, where Paul Goodwin told the Cedar Creek people that Sonja would make sure that the project got through—that is, get Regional Partnerships funding. Afterwards, Sonja reproached him for promising she would get the project funded, as she did not think it was a viable project. Paul Goodwin said, ‘Just put down the information needed to get it through.’ Early in November Ms Scherer visited the member for Macarthur and expressed concern about the viability of some of the applications for Regional Partnerships funding coming from Macarthur. Either the member for Macarthur or his electorate staffer Gavin Melvin advised Mr Goodwin of this visit. Paul Goodwin then summoned Sonja Scherer on 18 November, attacked her for visiting the member for Macarthur and ordered her not to do so in future. Later in November there was a staff meeting which considered, among other projects, an application from Christine Gibbs-Stewart, who was a board member of GROW and an employee of the New South Wales business lobby group Australian Business Ltd, put forward on behalf of Australian Business Lawyers. One GROW employee, Claudine Moutou, suggested that the application represented a conflict of interest. Sonja Scherer said she thought the project represented an attempt by ABL to get money for work it was supposed to do already with its membership subscriptions. After the meeting Paul Goodwin again attacked her, saying that ABL were good people helping other people and telling Sonja, ‘Do what I say or there is no future for you here.’ On 2 December 2003, Paul Goodwin said he was rearranging her job, taking her out of Macarthur and downgrading her job and her salary. Sonja was made redundant on 14 August 2004, but her position was readvertised weeks afterwards. Given that what I have just outlined indicates that Paul Goodwin is unfit to hold the position of CEO of GROW, it would hardly be surprising if he were to deny much of what I have just said. As it happens, however, I have sighted a series of emails from within GROW which reinforce my concerns. First, there is a list of members of the various GROW teams, and it shows that a majority of the Regional Partnerships projects recommended for funding by the Sydney area consultative committee—known as GROW Employment Council—involved projects put forward by GROW board members and their associates. This problem of insider trading was exacerbated by the farcical handling of conflict of interest issues within GROW, as my second set of emails shows. The GROW Project Prioritisation Board Subcommittee meeting of 18 November 2003 had just three members present. Mr Griff Lewis told the committee that the first application to be considered was from the GROW team of which he was a member. The committee resolved that there was no conflict of interest and recommended the project. Christine Gibbs-Stewart said that the second application was from her organisation, Australian Business Ltd. It was agreed she should leave the meeting when it was being considered. That recommendation was deferred for a month. Christine again left the room and the project was recommended by the other three members. An earlier email from Christine Gibbs-Stewart to Paul Goodwin of 16 October proposing the project said: Hi Paul, I am taking off my Board member hat and putting on my ABL hat—We have an idea for a project for GROW funding. She outlines the project and then says: Now I am putting on my Board member hat. Other emails I have show that other staff members also had concerns. We now know how Regional Partnerships, sired by the member for Gwydir out of a desire to ward off Pauline Hanson and One Nation, degenerated in Queensland into a National Party slush fund and is now known as ‘regional rorts’. But in Sydney it has been no better. It has been riddled with conflicts of interest and insider trading. There was no action taken by the minister, the department or the area consultative committees to promote or publicise Regional Partnerships to ensure that funding applications were not limited to those in the know. The Department of Transport and Regional Services made no independent check of applications recommended by area consultative committees to satisfy itself that conflict of interest issues had been properly resolved. And poor Sonja Scherer, whose biggest mistake was to take seriously what she heard at a departmental training session in July 2003 about probity and due process in handling grant applications, ended up with the sack. She would not fabricate information on projects as her CEO demanded. To add insult to injury, she lodged an unfair dismissal claim in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and it was defended for GROW by none other than ABL. I note that their managing director, Mark Bethwaite, has now become the federal treasurer of the Liberal Party. What needs to be done to right this sorry state of affairs? Firstly, we need better whistleblower protection—or, as it is now better known, public interest disclosure legislation. The experience has been devastating for Sonja Scherer, who has not worked since. It is not easy when you cannot produce a reference from your previous boss. Secondly, this case needs to be added to the Auditor-General’s investigation of Regional Partnerships. It is now important that the Auditor-General examines the projects to which I have referred. Thirdly, there is a need for a proper resolution of conflicts of interest. The kind of situation where three board members sit down and approve each other’s projects does not cut it, whether or not people leave the room while their particular project is being discussed. The government failed woefully to deal with these issues. It appointed the area consultative committee chairs and left them to make all of the other appointments. It would have done better to exclude board members from being applicants for Regional Partnerships money. There would have been fewer regional rorts if it had. The government needs to clean up the whole program or abolish it. There has been use of secret guidelines, political interference, waste of taxpayers’ money and ignoring of area consultative committee process. Australians deserve better. (Time expired) 92 92 18:51:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —I wish to speak tonight on the perilous state of health in my electorate of Petrie. The recent revelation that the Beattie government has botched the possible return to Australia of Dr Death, Jayant Patel, shows plainly the ministerial incompetence that we are all forced to live with. The decision by the Attorney-General, Linda Lavarch, goes to the core of what is wrong with Queensland Health. Also, her decision not to bring back Dr Patel to face justice only prolongs the increased pain for all of his victims and their families. I, as all Queenslanders do, carry the burden of the Beattie government and its dismal record on health. Redcliffe is a very beautiful part of my electorate. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know that, in your capacity as Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, you visited it on many occasions. It is also home to one of the busiest hospitals. Redcliffe Hospital is increasingly showing strain from the appallingly inadequate resources provided to it. Unfortunately, Redcliffe Hospital is too often mentioned in the same sentence as ‘long waiting lists’ and ‘interrupted essential services’ and ‘inadequate equipment’. The doctors and nurses that service the Redcliffe peninsula do work hard to provide vital health services to the community but they are just not receiving the support they deserve. It was really disturbing recently to read of the need for 24-hour security guards to be introduced in public hospitals. Nurses and doctors in emergency wards are constantly being abused by patients who have had to wait inordinately long periods of time, and they are being put at risk. It is just not good enough. There is nothing worse than waiting, particularly for those requiring surgery to improve their quality of life. Yet they have to wait weeks and months to finally receive treatment. The waiting list at Redcliffe Hospital continues to grow and this is an indication again of a facility bursting at the seams that needs attention immediately. At the end of July this year there were 1,184 people waiting for surgery on the Redcliffe peninsula, an increase of 103 on the same time in 2005. Many of these have been waiting for a long time, some for more than a year, and they have been joined by many more in the past year. One of the things that general practitioners constantly talk to me about is the cost-shifting to private clinics. Quite often a patient will report as a public patient, an outpatient, but they are constantly being referred to the private sector for more tests. Doctors are very concerned about this because they want to know where the responsibility lies in the care of the patient and also, with the increasing referrals, they have to refer to Medicare for their provider numbers, which is something that the private hospital system should be doing itself. This cost shifting seems to be growing more and more each day, the more I talk to general practitioners in my electorate. The number of my constituents waiting for non-critical category 3 surgery has similarly blown out. As of July there were 272 people who had been waiting for at least a year—365 days or more—for treatment, compared to 158 just 12 months earlier. These people have problems requiring general surgery and treatment in the specialist areas such as orthopaedics, urology and vascular surgery. While their problems are not life threatening, their only desire is to get healthy and be able to get on with living their lives. Many of my constituents have their lives on hold while they are waiting for a decision from Queensland Health. Redcliffe and Caboolture hospitals operate under the same Redcliffe-Caboolture Health Service District. While neighbouring communities use the services of Caboolture Hospital to cover the shortfall due to stressed services at Redcliffe Hospital, again it forces already gravely ill patients to travel to see a specialist and to travel longer. Many of them do not have transport to travel even further to Caboolture to try to get treatment and to get well again. The increasing workload takes its toll not only on the patients but also on the staff of Redcliffe Hospital who are constantly bearing the brunt of this terrible resourcing shortfall. Helpless pawns in the Beattie government’s ineptitude, doctors are being required to work longer shifts and extra days to cover weekend rosters to make up for inadequate staffing levels. I was told by a doctor today that their weekend shifts are not counted as part of their working hours, which I find an absolutely appalling state of affairs. Forcing doctors to work such long hours can only lead to tragic consequences. Through no real fault of their own, practitioners will be more prone to making errors because of their tiredness and working the extra shifts. It also raises the likelihood of doctors experiencing burn-out and the overall medical system losing valuable employees and experience, in turn making the situation even worse. To add to this terrible situation, Redcliffe is also home to an ageing GP population. The existing GPs are booked out and their consultation books are full. They are not taking any more new patients. Many of them are retiring or leaving the profession. Their average age, I am told, is between 65 and 70 and that puts pressure on those remaining as well as making it difficult for patients. We need to encourage young doctors to go into general practice and we need to look at this new generation of young doctors and make sure that many of them go into general practice and family oriented practices. It is important that we keep doing that, because general practitioners are greatly needed on the peninsula, where they have been respected for the generations of care that they have provided. But the news is not all grim. Recently I received the good news that the Redcliffe peninsula has been considered an area of workforce shortage for general practitioners. I would like to thank the Divisions of General Practice and particularly Dr Ralph Smallhorn for his wonderful assistance in ensuring constant doctor assessment and numbers, and liaising with me to ensure that the general practitioner and workforce issues are raised and addressed. Now Redcliffe, along with Deception Bay, Griffin-Mango Hill and Bald Hills, will be eligible for Australian government programs targeted at addressing the shortfall in GP numbers. The GP workforce in Redcliffe is ageing, and this will ensure that we will have more doctors. Medical practices in Redcliffe may now be eligible for the More Doctors for Outer Metropolitan Areas measure. The Australian government provided $64.5 million in the 2006-07 budget for a further four years. Doctors will also be able to avail themselves of an incentive grant, which was increased to $40,000 for doctors to establish a new practice in an outer metropolitan area and up to $30,000 for doctors who want to relocate to existing outer metropolitan areas. I am really pleased that Redcliffe is now considered an area of workforce shortage and will be able to employ overseas doctors who are suitably trained. This will allow them to meet the huge demand for practitioners that we have at the moment. Castledine and Chermside are not eligible; however, they are eligible to apply for after-hours services, particularly for Saturday and Sunday, under the Round the Clock Medicare: Investing in After Hours GP Services Program. There is a huge demand, particularly in the Chermside area, which has a very large over-65 age cohort and has already, some years ago, exceeded the national average. But I will continue to work to ensure that we have adequate numbers of doctors on the Redcliffe peninsula. The coalition government spent $1,689 per capita on health—twice that of the states and territories, which spent only some $790 per capita. We are serious about contributing to health; continuing to make sure that the government provide adequate services, particularly to our ageing population; encouraging doctors to move to the Redcliffe peninsula; and making sure that general practice is recognised and that more doctors continue to pursue general practice as a vocation. 10000 Haase, Barry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Haase)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question agreed to. 94 BILLS R2643 94 Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Mr Nairn: That this bill be now read a second time. 94 19:01:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —The Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006 proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 that include superannuation arrangements for the members of parliament who were elected at the 2004 general election and subsequently. It does not apply to members elected prior to the 2004 general election. The 2004 act, in respect of the members whom it covers, provides that a government contribution of nine per cent of parliamentary salaries is payable to a complying superannuation fund other than a self-managed fund, a retirement savings account chosen by the member or, where no choice is made, to the default fund declared by the Minister for Finance and Administration. The amendments included in the bill increase the superannuation contributions payable under the 2004 act from nine per cent of parliamentary salaries to 15.4 per cent of parliamentary salaries. The increase in the contribution rate will apply to the contribution payable under the 2004 act for the month in which the bill receives royal assent. The amendments proposed in the bill give effect to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 7 September that the government would introduce legislation to adjust the level of superannuation for parliamentarians elected at the 2004 election and subsequently so that it is the same as that paid to Commonwealth public servants—that is, 15.4 per cent. The cost of the measure has been estimated by the government to be $200,000 for the 2006-07 financial year, $500,000 for the 2007-08 financial year, $700,000 for each of the next two financial years and $900,000 for the 2010-11 financial year. The cost is due to the increase in the expense of funding an additional 6.4 per cent in government superannuation contributions. To shed a little more light on this decision and this bill, I will make reference to some correspondence from the Remuneration Tribunal to the whips. It notes that the superannuation arrangements introduced in 2004 for new senators and members entering federal parliament for the first time were a considerable departure from the previous scheme, the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. However, such changes are not unique to federal parliamentarians. Accumulation schemes have been introduced in all state parliaments, and previous defined benefit schemes have been closed to members. Similar developments have occurred in the federal public sector. Until 1 July 2005, new employees entering the Australian Public Service joined the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme defined benefit plan. Since that date, they have joined the PSS accumulation plan, which provides fully funded accumulation benefits based on an employer contribution of 15.4 per cent of salary or ordinary time earnings. The tribunal notes that this contribution rate matches the notional employer contribution rate under the superseded Public Sector Superannuation Scheme defined benefit plan. The fact that different schemes have contemporaneous application, with membership differentiated on the basis of the date of commencing employment or some other factor, is therefore not unique or unusual. However, the tribunal goes on to say that it has been conscious that, in deciding the old scheme should be closed to new members and that a fully funded accumulation scheme should be introduced for new members, the parliament also decided that the employer contribution should be nine per cent of a member’s parliamentary allowance and any additional salary received as a result of the member holding a parliamentary office. The tribunal notes that the Department of Finance and Administration, in its submission to the 2004 inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee into the Parliamentary Superannuation Bill 2004 and the Parliamentary Superannuation and Other Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, drew attention to the fact that, while contributions at a rate of nine per cent, based on salary alone, would ensure the same superannuation salary base for the old scheme and the then proposed accumulation scheme, contributions at that rate and on that basis will provide most new members with superannuation contributions that are less than the contribution an employer would be required to provide in accordance with superannuation guarantee legislation based on ordinary time earnings. The tribunal considers that, as the accumulation scheme made a complete break with the past, there are sound arguments to support placing the employer contribution to the accumulation scheme on a footing which is wholly consistent with that anticipated by the superannuation guarantee legislation. This would entail taking a member’s electorate allowance into account as a component of ordinary time earnings. The tribunal goes on to say that its fundamental role is to determine or advise on remuneration for officers in the federal public sector. It notes that remuneration in the public sector tends to be fixed at rates that are materially less than the levels applying to jobs of comparable responsibility in the private sector. The concept of tenure was once perceived as a counterbalance to the lower levels of remuneration in the public sector, but that is no longer relevant to senior public sector officers and indeed has never been relevant to parliamentarians. The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation observed in its 25th report: There is adequate evidence that parliamentary remuneration, particularly at Ministerial level, lags well behind what may be expected for similar levels of responsibility in the private sector and in some public sector positions. In the tribunal’s view, this observation has considerable weight. The tribunal endorses the Senate select committee’s view that: ... in the interests of representative government, it is desirable that a wide range of people undertake parliamentary service. While success in business or the professions, with its attendant high remuneration, is no guarantee of the quality of a parliamentary candidate, it is undesirable that conditions of service in the parliament be so as to deter such persons. 3.16 If the superannuation portion of parliamentary remuneration is substantially reduced without compensation elsewhere in the remuneration package, it is possible that such a deterrent may become substantial. Apart from the level of remuneration, parliamentarians’ entitlements share other significant attributes with the federal public sector. Their entitlements are subject to detailed specification and prescriptive administrative guidelines, and lack flexibility. Indeed, it can be said that in these regards the remuneration of parliamentarians generally lags behind the public sector. The base salary of parliamentarians has been linked for a considerable period directly to one point or another point in a federal public sector salary structure. That continues to be the case. In reaching its decision on the appropriate contribution rate for the new parliamentary accumulation superannuation scheme, the parliament took a broad view of an appropriate community standard and accorded less weight to considerations arising from the overall balance of parliamentarians’ remuneration and longstanding affinities with the federal public sector. In the conclusion to the report on its 2004 inquiry, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee referred to the 15.4 per cent employer contribution rate then proposed to apply to the PSS accumulation plan. It stated that it believed: ... there is merit in considering setting the employer contribution rate for the proposed parliamentary superannuation at a comparable level. In the tribunal’s view, the committee, in drawing this conclusion, struck the appropriate balance. There may well be some public criticism of this change—no increase to MPs’ entitlements is popular—but I invite people, before engaging in knee-jerk groans of the snouts-in-the-trough kind, to reflect on two things. The first is the fact that Australia as a country is relatively corruption free. This is a wonderful thing and the importance of it cannot be overstated or rated too highly. One of the reasons for it—not the only reason by a long chalk—is that a significant number of MPs in this country enjoy a measure of financial security courtesy of superannuation arrangements and do not give much attention to their personal financial affairs. The vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the House are not on the lookout for opportunities for personal financial enrichment. I hope that in the years ahead we maintain that good fortune. The second thing we ought to reflect on is that superannuation is one of the elements of MPs’ pay and conditions of service, which in turn is relevant to the issue of candidate quality. We have a situation in which ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs and the like give instructions to public servants, who in some cases are earning two or three times what they are. It is perverse and it would not be tolerated in the private sector. In a private company, it is the CEO who is paid the most; no other arrangement makes sense. In an ideal world, there would be a limitless supply of public-spirited individuals willing to put themselves forward for elected office without any regard to the impact of that on their personal finances; they would cheerfully work day and night without regard to the impact of that on their family life and would be without a care as to the impact of politics on their reputation, future job prospects et cetera. In practice, people do not work like that, and people of talent and ability will choose other callings with higher remuneration, a lesser workload, less impact on family life and less wear and tear on the soul. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot on the one hand complain about the quality of your elected representatives and on the other oppose any and all efforts to provide pay and conditions which will encourage our best people to put themselves forward for public office. The opposition supports the bill. 97 19:12:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I want to thank my colleague Kelvin Thomson for his comments and the way in which he presented this matter, because it is a matter that concerns all members of parliament, on both sides of the House. We rely of course on the Remuneration Tribunal for general guidance in this area. The uncertainty of tenure for a member of parliament and the need to have some sort of benchmark by which to set our superannuation has already been raised in this debate. The Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006 adopts a Public Service guideline, a Public Service setting. In order to bring into line the two sets of conflicting conditions of superannuation for members of parliament that currently apply, following the 2004 amendments, the benchmark which should be applied should be the Public Service benchmark of a contribution of 15.4 per cent. I think there is agreement in the House that this is a reasonable matter, and I have pleasure in supporting the legislation. 97 19:13:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —I have a few significant points to make about this amendment to the superannuation scheme for MPs elected in the 2004 and subsequent elections, as contained in the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006. Since the 2004 election, I believed it would only be a matter of time before we saw some movement in this area or in other aspects of members’ and senators’ pay to compensate for the two-tiered remuneration system that was a result of the original incomplete reform of MPs’ superannuation. This was brought about only by the former opposition leader pulling his head out of the sand and recognising the extent of public outrage over the then outrageously generous scheme, which in turn forced the Prime Minister to act, as he said, to bring the system into line with acceptable community standards—or words to that effect. This situation would have been avoided if the reform had been applied to all MPs, existing or new, at the time of the changes post the 2004 election, with payments made to an accumulation fund of the MP’s choice equivalent to what they would have been paid under the existing PCSS. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, which provides the legislative basis for the old overgenerous MPs’ superannuation scheme, also provides under section 16A a mechanism by which a superannuation guarantee equivalent amount can be calculated for those members and senators who wish to opt out of the old scheme and have this amount deposited into an accumulation fund or retirement savings account of their choice. This has also been done many times with the closure of other unfunded superannuation schemes, such as the Western Australian parliamentary superannuation scheme, and done quite successfully. The Australian public know there is little will among the pre-2004 members and senators to support such a change to their superannuation. The superannuation scheme is so far out of touch with the community standard, and that has been acknowledged by all those who have spoken in support of the need for change after it was put on the public agenda by the former opposition leader in response to consistent raising of this issue via private members’ bills and other processes through the public. I well remember something in the order of 2,000 submissions to a Senate inquiry into a private member’s bill that I put before the House prior to the changes in 2004. To accommodate those members and senators who have a conscientious objection to being part of a superannuation scheme so far out of touch with community standards, I will again move in the consideration in detail stage an amendment that will provide the opportunity for sitting MPs to opt out of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. The idea of being in touch with the community standard was part of the Prime Minister’s reasoning for the introduction of the new accumulative superannuation arrangements for new MPs. On 12 February 2004 the Prime Minister said when announcing the changes: ... the Party Room has approved the Cabinet’s decision to legislate immediately to close down the existing Commonwealth Parliamentary superannuation scheme to people elected at the next parliament and it will be replaced by a scheme that attracts a government contribution of nine per cent which is the community standard. This statement was widely welcomed in a community that had become very cynical about processes whereby their elected representatives put in place standards of office that benefit them which were out of kilter—completely out of kilter in this case—with the expectations of the legislative program they put in place for their constituents. Let us not try to preach equivalence between MPs and senators and corporate income and corporate payments. Let us have a debate on remuneration for members of parliament, and all the benefits and entitlements should be put on the table at the time that we are debating that. Let us have a proper debate and strike a salary that is completely transparent and includes all of the add-ons and all of those entitlements which should really be called privileges. Are we truly suggesting that we should look at parity with the private sector and the often obscene payments and post-retirement benefits for executives? We are volunteers and represent the community and should abide by the standards we set for the vast majority of our constituents. This bill before us again puts MPs out of touch with the community standard when it comes to superannuation, raising the employer contribution from the nine per cent superannuation guarantee level to 15.4 per cent. To maintain equality between members and senators and other working Australians, which will better inform debate on superannuation issues in general in the community and in this place, I will also move an amendment to ensure the employer contribution for MPs is equal to that specified in the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. It is simple: if members of parliament need increased contributions to their superannuation accounts, then so too do the rest of the community. It is unacceptable that we legislate one deal for ourselves and another one for other working Australians. The only argument put by the Special Minister of State in support of this increase is that our public servants receive an employer contribution of 15.4 per cent. By the same token, if the Australian Public Service receives 15.4 per cent and therefore MPs deserve 15.4 per cent, then so too does everyone else. If we wish people to provide for themselves in their retirement, then we need to get serious about what we legislate with regard to superannuation and the superannuation guarantee in particular. On the other side of the coin, the co-contribution for low- to middle-income earners to encourage them to make their own contributions to their super accounts is a good start, but people on these income levels, especially with the high levels of household debt we encourage in this country at the moment, would find it incredibly difficult to find anything extra to throw at their superannuation accounts. This would doubly apply to those households relying on part-time or casual employment to meet their needs—remembering, as we all should, that in this country in this day and age it requires but one hour of work for a person to not appear in the unemployment figures. There is a gross underemployment of many people in this community, probably in the order of 15 to 20 per cent. Short of mandating employee contributions to superannuation, a more generous co-contribution would go a long way towards encouraging people to put some of their pay into savings for their retirement. The streamlining and simplification of superannuation introduced this year is certainly beneficial for those with a lazy million of post-tax contributions to put into superannuation, but what about the rest of the country’s workers? My position basically comes down to this: it is essential that those of us making the laws to determine if Australians are to be able to provide for themselves in their retirement are subject to the same conditions and market pressures for our retirement savings as the rest of the community. My amendments will provide for this and allow that opt-out clause as well for those, like me, who object to benefiting from the earlier discredited arrangement. I do not support this bill in its current form unless it were to include those amendments. 99 19:22:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —I rise to support the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006. As indicated by the shadow minister, the honourable member for Wills, the Labor Party will be supporting the bill. This bill changes the quantum of the contribution of parliamentary salaries from nine per cent to 15.4 per cent to a complying superannuation fund other than a self-managed fund or a retirement savings account chosen by a member. This change is consistent with the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan, with a similar non-contributory amount of 15.4 per cent. I am inordinately proud of the Labor class of 2004: the quality of the members—and senators for that matter—and the contribution they are making to this place. They have relished being members of parliament and have got on with their responsibilities of representing the hopes and aspirations of their constituents. That said, there is a gross disparity between the entitlements of those elected prior to 2004 and the class of 2004. As a whip, I have a responsibility for the welfare of members on my side of the House. It is for this reason the Chief Government Whip and I wrote a letter in general terms to the Remuneration Tribunal in March of this year. I wish to thank the tribunal for the advice they have provided and the assistance in progressing this matter to this second reading stage of the bill. But let me state that while this bill narrows the disparity it is only incremental. I would like to repeat some of the words my electorate’s namesake Ben Chifley used when he first introduced parliamentary superannuation on 1 December 1948: In its general purpose the scheme aims to meet the situation, long recognised by members of all parties, that men or women who serve in parliament often sacrifice opportunities to provide against the day when their parliamentary careers come to an end. It has frequently happened that members who have made great contributions to the work of the Parliament have, upon retirement, faced a condition of hardship. Very many others have had to contemplate the results of interrupted careers, earning power lost and private means reduced, through and in the course of their service in the Parliament. The longer and better the service that has been given, the more often has this been the case. There are various reasons why this has been so. Service in the Parliament has become more exacting as the years have gone by. Unlike the more leisurely conditions of perhaps 50 years ago, parliamentary life now makes heavy and increasing demands on the time and capacities of all who take part in it. If that was the case in 1948, nearly 60 years ago, it is even more the case today. I think we need to understand that we have changed parliamentary service fundamentally by the changes we made to superannuation. No longer will members of parliament have the financial security to retire after some 10 or 12 years of parliamentary service without their families suffering financial hardship. In fact with these changes, and still with this bill, we have encouraged a mirror of the UK system where we see members of the House of Commons serving up to 30 or 40 years, unable to retire because of the financial impact of retiring. I am not convinced that this is a positive development in our Australian democracy. The other thing that I would say—it is not a present danger but a future danger—is that, whilst members on both sides have from time to time done some very silly things, you cannot buy a member of parliament. His vote is not for sale. But I fear that in the future a member faced with the possibility of retirement and not the means to retire may very well be tempted, where no member has been tempted in the past. I strongly support this bill. As I say, it goes some way to ameliorating the significant difference between the conditions of service that members prior to 2004 and the conditions of service that the class of 2004 enjoy. I think it is still unfair, but this bill goes some small way to close the gap. More needs to be done. 100 19:27:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —in reply—In summing up this debate, I thank the various members who contributed to it. The Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006 will amend the Parliamentary Superannuation Act 2004 to increase the rate of superannuation contribution for members of parliament elected in the 2004 general election and subsequently, from nine per cent to 15.4 per cent. It will give effect to the Prime Minister’s announcement of 7 September 2006 that the government would introduce legislation to adjust the level of superannuation for parliamentarians elected at the 2004 election and subsequently so that it is the same as that paid to Commonwealth public servants. If a member of the federal parliament is not the equivalent of a Commonwealth public servant, I do not know who is. Increasing the contribution rate as proposed in this bill will align the rate of contribution for these members of parliament with the rate for the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan. That scheme provides superannuation benefits for Commonwealth public servants and for staff of members of parliament. It is simply bringing those members of parliament elected after 2004 in line with Commonwealth public servants and staff of members of parliament. That is pretty fair I think. The point apparently has been made during this debate on the bill that it will provide more generous superannuation than is available generally. This is referring to the superannuation guarantee, which is a minimum mandated contribution for Australian workers. This bill will align the contribution rate for parliamentarians elected at the 2004 election and subsequently with that available to many Commonwealth public servants and to the staff of members of parliament, as I have said. It is aligning it with what is effectively the industry standard for the equivalent. The Prime Minister has emphasised the importance of attracting a cross-section of talented candidates to the parliament. As he has observed, you can do that only if the remuneration they would receive has some relationship to the remuneration they could earn if they did not enter politics. The possible voluntary transfer to the revised accumulation arrangements has also been raised. Allowing existing members of the PCSS to transfer to the revised accumulation arrangements would raise a number of significant issues. If longer serving MPs who have already qualified for the maximum benefit or who are approaching the maximum benefit are allowed to transfer to the revised accumulation arrangements, they could accrue more superannuation than they would under the existing arrangements. This could be seen as double-dipping, because MPs in this situation would receive extra superannuation at a cost to the taxpayer, and they would not have to pay the member contributions that membership of the PCSS would require. For MPs who have not qualified for a pension but who may have qualified if they had remained in the PCSS, allowing them to transfer may result in an undervaluing of their accrued benefits when they transfer. This could be seen as a retrospective change to their existing entitlements, and the Prime Minister made it very clear in 2004 that the new accumulation arrangements would not be retrospective, as is the case for all superannuation legislation irrespective of who it might affect. That has always been the case, and there is absolutely no reason to change it. This is a simple bill. It is simply changing the contribution from nine per cent to 15.4 per cent to bring it into line with other Commonwealth public servants and the staff of members of parliament. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 102 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 102 19:32:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name: (1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 5-6)          Omit the item, substitute the following item: 1  Subsection 8(2) Omit “9% of”, substitute “the percentage charge specified in subsection 19(2) of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 applied to”. (2)    After schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), add: Schedule 2—Amendment of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 member means a member of either House who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act. non PCSS contributor means a member of either House who has never made or has ceased to make contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act as a result of a choice made under section 4G. complying superannuation fund has the meaning given by section 45 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. RSA has the same meaning as in the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997. Minister of State means a Minister of State who is entitled to a parliamentary allowance and who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act. month means one of the 12 months of the year. office holder means a person who: person means a person who makes contributions to the Commonwealth under the provisions of this Act. Amendment (1) is applicable to this piece of legislation. If the super guarantee act specifies the percentage level of the superannuation guarantee for all working Australians, currently nine per cent, this amendment ensures that any increase in the employer contribution for MPs and senators is tied to that applying to the rest of the community. It is not a case of equivalence between MPs and public servants or their staff—that is another issue—but between members and the minimum standard we apply to the overwhelming majority of our constituents. That should be the judging factor in assessing whatever we apply to ourselves, particularly with superannuation at a time when many of our constituents will be left so far behind in providing for their own retirement. It has been said over many years that we should be moving far more hastily towards a more realistic super guarantee. Obviously employers have to be brought into this equation and governments must be there to support it and the co-contribution scheme. That, along with contributions from workers to build up their retirement savings, is one way to ensure that a meaningful amount is set aside for their retirement. The best way we can set that standard is to apply to ourselves the same monetary figure we expect others to adhere to. Amendment (2) inserts schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 but moves that this amendment be included in the act before the parliament: the Parliamentary Superannuation Amendment Bill 2006. The basic piece of legislation, the 1948 act, is one I have attempted to reform on several occasions prior to the forced changes brought about by the former opposition leader and subsequently the Prime Minister when the government realised the extent of public discontent and disagreement over the outrageous 65 per cent equivalent publicly funded guarantee attached to the former unfunded scheme. This schedule provides all the legislative requirements for those pre-2004 members and senators who conscientiously object to being part of the over-generous lifetime pension to exit that scheme and enter a scheme of their choice with a super guarantee in line with community standards. I cannot see the logic of the minister’s statement that this in some way may deliver a more generous outcome when an actuarially determined amount over that member’s parliamentary term matched to the prevailing super guarantee in those years would be transferred to a fund of his or her choice plus whatever the individual may contribute himself from this point on—a reasonable amount, for which a formula, I understand, is already in the legislation. This schedule comes from my two private member’s bills and covers all the potential problems that such an opt-out clause might throw up, including all the issues raised at an inquiry into my private member’s bills in 2001. There is absolutely no reason why this schedule cannot be adopted by this chamber and allow any member who benefits from the previous scheme to opt out. I commend the amendments to the chamber. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 104 Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro —Special Minister of State) 19:37:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 104 BILLS R2632 104 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request. 104 BILLS S528 104 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. 104 104 19:38:00 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 and move: That this bill be now read a second time. Conversion to digital is the most fundamental change in broadcasting since the introduction of television itself 50 years ago. In 1998 the foundations were laid for Australia to enter the digital television era when the parliament passed legislation to establish the basic framework for conversion to digital television. Further legislation followed in 2000 setting out the operating rules for digital television services. Since that time, technology has continued to evolve, consumers’ media consumption habits have continued to change and grow more sophisticated and internationally the move towards digital has continued unabated. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 represents the next major step in the digital television conversion process for Australia. The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and other legislation to implement the government’s decisions relating to the regulation of digital television, the broadcasting of sports on the antisiphoning list on new digital channels, and procedures for the allocation of new commercial television licences. This bill contains several measures aimed at driving the uptake of digital television which will bring significant benefits to consumers and Australian society. These measures include the removal of the current program restrictions on national broadcaster multichannels immediately; the phasing in of multichannelling for commercial television broadcasters; and the allocation of two unassigned channels for new digital services. The removal of the high definition simulcast requirement will enable commercial television broadcasters to provide a high definition television multichannel from 2007 if they wish. From 2009 they will also be able to provide a standard definition television multichannel. Commercial broadcasters will not be restricted as to the number of multichannels they can provide within their allocated channel of spectrum from the time of switchover, which is intended to commence in the period 2010 to 2012. This approach balances concerns about the impact of multichannelling on broadcasters’ business models and technical spectrum capacity limits, with the need to provide additional digital content to viewers and to drive digital uptake. The high definition television programming quota of 1,040 hours per year will be maintained during the simulcast period and then removed providing increased flexibility for broadcasters in the services they offer their audiences. All broadcasters will be prevented from premiering the whole or part of an event on the antisiphoning list on a digital multichannel. This will ensure that listed events remain available to the widest possible audience. This requirement, along with the operation of, and ongoing rationale for, the antisiphoning scheme, will be reviewed in 2009 prior to the expiry of the current list and in the context of approaching digital switchover. This bill also contains measures relating to the allocation of new commercial television licences following the end of the moratorium on new licences on 31 December 2006. This bill modifies the power to allocate new commercial television broadcasting licences within the broadcasting services bands of spectrum so that the Australian Communications and Media Authority cannot exercise this power unless a decision has been taken by the minister that such a licence should be allocated. This will implement the government’s election commitment to take a decision-making role in commercial television licensing. This bill also provides a power to the minister to veto the allocation by ACMA of a new commercial television broadcasting licence outside broadcasting spectrum (under section 40 of the BSA) on the basis that the allocation of the licence would be contrary to the public interest. The end of the simulcast period provides a natural point from both a policy and practical perspective, for further changes to the digital television regulatory settings. The removal of the remaining restrictions on free-to-air multichannelling at switchover means that the way obligations such as Australian content quotas are applied to digital channels from switchover will need to be revisited. This bill requires that a review of content requirements on multichannels must be conducted prior to the end of the simulcast period. In the meantime, the bill ensures that the usual viewer protections will apply to content on multichannels. The bill also provides for the allocation of two currently unused broadcasting channels, on a nationwide basis, for new services. These are known as channel A and channel B. These provisions will allow the introduction of new and innovative digital services. Channel A will be reserved for fixed, in-home, free-to-air digital services, while channel B can be used for a wider range of services, including mobile TV. To encourage new players in the broadcasting sector, incumbent commercial television broadcasters and national broadcasters will be prohibited from controlling channel A. These control provisions do not apply to channel B, provided the channel is not used for free-to-air, in-home services. Channel B licensees will also be subject to an access regime to prevent the possibility of channel B licence holders monopolising the limited transmission capacity on channel B. Finally, the bill repeals a range of existing provisions for digital television technical standards and provides for a range of new standards- and code-making powers for ACMA. These measures provide an enhanced role for ACMA and a flexible regulatory regime to respond to technological developments and change in the digital broadcasting sector. Taken as a package with the bills on media ownership reform and enforcement powers for ACMA, the reforms in this bill represent a significant and important step forward in Australian media policy and regulation. The digital television component of the package will provide opportunities for Australian television viewers to access a greater range of digital programming and services and ensure that viewers and broadcasters are better prepared for digital switchover. I thank the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, her staff and the officers of her department for their work and I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned. 106 BILLS S527 106 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. 106 106 19:47:00 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 and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The communications environment, in Australia and across the world, is experiencing a period of rapid and accelerating change. New platforms are emerging, along with new forms of content and greater levels of interactivity. Media content is now available in multiple forms, on-demand, and to fixed or mobile receivers, providing Australians with an unprecedented level of choice and control in their media usage. Despite this proliferation of services and platforms, the need to ensure the diversity of media ownership remains fundamental. Ensuring a variety of content, particularly in regional communities with less access to a diverse range of media than in metropolitan areas, is a key priority for the government. The parliament has long regarded these objectives as critical, and they are at the heart of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA). The government, in committing to reform Australia’s media ownership laws at the 2004 election, indicated that it would do so while protecting media diversity. This bill, along with measures in the other media reform bills, gives effect to that commitment. The regulatory framework in relation to the ownership and control of Australian media assets was developed in the mid-1980s. It focuses on regulating separately television, radio and newspapers—which at that time were essentially the only mass media. The framework imposes restrictions that impede commercial flexibility and access to capital for infrastructure and content investment. These restrictions hinder the ability of Australian media organisations to succeed in the new media environment. Most of all, by locking media companies into one platform, and by locking foreign investors out of our two most profitable media, they are fundamentally anticompetitive. This bill seeks to remove these restrictions while still providing the protection the regulatory framework was intended to provide—the protection of media diversity. The bill will remove the current foreign ownership and control restrictions in the BSA. However, foreign ownership of Australian media assets will continue to be regulated by the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and Australia’s foreign investment policy (FIP). The bill will also relax Australia’s outdated cross-media rules so that cross-media mergers can take place, but only where sufficient diversity of media groups remains following the merger, and only where mergers are limited to two out of the three regulated media of commercial radio, commercial television and associated newspapers. At least five separate media groups will be required to remain after any merger activity in mainland state capitals, and four groups in all other areas. The areas concerned will be based on commercial radio licence areas. The Trade Practices Act 1974 will continue to apply to proposed media mergers and acquisitions. Any such proposals will be subject to a test for the effect on competition, which is administered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The media ownership rules will be administered by the media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). A person who undertakes a transaction that breaches the BSA will be guilty of an offence, and may be ordered by ACMA to divest licences or newspapers to return to compliance with the BSA. To ensure compliance with the minimum number of separate media groups rule, ACMA will maintain a Register of Controlled Media Groups identifying the ownership and control of media groups in each licence area that comply with the BSA. As part of an extensive range of enforcement options, ACMA will also be able to seek injunctions to prevent transactions that would breach the BSA and to direct parties to take action to address such breaches. In a media environment where mergers are permitted, it is likely that media companies will be required at some point to provide news coverage of matters relating to cross-held entities. The bill imposes a general obligation on media outlets to disclose cross-media relationships in such circumstances. The government recognises there is a level of public concern about declining levels of local and regional news and information programs on both television and radio, and this bill contains significant measures to address those concerns. In 2003 ACMA imposed licence conditions on regional television broadcasters, requiring the broadcast of minimum levels of programming of local significance. The bill amends the BSA to require ACMA to impose such conditions in aggregated television licence areas in eastern Australia, in effect formalising the existing conditions, which will remain in place. Additionally, the requirement will be extended to Tasmanian licensees. ACMA is currently considering whether similar arrangements should be extended to licensees in South Australia and Western Australia. The bill also requires ACMA to impose licence conditions on regional radio broadcasters to provide a minimum of 4½ hours of local content every business day. This requirement will be subject to a review by 30 June 2007 and may be altered by the minister by disallowable instrument. Local content licence conditions and local content plans will be implemented to provide protection for local content on radio in regional areas. The bill provides that where a commercial radio licence is transferred, is subject to a change in control or otherwise becomes part of a merged media group, the licensee will be required to maintain levels of local presence and to meet specified local content licence conditions. These conditions will establish minimum standards for local news, community service announcements and emergency warnings, as well as minimum service standards for other types of local content, if specified by the minister by legislative instrument. Licensees will be required to demonstrate in a local content plan how they will meet the local content licence conditions and what resources they will have in place to achieve the requirements. This will ensure that, regardless of any mergers that may take place, regional audiences can be assured that they will continue to receive relevant, local news and information from the commercial broadcasters in their area. Of course, this will be in addition to the myriad other media services available around Australia from ABC television, radio and online; SBS television, radio and online; community television and radio; subscription television; plus the ever‑expanding range of online services available over the internet and the new digital services that will emerge as a result of the government’s media reform package. This bill provides for the timely reform of the outdated regulatory framework governing the ownership and control of Australian media organisations. It is part of a wide-ranging and significant legislative reform package that will ensure that Australian media organisations, as well as the Australian public, are well positioned to meet the challenges and exploit the opportunities presented by the digital communications revolution we are currently witnessing. I commend the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan. I commend her staff. I commend the work of the department. And I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned. 109 BILLS R2633 109 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 109 BILLS S528 Cognate bill: 109 BILLS S527 109 Debate resumed. 109 19:57:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I rise to speak in this cognate debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 on behalf of the Labor Party and representing my shadow ministerial colleague Senator Conroy, the shadow minister for communications. These bills implement the most significant changes to media law in 20 years. The government would like the public to believe that this legislation is about media reform, but the government’s media plan does not deserve that description. Unlike some commentators, Labor is not prepared to allow the government to slap the label of ‘reform’ onto any old set of changes. The word ‘reform’ requires more than just change. The essence of the word is the notion of improvement in public policy, improvement for the Australian community. The government’s media ownership bill will reduce media diversity, reduce competition and reduce consumer choice. Legislation that facilitates such an outcome cannot be described as reform, and it certainly cannot be described as good public policy. While the abolition of the cross-media laws may potentially benefit media owners, it offers nothing for the Australian public. The government knows that it is hard to sell increased media concentration as good public policy. This legislation represents the third time in the last decade that the Prime Minister has tried to force these changes through the parliament. This time around the government has tried to sugar coat the plan to repeal the cross-media laws by trying to link it to the new digital television services. In truth, there is no connection between the two. Australia does not need to sacrifice media diversity in order to enjoy the benefits of the digital age. Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are rapidly moving to embrace digital broadcasting. Both these countries have strong cross-media laws to promote diversity of opinion. But, in Australia, the Howard government maintains the benefits of digital can only be attained if incumbent media players receive a quid pro quo in the form of the repeal of the cross-media ownership laws. Labor completely rejects this trade-off. This legislation is being rammed through parliament so that the government plans are subject to only minimal scrutiny and debate. Before I get to the detail of the legislation and its flaws, some comment needs to be made about the process which has preceded this debate, because it says so much about this government’s attitude to media reform. The bills before the House were the subject of more than 12 months consultation by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, with the media and the media industry. The government was determined to get a package that accommodated the industry’s interests. In contrast, the interests of consumers, viewers, listeners and readers have been just an afterthought. For example, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was given just three weeks to conduct its inquiry into the legislation. The public had just one week to make submissions on the four bills in the package. The Senate communications committee was able to conduct just two days of hearings—more than 30 witnesses were crammed into this truncated timetable. For most witnesses, the opposition senators had just 10 minutes to ask questions. The government’s rush job on this package continued last week in the Senate, where more than 100 pages of amendments and explanatory materials were released during the debate as the government sought to fix drafting errors and appease the concerns of dissidents in its own party room. Debate in the Senate was gagged last Thursday. Many amendments could not even be discussed before the guillotine was applied in the Senate. Members of this House may not necessarily get any better treatment. This is how parliamentary democracy and scrutiny operates under the Howard government. When you examine the bills in detail, it becomes entirely clear why the government does not want a lengthy debate. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 in particular is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I now turn to the detail of that bill. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill makes two key changes to the media ownership laws. Firstly, it repeals the specific foreign ownership provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that relate to commercial and subscription television. Secondly, it repeals the current cross-media laws and inserts new provisions which are described by the government as diversity safeguards. As I will outline in a moment, these safeguards are weak and ineffective. The key principle that underlines Labor’s approach on media ownership regulation is the need to promote diversity of opinion in the marketplace for ideas. In a democracy, it is important to prevent a concentration of power to influence public opinion. There is no doubt that free and open discussion of ideas and opinions is the lifeblood of a democracy. The point was powerfully made by the Productivity Commission in its review of broadcasting legislation. The Productivity Commission stated: … the likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance. The public interest in ensuring diversity of information and opinion … leads to a strong preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer. This is particularly important given the wide business interests of some media proprietors. History shows that media companies have been ruthless in pursuing their commercial interests using their media power. A recent survey of journalists, for example, conducted by Roy Morgan and Crikey clearly demonstrates the capacity of ownership to influence the content produced by media companies: some 48 per cent of journalists, nearly half those surveyed, said they have felt obliged to take into account the commercial position of their employer, 38 per cent said that they have been instructed to toe the commercial line of their employer, 32 per cent said that they feel obliged to take into account their employer’s political position and 16 per cent said they had been instructed to so do. These figures demonstrate why maintaining a diversity of ownership of the most influential media is so fundamental. For Labor, the principle of promoting diversity of opinion dictates a different policy response in relation to cross- and foreign media ownership restrictions. Labor supports the changes to the foreign ownership rules that are contained in the bill. This is a position that the Labor opposition has consistently maintained since 2002. There is already substantial foreign investment in radio, newspapers and television. Foreign investment offers the potential to introduce new players into the market and increase media diversity. In contrast, the bill’s proposal to repeal the cross-media laws will facilitate a massive concentration of media ownership. Of course, the government claims that it understands the need to protect diversity. It argues that its package does contain safeguards to prevent excessive concentration of ownership. But any close analysis of these safeguards shows them to be completely inadequate. Let me start with the so-called voices test. Under this test, a media merger will not be allowed to occur unless there will remain a minimum of five media voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional Australia. For the purposes of this test, a voice is a commercial television licence, a commercial radio licence or a newspaper that is sold in the relevant area at least four days a week. It also includes a media group that has a combination of those assets. The government has never provided any satisfactory explanation as to why it thinks that five and four are acceptable numbers, other than that it wants to allow scope for firms to reap economies of scale—in other words, the voices test is designed to facilitate media mergers. It is not intended to prevent a substantial consolidation of the industry. To appreciate this fact, it needs to be remembered that there are currently 12 owners of the major commercial media in Sydney. There are 11 owners of the major commercial media in Melbourne, 10 owners in Brisbane, eight in Perth and seven in Adelaide. In 19 major cities in regional Australia, there are six or seven owners. The so-called five-four rule is, frankly, just a recipe for increased concentration and less diversity. This fact became so obvious that last week the minister was compelled to announce that the five-four test would be supplemented by a two out of three rule. The two out of three rule would prevent proprietors from owning newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. While some members of the government have claimed this as a great concession, in reality it offers little additional protection for media diversity. In both metropolitan and regional markets, a person in control of a newspaper and a television station would still be able to exercise an unhealthy degree of influence. For example, in my home state of Western Australia, in its capital city of Perth, a person who owns Channel 7 and the West Australian would have a tremendous capacity to influence the political debate. Under the two out of three rule, it would still be possible for the number of owners to fall from six to four in regional markets and five in the state capitals. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets where there are only five commercial voices. It is important to note that the voices test takes absolutely no account of the relative influence of a media organisation. Under the voices test, a media conglomerate composed of Channel 9 and the Sydney Morning Herald counts as one voice, as does a small radio station like 2KY. A music or TAB station is given the same weight as Channel 9. This is plainly absurd. The voices test does not represent a serious attempt to prevent a concentration of ownership of the most influential media assets. The other claimed safeguard in the package is the ACCC’s power to examine media mergers to determine if they substantially lessen competition under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. However, both the Productivity Commission and leading competition lawyers have cast doubt on this claim. The question of whether a merger breaches the Trade Practices Act is critically dependent on the definition of the relevant market. Historically, the ACCC took the view that the print and electronic media operate in separate markets. For this reason, it argued that the merger of newspaper and television assets would not give rise to competition issues. More recently, the current Chairman of the ACCC stated his belief that there is now a broader media market and that section 50 could apply to cross-media mergers. Mr Samuel’s view has, however, been challenged by the leading law firm Phillips Fox. Last November, Phillips Fox stated: ... commercial television, newspaper and radio are not likely to be in the same market for merger analysis ... The firm went on to state: No competition cases in Australia or in the rest of the world (where technology is often more advanced than Australia) have yet accepted that the traditional market definitions should change ... Other lawyers have questioned the capacity of the ACCC to identify a market for news and opinion, given that these services are typically not priced. Peter Armitage, the competition partner at Blake Dawson Waldron, has described the ACCC’s approach to defining news markets as ‘fairly speculative, brave new world territory’. Ultimately, it will be up to the Federal Court to decide the issue. As we saw in the case of AGL’s purchase of Loy Yang Power, it is quite possible for the Federal Court to approve a merger that the ACCC believes is anticompetitive. As well, in its report on broadcasting, the Productivity Commission stated: It is clear that the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross-media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity. It is also clear that the adoption by the ACCC of a broader definition of the media market would not adequately address the social dimensions of the policy problem, and would be open to legal challenge. This view remains compelling. Labor believes the preservation of media diversity in this country should remain the responsibility of this parliament rather than the courts. So it is clear that the so-called diversity safeguards that the government has talked about—the voices test, the two out of three rule and the ACCC scrutiny—are all deeply flawed. This House should be in no doubt about what will happen if the government’s cross-media ownership laws are passed. Merchant bankers, stock brokers and equity markets are already salivating over the prospect that the parliament will unleash a takeover frenzy. There will be a massive concentration in the ownership of the most influential media in Australia. It will become harder for diverse voices to be heard. There will be fewer journalists to report on stories of local interest. There will be fewer investigative journalists to hold members of parliament and industry to account. There is no logical basis for the changes that the government has proposed. Even the explanatory memorandum to the bill states plainly that the benefits of cross-media ownership reform are ‘unclear’. During the consideration in detail stage, Labor will seek to amend the bill to prevent the repeal of the cross-media ownership laws, and I will circulate amendments to that effect in due course. This will provide this House with one last opportunity to protect media diversity in this country. Before I move on to discuss the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, I want to spend a few moments dealing with the arguments that the cross-media laws are out of date or that they are holding back our media companies or our media industry. We have often heard in this debate that with the emergence of new technology, like the internet and 3G phones, the cross-media laws do not matter anymore. This simplistic argument confuses diversity of platforms with diversity of content. As James Hooke of Fairfax told the Senate committee, the mere fact that someone can watch Dancing with the Stars on a mobile device is not diversity. The traditional media players have moved quickly to dominate the new media. Sites owned by News Ltd, PBL, Fairfax and the ABC account for 85 per cent of the hits on Australian news websites. While the minister was running around last week saying that the emergence of YouTube demonstrated the need to change media ownership laws, the ACCC has delivered a more sober assessment. Mr Samuel told the Senate committee: ... the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary. It is important to remember that the legislation restricting cross-media ownership is not something that is unique to Australia. I recently read the report of one analyst who said that the cross-media provisions were an ‘anachronism’ and that ‘Australia needs to catch up with the rest of the world’. The fact is that the previous Labor government did not invent the idea. A range of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Korea and the Netherlands, have all seen fit to implement restrictions on cross-media ownership to protect their media diversity. It should be noted that many of these countries have media markets that are far more diverse than our own. Another claim we regularly hear is that the cross-media laws are holding back innovation or investment. In fact, it is just the opposite. As leading academic Jock Given has noted, the cross-media laws are driving diversity, not constraining it. Fairfax is not stuck in print. Its website offers video news, bulletins and podcasts of journalists like Alan Kohler. Radio stations like 2GB offer transcripts, video news and audio downloads. Channel 9 is not stuck in TV. Through the Ninemsn website it offers plenty of text and audio. The argument that the industry cannot grow without media mergers just has no foundation. The Australian media industry is tremendously profitable. There is no suggestion that the sector requires the ability to enter into cross-media mergers to remain viable. Mr Beecher, one of the owners of Crikey, for example, told the Senate committee: In the past year, profits in the media industry were higher than ever before. This is a booming industry. The average profit margin of public companies in this country is around 15 to 17 per cent—that is, $15 to $17 in every $100 of revenue is profit. The media industry average is 24 per cent. Contrary to the claims of the government, there is also no basis to believe that the cross-media laws are in any way inhibiting investment or innovation in the Australian media. To even a casual observer of the media landscape, it is apparent that the cross-media laws have not prevented traditional media companies from investing in a range of new media opportunities including the internet, subscription TV and mobile phones. I would now like to briefly address the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. Back in 2000 the government set a target to achieve switchover to digital broadcasting by the end of 2008. It has been clear for some time that there is no way that this target will be met. The policies that the government has pursued for the last five years have clearly failed to rapidly drive take-up. According to industry data, only around 20 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive digital free-to-air broadcasts. The minister has been forced to postpone the start of digital switchover to some time between 2010 and 2012. The slow take-up of digital is an important issue for consumers and the Australian economy. When we reach the point that analog broadcasting can be switched off, huge amounts of valuable spectrum will become available for other uses like new TV stations or wireless broadband. At present the government spends $50 million a year paying for the analog broadcasts of the ABC and SBS. This is clearly money that could be better spent on programming and content. The digital television bill contains a number of measures which relax the current regulatory regime. Labor welcomes the measures in the bill that will increase the appeal of digital television to consumers. Measures like lifting the genre restrictions on the ABC and SBS and the decision to allow some form of commercial multichannelling should stimulate consumer interest. However, the regulatory regime for digital television remains very restrictive. No sport that is on the antisiphoning list will be permitted to be shown on commercial multichannels. For two years commercial broadcasters will only be able to multichannel in high definition. The new channel A will offer such a narrow range of programming that there are strong doubts about whether it will be viable. The new channel B is most likely to be used for mobile TV and consequently will have no impact on take-up in the home. Under the government’s proposal, free-to-air broadcasters have little or no incentive to aggressively drive the transition to digital. Labor will support the digital television bill because it does contain several measures that over time will increase the effectiveness of digital television for consumers. However, Labor is not convinced that the government has come up with a model that will allow Australia to begin to switch off by 2012. This should have been the real focus of the media reform debate. In this respect, Labor will announce further measures to address this issue in the run-up to the next election. 114 20:18:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —That was an interesting announcement in relation to further measures to switch off the analog system in this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. That will be interesting to see when it comes out. We are an interesting society these days. When you talk to the educators in this country, they will tell you that we are a country that is information rich but knowledge poor. What they are really saying is that there is plenty of opportunity and plenty of information available from a wide range of sources, but in fact there is so much that people cannot take it up. Therefore, they cannot play it back. It is very interesting: the way that media is going in this country, although there is the demand for more and more channels, it is probably going to have less and less take-up because there is just too much of it. I cannot see some of these channels being viable, I have to say. But the government will make the opportunity available. If broadcasters can see that they can use that opportunity then they will take it up in a commercial way. The member for Perth said that government policies had failed in relation to digital take-up. I do not think that is right. I think what has actually happened is that the consumers have decided not to take up digital at the rate that was expected. You cannot really make a viewer change from analog to digital if they do not want to—you just cannot. It does not matter what legislation you put in place. Other than switching off the analog transmitters, you cannot make a person change. Many of us who have been in the industry have long known and understood that, when it comes to television, if the picture moves and talks, no matter how horrible the picture might be, people are happy. They do not understand the benefits of going to digital television, not only in relation to picture and sound clarity but also in relation to the provision of additional services. They do not understand that. As long as they can sit down in their chair and the picture moves, they are basically happy, so they do not move to digital. As a person who has been in this industry for a long time, I have seen a number of changes. I have seen some changes that have not been for the best in the country and I have seen other changes that have been very well received. For example, when local news on regional television began to disappear a couple of colleagues and I got quite animated about that and we made it very clear to the government that we wanted local news to be back on our local channels. That has been achieved and local viewers very much appreciate what the government did to achieve that. That is why the priority given to local content of radio in the bill before the House tonight is so important. Some would argue that we have too many radio services. In Townsville we have got 12 radio stations. We have perhaps two or three main stations and the rest have a handful of listeners. The diversity is certainly there but the listeners are not. That is why I guess it is important to make it clear that the government wants to see local content on local radio and not just a network station out of a major capital city. I have heard some of the broadcasters say, ‘This is the end of some of the radio stations.’ I judge that an ambit claim. They will find a way to provide the local content which we are mandating in the bill before the parliament tonight. The minister has been sensible about this. The minister has said that there will be a review done before this is implemented. There will be a review of local content on existing radio stations and then the minister will have the power given under this bill to adjust the local content requirements according to local circumstances. This is sensible. The minister will make a decision that will suit the local circumstances and I think that the radio stations certainly should be happy with that. I know that it is very important in my area in relation to emergencies such as cyclones that the local radio station be local when it is needed to be local. Certainly in the past our local radio stations have discharged their responsibilities towards their community and have been on the ball when they needed to be broadcasting local information to the local community in times of emergency. I know that some would say, ‘Why should the government be mandating local content?’ The answer is very simple. The spectrum that they use is not free. It is a scarce public good. It belongs to the people of Australia and if a particular company is given a right to use that spectrum then there should be an obligation that attaches to that. That obligation generally takes the form of local content. I think that radio stations that were very progressive stations attuned to the local community would embrace without regulation or legislation local content in their programming. That is the way you attract listeners: by being live and local. Some of the smaller radio stations may find it a bit more difficult but, in my area, 4GC in Charters Towers, with a listening audience of only about 8,000 people, still manages live and local. There is no reason why stations in a bigger market should not do that. In relation to television and media in general, the kind of media that is available these days is just extraordinary. Today, for example, I was at the Telstra demonstration of the Next G system. I was able to watch pictures, with sound if needed, coming live from a property in the bush in south-west Queensland. You could control the cameras to look at whatever you wanted to look at. You could control the pumps on a local dam and troughs providing water for the stock. From your homestead you could even look at the back gate of the property 50 kilometres away. This particular homestead was having problems with people nicking in the back gate and pinching the stock. They just wired up the gate to the new media so that when somebody opened the gate it immediately sent an alarm to the homestead and took a picture of whoever was at the gate. It was absolutely fascinating. More than that, that kind of visual and aural information was available anywhere in the world instantaneously. It was also available on your mobile phone if you wanted it. That was an amazing demonstration to see. In digital television there are all sorts of opportunities. Removing the current genre restrictions on multichannelling by the national broadcasters will allow the national broadcasters to provide a broader range of digital services. I think that the ABC in particular will be very pleased to see that decision. In relation to high-definition television there have been some changes about what is mandated and what is not. We are giving the industry more flexibility to decide what they are going to broadcast. I think that high-definition TV is here to stay. I think that stations who broadcast in HD will do so because there is a market demand to have better quality pictures, particularly for things like sporting events. In relation to the antisiphoning system, all of us have probably had a number of campaign emails from a site called Save My Sport. I have certainly responded very directly to anyone who has sent me an email and said that I am a strong supporter of sporting events of national importance appearing on free-to-air television. As far as the government are concerned that is our intention. We will stick by that. But it is also interesting that some of the free-to-air stations have not played the game. They have had the availability of nationally important sport and have not used it—have not broadcast it—when it could have been broadcast by other media. We will also introduce what is called a ‘use it or lose it’ scheme. That will work very well because the free-to-airs will know that if they are not going to use a nationally important sporting program then they will lose the rights to that particular program. I am not concerned about the concentration of media ownership. I think—and I have said this publicly—that in my area we will get more media owners coming into our city. The two out of three rule was very important; I certainly supported that. As media readjusts around the country, some owners will divest themselves of some of their stations and move into other markets. I think that is a healthy thing. I think in Townsville we are going to see a different array of media owners than we have at the moment. We will have a wider array of media owners, and that can only add to diversity and be good for the listeners, the viewers and the readers. So I am not concerned about that and I have supported this particular suite of bills. I pay tribute to Helen Coonan. I have never seen so much consultation on a suite of bills in the 11 years I have been in the parliament. The minister has consulted very widely and very intelligently. There have been a lot of changes along the way; they have improved the bills. And that is why I will be supporting them in the parliament. 117 20:33:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I will start my contribution to this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 by saying what a disgraceful and venal government the Howard government is. Last week it rammed the bills through the Senate in the most venal manner and handed our democracy to the two giant media companies News Ltd and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd. This morning we woke up to learn from both the electronic and print media of a new, unedifying and disgraceful attack on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by the Howard government under the aegis of its servile agents—namely, the Howard government stacked ABC board. What double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty for the Howard government to cut the throat of Australia’s democracy by gagging debate on this bill in the Senate last Thursday and then ramming it through the Senate to the cheers of James Packer, Rupert Murdoch and their executives. And today they are venally employing those very servile agents to put the public broadcaster in the dock on trumped-up charges alleging bias and failure by the ABC to present more diverse opinions. What breathtaking hypocrisy, dishonesty and double standards indeed. What a disgraceful and venal government Australia has. The Howard government must be voted out of office at the next election and Kim Beazley must become our next Prime Minister to save our democracy. The Howard government cannot be allowed to strangle and suffocate diversity of news, information and public opinion in Australia with this bill. The Howard government cannot be allowed to crucify the ABC. Our democracy is at stake, right here, this very night. The right of every citizen to have his or her voice heard is at stake here tonight. Free speech is on the line, right here, tonight. Might is not right. When Australian citizens cast their votes at the last federal election they did not vote for Kerry Packer. They did not vote for Rupert Murdoch. They voted for a party that would put Australia first. They voted for a leader who would put Australia first. They voted for a candidate or a member who would put Australia first. What a betrayal of our country we are witnessing here tonight. And how did we end up in this state? Let me take you back to last week, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Tuesday, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, fearing that she could not trust Senator Barnaby Joyce and that he would vote against the bill, organised for her chief of staff to contact Family First senator Steve Fielding and arrange a private meeting. At the very time this meeting was scheduled, on Tuesday evening, Senator Coonan was wheeling and dealing with Senator Joyce and the member for Hinkler. In the dead of night further telephone calls were made, and Senator Fielding met with Senator Coonan on Wednesday morning. Disgracefully, Senator Fielding surrendered his vote to the Howard government and the media moguls and at high noon went into the chamber to tell the Senate: Family First is not persuaded that the arguments against this legislation are so significant as to justify rejecting it and, therefore, we will support it. Tonight I ask: why? The current cross-media ownership laws prevent the common ownership of newspapers, free-to-air television and radio licences in the same market. The public interest principle underpinning these laws is obvious. Diversity in the media is central to the free flow of information in a participatory democracy. Diversity in news, current affairs and journalistic commentary is critical to ensure the people of Australia are made fully aware of all views and opinions so that they can make up their own minds, draw their own conclusions and make their own judgements on any issue, and not have News Ltd and PBL manufacture consent for them. It follows that we need a free and sceptical media that can promote a real plurality of opinions—that is good for democracy. The cornerstone of any media law should be to promote diversity and pluralism. This has not escaped even the Prime Minister, who, while making exalted references to Australia’s proud democratic traditions, said: ... the strength and vitality of Australian democracy rests on three great institutional pillars: our parliament with its tradition of robust debate; the rule of law upheld by an independent and admirably incorruptible judiciary; and a free and sceptical press ... Those are the Prime Minister’s words; that is what he said. I could not agree more. Why then has the Prime Minister slammed a wrecking ball into one of those three Australian institutional pillars, felling the pillar of a free and sceptical media? What worth will an institutional pillar supporting our democracy be if it is overwhelmingly owned and controlled by two media companies? Will journalists be able to freely dissect and report the serious issues of the day? Will a journalist risk their job to write an editorial contrary to their boss’s opinion? They have not in relation to Rupert Murdoch’s support for the coalition of the willing. Is the Howard government or indeed Senator Fielding naive enough to believe that it is mere coincidence that all of Mr Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia showed uniform editorial support for the war in Iraq? That is 170-plus newspapers. You might have thought that somewhere in the United Kingdom, Australia or even North America an editor working for News Ltd would have come out and challenged the position of his or her boss. Of course they did not do that. What about PBL? May we ask the honourable member for Calare about how Kerry Packer used to interfere in newsrooms when Peter Andren worked for the Packer family? To suggest we can so easily delineate media ownership from political commentary is a fallacy of the worst kind. I want to place on record that I have been contacted by three journalists who privately suggest that there is some merit to the old adage: he who pays the piper calls the tune. That those three journalists, two from News Ltd—one a very senior one—and another from Fairfax, are unable to say publicly what they said to me without fear of recrimination is an indictment on the concentration of media ownership in Australia. Two of those journalists, as I said, work for News Ltd and the other for Fairfax. I am waiting for a call from someone from PBL; I have not had one yet. Further concentrating our media in Australia is a road which must be left untravelled. Australia already has a very high concentration of media ownership. We have already one of the greatest concentrations of media ownership of any country that calls itself a democracy. News Ltd and Fairfax currently control over 80 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers; Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, owners of Channel 9, currently have television coverage reaching 52 per cent of Australia’s population and a 40 per cent market share of Australia’s top-selling magazines. This is not to mention News Ltd’s and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd’s 25 per cent share each in Australia’s monopoly pay television network, Foxtel; 33 per cent share in Sky News and interest in Australian Associated Press. Is it any wonder that the association Reporters sans Frontieres has relegated Australia to No. 41 on the index of world press freedom. Quite astonishingly, Australia lags behind developing nations as well as old Soviet bloc republics. Our embarrassingly low press freedom ranking must have something to do with the fact that the lack of diversity in media ownership provides an opportunity for Australia’s media tycoons to exploit their vast media assets in a manner that suits their interests, not Australia’s. Our embarrassingly low press freedom ranking must also have something to do with the Howard government’s capitulation to our media proprietors who have been pushing for these changes for 15 years. While Australians have become used to successive communications ministers’ sophistry and venal behaviour since 2001, it is appalling that the bill has found support from a senator who was elected to put the family first. That Senator Fielding can sit back and allow the Howard government to run roughshod over our democracy with the patronage of the Packer and Murdoch families while displaying no insight into the duty he holds to his constituency is a catastrophe for our democracy. Senator Fielding’s superficial contribution to the debate in the Senate shows that he knows not what he has done. For the benefit of Senator Fielding and the complicit members of the Howard government, I will explain what this bill will allow News Ltd and PBL to own. This is the government’s definition of diversity: PBL and News Ltd will be able to own every major metropolitan newspaper under this legislation; most suburban newspapers; virtually every magazine; Channel 9 and Channel 10; Sky News; Australian Associated Press; monopoly pay television Foxtel; and more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet—all against the background that the government will not allow a fourth free-to-air TV licence or a second pay television network to new competitors, which would provide some real competition to the might of the two big media companies. Imagine how devastating a giant media company could be in the Howard government’s new media ownership age. I trust Senator Fielding and those sitting opposite are aware of the alleged plot by the chief executive of PBL to broadcast a news story on Channel 9 attacking Kerry Stokes, apparently in retaliation for an unflattering news story on Channel 7 about James Packer’s involvement in the failed One.Tel venture. With its unlimited print and electronic opportunities, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen in fighting those who seek to manufacture consent? What is to stop a media proprietor from unconscionably trading favourable and highly influential commentary across a broad range of print and electronic media with a government that is willing to meet his or her personal interests? We have seen headlines in Australia such as ‘Murdoch flies in to dine with PM’ and ‘PM risks Packer’s ire’ as well as headlines in the US such as ‘Murdoch’s election play may win him a TV station’. When looked at in isolation, there is perhaps nothing more to be said about these headlines except: what about our democracy? When viewed in the context that at every juncture of media policy the government has navigated a dangerous path which seeks to appease entrenched segments of the media industry—including Messrs Packer and Murdoch—some serious questions have to be asked. Serious questions have to be asked about the future health of Australia’s democracy if we walk a path that gives one citizen even more power to potentially intimidate an elected government or an opposition. We must ask serious questions about a piece of legislation that may hand down to future generations a parliament that is handicapped by the influence of vested interests. A parliament, media industry and democracy which will be paralysed by the vested interests of media proprietors is a disgrace. This is not the Australia that I want. This is the not the Australia that the electors of Lowe, who voted for me, want. This is not the Australia that the people of Dunedoo, where I was born, want. And it is clearly not the Australia that most fair-minded Australians would want for themselves, their children or their grandchildren. It is contemptuous that, with few exceptions, no-one from the government is asking these hard questions. We are talking about a matter that goes to the heart of the plurality of news information and public opinion in Australia, a matter that goes to the very heart of freedom of speech and a matter that goes to the heart of Australia’s democracy. Yet the members of the Howard government are complicit, washing their hands like Pontius Pilate in a disgraceful display of apathy. Indeed, the responses of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to my innumerable questions over the last six years have been nothing short of arrogant, with a reckless disregard for the public interest. They are responses that are significant not because of the substance of the answers provided but because of the scornful and cynical manner in which they were given. They are the answers expected of a minister who has long since caved in to the media moguls—the display of a Clayton’s communications minister who knowingly and wilfully allows the media barons to call the tune. Never was this more apparent than when the minister gave the public five weeks to make submissions to the government’s media reform discussion paper and then had that disgraceful shotgun Senate inquiry a couple of weeks ago. This cynical, expedient government has never explained how the ownership by two big media companies of all Australia’s newspapers, countless magazines, internet news sites, Sky News, two of the three commercial free-to-air television networks and a monopoly on pay television assists the public interest. The Howard government has never explained how reducing the number of media competitors in a market like Sydney from 12 to five—where the people I represent in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney’s inner west live—is good for my constituents, is good for the people of the inner west of Sydney, is good for the people of Sydney, is good for the people of New South Wales or, indeed, is good for the people of Australia. The Howard government has never explained how concentrating media ownership in the hands of so few, with the power to influence public opinion and to make or break governments or oppositions, is a good thing for our democracy. The government should hang its head in shame. The best the minister can do to justify her venal behaviour is to make rhetorical and superficial references to nebulous and innocuous concepts such as ‘the need for greater flexibility’. Never have I seen an explanatory memorandum so short on justifications to overturn such a critical piece of public policy in Australia. Pity those poor individuals who had to draft it. Perhaps they too now realise that weakening cross-media ownership laws weakens the health of our country. Perhaps they too realise the diabolical consequences of further concentrating media ownership in Australia. Australia’s media should not merely be seen as a commodity that can simply be bought and sold for the purposes of reaching economies of scale or economies of scope. We are not just talking about any commodity but something that strikes at the heart of our democracy. The minister even has the hide to suggest that she is ‘in it for the consumers’. That beggars belief. Even the big media companies would be splitting their sides laughing at those statements. It is not good enough that Minister Coonan launches an assault on our democracy. Senator Coonan assaults our intelligence. The Productivity Commission’s statement said: ... the likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance. The Productivity Commission’s statement is spot on. This bill will result in an unacceptable concentration of power and diminution of opinion. The keys to Australia’s democracy do not belong to our two biggest media moguls. Indeed, the keys to Australia’s democracy belong to the people. I have long lived in hope that members of the government would show the courage and leadership to stand up for their principles rather than abandon our country. While the allure of political support from media companies may be seductive, the future of Australia’s democracy is far more important than any short-term political gain. The public interest, and the future of our democracy, demands more than a short-sighted view to obtain favourable editorial coverage from the media. It demands a far-sighted view to maintain a free and sceptical press of the sort that has given our democracy the strength and vitality that makes it one of the most revered around the world. The past two weeks have shown that the Howard government is venal when it comes to media reform. Either way, media consumers and Australia’s democracy will be flogged if this bill becomes law. Australians have long asked who the Howard government is honestly representing on issues concerning the media landscape. They are asking who really is running our country. They are also entitled to ask questions of Senator Fielding and the Family First Party. Before I finish, I have a duty on behalf of our precious democracy to rename the Family First Party the Packer Family First Party or, alternatively, the Murdoch Family First Party. I have been informed by an impeccable source that, in the knowledge that Senator Coonan could not trust Senator Joyce, the Liberal Party bribed Senator Fielding for his vote with the promise of preferences to the Family First Party at the coming election. I tell the House tonight that Senator Fielding reached for his 30 pieces of silver. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that should be withdrawn. I think that is a direct reflection on a member of another house. You cannot say what the Liberal Party thinks about an allegation without the other party— 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will withdraw. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I meant what I said but I withdraw. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw without qualification. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —I withdraw. I invite the Liberal Party to come out and deny that it has not offered this sleazy and disgraceful preference deal. I invite Senator Coonan to tell the parliament that she has no knowledge of this sleazy and disgraceful deal. Like the Howard government, the Family First Party stand condemned. How can the people of Australia trust a government that has done this to our country? How can the people of Australia trust a government that betrays one of its own and purchases the tainted vote of a non-government member? How can the people of Australia who voted for Senator Fielding ever vote for him again or trust him again? Indeed, how can they ever trust the Howard government again? The Howard government stands condemned for slaughtering our democracy. If any members of the government have any principles or any guts, they will cross the floor and stand against this assault on our democracy. The people of Australia are looking to Kim Beazley and the Labor Party to save our democracy. I can foreshadow tonight that we will do so, because we are not going to lie down and accept this disgraceful assault on our democracy. I have been speaking out on this issue for more than six years, since it was first raised in 2001. I have asked innumerable questions of successive Ministers Coonan, Williams and Alston and all they have ever done is throw sand in my eyes. The day of reckoning has arrived in the House of Representatives tonight because, as I said earlier in my contribution, our democracy is at stake. We cannot hand over the parliament to James Packer and Rupert Murdoch. We might as well shut down the place if this bill goes through and put out a how-to-vote card, ‘One, Packer; two, Murdoch,’ and we will only have to worry about the donkey vote. (Time expired) 122 20:53:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —I have a personal friendship with the member for Lowe, but I have never heard such a misguided speech in my life. The media, which he suggests is totally dominated by a couple of owners, has been telling us this very day that Mr Packer is, more than likely, going to be a vendor, not a buyer. He has decided that Asian casinos are a much better investment in this day and age, and he is probably right. The member for Lowe has come to the conclusion that Mr Murdoch wants to come back here and buy up big. I cannot say he will not, but I think he is more concerned with Mr Malone over there in America, who has 16 per cent or thereabouts of his business. Mr Murdoch has been working every aspect he can find to try to get rid of him. It is just evidence that the member for Lowe and too many of his colleagues think Australian media is a big target for these people. One of the reasons that Mr Murdoch has his problems with Mr Malone is that he foolishly abandoned the Australian stock market and went over to make himself a big name in America. In the deflation of his share price, Mr Malone slipped in and got 16 per cent of Mr Murdoch’s business. When you go and play in that big market you have all sorts of problems. The member for Lowe actually questioned me and I welcomed it. I thought it was a great aspect of the operation of the other place here, the— 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —The Senate. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —No, do not worry about the Senate—you know what your former boss, I mean Paul Keating, said about that—I am talking about our second chamber. We have an opportunity in the Main Committee to question, and I was delighted when the member for Lowe challenged me there—excuse me for getting myself lost for a minute—about the ravages of the Murdoch empire. You never want to make enemies with someone. Think back to the great icon of the Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, and do not make promises to media moguls which you are not going to keep. It is a matter of history—well recorded in that dreadful media!—that in pursuit of government the Whitlam opposition promised Mr Murdoch, at a time when I guess the duty on newsprint was of some interest to the Murdoch organisation—it would be miniscule in their operating costs today—that they would let him import newsprint duty free. Having been consulted, the unions at a later date told Labor that it could not do that, so it did not. I think to a degree the Murdoch press, or Mr Murdoch, took revenge, and it has been an icon of anger within the Labor Party since. I remember voting with Labor over the two-airline policy. My view was that Western Australians got screwed by the two-airline policy and that we did not need it. That was the example given by the member for Lowe when he asked, ‘Why not more TV stations?’ I agree with him entirely on that issue but we were fighting against the two-airline policy when the Labor Party wanted revenge on Rupert Murdoch as half-owner of Ansett. There were a few of us—not many; not enough. I think we lost by one vote against Malcolm Fraser’s government at the time. You can have policy for good reason or you can get carried away with ridiculous arguments such as that James Packer wants to come in and dominate the media here. I do not think there is that much money in it and I think his new partnerships in casinos are much more attractive—and someone else will buy. Maybe Murdoch has been a bit dominant, but the average journalist would be insulted to be told by the member for Lowe that the journalist responds to his boss. I think that is yesterday’s issue. My problem is that we have not won enough journalists but then, as was brought to the attention of the House today, there are a few problems for journalists—such as they cannot get into a Labor Party conference without a union ticket. If you want to get passionate in this place about defending the democracy you had better start by letting the journalists in the door. It is a bit rough that you come in here and beat your chest and say, ‘I’m for democracy but not if it’s not by my rules.’ We have to be a bit fair about those sorts of things. This is about business. I agree with the member for Lowe: if you are concerned about consolidation do not have limits on the number of TV licences. We do not have limits on the number of newspapers and magazines. Someone starts a new magazine every five minutes and I am not sure who reads them or who has their political interests changed by what they read therein. I am a bit concerned, as I said, that the journalist profession, which I think dominates the media, is a bit anti us because they hold less conservative views than we do, but one of the more pleasant aspects of my day in this place is having an argument with them out there at the doorstop. Occasionally the Leader of the Opposition gives me a bit of a chance to have a debate with him that he would not offer me in this place. I treat journalists like other people but I do not treat them with either respect or distaste, I just argue with them and that is the best part of my day. I do not think we should denigrate them by saying they will be the slaves of a media mogul. As I replied to the member for Lowe in the Main Committee, I think the media unfortunately is too busy trying to find out what it thinks the public wants to know and telling it. Debate interrupted. 123 ADJOURNMENT 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 123 123 21:00:00 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 0 Mr ANDREN —Today is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the day set aside in 1993 by the United Nations to try to unite the world on the need for all people on this planet to enjoy the most basic of rights, the right to sufficient food and water. Yet for all the good intentions, for all the endeavours by people and governments of goodwill and good intent, two billion people today have less than $2 a day to live on and, in the past 12 months, 10 million more people have moved from barely sufficient to insufficient food and sustenance. The millennium goal of halving poverty by 2015 is in danger of faltering unless a massive recommitment is made by all well-endowed countries, Australia in particular. Tonight as I speak, the sun is high in the sky and it is about mid-afternoon on the African continent, where so much poverty and starvation abound, driven often by drought, of course, but more often by the internecine warfare between factions within and across borders drawn by former colonial masters who can rightly bear most of the blame for the misery, poverty and starvation that the warfare brings. While Australia has recently contributed more to foreign aid, it is an aid largely predicated on desired political outcomes. It is not unconditional aid. In the week that Muhammad Yunus has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace on the back of his revolutionary Grameen Bank and microcredit initiative, Australia stands accused of largely ignoring this important strategy of lifting the poor from the clutches of dependence into self-sufficiency. Australia will spend but $14 million of its $2.95 billion aid budget on microfinance, yet the millions of micro loans made to poor Bangladeshis have helped rescue 100 million people from extreme poverty. As the world focuses attention on poverty abroad, let us not forget the poverty afflicting our own Indigenous communities. Recently I was one of the handful of MPs who attended a meeting in this parliament organised by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ecumenical Commission of the National Council of Churches in Australia. The commission has set down eight goals to make Indigenous poverty history in this country by 2015. The goals include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal education with proper respect for the Indigenous cultures; promoting gender equality at all levels of education and participation; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating chronic and communicable disease; ensuring environmental sustainability, including that mining agreements and land use agreements are formed with free and prior informed consent of traditional owners; and developing a national partnership for development, including the re-establishment of an elected representative body. There should be truth in funding processes, acknowledging the wrongs of the past by way of a formal apology to the stolen generation, payment of reparations, establishment of a treaty and full land rights, and reparation of stolen wages in full. The Council of Churches Social Justice Statement 2006 makes the telling observation: that, while the plight of Australia’s Indigenous people is well documented, there is little progress in addressing that. Rather, there is a misguided regression to a paternalistic model, the dismantling of representative bodies and a dramatic watering down of land rights. Global health statistics place Indigenous Australians below Bangladesh where Muhammad Yunus is doing his great work. The Council of Churches observes: To ‘Make Indigenous Poverty History’, we believe that Indigenous Australia deserves the equivalent of the world’s Millennium Development Goals to provide a real framework of change. At the bedrock must be genuine self-determination ... and funding commensurate with the size of the problems. To help achieve that, the 10-point Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan devised by Professor Ian Ring of Wollongong University and endorsed by the National Council of Churches must be the starting point. Professor Ring says that such a plan could reduce Indigenous mortality rates by 30 per cent in the next 10 years, as has happened much earlier with the New Zealand Maoris, the first nation people of Canada and the US and Alaskan first peoples. As with minority Indigenous people all over the world, poverty follows in the shadow of dispossession and devaluation of culture. The downward spiritual spiral created by such disrespect and abuse often leads to chronic despair, loss of self-esteem and the diseases of so-called development—a development that more often than not is achieved by exploitation of the poorest nations and peoples and causes obscene riches for some and the extremes of real and spiritual poverty for so many others. 125 125 21:05:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 0 Miss JACKIE KELLY —You will recall that earlier today I commented on the union’s campaign against the government’s Work Choices laws and how they are resorting to personal and unscrupulous methods to exert pressure on the duly elected officials of this place. First it was my husband and now it is a known associate of mine and personal friend and fellow Liberal Jim Aitkin. Kentmore Pty Ltd is a business that sold real estate in the Blue Mountains area until mid-2005, when, in financial difficulties, it looked like closing. It was purchased by Jim Aitkin on 1 July 2005. The office’s real estate director, Gail Austins, earned around $60,000 in the 12 months to 1 July 2005, when the business was purchased by Jim Aitkin real estate. I can imagine that any employee in that situation would not want to lose their job through a business closing, and I imagine that they would not want to earn less than they were earning, but I do not think that any employee in that situation in June 2005 would consider asking for a 100 per cent pay rise. Jim Aitkin is a very astute businessman. He has been very successful and he was confident that he could turn that real estate agency around. He has won numerous western Sydney awards for business, including the 2005 awards. He has continued to perform strongly in a buoyant real estate market and, particularly in the last year, his real estate agency has gone ahead when the real estate market has been at rock bottom. Thanks to the New South Wales Labor government’s taxes, charges, levies, land taxes, vendor taxes and everything imaginable, the New South Wales real estate agency market has been completely killed. Due to Jim Aitkin’s methods in real estate, any employee of his is certainly on more than $60,000 a year. All of Jim Aitkin’s real estate directors are on the real estate state award—a noncompulsory commission structure. This is one that is issued by the Real Estate Employers’ Federation. He does not offer AWAs, but my strong recommendation to Jim Aitkin, due to the union’s concerted campaign on him, is to take on any future employees under AWAs. I am reliably informed that Jim Aitkin has not used the AWA system but has been very happy to have the pay scales and structures he has always used, which have seen him awarded these numerous awards. He has very loyal staff who have stood up for him and by him in all his ventures in life, including politics. He has had a turnover of staff in the last six years of six people in a very busy real estate practice which has five or six offices and I imagine over 50 or 60 staff. His staff are very loyal. They have been completely vitriolic in their comments about the union’s campaign. They are absolutely livid that this ex-employee has brought the union along to disrupt the workplace and paint them in a bad light, as if they were some poor schmucks who somehow worked for less than anyone else in the real estate market because they happened to work for Jim Aitkin. They are very happy to work for Jim. They find themselves in the top wage bracket all the time due to the commissions that his real estate agency is able to secure. They are very happy in business with him, which has resulted in his turnover of six people in six years. The union’s targeting of Jim is just extraordinary. Just for the Labor opposition’s benefit, I will elucidate this even further. An employee cannot be sacked for refusing to negotiate, make, sign, extend, vary or terminate an AWA. However, under the law, if you are a job applicant your prospective employer can make the offer of a job conditional on signing an AWA. That is the law. If an employee feels that they have been coerced into signing a workplace agreement they should contact the Office of Workplace Services. This is an organisation independent of government. It does not run political campaigns like the unions do. If the union’s power is being whittled away they do not take action against elected representatives and their family and friends. The Office of Workplace Services can investigate and prosecute any breach of the Workplace Relations Act with regard to coercion and duress. Employers face fines of up to $33,000 if prosecuted. There are also transitional arrangements under these laws but they only apply for businesses sold after Work Choices was introduced at the end of March 2006. This business was transferred under the old system on July 2005. (Time expired) 126 126 21:10:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to continue with some of the comments I made in the grievance debate today in relation to the international week against poverty. In that contribution I suggested that some of the goals of the World Bank were not as successful or effective in eradicating poverty as they might want to be. I suggested, therefore, that there were other ways to proceed and indicated that debt relief, for example, is not necessarily the most effective means. Before I managed to finish my contribution my time was up. I want to add some further comments to this very important matter. Having dismissed the notion that debt relief is the be all and end all, it is clear that trade is essential to the Millennium Development Goals, especially agricultural trade liberalisation. It can yield the growth and poverty elimination which aid cannot. The main requirement is for the European Community and the United States to stop their unfair agricultural protectionism. If we are genuine about our concerns about poverty in undeveloped countries, trade is the best way for them to develop. There are other observations I would make with respect to the millennium goals and, indeed, their targets and whether those targets are achievable. As I said earlier today, unfortunately if one was to assess the progress of the targets they would see that many of them are far from being achievable. It is therefore important that we look at other ways to mitigate the adverse effects of poverty on so many millions of people. I want to point out that it is rather unfortunate that the focus on women, MDG 3, is targeted solely on educational inequality. That is not the only inequality suffered by women and it is certainly not one which can be addressed rapidly. By contrast, the Grameen Bank and its founder, Muhammad Yunus, the heroic Bangladeshi economist who was recently and rightly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, has managed to organise small-scale finance for groups of poor women who lack collateral, which shows that the scarcity of capital is equally an impediment to equality and that that scarcity can be addressed quickly and successfully. We should turn our aid effort powerfully to propagating and improving these microfinance institutions. There are other ideas that should be given priority—plans to target infant mortality or adult diabetes, which is common in Melanesian and Polynesian societies, food security or water purity. There are proposals to create a postgraduate core of teachers—who would spend two years in teaching or teaching assistant roles—that attract decent salaries and target primary and secondary schools. There are ideas that would help, for example, PNG to deal with what looks very much like a decimation from HIV-AIDS—throwing more resources at that particular problem. The overall assessment of multilateral aid in the past quarter of a century is that it has been a failing enterprise. There is a reading of this history, and of the history of the World Bank, which argues that much of the blame must be sheeted home to a lack of focus, a multiplicity of objectives and a kind of faddishness. Thus the activities of the World Bank have been blown off course variously by a sudden faddish twist of the whole organisation towards debt relief on one occasion, the war on drugs on another or, more recently, alarmist environmental concerns. Of course, none of these things is necessarily wrong or objectionable, but this preparedness to continually reinvent the World Bank has resulted in it becoming a rudderless ship. There is in the MDGs, in their unwieldy and overarching coverage, an eerie reminiscence, a horrible feeling that we are going to do the whole thing over again, just more rapidly, in 15 years rather than 25. All but the most accomplished jugglers find it easier to keep one ball in the air than several. The World Bank and the aid community have not shown themselves to be accomplished jugglers. It is the role of political leaders to make them focus and to stop aid being hijacked, as it has been repeatedly since 1950. (Time expired) 127 127 21:15:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —I rise tonight to once again express my disgust at just how low the Labor Party will stoop, as I inform the House of the latest in a series of cheap political stunts. Failed ALP candidate and so-called spokesperson for Dobell, Mr David Mehan, has attempted to use a well-known community based charitable event for his own political gain. The House would be aware that October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which puts this stunt in particularly poor taste. I welcome the federal budget announcement of an additional $235 million in medical research funding, which includes a grant of $259,000 to Professor John Forbes and his team from the University of Newcastle. This is to investigate the response of breast cancers to new drug treatments, which may allow breast-conserving surgery rather than mastectomy for patients. David Mehan is building a reputation on the Central Coast as a person who looks for any opportunity to encourage members of the ALP to commit acts of public nuisance. In his latest attempt to raise his own profile, David Mehan has appeared in our local community newspaper— JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it has been determined that any imputations against a nonmember should be proceeded with by way of a notice of motion. I think allegations that someone has perpetuated a public nuisance are going too far. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I heard the member for Barton. I will listen carefully to the member for Dobell. 00ANF Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP Mr TICEHURST —Mr Mehan dressed in his ‘your rights at work’ campaign shirt to announce that ‘his team’—Mr Mehan being the only member of his so-called Central Coast unions team—would be pulling out of the Central Coast Cancer Council Relay for Life. Mr Mehan cited his disapproval of the totally unrelated employment practices of another cancer council across the country in South Australia. He said: ‘The Cancer Council does a great job raising money for cancer research and promoting the issue. However, we could not continue our support when we learned about the Cancer Council’s individual contracts.’ Mr Mehan was also quoted in the Central Coast Express Advocate, saying, ‘We had formed a team and were well on our way to meeting our donation target.’ I should hope that he would be decent enough to ensure that all, if any, funds raised were sent to the Cancer Council. I am a keen supporter of the Cancer Council New South Wales and was honoured by being given the opportunity to officially launch the Mingara Relay for Life on 31 July at the Mingara Recreation Club in my electorate of Dobell. I am in total dismay that the ALP could use such an admirable organisation as a political tool. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms Lesley Chart, Community Relations Coordinator for the Cancer Council of New South Wales, and the Central Coast region in particular, for her tireless efforts in ensuring the success of such an important event. Over 70 teams participated in the event last weekend, raising $40,000 towards the continuation of vital cancer research, support and education programs. This is not the first time that this so-called Labor spokesperson, Mr Mehan, has relied on opportunism to enhance his own self-importance. An event which occurred in recent months in my electorate office involved Mr Mehan instigating an unruly protest at my office, causing considerable disruption to other building occupants when around 50 car loads of flag-carrying unionists blockaded the car park and then marched through the building to my office, yelling abuse at my staff. One would expect that Mr Mehan, as Assistant Secretary of Central Coast Unions, would have the interests of his members at heart. However, his actions show this is not the case. Mr Mehan is only out for his own political self-interest and has shown a blatant disregard for his followers. He continues down the path of the failed union scare campaign of misinformation and untruths about the very successful changes to the industrial relations laws. As Prime Minister John Howard has so perfectly stated on many occasions, ‘Don’t listen to what Labor says; look at what Labor does.’ 128 128 21:19:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —Bert James, the former member for Hunter, died at Booragul on Saturday, 30 September. Indeed, this parliament had a condolence motion for him last Monday. I want to thank the member for Capricornia for giving up her spot in this adjournment debate to allow me to make a few remarks about my good friend Bert, as the member for Hunter did last Thursday evening. As I said, Bert was a good friend to me and my family. He always extended goodwill and generosity and he was one of my mentors. I can remember when my family first moved to the lake and my husband, Reg, did not know too many people. Bert took him under his wing—he had been retired for a long time by then—and showed him the joys of fishing on Lake Macquarie in his boat, Goldilocks. There was many a time after a bit of fishing when they would adjourn over to the Wangi Workers Club, where they could tie the boat up, have a few drinks and then go back to Bert’s place, his family home, which was just down the road from where Reg and I live. Bert lived there with his late wife, Nora, and their son, Rowley, and one of their daughters, Barbara, lives just across the road from them. My earliest memory of Bert was at my family’s holiday home at Corlette. It must have been the early 1970s. As I said, Bert was a keen fisher and he used to go out to Broughton Island and spend days out there fishing. Sometimes he would then call back into our holiday home while we were there on holidays and come to visit. I would like to take a couple quotes from Bert’s first speech in the parliament. He said: It may be a hereditary characteristic derived from a dad who gave a lifetime of political service to the people of Hunter and more than 50 years of industrial and political service to the greatest and most constructive political party in this country—the Australian Labor Party, the party to which I am proud to belong. From childhood I was nurtured in the home of a miners’ industrial representative whose main public consideration was loyalty to the class from which he came. In that same speech he concludes: I hope that I shall always be able to see my way clear to adhere to the principles of the Australian Labour Party. We believe in peace, progress and prosperity. The Labour Party believes in the principle that none should be exploited and none should be denied. And those were the principles with which Bert James lived his life. My father, Bob Brown, who was the member for Hunter following Bert, gave the eulogy at Bert’s funeral and also wrote an obituary for the Sydney Morning Herald, which was published last Thursday. I would like to quote part of that: A visit to Cuba in 1962, four years after the Castro revolution overthrew the Batista regime and expelled the exploitive United Fruit Company, left an indelible impression on James. He was proud to declare himself a socialist and fearlessly defended the rights of people who had been cheated or marginalised. He saw his membership of the Freemasons as backing the principle of mutual support and protection. People who knew Bert would have known of his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war. Bob quotes: Long before the true nature of the war in Vietnam became general knowledge and the community reacted with horror to the increasing disclosures of the brutality and the flow of body bags returning young Australians to their homeland, James courageously joined those of his colleagues, such as Jim Cairns and Tom Uren, who were demanding an end to to the war. James had been inspired by a young US soldier in Bangkok who asked him to expose the ‘free fire zones’ in Vietnam in which troops were allowed/required to shoot anything—men, women, children, livestock—that moved. It was a source of great comfort when Whitlam, newly elected as prime minister, released draft resisters and brought the last of the Australian troops home from Vietnam. Reg’s and my condolences go to Bert’s brother, John; his sister, Bonnie; his son, Rowley; his daughters, Barbara and Helen; and to their families. In the words of Rowley James: we salute you. (Time expired) 129 129 21:24:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 0 Mrs ELSON —Today is the beginning of a very special week: Carers Week. It is a week in which we recognise the many thousands of people in our communities who dedicate their lives to caring for others. Today the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. John Cobb, and Senator the Hon. Santo Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, launched this special week. As they stated, Carers Week is all about listening and learning and making the public aware of what carers are all about, and giving thanks and celebrating the role of carers in our community. Minister Cobb also launched the Special Disability Trusts booklet, which is probably one of the most important booklets to get into the hands of those elderly people who have disabled people in their care. This booklet will have information on trusts and includes a model trust deed. Minister Cobb also announced that he will be launching later this month another book, a future care and information booklet, which will have all kinds of useful information about what we need to consider if we are thinking about planning for the future of a person with a disability. This information kit will include easy to understand information about what support is available, how to get financial and legal advice, how to establish cooperative housing, care arrangements and so on. I think it would also be appropriate to read a section of a letter that I received from a constituent of mine. Her name is Jill—I will not say what her last name is publicly. She wrote a very heartrending letter that gives first-hand information on the sacrifices that are made by carers in Australia. I heard about this lady first-hand and the sacrifice she has made to ensure her husband received the very best care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I really admire her. It would have been an easier option for Jill to place her husband in a nursing home when he had a massive stroke 11 years ago, but she did not. I thought it appropriate to read a section of this letter tonight. She starts off by saying: Mrs Elson, you struck me as a person who has genuine interest in people and their various issues and you gave me strength. I thought you might be interested to see how the sad tale ends, but this is not written for sympathy. I beg you to pass this on to your government that some people have intolerable lives and that changes in government policy and more finances would alleviate this situation. To quickly recap, my husband suffered a massive stroke 11 years ago, which left him disabled and brain damaged. I cared for him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and all this time he became progressively worse—incontinent and violent. Two years ago he spent one day a week at Beenleigh Day Respite Centre, which gave me one day to tend to other things. Please press upon your government that more of these respite centres should be funded and supported, as this enables people to care for their loved ones at home for a much longer time and preserves the sanity of carers. In June this year my husband lost the ability to transfer from bed to a wheelchair or to the toilet. Equipment to help was hired, but his dementia and violence made their use impossible. Daily I would spend the whole day cleaning and washing him, recovering from many punches while doing so. At this point I went to the Beenleigh Nursing Home to find out how long the waiting list would be so that I could have some hope that there would be help for me in the future. Within a week I had my husband in this nursing home. My husband required two nurses and a Pixel hoist to dress, shower and toilet him. The nursing staff said to me they did not know how I coped for so long doing all of that by myself. I think generally that this letter just states the types of lives that our carers lead and that we should never miss a day of saying thank you to them for the sacrifices that they make in their daily lives while not saying one word or whinging about it. She did end her letter by saying that the staff at the nursing home are very special people: ... they are truly caring and my husband is content now, clean and well fed. We have been blessed and I ask no more. At this moment I just want to say thank you to that very special lady. I also want to say thank you to another lady in our community, by the name of Marie Lubek. She saw that there was a great need that when groups started off, they did not have support behind them—especially carers groups—because they had so much time having to look after their carers. So she went about and set a guide up to help those groups, to make sure that they continue supplying support to those people who are caring. I wanted to spend a minute to thank Marie for the many hours of work she has put into this book. It is going to make life a lot easier and it is going to make sure that support groups do not close up for lack of expertise. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 12.30 pm in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting. 131 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 131 NOTICES The following notices were given: 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor to move: That the House: recognises the enormous hurt to Australian working men and women owing to the enactment of the WorkChoices legislation; recognises the extraordinary contribution of Australian rural and regional workers to their communities and the national economy; recognises the particular damage to employment conditions and employment prospects in rural and regional Australia; takes immediate action to restore protection for employment conditions and employment prospects in rural and regional Australia; and takes note of the Howard Government’s agenda to remove employment conditions and employment security, particularly in regional and rural Australia. (Notice given 16 October 2006.) DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird to move: That the House: recognises the damaging impact upon Australian working women as a result of the federal Government’s WorkChoices legislation; recognises in particular the contribution Australian women make to workplaces and households across the country; takes immediate action to restore employment protection for women in the workforce; takes particular action to provide employment protection to women adversely affected by the WorkChoices legislation; and notes the Howard Government’s agenda to reduce employment conditions and employment security for women in the workforce. (Notice given 16 October 2006.) DYK Baker, Mark, MP Mr Baker to move: That the House: notes that 15‑21 October is Carers’ Week; notes that the theme of this year’s Carers’ Week is “Anyone, Anytime”, the objective of which is identifying carers and empowering them to access support services; recognises that there are approximately 2.6 million carers in Australia who provide unpaid help and assistance to a relative or friend, who could not otherwise manage because of disability, mental illness, chronic condition or frailty; notes that almost everyone will provide care at some time during their life; notes that around 1.2 billion hours of informal care are currently provided by family carers (as recently found by Access Economics in its report Economic Value of Informal Care); acknowledges the enormous contribution made by carers to Australian society, often at great personal cost; and calls on all levels of government, businesses and schools to consider adopting carer-friendly work practices and learning environments. (Notice given 16 October 2006.) 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon to move: That the House: reflect on the death of Australian Olympic silver medallist, Peter Norman, at his home in Williamstown on 3 October 2006; recognise that Peter Norman’s 200-metre 1968 sprint time of 20.06 seconds still stands and the national 200-metre sprint record; acknowledge the contribution of Peter Normal to Australian athletics; reflect on the role of Peter Norman in one of the most controversial scenes in the history of sport; applaud Peter Norman’s support of American medallists Tommie Smith and John Carlos on the Olympic podium in 1968 in their protest against racial discrimination and poverty; and acknowledge the significant contribution Peter Norman made to the Civil Rights movement and international human rights through his actions and words. (Notice given 16 October 2006.) 2006-10-16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4.00 pm. 133 MOTIONS Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Lloyd: That the House: recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally elected councils; values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve; acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation; acknowledges the importance of cooperating with and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities; acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services; and commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities. upon which Mr Albanese moved by way of amendment: That paragraph (1) be omitted and the following paragraph substituted; “(1) supports a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government in recognition of the essential role it plays in the governance of Australia.”. 133 16:00:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —Before I finished my remarks last week, I was talking about the important role that local government plays within our national system of government and the need for a stronger and more effective partnership between our federal sphere of government and the local councils around the country. The councils in Capricornia, my electorate, want a genuine two-way equal partnership with the federal government. When I spoke to the mayors, they stressed that term ‘equal partnership’—not the one that we often see in action at the present time where the federal government is happy to take the revenue from the coal boom that is occurring in my electorate but leaves much of the responsibility for the infrastructure and the communities that sustain the coal industry falling to the local councils. I want to raise some examples of what is happening around Central Queensland and the kinds of projects that local councils are raising with me in the hope of attracting much-needed and, I would say, well-deserved federal government support. I will start at the heart of the coalmining boom in the shire of Belyando, which includes the towns of Moranbah and Clermont. These towns are under massive pressure from the growing population of workers in the mines and associated industries. The demand for housing and water resources is particularly acute, and the councillors have been working overtime to get solutions to both those issues. Of course, while they can come up with the solutions that will best meet the needs of their communities, they are always reliant on other levels of government to come on board with funding and support to fully realise their goal. The Belyando Shire Council is certainly not sitting on its hands, waiting for other levels of government to do the heavy lifting on this issue of affordable housing in Moranbah, in particular. To the contrary, the council has been proactive in trying to find a solution to the shortage of affordable housing. I will just put it into perspective for other members. The cost of renting a three-bedroom house in Moranbah at present is $1,200 per week. So we really are talking about enormous pressures on affordable housing in the context of the coalmining boom. The council has already introduced an infrastructure charge on developers on each block of land. The additional $2,700 infrastructure charge will be allocated towards the council’s affordable housing initiative. The council intends to build 10 accommodation units in the next year and will develop land by offering it for sale at cost plus $10,000. Again, the profits from those activities will be directed towards affordable housing. The council is seeking assistance from the federal government and will propose a motion at the upcoming Australian Local Government Association conference outlining its suggestion of a direct payment from the federal government to local councils to increase the supply of affordable housing, similar to the concept behind the Roads to Recovery program. This is a classic example of a council getting in and addressing a problem that is not its core function, but the council sees the impact the problem is having on the community and feels it has no choice but to act. This motivation was summed up in a statement the Mayor of Belyando, Peter Freeleagus, made to me. He said that the council’s role is to create a community, and I know the Mayor of Belyando really believes that and fulfils that goal in the things that the council does. The impact of the coal boom is not, however, restricted to those towns next to the coalmines. In Rockhampton the effects of a growing population and new industrial developments associated with the mining sector are putting pressure on local infrastructure, as well. The Rockhampton City Council is responding to the increased presence of heavy vehicle traffic in some of the city’s residential areas and the general growth in vehicle numbers with several road projects, and these projects are particularly at the interface between residential areas and the growing industrial section of the city. The council has applied for funding under the Roads to Recovery strategic regional funding program to upgrade two roads, and it is also asking for additional funding to conduct a study to identify potential future routes in order to remove heavy vehicles from residential areas and the CBD. The council has identified a couple of projects. One is the construction of an industrial access road along Maloney Street between Alexander Street and the Bruce Highway. The idea of that is to improve access to the southern portion of the Parkhurst Industrial Estate, and it will enhance the safety of the general public through the reduction of heavy vehicle traffic utilising the residential areas and school zones on Farm Street and Carlton Street. That project has my full backing, and I know it is very popular in the community, because we want to get the heavy vehicles away from those residential areas and areas near the Glenmore schools. The other project is the Norman Road-Moores Creek Road arterial roads corridor. Both Norman Road and Moores Creek Road are experiencing, and are expected to continue to experience, significant traffic growth as a result of the development in the adjacent urban areas and continued growth on the Capricorn coast. Although these projects are within the boundaries of Rockhampton, they do have regional significance, as Rockhampton is the major service and industrial centre for many of the mines to the city’s south and west. It is also the place where many of the mineworkers and their families settle or travel to in order to access, health, education, financial and other services. Safe and efficient travel into and through Rockhampton is important for the entire region. These projects have my support, and I have written to the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads requesting that he give these projects priority in recognition of the importance of the coal industry to our national economy and the necessity for that industry and surrounding communities to be supported by adequate infrastructure. While the councils in our region are engaged on a daily basis in trying to address the human side of the coal boom, the federal government is yet to show it is even aware that these issues exist—and I suspect that will not change any time soon. I wrote to the Prime Minister this year inviting him to tour my electorate to fully appreciate the impact that the coal boom is having on Central Queensland and to see how the federal government could do its bit for a region that has effectively funded its budget handouts for the last few years. The Prime Minister has answered my letter, and I am disappointed to report to the House that he declined my invitation. However, as the councils of Central Queensland know all too well, the issues of infrastructure and social services will not go away. The Prime Minister has to decide whether he is truly governing for all of us or whether, as I suspect, he will continue to ignore regional Australia—even those parts that keep this country afloat. (Time expired) 135 16:08:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to contribute to the debate on this motion in support of local government which was moved by the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. I think that the motion is—apart from the proposed amended part—a worthy motion to be debated in this House. Local government is a very important tier of government, and I think it is correct that the parliament consider local government not only in its own right but also as a government that the Commonwealth must deal with at the local level. But I think it is important for us to note the failings of this motion as well. The most obvious failing is the inability for the government to consider recommending that the House recognise local government in the Constitution of Australia. It was not so long ago in historical terms—almost 20 years ago—that the Australian people had an opportunity to make a decision about whether they wanted to recognise local government within the Constitution. As we know, the result was a resounding no—unfortunately, from my point of view—and, as a result, local government still is not properly recognised by the Constitution. There are reasons why the population of Australia chose not to support that particular question as listed in the referendum. Perhaps the most obvious reason is that the opposition at the time, the coalition, was strongly against not only that question but all four questions that were put in that referendum. So one major political party effectively scared the population by saying that constitutional recognition of local government would be bad because it would be a cost upon the Australian people. There was no evidence of this put forward by the federal opposition at the time. However, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, as is the case in many referenda, if in fact one of the major parties opposes a particular proposition, it is more likely than not that the people of Australia will choose to reject the question as outlined on the referendum paper, and that was the case in that instance. Whilst I applaud the minister for local government for placing this motion on the Notice Paper for debate, he is somewhat duplicitous in saying on the one hand that this House should recognise local government while on the other hand taking no responsibility as a member of an executive government and as a member of the Liberal Party who have spent as much energy as they have in preventing its constitutional recognition. I refer in particular to the comments made by the minister when he said that, although he was conscious of the fact that the majority of local government authorities were supportive of the tier of government being recognised under the Constitution, he believed that there was very little chance of the referendum being successful. In fact, he said: ... the government and I as minister are not convinced that another referendum at this stage would have a different result. Of course it would not have a different result, because Minister Lloyd and his executive government—indeed, the Liberals and The Nationals—would oppose the proposition, as they did nearly 20 years ago. That is very duplicitous. It is important, therefore, that the many hundreds of local government authorities across this nation should be very clear on the difference between, on the one hand, the Labor Party’s view with respect to the recognition of local government in a proper sense via a referendum and ultimately its incorporation into the Constitution and, on the other hand, the view of the coalition parties, who resist and refuse to accept the rightful recognition of the very important local government of this country. So I think it is important for us to put that on the record. It is important for the government not to get away with the duplicitous argument that they could not recommend a constitutional change because it was unlikely to get up when the prime reason it would not get up is because of their own opposition to that proposition. I think that is very important for us to note. However, some aspects of this motion are worthy of discussion. It is important to mention the report that was prepared in 2003 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, chaired by David Hawker, who is now the Speaker. That report was informally titled the Hawker report. There were many decent submissions received by the inquiry, as is the wont of an inquiry looking into local government. It was not surprising that that inquiry received many submissions supporting the constitutional recognition of local government. I also note that the committee report contained 18 unanimous recommendations. There were 11 committee members and 18 unanimous recommendations and, to date, only seven of those 18 recommendations have been implemented in full by the government. This motion before the House today provides us with an opportunity to talk about the importance of local government. As a former councillor at Whittlesea yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, you share, like many federal members, a history of involvement in not only Commonwealth government but also local government. Probably the most famous example of this would be Ben Chifley. He was a councillor of the City of Bathurst at the same time that he was Prime Minister of this country. Clearly there has always been a particular nexus between this place and local government, and I think it is important that the government goes on to look at the remaining committee recommendations with a view to implementing them. The report was a bipartisan report. The submissions were made in good faith and were comprehensive in the main. The 11 members, six government and five Labor members, found very little disagreement in terms of those particular recommendations. It would be worthwhile for the minister to take up the remaining recommendations that have not been implemented and to pursue them with some vigour. That would not hurt the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads at all. While I am speaking on this particular matter, I would like to refer more locally to my own municipalities. I have two municipalities within the boundaries of the electorate of Gorton: one is almost entirely within, the municipality of Brimbank, and the other is the municipality of Melton. One of these two councils has recently reconstructed the way in which councillors are elected insofar as they are now multimember wards rather than single-member wards. Despite all the nay-sayers, that has been a relatively successful reform. Only recently I was speaking directly to Brimbank City Council. I spoke to a full sitting of the council about their views on the Work Choices legislation. Whilst I understand that the Work Choices legislation is a Commonwealth matter and the legislation can only be regulated by the Commonwealth houses of parliament, the fact is that, as a local government, as an elected government, the Brimbank City Council has every right, in my view, to reflect—favourably or otherwise—upon a piece of legislation that will affect the residents within that particular municipality. They considered the Work Choices legislation and reflected that it would not be anything other than adverse to the interests of the majority of working people in the municipality of Brimbank. I will seek to present the same case to the municipality of Melton and hope that, at some point, they will move a motion raising in-principle concerns about the legislation. In conclusion to my comments with respect to this motion, unfortunately the minister has only succeeded in symbolically recognising local government no more or less than is currently the situation. The minister has failed to convince the Prime Minister and indeed senior members of his party and the coalition to accept that local government would wish to be recognised under the Constitution. Therefore, it is high time that, at the next referendum or whenever it may be put to the people, the Australian people are asked again whether they would like to see proper constitutional recognition of local government. I do not believe in my heart of hearts that that question failed because the people disagreed in any violent way with the question. I am of the view that it is more likely that the reason for opposition to the question was, in the main, the scaremongering of the then opposition, particularly the former member for Flinders, Mr Peter Reith. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 4.21 pm to 4.41 pm 137 16:41:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion of the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads that is before this place today, a motion that recognises the indispensable role that local governments continue to play in responding to the interests and needs of the local communities they serve. In particular, I want to put on record that I strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler, which proposes a referendum on extending constitutional recognition to local government. Local government has long played a critical role in maintaining the standard of living and welfare enjoyed by all Australians. Local government serves as a conduit through which a wide range of local services are delivered, and it is often a key decision maker in the planning and development of local infrastructure, which is vital to the sustainability of a community’s existence and a community’s viability. In addition, local government also plays an active role in helping to foster a sense of local community spirit amongst residents, through its many community based programs, its festivals and the various other initiatives that it develops. Whilst we in this place are elected to represent the needs and interests of our constituents at the federal level, local government works at a more immediate and even intimate level as the tier of government that sits closest to the community. For this reason, local government is often able to respond more quickly, and thus more effectively, to the everyday needs of the residents it serves. Because of the essential services that local government provides and because of the role that these services play in maintaining the quality of life enjoyed by those residents and communities that we are elected to represent in this place, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to support local government in any way we can. It is for this reason that I support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler in this House, which was also moved in the Senate by the shadow minister for local government, Senator Carr. In essence, this amendment seeks to correct an anomaly in the Constitution, which, as it stands, currently does not recognise local government as an essential tier in Australia’s governance structures or as a key partner to federal and state governments in servicing the needs and wishes of Australia’s many and diverse local communities. By proposing a referendum to extend constitutional recognition to local government, the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler seeks to remedy this anomaly. It is consistent with the recommendations made in the 2003 report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, a committee that was, of course—as has been said by previous speakers—chaired by the now Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Hawker. Without including the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler, the simple fact is that the motion before the House would fall far short of providing the sort of real and practical support that local government both needs and deserves, given the essential role it plays in the lives of Australians. Of the 18 recommendations contained in the 2003 report, only seven have been implemented in full by the government and, despite all its rhetoric about the importance and value of local government, it has taken the government almost three years to act on only a few of the report’s recommendations. It is one thing for the government to put forward a motion that rightly recognises the importance of local government in the lives of all Australians, as well as the invaluable services that local governments provide and the extraordinary hours and effort that local councillors often volunteer above and beyond their call of duty, but without concrete structural reform, especially in the area of Commonwealth funding for local governments, these words of recognition and praise begin to ring sadly hollow. Without the introduction of concrete structural reforms to ease the financial pressures that local government across Australia continues to face, this motion simply offers local government a nod of recognition from afar, rather than a much-needed helping hand. I support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler because extending constitutional recognition to local government will provide a platform from which to initiate many of the funding reforms necessary to alleviate the financial hardships that local governments currently face, especially those relating to Commonwealth funding for local governments. This amendment offers us an opportunity to tackle the inadequate funding arrangements that continue to put unnecessary pressure on local governments across Australia and place unnecessary constraints on their effectiveness. It also offers an opportunity to overturn the last 10 years of government failure and neglect when it comes to supporting local government. The lack of funding many local councils now face is a failure of government policy and yet another example of this government’s eschewed list of priorities. As the member for Prospect has already mentioned, financial assistance grants to local government as a percentage of Commonwealth tax revenue was 0.97 per cent in 1996. In 2006-07 it had fallen to 0.77 per cent, and by 2009-10 the figure is estimated to fall to some 0.75 per cent. In my own electorate of Calwell, only three to five per cent of the revenue used by the Hume City Council comes from federal government sources. In addition, amending the Constitution to recognise the role and importance of local government in Australia will also serve to strengthen the voice and broaden the involvement of local government in certain key decision-making processes, especially those relating to essential infrastructure needs and community services. For these and other reasons, I want to join with my colleagues in calling on the government to express bipartisan support for this amendment. In the time I have left to speak on this motion, I want to take this opportunity to commend the tremendous work and achievements of the Hume City Council, which shares the same boundaries as my own electorate of Calwell. Proactive in its approach to the community, Hume City Council continues to play an indispensable role in fostering and shaping a strong sense of community spirit in our very diverse and multicultural municipality. Hume is home to over 150,000 people from around 130 ethnic groups, with over 28 per cent of our residents having been born overseas. As such, it is an area that is both culturally rich and ethnically diverse. It is of great credit to the Hume City Council that its many community programs and initiatives have sought to strengthen and celebrate this diversity, making the city of Hume not only a gateway to the city of Melbourne but a shining example of the success of multiculturalism in this country. Hume City Council continues to host, in addition to many other community events, many festivals. Among our most prized series of events are the festivals we have in our municipality each year. There is the Roxburgh Park Harmony Day Festival and the Hume Winter Music Festival, which, over the last three years, has grown into a comprehensive month-long festival with a myriad of musical events that mirror the music and the sounds of the multicultural community that resides in Hume. The Broadmeadows Community Festival is another longstanding festival that each one of our residents in the municipality looks forward to on an annual basis. Of course, our festival program would not be complete without the award-winning multicultural planting festival, which happens once a year. It is a great opportunity. Hundreds of members of our community take the opportunity to plant trees and to simply get on with the job of beautifying our municipality. Underpinning all of these festivals and activities is the celebration of our community’s cultural diversity. It is a cultural diversity that, although not unique to the city of Hume, is essentially what makes the identity of the city of Hume. In addition, Hume council also hosts a series of interfaith festivals—in particular, our Islamic festivals in two weeks time. We celebrate the Eid festival, which is the breaking of Ramadan feast. They are significant festivals not only on the Islamic calendar but also on our city’s cultural and religious calendar. Hume City Council, in recognition of its interfaith community, has established a series of interfaith dialogues. But I would firstly like to speak about the multicultural issues forum established some five years ago by the Hume City Council. Its aim was to provide a voice for Hume city’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Each forum focuses on a particular issue. You would be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that some of the issues that are canvassed by the multicultural issues forum are transport, arts and cultural activities. Another issue is the great problem that our community faces with the proliferation of gaming venues in areas such as Hume, an issue that is very much at the forefront of public debate at the moment. Our issues forum spends a lot of time trying to work through gambling issues with our residents. As I said, the Hume City Council also established its interfaith leaders network some five years ago. That network aims to further develop understanding and harmony across the many different faiths and cultures represented in Hume. Members of the network include leaders from a diverse range of communities and faiths, including the various Christian, Muslim and Sikh communities that exist in the Hume community. On a practical level, the council invites members of the interfaith leaders network to conduct the opening prayer at council meetings in a bid to lead by example in its efforts to actively promote community recognition and respect for different religions. As an example of that, in July this year the prayer was led by Reverend David Peake from the Broadmeadows-Dallas Anglican church. In August, the prayer was led by Imam Mehmet Yoralmaz from the Broadmeadows Turkish Islamic cultural centre. In September the prayer was led by Reverend Paul Gray from the Congregational Christian Church of Samoa in Broadmeadows. In October the prayer was led by Captain Gary Grant from the Salvation Army in Craigieburn. In addition, the council has set up the Hume Indigenous advisory committee, which includes representatives from the Gunung-William-Ballack Indigenous learning centre at Kangan Batman TAFE, alongside members of those organisations that provide services to the Indigenous community in Hume. Underpinning all activities of the Hume council is the Hume social justice charter, which was adopted in 2001, and the citizens’ bill of rights, which was adopted in 2004. The aim of the social justice charter and the bill of rights is to promote respect for each and every citizen, to strengthen community participation and wellbeing and to reduce the causes of disadvantage. Under the charter, the council strives to fulfil its vision for Hume city as a prosperous, progressive, sustainable and vibrant gateway city—a city distinguished by the diversity of its community and renowned for its social justice and community inclusion. Hume is a city marked by social equity, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability. I am very proud to say that these are not just words; they are the driving ethos of the Hume City Council, which we have seen in practice with the council’s ongoing campaign to resist, for example, the federal government’s proposals to build a detention centre in Hume, the council’s continuing campaign for the reinstatement of an after-hours GP service at the Dianella Community Health Centre and with the many environmental and multicultural programs implemented by the council. Evidence of the council’s success can be seen all around the community and has been acknowledged this year with Hume council winning the coveted 2006 Keep Australia Beautiful Sustainable Cities Award, recognising Hume city as Victoria’s most sustainable city. This year, the Hume council also won the 2006 United Nations Association of Australia World Environment Day award for excellence in overall environmental management, which is further testament to the great work being undertaken by the council. All this wonderful work that the Hume City Council does for its residents is an illustration of just how important the role of local government is to its community. I would like to end where I began, and that is by encouraging the government to recognise the valuable work and the special relationship that local government has with its communities and to give local government its due constitutional recognition. It is, after all, the level of government that is closest to the people. It struggles day to day to cope with the increasing responsibility that is placed on it to deliver services and to take up responsibilities that ordinarily one would think would be the responsibility of state and federal governments. In light of all that, I think that a strong case can be put for the importance of local government to be recognised constitutionally. I would like to urge the government to make the decision and to grant this recognition to a level of government which is so important to the lives of ordinary Australians. Debate (on motion by Mr Prosser) adjourned. 141 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 141 Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Abbott: That the House take note of the document. 141 16:57:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —On 14 August, the Prime Minister made a ministerial statement on energy initiatives in quick response to the rise in petrol prices that had broken out right around Australia. The Prime Minister’s assumption was that oil could drift to $75 a barrel. The Prime Minister mentioned that Hurricane Katrina and the impact of the damage that Hurricane Katrina had caused on oil facilities in New Orleans had led to increased price rises. The Prime Minister pointed out to the House that Australia was a net importer of oil and thus very vulnerable to supply constraints not only as a consequence of a natural calamity such as  Hurricane Katrina but also because of the tightening of political conditions in the Middle East. The Prime Minister referred to the energy white paper released earlier by the government as an indication of the government’s bona fides in relation to energy. What was compellingly absent from the Prime Minister’s ministerial statement on energy, and what remains compellingly absent in terms of the government’s vision for Australian energy, was a commitment to Australia’s self-sufficiency through significant support and increased funding for the development of a renewables industry—an industry which, in my view, could make and should make a substantial contribution to our energy needs. The extra funding for Geoscience Australia identified in the Prime Minister’s energy initiative was welcome, as was the $123.5 million of extra funding for the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program—although I note that that program was already vastly underspent and there are questions as to whether or not it is working effectively. More importantly, an area that has been identified as critical went virtually unremarked on in the Prime Minister’s statement, and that is the need for us to pursue with some vigour both feasibility and start-up studies into gas to liquids. Certainly the funding for research is welcomed, but it is the direction of the research that is important. There is no doubt that the government’s policy seems to be—and we were reminded of this when we heard the Prime Minister speak in the House today—that the answer is really all about nuclear. The amounts that are provided for renewable energy research are relatively small, but it seems as though the Prime Minister holds up the prospect of nuclear power as the magic bullet to solve our increasingly difficult energy needs. Additionally, the Prime Minister announced a tax-free grant of some $2,000 for LPG conversion; $1,000 went for new LPG vehicles. Whilst some concerns have been raised on this side of the House about the way in which people would have access to and take up those LPG offers, particularly the tax-free grant, I did note not too long ago that in fact the uptake had been very good. There is no doubt that we are now starting to see a greater number of vehicles operating on LPG, and that seems to be an entirely natural and inevitable consequence of the fact that we actually have supplies of this gas. In fact, taxi services in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and, I suspect, in other capital cities have been running on LPG gas for quite some time, and it remains something of a mystery as to why more of the fleet, including the Commonwealth fleet, which clearly is something that Labor would like to see, does not run on LPG. It is cheaper. It provides much less by way of greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the more vehicles that are carrying LPG, the less petrol will be consumed by other vehicles. It is important to point out that Labor has had an alternative fuels blueprint, which was released on 19 October last year, well before the Prime Minister’s energy initiative. It dealt specifically with the issue of Australia’s dependence particularly on Middle East oil and the likely impacts on our economy and on the pockets and the purses of Australians when the price of fuel goes up. In particular, a Beazley Labor government would look at the depreciation regime for gas production infrastructure and it would make alternative fuels tariff-free, cutting up to $2,000 off the price of current hybrid cars. A Beazley Labor government would work with state and local governments to give city traffic and parking advantages for those hybrid vehicles. A Beazley Labor government, importantly, would encourage a sustainable ethanol industry, ease regulations for biodiesel production on farms—and I note that some National Party members have talked about that matter very recently—and, additionally, examine a new infrastructure investment allowance for investment in Australian gas to liquids infrastructure. The point that needs to be made is that it is focusing your public policy initiatives and the allocations from the budget to enhance your natural advantages that actually addresses in a serious way the question of dependency on Middle East oil. It is a matter of some concern to me that the government continues to fail to move rigorously and vigorously to develop a sustainable energies industry. I wonder, having regard to particular areas—and one thinks immediately of solar energy—when we are going to finally wake up to the fact that we have the capacity to build a world-class solar industry in this country which would generate significant amounts of power, which would employ significant numbers of Australians and which, having regard to our leading the world in the past in terms of technology, research and development, would mean that we could actually put that research and development into place. There is some irony in the fact that the wealthiest person to emerge in the renewable energies sector—and I think he may be the fourth wealthiest person in China—Zhengrong Shi, actually learned and studied solar technology at the University of New South Wales—in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, as I am always proud to note. Mr Zhengrong Shi and his company, Suntech, are now exporting a significant amount of solar panels and solar technology—technology that was originally developed in Australia—from China, particularly into Europe. Mr Shi is properly observing the requirements for the protection of intellectual property—and there is no suggestion, now that we understand fully how his company is operating, that he is doing anything other than that. The fact is that this is an industry that we could have built in Australia. You have to ask yourself why it is, at a time when climate change is clearly growing in importance as a threshold issue, when we have rigours imposed on us by the availability of Middle East fuel and the likelihood of price increases over time and, of course with peak oil literally on the landscape in front of us, why we are not taking up those necessary renewable options that are already there, that are already proven and that can already work. One of the reasons why we are neither building a potent and significant renewable energy industry nor moving to deal with the question of our energy dependency is that is the Howard government is deficient in policy on these issues. By relying on the nuclear solution, the Prime Minister seems to be ignoring the fact that we are in the midst of a global clean energy boom. That is what we have at this point in time around the world. That is where the trends are going, that is where the investment is, and that is where the young scientists and graduates coming out of research institutions and universities are directing their attention. Clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal and hydro power had a global market value of about $74 billion in 2005, and it is predicted to increase in quantum terms over the coming decade. This will be the energy industry of the future, because it will not only be driven by the necessity to produce clean energy and green energy; it will also be driven by the fact that this is an industry which employs and uses innovation and talent. We can see that there are emerging markets, particularly in places like China and India—as well as in Europe. China’s clean energy investment last year was $A90.2 billion; America ranked second and India ranked fifth on the Ernst and Young renewables investment index. Why aren’t we concentrating our efforts, our energy and our attention in that area in a significant way? What is it that we need if we are actually going to build a true sustainable energy industry? The things we are going to need include a decent mandatory renewable energy target. The target certainly needs to be increased by about 21,000 gigawatts by 2010, which would be about a five per cent increase in market share. But the government’s ideological obsession sees it sitting down at two per cent and, as a consequence of that, we actually have alternative energy industries going offshore or finding that they have to close down, which means that jobs are lost—as we heard today, with 100 jobs being lost from wind energy projects in Tasmania. We need to extend the Photovoltaic Rebate Program, which provides rebates for people who put PV panels on their homes. That is absolutely critical, because it is due to run out of funds. The government extended it for a period of time, but it will still run out. As people face up to the cost of energy and recognise that they live on one of the sunniest continents that there is, they will realise that we need to have the PVRP program and to continue it, because it has been very successful and it has seen significant industry development along the way. The fact that the government will not address itself to that—in fact, the Prime Minister mentioned it not at all in his energy initiatives statement—is hugely regrettable. We need to regulate for minimum energy performance, including having a national target for energy efficiency. Today, a number of groups gathered in front of the parliament to argue strongly and to push leaders in this parliament to reach the Millennium Development Goals that have been set by the United Nations to try to halt the terrible poverty that afflicts the world. The fact is we do have a number of significant global challenges that face us: poverty is one and climate change is another. It is absolutely critical that governments, if they are going to be serious about climate change at all, set time lines and targets. They also have to make the necessary investment both in policies—in public policy particularly—and in industries that can address those issues. In respect of poverty, it is making sure that we have a significant proportion of our aid budget properly focused and directed. I notice that the shadow minister for overseas aid and Pacific island affairs is sitting in the Main Committee; he has already done some very good work on that. Finally, we should ratify Kyoto. It is not either/or in the debate about Kyoto, but it is certainly not about simply viewing Kyoto as a slogan, as the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources in the Howard government does. Sustainable energy will probably be the most important source of new clean energy and, critically, it is a source of energy that is available to us now. We do not have any long start-ups. There are not the requirements for mass capitalisation as there would be with stand-alone high-end entities like nuclear power. Additionally, we do not increase the risk: either investor risk—which will be an important issue and probably one of the most critical issues that nuclear power faces—or the risk to populations in terms of the safe storage of waste, particularly into the longer term. We also need to look at energy policy in terms of the way in which we now subsidise oil consumption. We need to have a healthier debate both in the parliament and out in the community about the fringe benefits tax and salary packaging rules and the way they operate for cars. It is a nonsense that you have to drive your car further in some instances to qualify for those packages. That is actually producing more pollution, using more fuel and spending more time needlessly. It is very important that we have tax advantages for fuel efficient and hybrid cars, and Labor has already announced strong policy there. It is important that we look much more seriously at the kinds of energy efficient measures that can operate not only across the grid but also in the home and in businesses. It is high time that we had a sustainable energy industry in this country, and not the unclear option the Prime Minister has developed in his energy initiative statement. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 144 MOTIONS Debate resumed from 12 September, on motion by Ms Gambaro: That the House take note of the statement made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on 12 September, in relation to the death of Peter Brock. 144 17:12:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 0 Mr GIBBONS —I rise to acknowledge the outstanding contribution to motor sport made by Melbourne racing driver Peter Brock, who died tragically in a motor racing accident in Perth on 8 September 2006. Peter Brock’s family association with motor racing dates back to the turn of the century. His great-great-uncle Henry James was the founder of the RACV and organised Australia’s first motor sport event, the 1905 Sydney to Melbourne reliability trial. Peter made his racetrack debut in a self-modified Holden-powered Austin A30 sport sedan. I can vividly recall watching him compete at the Calder Raceway in the late 1960s. Despite the small car having the equivalent aerodynamics of a block of flats, he was to go on and notch up around 100 race wins, including the Australian Sports Sedan Championship. In 1969, the manager of the newly formed Holden Dealer Team, Harry Firth, offered Peter Brock his first drive at Bathurst, in a Monaro GTS350, and he recorded an outstanding third place outright in his first attempt. The Bathurst 1000 is the motor race that most people now associate with the name Peter Brock—not surprisingly, as he won the event an unprecedented nine times. The race was originally described as an endurance event of 1,000 kilometres, but today the race is probably better described as a 1,000 kilometre sprint. The race had its origins at the Phillip Island circuit in 1960, when it was known as the Armstrong 500. Bendigo resident Frank Coad and co-driver John Roxburgh won that inaugural event in a Vauxhall Cresta. In fact, Frank Coad has built a replica of this vehicle and runs it in club events in and around Bendigo, as well as being the proud owner of an Ariel Square Four motorcycle he rides on Bendigo Historic Motorcycle Club events. The event was relocated to the Bathurst circuit in 1963 and is now regarded as one of the premier touring car events worldwide. The race that Peter Brock dominated has changed substantially over the years. Throughout the sixties and seventies, the cars were production models from a variety of makes that were only slightly modified for competition and were virtually the same as people could buy off the showroom floor. I believe it was this factor that appealed so much to the person on the street, who could watch the race on Sunday and then go and buy a similar vehicle from dealers all around Australia on Monday. The limited modifications were mostly because of safety concerns and resulted in roll cages being fitted as well as the bodies and chassis being rewelded, the engines and drive trains being balanced and blueprinted and some other minor alterations. It was often said that the 500 miles around the Bathurst circuit equated to 100,000 miles of ordinary motoring, so the race provided an ideal test capability for the manufacturers to evaluate their vehicles and test components, making the cars that we drive today more efficient and far safer. In fact, motor racing has always provided valuable information throughout its history to manufacturers all over the globe, and many of the modifications derived from motorsport have continued to influence the design of many of the vehicles we drive today. It was this type of racing that Peter Brock was so successful at for decades. The Bathurst race is now dominated by the Holden and Ford companies in the V8 supercar category. While the cars have similar bodies to the normal Holdens and Fords we buy off the showroom floor, the mechanical components are designed and built specifically for competition and bear no resemblance whatsoever to the components of the vehicles we drive today. In some respects I think that is a great shame. It detracts substantially from the spirit in which the race was first designed. I can understand the need for change, particularly for safety reasons, as well as the need to retain the race’s status as one of the premier touring car races—if not the premier touring car race—in the world. It has attracted highly competitive cars and teams from England, Europe and other parts of the world. The race is now virtually limited to highly modified Holdens and Fords but enjoys international status approaching levels similar to those of the Le Mans 24-hour endurance race in France for sports and sports prototype cars which are designed and built by the big European and American manufacturers. Bathurst became synonymous with the theory that what wins on Sunday sells on Monday. Recognising this impact on the market, Australian manufacturers began designing and building specialist vehicles specifically for this race, the only requirement in those days being that 500 of a particular vehicle had to be registered for road use within Australia to qualify. This development gave us the Monaro GTS, the GT Falcons and, of course, the Torana XU1 in which Peter Brock won his first Bathurst 1000 victory. Even Chrysler made a valiant effort to enter the competition with its RTE38 Chargers. I had the misfortune of owning one of those machines for some years. You used to be able to tell how fast you were going by the way the fuel gauge declined, but it was a lot of fun. There was, understandably, considerable opposition to the development of these vehicles because of the obvious dangers when they eventually found their way on to the second-hand vehicle markets and within the financial resources of young and inexperienced drivers. However, this problem seems to have resolved itself because of the current extraordinarily high value that these cars can bring in today’s market. For example, a genuine example in good condition of a Ford Falcon GTHO Phase 3 can fetch in excess of $100,000. In 1980 Brock established a special vehicles unit to modify base-model Holdens. This was the start of a very successful partnership with General Motors Holden which included the famous ‘Brock Special’ Holden. In 1997 Peter Brock retired from full-time V8 supercar racing after an outstanding career. On the motor racing circuit he was known as Peter Perfect. On his retirement, Peter Brock was recognised as one of Australia’s sporting greats and as an internationally recognised motor racing hero. The UK Motor Sport magazine rated Peter Brock in the top 20 most exciting drivers of all time, a list which included the likes of Senna, Schumacher, Fangio and Nuvolari. That in itself was an outstanding achievement on any assessment. In another authoritative UK publication he was recently voted the second greatest touring car driver of all time. Peter Brock continued to pursue his interests in one-off events of a charitable nature and some historic and Targa style tarmac racing and rallying, as well as tirelessly contributing to the nation’s road safety campaign. He remained an active ambassador for his many loyal sponsors who had supported him throughout his motor racing career. In 1998 he accepted an invitation to join the board of the Australian Grand Prix, which was responsible for both the Australian Grand Prix and the Australian Moto Grand Prix. Peter Brock’s motivational and speaking skills were in great demand. He was regularly called upon to address meetings, conventions and conferences for a diverse range of organisations in the business, education, sporting, government and charity areas. He was a tireless campaigner for road safety, especially in the drink-driving area, as demonstrated by the innovative measure of adopting the number 05 as his regular competition number. Peter Brock died tragically in an accident during the Targa West Rally, and this resulted in some speculation about the suitability and construction of the vehicle that he was driving at the time—and, of course, there is a coroner’s inquiry currently under way. The vehicle was purpose built for competition, based on reproducing the specifications of an American designed 1969 Shelby Coupe. Media reports indicate that the vehicle more than met the strict construction requirements under the regulations governing this type of competition. The impact was simply so severe that the safety features built into the design were not able to withstand the force of the impact—with the obvious tragic result. There was much more to Peter Brock than a champion racing driver, including his establishment of the Peter Brock Foundation, which has provided guidance and assistance to disadvantaged young people, assisting them to reach their full potential, his tireless work and advocacy for road safety, and his passionate defence of animal rights—a quality that I very much admired and appreciated. He and his family also successfully bred the delightful border collie dogs. No doubt Australian motorsport has lost a great champion but, perhaps more significantly, the nation has lost a great Australian. On behalf of the people of Bendigo and central Victoria, I extend our deepest sympathy to his family and friends. 147 17:21:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —It is a privilege to speak on this motion. I want to briefly pay tribute to the late Peter Brock and to make mention of his contribution. Before I do so, I commend the previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, on his knowledge of racing history, Bathurst and Australian cars. I can attest that his knowledge is impeccable. As someone who owns a 1971 GTS 350 and has owned several Monaros in my life, I can say that he is absolutely on the money. It is something that is a bit of a passion of mine—though I have yet to get my wife to travel with me in it. The member for Bendigo’s outline of Australian motorsport history was right on the money. As the member for Bendigo outlined, and as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined, Australia lost a great Australian on the day Peter Brock died—on Friday, 8 September. I heard the news on the radio late that afternoon. In the week that Steve Irwin had also passed, it seemed quite surreal. If I had woken up to the news, I would have thought I had dreamt it. As all speakers have outlined—and speakers yet to make their contribution, I know, will also outline—Peter Brock was a very special Australian. He was a great success at his chosen sport for such a long period of time—nine Bathurst wins. To give you some idea of how long he was successful, he won his first race in the year that I was born, back in 1967. But, more than that, he was a great contributor to his local community and his nation. As the member for Bendigo outlined, Peter Brock made a major national contribution on road safety, the road toll and drink-driving—and did so at a time when Australia had horrific statistics for drink-driving and road fatality. He did not just agree to have the 05 on his car; he went out of his way to promote that message for the rest of his life and the rest of his motor racing career. For those in his local community in Melbourne, he was selfless with his time and for so many causes—many causes you would not automatically associate with a Bathurst winner. He was obviously—and I say ‘obviously’ because I do not stand here pretending to have known Peter Brock—someone with a great and inquiring mind. He was certainly passionate about the local environment and Indigenous issues—and the list went on. It did not matter how big or small the cause, he would always make the time and make the effort. We of course saw that in the tributes that flowed in the days and weeks following his death. The tributes from his local community and from communities across Melbourne and right across Australia, including those we saw at the recent Bathurst race, where, fittingly, a person he had spent so much time mentoring won the race by half a second—or, as they pointed out, 0.05 of a second—said so much about what a person Peter Brock was and how much we have lost. As I have said, I do not pretend to have known him well. In fact, I met him once. But what I want to add to this statement is that a very good friend of his who is also a very good friend of mine has been deeply affected, as you would expect, by his death. I speak of Mr Phil Munday, who worked very closely with him for 10 years as a sponsor of and, in many ways, a co-partner in many of his projects in the motor racing industry. In fact, I met Peter Brock at the wedding of Phil and Carolyn Munday just a couple of years ago. In the week prior to Peter’s death they had been in England together, where Peter Brock raced. They had both worked on restoring a car—and anyone who has been involved in a car restoration knows what it is like—tirelessly over the course of a year. They decided a year or so before to restore to racing condition a 1953 FX 215 which had raced at Goodwood in London in the fifties. The annual Goodwood Revival race south of London was on, and they restored the car and sent it over there with all the complications and headaches that go with that. Peter Brock raced the car to a respectable fourth, from memory, against some of the world’s best. It was a great thing they decided to do to promote Australian cars and Holden—and the very first Holden that came out, in particular. I know that Phil and Carolyn are feeling great loss at this time at Peter’s shock death. I am sure every member would agree that if Peter Brock’s contribution can live on in other generations involved in motorsport, or for that matter any sport, in terms of dedication to a sport and giving back, as he did in so many ways, Australia will be a very good place indeed. 148 17:28:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 0 Ms MACKLIN —I have to admit that unlike the previous two speakers, the member for Casey and the member for Bendigo, I am not a great fan of motorsport and I know absolutely nothing about cars. But what I do very much support is the generosity of human spirit, and Peter Brock had plenty of that. He was a very well respected member of my local community. He grew up just outside my electorate, in Nutfield, near Hurstbridge, and attended one of my great high schools, Eltham High. In fact, he is one of many celebrated graduates to come out of that school. As the previous speakers have said, Peter’s achievements in motor racing are deservedly lauded—winning the Bathurst 1000 nine times and earning the mantle of ‘King of the Mountain’. In my view, it is his achievements as an Australian who sought to help others that really set him apart, particularly from many other Australian sporting heroes. He was not ever content to live what can be the pretty cloistered life of some of our star athletes. Instead he chose to turn his many talents and his fame as an athlete into a lot of very good work for different charities and, in particular, the Hurstbridge based Peter Brock Foundation. This foundation allocates funds and directs support to individuals, families, community groups—all of those different organisations that have a genuine need for help. As others have said, young people in particular captured Peter’s imagination. He was concerned at the number of young people who engaged in self-harm and he helped to secure sponsorship—in fact, $10,000 from the Peter Brock Foundation—to help our local Nillumbik Community Health Centre and their ‘From Harm to Calm’ program. I know how much they appreciated that support. Peter also understood that his achievements as a racing car driver made him a role model for many young people, in particular young men. He used his fame to encourage safe driving and he campaigned for that cause for many, many years and won an Order of Australia medal for his work. Most recently, Peter helped to launch a book called Motorvate, written by Eltham authors Jeff Fickling and Jennie Hill, which is directed at parents of kids approaching driving age and for those who are already driving, because he clearly understood that, as a racing car driver and a man of influence to many, he had a responsibility to encourage young people to be safe while driving on our roads. We can only imagine the number of young people who had their lives saved by Peter Brock’s interest in and support for educating young drivers. He donated many other facets of his life to help others—his paintings, his image, his signature, his time—in many worthy causes. Locally, he could certainly be seen at many events—at charitable car washes in Eltham as well as at local concerts all around the place. He helped our community at a very grassroots level. To that end, I am very pleased that the organisers of the Brockie Big Day Out charity concert in Hurstbridge, scheduled for November, are still planning to go ahead. I am sure that Peter Brock would have wanted that to be so. There is no doubt that in staging that event enough money will be raised to see another one of Peter Brock’s dreams realised—that is, a bike path linking Hurstbridge to Diamond Creek. In a lovely gesture, the local primary school, Hurstbridge Primary School, is going to name an annual bike ride after Peter Brock. It is going to be called the Peter Brock memorial ride. That is just one example of how important Peter Brock was to his local community. We can be very proud of his achievements as an Australian and as a Victorian. He will be remembered by so many people in the local area as someone who grew up on the outskirts of Melbourne, labouring over cars in a chook shed, filled with his dreams. It is a great sadness that will overwhelm many of his close family and friends. My condolences, along with those of every other member of the House, go to those who loved him. He will be greatly missed, but I am sure all of his family and friends will take comfort in the great legacy that he has left behind. I would like to say, particularly from the point of view of the local community and all the children and young people who have benefited, how much we appreciate his life. 149 17:34:00 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 0 Mr LLOYD —It is with great sadness that I speak to this motion today and recognise the role of Peter Brock in Australia. It was a terrible week for all Australians to have two significant Australians pass away in a very short period of time, with the passing of both Peter Brock and Steve Irwin. Today, in speaking to this motion, I particularly want to recognise Peter Brock’s contribution to Australian road safety. In December 2004, I had the privilege of participating in a national forum on young driver safety held at Parliament House—right here in this building—at which there were many fine presentations from road safety academics and driver training specialists. Peter Brock’s presentation on that day was most impressive. He spoke passionately about improving road safety for young Australians. In his unofficial role as a road safety ambassador, Peter was, above all else, a gifted communicator. He spoke with the authority gained from the vast experience in his profession, but he also spoke from the heart. For more than three decades Peter lent his support to countless road safety and driver training initiatives. As a motor sports hero to thousands of young Australians, he was uniquely placed to get the road safety message out to those who needed most to hear it. In the mid-1970s Peter collaborated with the Victorian road safety authority on the 0.05 BAC campaign, which he famously promoted by adopting 05 as his racing car number. This was a powerful public endorsement of road safety values at a time when social attitudes towards drink-driving in particular were far more permissive and uninformed than they are today. Peter continued to communicate the drink-driving message to young people throughout his career, most recently through his involvement with RADD—the Recording Artists, Actors and Athletes against Drink-Driving Association. Peter Brock had a long association with driver training and education. Since 1992, his association with the Jim Murcott/Peter Brock Advanced Driving Centre helped deliver a range of driving training courses designed for fleet drivers. In 2002 he worked with the driving instructors from TAFE Tasmania’s Arrive Alive Program when he visited that state to conduct an advanced training session. In 2005 he launched a program developed by Murcotts Driving Excellence for rural drivers, particularly targeting young people in farming communities. Through Team Brock Driving Life, the driver education arm of Peter’s motor racing organisation, he helped to deliver driver programs to both corporate bodies and the general public. Earlier this year Peter provided the foreword for a new book designed specifically to assist parents of teenagers who are on the threshold of their driving careers. Peter’s road safety activities were not limited to addressing the needs of motorists. He recently took part in a road safety forum organised by the Amy Gillett Foundation which focused on ways in which bicycle riders and motorists can share the roads more safely. He was also active in developing community walking and cycling paths in his home town of Hurstbridge in Victoria. Peter Brock became an Australian icon through his involvement in motor sports. He was lovingly referred to as Peter Perfect, revered for his mastery of the racetrack and his supreme vehicle control skills. He was a nine-time winner of the famous Bathurst 1000. I was pleased to see Peter’s close friend and racing colleague Craig Lowndes become the first winner of the inaugural Peter Brock Trophy for winning the event recently. As a road safety advocate and educator, Peter Brock’s message was about self-control, moderation and learning to share the roads with other people. Earlier I mentioned the national forum on young drivers held in Parliament House in December 2004. A focal point of that event was the vulnerability of novice drivers in the year or so after they graduate to a provisional licence—that danger period when they are learning to make their own driving decisions without a supervisor looking over their shoulder. In the face of all the evidence, the Australian government was convinced of the need for a new driver education initiative in Australia—a post-licence education scheme directly addressing the heightened crash risk in the early stages of solo driving. The Australian government joined with the New South Wales and Victorian governments, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the Insurance Australia Group and the RACV to develop and trial an innovative program. Progress on this project has been slower than we would have hoped. Frankly, it has proved to be a more complex and challenging task than I think any of us envisaged. But we are committed to developing a program with genuine safety benefits for all young Australian motorists. I know that Peter Brock, speaking at that forum, was very supportive of this program. A lot of work has gone into designing a curriculum for the course, drawing on a combination of international experience, research and best practice learning methods. A tender process was recently initiated to select the right specialist to fully develop and test the course curriculum. The main aim of the program will be to help young drivers gain a better understanding of the risks they face on the road and to encourage safer driving strategies whilst they are still maturing as motorists. Plans are progressing for the commencement of the trial in New South Wales and Victoria next year. It will be delivered to novices aged 17 to 21 in New South Wales and 18 to 22 in Victoria after they obtain their first provisional car licence. The trial will run for several months, with 12 months of post-course crash data feeding into a comprehensive follow-up evaluation. It is expected to involve some 14,000 course participants in New South Wales and Victoria—7,000 in each state—with a similar number of novices selected for a control group. This will constitute one of the largest and most rigorous studies ever undertaken in the area of post-licence driver education. Driver education is only one element in a comprehensive approach to road safety improvements, and the Australian government is deeply committed to doing everything it can to reduce the level of trauma on the nation’s roads. I am particularly concerned that the number of road deaths has not improved since 2004, despite increased spending on the nation’s roads, advances in vehicle safety and a greater focus on driver education from many high-profile people around Australia, including Peter Brock. There are, however, some positive signs. Road deaths in the eight months to the end of August 2006 were down 2.4 per cent on the same period last year, with a seven per cent reduction in deaths among drivers. But a rapid improvement in progress will be required to meet the national strategy target of a 40 per cent reduction in road deaths by the end of 2010. Ministers of the Australian Transport Council met last Friday in this building to consider a national road safety action plan for 2007 and 2008. One important initiative already agreed to by the council is to develop a plan to accelerate the uptake of electronic stability control in new vehicles sold in Australia. Already 20 per cent of the fleet in Australia have electronic stability control fitted, and I understand that by next year, 2007, some 40 per cent of the fleet will have electronic stability control in one form or another. My department is working on this plan, which will include working with vehicle manufacturers to encourage the fitting of ESC technology in all new vehicle models. The Australian government has significantly increased its investment in safer roads through its $15 billion commitment to land transport infrastructure over five years, from 2004-05 to 2008-09, representing a 90 per cent increase on the previous five years. In conclusion, obviously road safety was something that was a passion for Peter Brock. It is a passion for many people in Australia, and we all have to work together to ensure that we continue to save lives on our roads. We need a combination of safer roads, better vehicles and better qualified drivers. I want to record my condolences to Peter’s family and his friends. His enthusiasm for life was infectious and the Australian public were clearly shocked and moved by his untimely death. 151 17:43:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —As the member for Moreton, I particularly want to be associated with the remarks of other colleagues from both sides of the chamber regarding the passing of Peter Brock. It was, by any measure, a dreadful week in Australia’s history, to lose Steve Irwin and Peter Brock in the same small passage of time. Just as the memories of Steve Irwin have been well remembered by the conduct of his own children, I would like to say publicly how impressive it has been to watch the children of Peter Brock cope with the loss of their father and the dignified way in which they have shared their grief with the broader community and his enormous legion of fans on a number of very public occasions—at memorial services, both those directly associated with his funeral and those at other events, including Sandown and, indeed, Bathurst. The reason I chose to speak on this was simply just to recount for the record a couple of little stories, some anecdotes. I met Peter Brock on a number of occasions in my life when I was working as a journalist for the Channel 7 program State Affair based in Brisbane. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr Neville —And you were a very good one too. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Hinkler would be a worthy critic, and I thank him for his intervention. When I met Peter Brock in 1983, at Bathurst, it was one of the toughest assignments I had had—to head down to do some of the Channel 7 coverage of the great race. Naturally enough, I met Brock—who had preceded, by his reputation, in my mind, to have this enormous status. I was somewhat in awe of meeting him, as indeed others would have been when meeting him. He was a disarming man. I also spoke to him in 1984. I did see him on a number of occasions here in Parliament House. The member for McEwen, Mrs Bailey, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, was a very close personal friend of Peter Brock and had brought him here to the parliament on a number of occasions to make his own personal representations about certain issues obvious. The last time I saw him was in February 2004—which I guess is at the heart of why I wanted to speak on this motion. It was my privilege when I was the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to confer citizenship on Allan Moffat, who had lived in Australia for some 30 years before he finally decided that he wanted to become a citizen. Ron Walker, who looks after the Melbourne Grand Prix, thought that he could not let a chance go by to try to get some promotion for the Melbourne Grand Prix, so we had a very media-conspired citizenship ceremony with Allan Moffat. It was an enormous privilege from my point of view to hold that ceremony for Allan Moffat, who is a great Australian—officially Australian for now 2½ years. I really felt for Allan when he was making his comments about Peter Brock. I know that they had had variations in their relationship over the years, but Peter Brock was the star turn at the citizenship ceremony for Allan Moffat. He was cloistered in an anteroom and he suddenly appeared. After we had gathered and the ceremony was about to start, who should arrive but Peter Brock—almost by magic. I was told that he was going to be there. I do not think Alan Moffat would mind me recalling the fact that there was a tear welling in his eye that his great mate—this legendary man, Peter Brock—had seen fit to make himself available. Judging by all the stories that we have heard since Brock’s passing, this was not unusual conduct for Peter Brock. The other story that I wanted to recount—because, even though it has been made public, I do not think it has been recorded in this place, and I think the parliament should be seen as a record of Australia’s history and an accurate reflection of a variety of views and contemporary things that occur—was about the time I was heading off to the Queensland National Servicemen’s Association conference. The member for Hinkler thought I might have been going to his political party conference, but not on that occasion. The Queensland National Serviceman’s Association held their state conference the day after Peter Brock died. It was at Acacia Ridge in Brisbane. The Brisbane south national servicemen, who are located in my electorate, put this conference together. Dick Johnson—whom I also class as someone I am in awe of—spoke at this conference. I have known Dick for 25 years and he is always very generous enough to say hello to me, which I always appreciate. I think it is worth recording that Dick Johnson told the story of how he and Peter Brock—quite unbeknown to each other at the time, but many years later realised—actually served as national servicemen and trained literally feet away from each other. When you think about some of their early battles—the battles on the road that they had in the early eighties—it is quite extraordinary that they were in fact drawn together, like so many people of that particular vintage, in their national service to Australia. Those stories are on the record now, and I thank the parliament for allowing me to do that. We will all miss Peter Brock, whether we are a Holden or a Ford man or woman. Either way, I am sure we are in awe of this man and thank him for his entertainment and indeed his great personal generosity to all Australians. 153 17:49:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on this condolence motion, and I do so as someone who has competed for many years as a navigator in car rallies. I want to put on record a few notes about how much of an inspiration Peter Brock was to ordinary motorsport club members. I am sure that debates have already been had about how many Holdens were sold because of Peter Brock or how many people took up motorsport because of Peter Brock, or how many people were just prepared to go at life a little bit harder because of Peter Brock. He used to sign people’s autograph books saying, ‘Live your dream,’ or ‘Live life, Peter Brock.’ One thing that is certain is that he was a real inspiration to people to make them do that or to make them think about doing that. Just as an aside, as the member for Blair, I was considerably thrilled last weekend to see Craig Lowndes win the Peter Brock Trophy. Craig Lowndes is, to many motorsport enthusiasts, like a new Peter Brock. He has many of the same attributes: he fires you up in the same way, he inspires you, he makes you feel great—and not only that, he comes from the electorate of Blair. He is a very good competitor and so we in the electorate of Blair are mightily proud of Craig Lowndes’s achievements. Back in 1979, I remember going to the Townsville showgrounds with a friend of mine, and all these battered cars were lined up. I was a teenager then, and we were just agog at all these cars. Of course, they were cars that were engaged in the 1979 Repco Round Australia Trial—which Peter Brock won. It was a hell of a spectacle, and the whole of the nation basically stopped to watch the 1979 Round Australia Trial. I remember that there were a lot of other big wheels in that event—Shekhar Mehta is a name that comes to mind—people who were really internationally known. Peter Brock won that event hands-down and in a very impressive fashion. That trial showed the degree of determination, dedication and strength of purpose that Peter Brock had. In those days, when they ran something like a reliability trial it was not just a reliability trial for the vehicles. They raced for massively long hours, and they were so tested by the event—with lack of sleep, high pressure, adrenaline, making dodgy roadside repairs and then continuing—that it showed not only that the car was good, which was an issue for the public, but also what incredible strength of human spirit those competitors had. To win those events was a real inspiration, and as a young fellow it was certainly a massive inspiration to me. Later on in life I did go on to compete in car rallies, and I have to say that I trace my interest and my involvement right back to that time when we went along to the dusty old Townsville showgrounds and saw those cars. I am currently a member of the Brisbane Sporting Car Club, which is the oldest sporting car club in Australia, and I have been a member there since 1993. I was formerly involved in the North Australian Motor Sport Club in Darwin. To move away from much of what has been said, I thought I would make a few comments about some of the ill-informed commentary that has been published about issues to do with car rallying. People have noted that Peter Brock died in a car rally, and they have made some differentiation between him competing in a car rally and his many magnificent successes at the mountain and in motorsport competitions on circuits. All motorsport is dangerous. All motorsport is deadly. There are people who think that if you are a spectator at a car rally it is dangerous to sit on the outside of a corner. That seems to be pretty obvious, but it is also dangerous to sit on the inside, because a car that gets out of control is just two tonnes of metal and it can be very dangerous no matter where you might sit. It is a sport that is naturally very dangerous. There have been incredible advances in safety over the years. At the time when Peter Brock was competing in the Round Australia Trial, you did not need a crash helmet. At that time, under the laws of motorsport, you could compete with a lap sash seatbelt. Today, to go in that type of event, you need a welded-in steel cage, the helmets are scrutinised, you have expiry dates on your seatbelts and you need logbooks for your car. There is massive additional expense and massive additional scrutiny. The types of cars and the requirements for safety now are incredibly complex and incredibly detailed—and every single effort is made to ensure that safety applies. It applies on the circuit as it does in rallying. I know that to be a fact. I have been a witness myself to the growth of these safety rules. Those of us who compete grump about it from time to time because we remember the good old days when we did not need all this stuff. Spare a thought for the moment for the person who is responsible for running the car rally and whose job it is to ensure to the best extent possible that event is made safe. You have to realise you have to comply with those rules as they are sensibly laid down by the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport and internationally by the FIA. The day after Peter Brock was killed I was competing in round 5 of the Queensland Rally Championship. We had a minute’s silence for him. Round 6 of the Queensland Rally Championship is about to start. It is on 4 November. They have circulated the supplementary regulations for the event and they have Peter Brock on the cover with his 1979 around-Australia car. It just shows you I was not the only guy who was so struck by that event. I think everyone was. I mentioned the difference between car rallying and competing on a track. There has been what I think was some terribly ill-informed commentary, particularly in the Australian newspaper, directed at Peter Brock’s co-driver, Mick Hone and the issue of the use of pace notes in competing in a car. Pace notes are notes you make when you have time to go over the course before an event. You write notes about every single corner and prepare for it in advance. In the case of the event that Peter Brock was killed in, he had some notes that had been drawn up by another competitor, but he did not go out with his navigator prior to the event to check that those notes suited his driving style. That is a very significant thing. I noticed in the commentary that there was criticism made of the notes and of the navigator. The fact is it was a decision between the two of them not to go and do the reconnaissance. If they had done the reconnaissance, you might say they would have known that that corner tightened up more than it said in the notes. That is something you could probably assert. You could perhaps assert that, but no-one knows for sure. All we know for certain is, if you are going to compete in a car rally or a race, you have to be very careful. You have to bear in mind that you are working as a team in that sort of environment. You have to do those sorts of things. But people do it because they are having fun. They do it because they are living their dream. They do it because they are living their life in the same sort of spirit that Peter Brock so often expressed when he was signing those autographs. That is why people love to do this sort of thing. They love to get out and to see just how fast they can go. Forever, Peter Brock will be the embodiment of that spirit. While we continue to refine and provide more and more safety opportunities for people who are prepared to compete in car rallies and on the circuits and who enjoy it so much, we must remember that as human beings we love that competitive spirit. That is always what it has to be about. That has to be the first thing. I really pay tribute to and salute Peter Brock, and I pass on my commiserations to his family because that was the passing of a great Australian. After all the awards—and they have been covered many times in this debate—that he achieved, he certainly deserves recognition from all Australians. But it is his embodiment of that go-forward spirit and great pioneering attitude that everyone who gets involved in motor sport aspires to. They aspire to be like Peter Brock, to have that kind of spirit, and to win through regardless of the obstacles that are thrown in their way. While we have to keep safety and things in mind, may we always remember that wonderful spirit because that is what I think provides the motivation in many aspects of life. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Once again, I pay tribute to the great Australian Peter Brock. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—As a mark of respect to Peter Brock I invite all members to signify their support to the expressions of condolence by standing in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank members. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 155 18:01:00 Main Committee adjourned at 6.01 pm 156 Answers to Questions on Notice 156 156 3823 156 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 8 August 2006: In respect of Settlement Grants Program funding for the 2006-07 financial year, (a) what is the total sum of funding, (b) what sum, in dollar terms was allocated to services in Victoria, (c) which services received funding and (d) what sum each service receive. In respect of the electorate of Gellibrand, (a) how many services received funding under the Settlement Grants Program, (b) which services received funding and (c) what sum did each service receive. In respect of Community Settlement Support Scheme, for each financial year from 1999-00 to 2005-06 (a) what was the total sum allocated, (b) what sum was received by services in Victoria, (c) which agencies received funding and (d) what sum did each agency receive. In respect of the electorate of Gellibrand, for each financial year from 1999-00 to 2005-06 (a) how many agencies received funding under the Community Settlement Support Scheme, (b) which agencies received funding and (c) what sum did each agency receive. 156 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: In respect of Settlement Grants Programme funding for the 2006-07 financial year, The total sum funding or 2006-2007 was $31.0 million. Of the $31.0 million $19.5 million was available for new projects $8.8 million was allocated to services in Victoria of which $4.8 million was available for new funding. The list of organisations which received funding is at Attachment A The sum received for each service is also at Attachment A The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not store funding information based on electorates. In respect of Community Settlement Support Scheme, for each financial year from 1999-00 to 2005-06 The allocation for each financial year 1999-00 to 2005-06 is listed below. Financial Year Funding Allocation for CSSS Projects 1999-00 $13.9 million 2000-01 $15.0 million 2002-02 $15.8 million 2002-03 $16.0 million 2003-04 $18.7 million 2004-05 $19.4 million 2005-06 $20.1 million The funding allocation for Victoria is listed below. Financial Year Funding Allocation for CSSS Projects 1999-00 $4.8 million 2000-01 $5.0 million 2002-02 $4.7 million 2002-03 $5.2 million 2003-04 $4.4 million 2004-05 $5.6 million 2005-06 $6.4 million The list of organisations which received funding is at Attachment B The sums received by each organisation are at Attachment B. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not store funding information based on electorates. Attachment A Funding to Victoria in 2006/07 Settlement Grants Program Round Funding to Victoria in 2006/07 Settlement Grants Program Round Organisation Name Grant Id Project Description Funding Year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total Amount Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V04/1924 Casework services and capacity building for newly arrived refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne’s north west. 2004 63672     171996 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1932 Casework, referral and advocacy services to small and emerging communities in the South Eastern Region of Melbourne 2004 63672     187296 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V04/1949 Generalist casework, information and service development in the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne 2004 63672     343356 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V04/1976 Information, referral and casework for new and emerging communities in the City of Whittlesea. 2004 63672     167959 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V04/2045 Information, advocacy and referreral for post IHSS refugees, recent arrivals & emerging communities in Barwon Region 2004 63672     186546 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V04/2174 Information, referral and advice to newly arrived Arabic speaking refugees and migrants in Moreland and Hume 2004 63672     171996 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V04/2175 Casework, community education and referral services for Arabic speaking youth in northern and western Melbourne 2004 63672     171996 Migrant Information Centre (Eastern Melbourne) Ltd V05/2264 Information, casework, referral and community capacity building for humanitarian and family stream migrants living in the eastern region of Melbourne 2005 122400 125000   367400 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2266 Casework and community capacity building to refugee and migrant communities in the City of Casey. 2005 91800 93750   275550 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2282 Information, casework and referral services to post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants living in Brimbank and Melton. 2005 61200 62500   183700 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2283 Casework, information and capacity building for post IHSS humanitarian and family stream youth in Brimbank and Melton. 2005 61200 0   121200 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2284 Casework, information sessions and referrals for post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants. 2005 61200 0   121200 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2286 Casework, information, community development and settlement planning to post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants in the City of Hume. 2005 290000 0   570000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2294 Casework, information and capacity building services to refugee youth in the cities of Greater Dandenong and Casey. 2005 122400 125000   367400 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2296 Community capacity building and information services to small and emerging communities in Melbourne’s south east. 2005 61200 0   138692 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V05/2315 Information, referral and advocacy for Arabic-speaking refugees and migrants in the Northern, Western and Southern Metropolitan areas of Melbourne. 2005 65100 66400   195300 Jesuit Social Services V05/2332 Information, referral and support to Horn of Africa youth in western and inner Melbourne 2005 65100     128900 Sunraysia Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V05/2354 Information and capacity building services to small and emerging communities in the Mallee including Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill. 2005 204000 208080   612080 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V05/2369 Planning, co-ordination and supervision of settlement services to target group arrivals in the Goulburn Valley region. 2005 70500 0   139500 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V05/2374 Information, referral and community capacity building services to Muslim women throughout Victoria. 2005 67200 68600   201600 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V05/2376 Information, referral and settlement related casework for Muslim women with a focus on sole parents and their children throughout Victoria. 2005 67200 0   133000 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V05/2399 Statewide refugee youth development and policy program in Victoria 2005 69650     138650 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V05/2419 Young Refugees in the Picture - A Sector Capacity Building Project: Phase 3 (Victoria - metropolitan and rural) 2005 66276     131251 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V05/2423 Information, referral, community capacity and advocacy services to Chinese-speaking community in Monash, Whitehorse, Boroondara, Manningham and Knox. 2005 137700 0   272700 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V05/2433 Casework, information, referral and community education services for Chinese migrants in Melbourne metropolitan area. 2005 137700     272700 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V05/2452 Information, advocacy, referral services and community capacity building for African refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne’s south east. 2005 65100 66400   195300 Centacare Catholic Family Services V05/2472 Capacity building and information for families from Southern Sudan and Ethiopia in Western Melbourne. 2005 65100 0   128900 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2473 Information, casework, advocacy and support services to migrants and refugees focusing on women in the Hobsons Bay area. 2005 65100 0   128900 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2474 Information, referral and assistance with access to community services and resources in the Hobsons Bay area. 2005 65100 0   128900 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2476 Information, referral and assistance accessing community services and resources for small and emerging communities in the Wyndham area. 2005 65100 0   128900 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2478 Support to new and emerging communities in the areas of Hobsons Bay and Wyndham through capacity building, advocacy and service planning. 2005 65100 0   128900 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2492 Manage settlement service delivery provided to humanitarian and family entrants in Moonee Valley, Melbourne, Stonnington and lower Monash. 2005 65100 66400   195300 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V05/2495 Information, referral, advocacy and community capacity building services for the Chinese communities in Darebin, Moreland, Yarra and Banyule 2005 65100 0   128900 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2497 Information, capacity building and referral for recent refugee and humanitarian arrivals in the south central metropolitan region. 2005 61200 62500   183700 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V05/2500 Casework and capacity building to newly arrived refugees and migrants and cultural training and advocacy to mainstream services in Moreland. 2005 270000 0   530000 Eastern and Central Africa Communities of Victoria Inc V05/2506 Settlement information and community capacity building for African communities in Victoria 2005 172750 176000   518250 African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc V05/2529 Community strengthening and capacity building for African communities in Victoria from refugee and humanitarian backgrounds. 2005 132600 0   262600 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V05/2582 Community capacity building to increase participation in education and employment by target group arrivals settling in the Goulburn Valley. 2005 46000 0   91000 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V05/2583 Settlement information and capacity building for women and youth in the Goulburn Valley 2005 46000     91000 Gippsland Multicultural Services Inc V06/2649 Provision of Information, Referral and Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for target group entrants in Gippsland. 2006 98864 109149 119630 327643 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V06/2666 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning aimed at all target group entrants in Goulburn. 2006 88250 0 0 88250 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V06/2667 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning aimed at Arabic-speaking and Afghani-born target group entrants in Goulburn. 2006 80700 0 0 80700 Migrant Information Centre (Eastern Melbourne) Ltd V06/2688 Provision of Information, Referral and Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for target group entrants in Eastern Melbourne 2006 287000 292740 0 579740 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V06/2714 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning aimed at Vietnamese-born target group arrivals in Greater Dandenong City. 2006 87760 0   87760 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V06/2715 Provision of Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning to Serbian and mixed marriage entrants in metropolitan Melbourne 2006 80000 0 0 80000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V06/2717 Provision of a Community Capacity Building and Casework partnership with the Sudanese Community Associaion of Victoria 2006 76976 0   76976 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V06/2720 Provision of Casework Capacity Building and Service Planning to the target group in South Eastern Melbourne. 2006 212428 232239 241004 685671 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V06/2722 Provision of Information, Referral, Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for the Bosnian- Herzegovinian community in Melbourne. 2006 80000 0 0 80000 Kurdish Association of Victoria V06/2723 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Northern Middle and Outer Melbourne, Hume and Moreland City to Kurdish entrants. 2006 67142     67142 Women’s Health in the South East V06/2725 Provision of Capacity Building and Casework to females from Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ethiopia and Somalia in South Eastern Melbourne 2006 60624     60624 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V06/2731 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for target group entrants from the former Yugoslavia in metropolitan Melbourne 2006 80000     80000 Cambodian Community Welfare Centre Inc. V06/2740 Information, Referral and Casework to Cambodian entrants in Eastern Middle Melbourne, South Eastern Outer Melbourne and Greater Dandenong City 2006 70000 0   70000 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V06/2780 Provision of Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning to newly arrived Thai and Lao entrans in metropolitan Melbourne and Barwon. 2006 62002 0 0 62002 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V06/2781 The provision of Information, Referral, Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for the target group arrivals in Barwon 2006 421350 0 0 421350 Jesuit Social Services V06/2782 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Hume City, Inner and Western Melbourne with a focus on Vietnamese male entrants. 2006 87767 0   87767 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V06/2786 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in North Middle Melb, Hume and Moreland for people from Arabic speaking backgrounds. 2006 98092 100054 102055 300201 Jesuit Social Services V06/2788 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Hume City, Inner and Western Melbourne with a focus on Vietnamese female entrants. 2006 87767 0   87767 Community Connections (Victoria) Ltd V06/2789 Provide Information, Referral, Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning to newly arrived in the Western District. 2006 75000 0 0 75000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V06/2790 Provision of Information, Casework and Referral to African entrants in Western Melbourne with focus on men and families 2006 74450 75939   150389 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V06/2792 Provision of Information, Casework, Referral, Capacity Building and Service Planning to Target Groups in Western Melbourne 2006 226690 231224 235848 693762 New Hope Foundation Inc. V06/2802 Provision of Information, Casework, Referral and Capacity Building to Target Groups in Western Melbourne, primarily in Maribyrnong and Moonee Valley 2006 95125 97028   192153 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V06/2823 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Southern and Eastern Middle Melbourne to humanitarian and family stream entrants. 2006 400000 408000   808000 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V06/2824 Provision of Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning to humanitarian and family stream entrants in South East Melbourne. 2006 148000 150960 153979 452939 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V06/2861 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Southern Melbourne and Inner Melbourne to humanitarian and family stream entrants. 2006 92000 93840 0 185840 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V06/2864 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Frankston and Mornington Peninsula to humanitarian and family stream entrants. 2006 96658 99558   196216 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V06/2891 Provision of Casework and Capacity building to African young people in Greater Dandenong City and Southern Melbourne. 2006 44947     44947 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V06/2901 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Northern Outer Melbourne focussing on Family arrivals. 2006 69840 0 0 69840 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V06/2924 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Northern Outer Melbourne to all Target group arrivals. 2006 64709 67895 68884 201488 Eastern and Central Africa Communities of Victoria Inc V06/2960 Provision of Information, Referral and Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for African entrants settling in Western Melbourne 2006 80000 0 0 80000 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V06/2962 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning to small and emerging communities and family stream entrants in Shepparton and Cobram. 2006 48000 0 0 48000 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V06/2976 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning aimed at all target group entrants in Moreland City, Middle Melbourne and Northern Outer Melbourne. 2006 470000 479400 0 949400 Dianella Community Health V06/3047 Provision of Casework and Capacity Building for newly arrived Turkish and Kurdish women, including those from Iraq and Lebanon, in Hume & Moreland 2006 66520 0   66520 Dianella Community Health V06/3048 Provision of Casework and Capacity Building for youth from the Humanitarian and Family stream entrants in Hume City 2006 68520 0   68520 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V06/3055 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Northern Outer Melbourne focussing on people from Arabic speaking backgrounds. 2006 57050 0 0 57050 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V06/3059 Provision of Information, Referral and Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for Young Muslim Women Victoria wide. 2006 116224 118548 120919 355691 Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council Inc V06/3060 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for South Sudanese Youth in the South-Eastern region of Melbourne. 2006 106900 0   106900 Ballarat Regional Multicultural Council Inc V06/3092 Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning aimed at all target group arrivals in the Central Highlands. 2006 42000 0 0 42000 Adult Multicultural Education Services V06/3093 Provision of Information, Capacity Building and Service Planning in Western Melbourne to all target entrants. 2006 190000 0 0 190000 Bendigo Regional Ethnic Communities Council Inc V06/3107 Provision of Information, Referral and Casework, Capacity Building and Service Planning for migrants settling in Loddon Campaspe region. 2006 43645 0   43645 Assyrian Council of Victoria Inc. V06/3126 Assyrian/Chaldean Advocacy Casework and Settlement Services 2006 40000 0 0 40000       TOTAL $8,359,880 $3,677,204 $1,042,319 $17,054,411 Attachment B Funding to Victoria in 2006/07 Settlement Grants Program Round Organisation Name Grant Id Project Description Funding Year 1999/ 2000 2000/ 2001 2001/ 2002 2002/ 2003 2003/ 2004 2004/ 2005 2005/06 Total Funding Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V99/1003   1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V99/1006   1999 47921             $47,921 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V99/1007 To facilitate the settlement of the Vietnamese and Vietnamese Chinese communities in the North West region through the provision of casework services, 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V99/1009 To facilitate the settlement of migrants/refugees in the North West region by employing a Senior Social Worker to provide complex casework services, g 1999 56923 57834           $114,757 Inner Western Region Migrant Resource Centre Inc. V99/1014 The application targets refugees, humanitarian entrants and migrants, individual and families, residing in the MRC service area (Inner and Western reg 1999 69884 71002           $140,886 Inner Western Region Migrant Resource Centre Inc. V99/1015 The applicant seeks funding to continue with the position of Senior Social Worker, at the MRC. This position supervises the Client Service team, train 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 Inner Western Region Migrant Resource Centre Inc. V99/1016 This application targets recently arrived refugees, in particular entrants from the Horn of Africa. The work program for this application has been dra 1999 129784 131861           $261,645 Indo-China Ethnic Chinese Association of Victoria Inc V99/1018   1999 58000 59000           $117,000 Latin American Association Of Community Development and Welfare Services Inc. V99/1020 The proposal is for continuation of settlement services provision to refugees,humanitarian entrants and migrants from Spanish speaking communities fac 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V99/1021 Casework, counselling, community development position focussed on Somali community in northern region. 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V99/1022 Arabic speaking case work service, focussing on newly arrived Iraqis. 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V99/1023 Settlement team coordinator position, generalist case work and advocacy with a community development focus on small ethnic communities within the loca 1999 54000 55000           $109,000 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V99/1024 Part-time casework and referral service also offering cross cultural training to local organisations in the Whittlesea LGA with a survey and needs ana 1999 23961 24344           $48,305 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V99/1025   1999 25111 24344           $49,455 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V99/1027   1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Sunraysia Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V99/1031 Applicant seeks funds for the employment of two full-time workers, to provide services in the Sunraysia area and continue with the provision of outrea 1999 105000 108000 110000         $323,000 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V99/1033 To provide a Volunteer Placement Service targetting the smaller and emerging communities of Whittlesea. 1999 49481 48687           $98,168 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V99/1034 To provide a casework service to new and emerging communities in the Whittlesea region. 1999 55800 57314           $113,114 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V99/1036 Casework service for newly arrived and longer term established community from FYROM. 1999 49481 48687           $98,168 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V99/1037   1999 107144 106521 108226         $321,891 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V99/1038   1999 60000             $60,000 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V99/1039   1999 47921             $47,921 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V99/1040   1999 47921             $47,921 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V99/1041   1999 47921             $47,921 Northern Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre V99/1043 Employment of a Senior Social Worker to manage and provide strategic direction to the Client services team in accorance with the Charter of Public Ser 1999 56923 57834           $114,757 Northern Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre V99/1044 Provision of casework, counselling, information and referral services to recently arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants settling in the Cities of 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V99/1048   1999 57092 59615 59865         $176,572 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V99/1053 To provide a community development and casework service to Muslim women. 1999 60000 60000 60000         $180,000 Kurdish Association of Victoria V99/1054 To assist newly arrived Kurd refugees and humanitarian entrants from Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. To meet their settlement needs and provide access t 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V99/1055   1999 52300 53700           $106,000 Migrant Information Centre (Eastern Melbourne) Ltd V99/1057 Provision of a Settlement Information, referral and casework service for Migrants and Humanitarian entrants settling in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbour 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Australian Turkish Cultural Assoc. Inc. V99/1060   1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Doutta Galla Community Health Services Inc. V99/1063   1999 49917 50716 51527         $152,160 Jewish Care (Victoria) Inc. V99/1064   1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 St John of Kronstadt - Russian Welfare Soc. Inc. V99/1066 The project aims to provide a comprehensive casework, information, referral advocacy and advice service for Russian speaking migrants in Victoria 1999 44201 44908           $89,109 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V99/1073   1999 47921             $47,921 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V99/1074   1999 47921             $47,921 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V99/1076   1999 59723 57834           $117,557 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V99/1079 To provide a casework and community development service to Arabic-speaking communities. 1999 52921 48687           $101,608 Fitzroy Learning Network V99/1089 To provide a casework and community development service to the Hmong community residing in the municipalities of Hume and Yarra. 1999 55669 55511           $111,180 Dianella Community Health V99/1090 To deliver a casework and referral service to the Kurdish and Turkish communities in the Hume and Moreland regions. 1999 48071 48687           $96,758 Dianella Community Health V99/1095 To provide a casework and community development service to young newly arrived refugees and migrants arriving in the Hume and Moreland municipalities. 1999 50671 48687           $99,358 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V99/1096 The applicant targets the Vietnamese community (focussing on families, elderly and middle-age men) in the Western region of Melbourne.The agency propo 1999 47921             $47,921 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V99/1097 The applicant targets the Vietnamese community (focussing on families, women and youth) in the Western region of Melbourne. The agency submitted a two 1999 49917             $49,917 Victorian Arabic Social Services V99/1101 Survey of Arabic speaking community across metropolitan Melbourne and rural Victoria and audit of settlement services. Casework in Greater Shepparton 1999 23961 24344           $48,305 Albanian-Australian Community Association Inc. V99/1102 AACA are looking to establish a database of community service providers which will be used by a worker who will offer support and referral to the targ 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Centre for Philippine Concerns - Australia, Victoria Branch V99/1104   1999 52917 50716           $103,633 Khmer Community of Victoria Inc. V99/1105 The KCV’s project focusses on a casework, information and referral service for Cambodians in South Eastern Melbourne. It seeks to improve access to m 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Timor Ethnic Chinese Community In Victoria Inc. V99/1106 Casework and advocacy service for East Timorese Chinese Hakka-speakers in Melbourne. 1999 48500 48500           $97,000 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V99/1110   1999 44201 44908           $89,109 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V99/1112 Provision of casework, counselling, information and referral services to recently arrived Chinese settling in the eastern region of Melbourne as well 1999 100834 101432           $202,266 Jesuit Social Services V99/1116 The program is directed to the Vietnamese community, with an emphasis on women,who present a series of settlement problems such as lack of English and 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Jesuit Social Services V99/1117 The program is directed to the Vietnamese community in general, individuals and families. Recent arrivals, refugees and humanitarian entrants, that pr 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Jesuit Social Services V99/1118 The program is directed to the Vietnamese youth who are in juvenile justice detention or are ex-prisoners. Among this group are recent arrivals , refu 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V99/1120 Provision of a casework, counselling and referral service to the Lao community in Victoria as well as cultural sensitivity work with mainstream servic 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Filipino Community Council of Vic. Inc. V99/1125 The applicant seeks funding to continue with the service provision for the Filipino community, through the employment of a welfare worker. The program 1999 49917 50715           $100,632 North Richmond Community Health Centre Inc. V99/1126 Social work position providing casework, counselling and advocacy for the Vietnamese and Chinese-Vietnamese communities in the City of Yarra. 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V99/1127 The aims of the project are twofold. Firstly it is designed to provide a casework and community development service for the Vietnamese Community in t 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V99/1128 The project aims to provide a casework, advocacy, information and referral service for Cambodians in the South East Region 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V99/1132 The work program is designed for a caseworker who, by providing cross generational and cross cultural counselling/ information/support services/ advoc 1999 47921             $47,921 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V99/1134 The work program is designed for a caseworker who, by providing cross generational and cross cultural counselling/ information/support services/ advoc 1999 47921             $47,921 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V99/1135 To provide a casework and community development service to Arabic-speaking communities. 1999 49321 48687 49466         $147,474 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V99/1136 Casework, counselling and referral service to Greek speaking aged and their carers in the Melbourne Metropolitan region. 1999 47921             $47,921 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V99/1138 Casework to family members of Greek background including marital counselling parenting education.l 1999 56923             $56,923 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V99/1139 Casework, information and referral for Greek speaking women. 1999 47921             $47,921 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V99/1142 To provide a casework and settlement service to the newly arrived and longer established communities in the Shepparton region. 1999 57895 57834 58760         $174,489 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V99/1143 To provide a casework and settlement service. To lease a bus to transport clients to ESL classes. 1999 47921             $47,921 Spanish Latin American Welfare Centre Inc V99/1145 The work program is for continuation of provision of settlement services to the Spanish speaking community across all the Melbourne metropolitan and o 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 Spanish Latin American Welfare Centre Inc V99/1146 The work program is for 2 positions (continuation of existing program and new position) to provide settlement services to the Spanish speaking commun 1999 49917 50716 51527         $152,160 Brotherhood of St Laurence V99/1151 Casework and advocacy for newly arrived women and their families. 1999 56923 57834           $114,757 Brotherhood of St Laurence V99/1153 To provide a casework and counselling service to newly arrived young people. 1999 52121 48687           $100,808 Maltese Community Council of Victoria Inc. V99/1155 Provision of settlement services to the Maltese Community in Victoria, including: community development, information, counselling, referral, advocacy, 1999 52917 50716 51527         $155,160 Australian Croatian Community Services V99/1156 To assist newly arrived refugees and humanitarian entrants from Croatia, Bosnia & Serbia in Melbourne’s Western LGAs. ACCS to provide immediate settle 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Australian Croatian Community Services V99/1157 To provide settlement services to Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne’s Northern regions. To inform and advi 1999 24958 25358           $50,316 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V99/1169 The proposal is for continuation of generalist settlement services for newly arrived/migrant women in the City of Hobsons Bay.Outputs include casework 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V99/1171 The proposal is for continuation of generalist settlement services for newly arrived and migrant communities in the City of Hobsons Bay.Outputs includ 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Timorese Association in Victoria Inc. V99/1172 Services to East Timorese in Melbourne 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Australian Polish Community Services Inc (APCS) V99/1175 The applicant is looking to continue their service provision for the Polish community . The agency presents a 3 years work program addressing the need 1999 59295 60243           $119,538 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V99/1176 Manage ethno-specific welfare agency offering policy input and a range of services to its Melbourne-wide client base. 1999 60000             $60,000 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1177 The proposal is for continuation of:coordinated casework support services, including complex counselling;development and facilitation of delivery of t 1999 56923 57834 58760         $173,517 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1178 The work program is for continuation of provision of settlement services to the target group in the City of Port Philip, Glen Eira and Stonnington; ca 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Australian Turkish Association Inc. V99/1179   1999 49917             $49,917 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1181 The work program is for continuation of provision of settlement services to the target group in the City of Port Philip, Glen Eira and Stonnington; ca 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1182 The work program is for continuation of provision of settlement services to the target group in the City of Monash,Kingston, Glen Eira and Bayside; ca 1999 47921 48687 49466         $146,074 Cambodian Community Welfare Centre Inc. V99/1186 Provision of casework, counselling, information and referal services to the Cambodian community, particularly those settling in the eastern region of 1999 53917 50716           $104,633 International Social Service - Australian Branch V99/1188   1999 32392             $32,392 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1194 The project focusses on a casework, information and referral service for the Romanian community in the South Eastern region of Melbourne. It seeks to 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1195 The aim of the project is to provide an information, referral, casework, advocacy and community development service to the Afghani community in South 1999 44201 44908           $89,109 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V99/1196 Information and orientation, needs assessment and referral to new arrivals through casework but with a greater emphasis on group work. Education and t 1999 47921 48687           $96,608 Cambodian Association of Victoria Inc. V99/1200 The project aims to provide a casework, advocacy, information and referral service for Cambodians in the South East Region. The work program includes 1999 49917 50716           $100,633 Assyrian Council of Victoria Inc. V99/1202 Casework, community development and advocacy service for newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants from Assyrian/Chaldean and associated origin 1999 35935 37547           $73,482 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V00/0234 Addressing Settlement Needs of Greek Speaking Women 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V00/0236 Addressing the needs of Greek families 2000   57834 58759         $116,593 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V00/0261 CSSS Grant 2 2000   56367 56367         $112,734 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V00/0262 CSSS Grant 2 V00/0262 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 International Social Service - Australian Branch V00/0269 Offshore Intervention Settlement Services 2000   33000           $33,000 Northern Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre V00/0274 North West Area Of Melbourne Community Settlement Service 2000   48685           $48,685 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V00/0281 CSS Grant 1 2000   55345 56242         $111,587 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V00/0282 CSS Grant 2 2000   25357           $25,357 Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council Inc V00/0284 SEAAC - Youth Focused Casework Service 2000   50713 51525         $102,238 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V00/0285 Open Access to New and Emerging Communities in the SE of Melbourne 2000   57834 58759 59699       $176,292 Gippsland Multicultural Services Inc V00/0395 Gippsland Community Settlement Services Project 2000   48429           $48,429 African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc V00/0396 African Settlement Support Worker Project 2000   60000 60000         $120,000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V00/0424   2000   45926           $45,926 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V00/0470 A0026175J Community Settlement Service Scheme 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V00/0471 A0026175J Community Settlement Service Scheme 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V00/0479 A0007328U Arabic Speaking Youth Settling In Melbourne 2000   58822           $58,822 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V00/0497 Senior Social Worker 2000   57834 58759 59699       $176,292 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V00/0505 Social Welfare and Co-ordinating Services 2000   56923 57834         $114,757 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V00/0506 Social Youth Services 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V00/0511 Community Settlement Services Scheme - Greek-Australian community 2000   105000 107000         $212,000 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V00/0594 Settlement Support Program 2000   48685 49464         $98,149 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V01/0025 Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues humanitarian youth policy program 2001     58500 59400       $117,900 Australian Polish Community Services Inc (APCS) V01/0028 Settlement services to the Polish community 2001     60900 61900       $122,800 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V01/0048 Generalist settlement support program for new and emerging communities, refugees and youth 2001     58300 59600 60600     $178,500 St John of Kronstadt - Russian Welfare Soc. Inc. V01/0051 Settlement and welfare support for Russian speaking migrants 2001     44875         $44,875 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V01/0105 Planning, co-ordination and management of settlement services 2001     57800 58700 58890     $175,390 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V01/0159 Generalist settlement services position 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V01/0160 Generalist settlement services with a focus on housing issues 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V01/0161 Generalist settlement services with a focus on income and employment issues 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V01/0175 Volunteer employment placement program - new arrivals 2001     49200 50000 51000     $150,200 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V01/0204 Settlement support services to Macedonians in Whittlesea and the North East of Melbourne 2001     49200 50000       $99,200 Sunraysia Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V01/0275 Loddon Mallee outreach program 2001     24720         $24,720 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V01/0288 Settlement and integration services to refugees and recent arrivals - Greater Geelong region 2001     50500 51300       $101,800 Gippsland Multicultural Services Inc V01/0341 Gippsland ethnic community access and support program 2001     50102 52159 54305     $156,566 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V01/0403 Equipment purchase 2001     5000         $5,000 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V01/0408 Settlement Services for Muslim women and children 2001     60900 61900       $122,800 Timor Ethnic Chinese Community In Victoria Inc. V01/0411 Settlement and community welfare services 2001     51200         $51,200 Kurdish Association of Victoria V01/0447 Newly arrived Kurdish refugees and migrants 2001     51200 52000 53100     $156,300 Khmer Community of Victoria Inc. V01/0448 Services to Cambodian-born entrants in the South East of Melbourne 2001     51200 52000       $103,200 Dianella Community Health V01/0452 Young refugee and newly arrived connections 2001     49200 50000       $99,200 Dianella Community Health V01/0453 Newly-arrived Turkish and Kurdish women’s program 2001     49200 50000       $99,200 Centre for Philippine Concerns - Australia, Victoria Branch V01/0454 Settlement assistance to newly arrived Filipino migrants 2001     51200 52000 53100     $156,300 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V01/0460 Settlement services to newly arrived Arabic-speaking refugees and migrants, especially women 2001     49200 50000 51000     $150,200 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V01/0461 Settlement needs of Arabic speaking youth in Melbourne 2001     49200 50000 51000     $150,200 Filipino Community Council of Vic. Inc. V01/0468 Settlement assistance to the Filipino community in Victoria 2001     51200 52000 53100     $156,300 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V01/0494 Young migrants and humanitarian refugees 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V01/0495 Co-ordination, planning and management of settlement services 2001     54000 56600 59400     $170,000 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V01/0496 Settlement services to Bosnians 2001     45300 46100       $91,400 Australian Croatian Community Services V01/0500 Servicing unmet needs of the Croatian community 2001     76950 103950       $180,900 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V01/0512 Extended settlement services to Chinese in the eastern region of Victoria 2001     99400 100000       $199,400 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V01/0513 Community development for Mandarin speakers in the Eastern Region 2001     49200 52000       $101,200 Australian Vietnamese Women’s Welfare Association Inc V01/0538 Support for Vietnamese women and elderly in the Eastern, Northern and Western regions of Sydney 2001     51200         $51,200 Brotherhood of St Laurence V01/0550 Statewide settlement services for women and families from new and emerging communities, especially Afghan and Sudanese 2001     49200         $49,200 Latin American Association Of Community Development and Welfare Services Inc. V01/0554 Settlement services for Spanish speaking communities 2001     51200         $51,200 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V01/0560 Settlement services to the Lao community in Victoria 2001     51200         $51,200 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V01/0569 Refugee youth services capacity building 2001     57200 59000 62350     $178,550 Jesuit Social Services V01/0570 Refugee and humanitarian Vietnamese women in Maribyrnong and Moonee Valley 2001     49200 50000       $99,200 Jesuit Social Services V01/0571 Refugee and humanitarian Vietnamese families in Maribyrnong and Moonee Valley 2001     69000 70120       $139,120 Australian Turkish Cultural Assoc. Inc. V01/0590 Settlement services to the Turkish community 2001     51200         $51,200 Victorian Arabic Social Services V01/0593 Arabic settlement facilitation program 2001     60900         $60,900 Indo-China Ethnic Chinese Association of Victoria Inc V01/0595 Community settlement and development for Indo-Chinese in Victoria 2001     51200 52000       $103,200 Fitzroy Learning Network V01/0602 Hmong community development project in Yarra and Hume regions 2001     51200 52000       $103,200 Cambodian Community Welfare Centre Inc. V01/0615 Cambodian community settlement services in the eastern region of Melbourne 2001     51200 52000       $103,200 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V01/0617 Provision of Afghan settlement services 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V01/0619 South East refugee youth settlement program 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V01/0622 Settlement services to new and emerging communities 2001     48500 49300       $97,800 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V01/0626 Co-ordination of settlement services and provision of complex case work 2001     60900 61900       $122,800 Eastern and Central Africa Communities of Victoria Inc V01/0631 Sub-Saharan African holistic settlement services in Greater Melbourne 2001     60900 61900       $122,800 Al-Amen Iraqi Association Inc. V01/0632 Information dissemination for the Iraqi community in Cobram 2001     5950         $5,950 Victorian Cooperative on Children’s Services for Ethnic Groups V01/0635 Negotiating the future - African community roundtables on youth issues 2001     18000         $18,000 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V01/0649 Planning and co-ordination of settlement services for the Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. 2001     60900 61900 62900     $185,700 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V02/0693 Lifestyle options for Italo-Australians 2002       105831       $105,831 Sunraysia Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V02/0713 Northern Mallee Immigration Information and Settlement Supporting Services 2002       154055 115641 157080   $426,776 Migrant Information Centre (Eastern Melbourne) Ltd V02/0737 Settlement Services and Community Building 2002       109200 83520 113520   $306,240 Jewish Care (Victoria) Inc. V02/0775 Jewish Care Resettlement Programs 2002       47064       $47,064 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V02/0893 Services to Vietnamese migrants in Melbourne’s South East 2002       59160 44370     $103,530 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V02/0937 Post-IHSS Refugees and Humanitarian Project 2002       50892 39060     $89,952 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V02/0974 Casework for refugees and migrants from the Former Yugoslavia 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V02/1013 Services to the Lao Community in Victoria 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 Jewish Care (Victoria) Inc. V02/1036 Jewish Care Argentinian Resettlement Program 2002       11696       $11,696 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V02/1055 Youth Settlement Services Officer 2002       51600 37953     $89,553 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V02/1060 Bosnian and Herzegovinian Settlement Support Program 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council Inc V02/1066 Support for newly arrived and emerging community youth in south-east Melbourne 2002       54600       $54,600 St John of Kronstadt - Russian Welfare Soc. Inc. V02/1069 Welfare and settlement support services for Russian speaking migrants 2002       44875       $44,875 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V02/1079 Equipment Purchase for current CSSS Programs 2002       6492       $6,492 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V02/1088 Communities working in harmony, with respect and understanding 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V02/1089 Arabic speaking migrants in the Shepparton region 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V02/1090 Casey Multicultural Service Development 2002       51600       $51,600 Spanish Latin American Welfare Centre Inc V02/1109 Coordination of services for Spanish speaking residents in Melbourne. 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Spanish Latin American Welfare Centre Inc V02/1110 Services for Spanish speaking residents in Melbourne. 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V02/1126 Addressing the settlement needs of Greek born migrants people. 2002       49366       $49,366 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V02/1127 Settlement programs for the Greek community in Melbourne 2002       58857       $58,857 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V02/1160 Casework service for refugees, humanitarian entrants and migrants in Brimbank and Melton. 2002       51600 39465 53640   $144,705 Doutta Galla Community Health Services Inc. V02/1180 Community Development, Casework, Advocacy Service for Post IHSS entrants. 2002       54600 41760     $96,360 Russian Ethnic Representative Council in Victoria, Inc. V02/1205 Casework, Counselling Services to Russian Migrants in Victoria 2002       54600       $54,600 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V02/1210 Translation of a Guide for Newly Arrived Young People 2002       32990       $32,990 Eritrean Islamic Society in Australia V02/1226 Volunteer Training Program 2002       24550 20587     $45,137 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V02/1399 Southern Melbourne refugee and migrant casework service 2002       54600 41760     $96,360 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V02/1400 Managing client service delivery and provision of CSSS/MRC training programs. 2002       58800 44955 61140   $164,895 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V02/1402 Refugee and migrant casework service in Monash, Kingston, Glen Eira and Bayside. 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V02/1403 Inner Southern Melbourne Refugee and migrant casework service 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V02/1404 Community settlement support service, referral and advocacy for migrants and refugees. 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V02/1405 Community development and settlement project focussing on women 2002       54600 41760     $96,360 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V02/1410 Young Muslim Women’s Communication Skills Project 2002       68400 44955     $113,355 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V02/1412 Settlement Programs for Muslim Women in Victoria 2002       58800 44955 61140   $164,895 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V02/1413 Casework for Vietnamese migrants in the west of Melbourne 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Australian Turkish Cultural Assoc. Inc. V02/1415 Settlement servies for the Turkish speaking community 2002       54600       $54,600 Timor Ethnic Chinese Community In Victoria Inc. V02/1417 Settlement services to Hakka-speaking East Timorese 2002       45252       $45,252 Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Coalition Inc. V02/1420 Resource, train and partner: a grassroots approach to the needs of emerging women’s groups 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V02/1422 Newly Arrived Arabic Refugees and Migrants in Metropolitan Melbourne 2002       54600 41760 56760   $153,120 Victorian Arabic Social Services V02/1423 Arabic Youth Settlement Facilitation Program 2002       54600       $54,600 Maltese Community Council of Victoria Inc. V02/1427 Maltese casework, information and referral service, community education and consultation. 2002       51527       $51,527 North Richmond Community Health Centre Inc. V02/1429 Casework service for Newly Arrived Vietnamese and Chinese in Melbourne’s inner East and North 2002       58800 44955 61140   $164,895 National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters’ Council (NEMBC) V02/1432 Training and Broadcasting Project for small and emerging communities in Victoria. 2002       58800 44955     $103,755 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V02/1433 Casework, information and referral for Chinese migrants in Melbourne. 2002       109200       $109,200 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V02/1434 Services to newly emerging communities in the South Eastern region 2002       51600       $51,600 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V02/1435 Services to the Vietnamese speaking community in the South Eastern region 2002       51600 39465     $91,065 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V02/1437 Casework for Serbian migrants in South Eastern and North Western Melbourne. 2002       103200 78930 107280   $289,410 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V02/1438 Residual settlement needs of migrant Greek Australians 2002       107000       $107,000 African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc V02/1439 African Settlement Support Project focussing on families, women and youth 2002       81420 63000     $144,420 Albanian-Australian Community Association Inc. V02/1443 Services for Albanian speaking migrants and refugees in Victoria 2002       50148 40050     $90,198 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V02/1451 Youth and Family Support services for Vietnamese in Melbourne’s west 2002       54600 41760     $96,360 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V02/1861 One-off Funding for Relocation after closedown of Northern Metro MRC 2002       4000       $4,000 Australian Polish Community Services Inc (APCS) V03/1509 Improve access to mainstream service providers for the Polish community in Victoria 2003         46425 0 0 $46,425 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V03/1533 Casework, capacity building and cross-cultural training for refugees in the North East of Melbourne. 2003         126000 0 0 $126,000 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V03/1534 Casework and referral services to assist small and emerging communities in Moreland. 2003         173749 231666 0 $405,415 St John of Kronstadt - Russian Welfare Soc. Inc. V03/1541 Settlement and welfare support for Russian speaking migrants in Melbourne Metropolitan Area 2003         33656 0 0 $33,656 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V03/1549 Senior Social Worker 2003         45000 0 0 $45,000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V03/1551 New and emerging community services in Southeastern Melbourne 2003         39200 0 0 $39,200 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V03/1552 Casey Settlement Services, providing casework to migrants and refugees and training services 2003         41543 0 0 $41,543 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V03/1554 Afghan community casework and development services 2003         39080 0 0 $39,080 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V03/1555 Refugee Youth Services in the South Eastern Region of Melbourne 2003         39020 0 0 $39,020 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V03/1566 Casework, information and referral services for the Bosnian community in Victoria 2003         90000 0 0 $90,000 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V03/1595 Casework, information and referral services to the Macedonian speaking community in Melbourne 2003         48300 63895 0 $112,195 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V03/1596 Casework, information and advocacy services for the Arabic speaking community in the City of Whittlesea 2003         32323 0 0 $32,323 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V03/1599 Casework, advocacy and referral services to the Greek community in Victoria 2003         80250 0 0 $80,250 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V03/1604 Casework, groupwork and advocacy services for newly migrant youth in Shepparton and Cobram 2003         45000 61200 0 $106,200 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V03/1608 Casework, referral and advocacy services to recent arrivals and migrants from small and emerging communities in the Barwon Region 2003         45000 0 0 $45,000 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V03/1623 Statewide Refugee Youth Participation and Policy Development Program 2003         46500 65280 0 $111,780 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V03/1632 Develop partnerships with mainstream service providers for the Italian speaking community in Victoria 2003         79373 0 0 $79,373 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V03/1635 Information and support to newly arrived African communities 2003         45000 0 0 $45,000 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V03/1637 Information, support and advocacy services for small and emerging communities in Greater Dandenong 2003         45000 0 0 $45,000 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V03/1643 Casework and referral services to the Greek community in Melbourne 2003         40584 0 0 $40,584 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V03/1648 Develop partnerships with mainstream service providers on behalf of the Greek community in Melbourne 2003         40583 0 0 $40,583 Russian Ethnic Representative Council in Victoria, Inc. V03/1665 Casework, referral and advocacy services for newly arrived Russian-speaking migrants in Victoria 2003         40950 0 0 $40,950 Eastern and Central Africa Communities of Victoria Inc V03/1736 Casework, capacity building and community development services for African communities in Greater Melbourne. 2003         110850 146450 0 $257,300 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V03/1738 Casework and group services to sole parent Muslim women in Victoria 2003         45000 61200 0 $106,200 Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council Inc V03/1741 Settlement support for newly arrived and emerging community young people aged 12 to 25 years 2003         45000 61200 0 $106,200 Dianella Community Health V03/1750 Casework and capacity building for refugee, newly arrived and migrant young people in Hume. 2003         41250 0 0 $41,250 Dianella Community Health V03/1751 Casework, advocacy, referral services to newly-arrived Kurdish and Turkish women and their families. 2003         41250 0 0 $41,250 Cambodian Community Welfare Centre Inc. V03/1752 Casework services to the Cambodian community in the Greater Dandenong area 2003         51301 69770 0 $121,071 Australian Croatian Community Services V03/1753 Advocacy and Support Program for the Croatian and Bosnian Communities of Victoria 2003         67500 91800 0 $159,300 Victorian Arabic Social Services V03/1760 Intergrated Casework, group work and information services for Arabic Youth and Isolated women 2003         45000 0 0 $45,000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V03/1763 Casework and referral services to migrants and refugees in the City of Hume 2003         173777 232603 0 $406,380 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V03/1764 Support and settlement information to refugee and newly arrived young people and their families. 2003         42000 0 0 $42,000 Jesuit Social Services V03/1767 Casework, community education and referral services to Vietnamese women in Victoria 2003         40422 54974 0 $95,396 Jesuit Social Services V03/1768 Information, education and referral services to Vietnamese migrants in Melbourne 2003         40423 54975 0 $95,398 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V03/1770 Casework, information, consultation and referral services for Chinese Migrants in Melbourne. 2003         90000 0 0 $90,000 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V03/1835 Casework, referral and community education services to the Chinese speaking community in the Eastern Metropolitan Region 2003         90000 0 0 $90,000 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V03/1837 New Settlement Services to Chinese-Australian community in the Northern Metropolitan Region 2003         32325 43962 0 $76,287 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V04/1891 Community development and access to mainstream services for Vietnamese migrants in the MelbourneS-E 2004           61200 0 $61,200 St John of Kronstadt - Russian Welfare Soc. Inc. V04/1893 Provide information, casework and referrals to the Russian speaking migrants 2004           22437 0 $22,437 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V04/1908 Casework, community resourcing and service development for recent arrivals from the former Yugoslavia in Melbourne 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Australian Polish Community Services Inc (APCS) V04/1917 Enhance access to mainstream services for Polish migrants in Victoria 2004           30950 0 $30,950 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V04/1923 Casework and community capacity building for newly arrived migrant youth in Brimbak, Melton and Western Suburbs 2004           58820 0 $58,820 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V04/1924 Casework services and capacity building for newly arrived refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne’s north west. 2004           45900 62424 $108,324 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V04/1925 Community development and capacity building for migrants and refugees in the Inner West Region of Melbourne 2004           61200 62424 $123,624 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V04/1926 Casework and support to post IHSS refugees and migrants in the Western Region of Melbourne 2004           57620 0 $57,620 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1932 Casework, referral and advocacy services to small and emerging communities in the South Eastern Region of Melbourne 2004           61200 62424 $123,624 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V04/1933 Information, support and communication skills for young Muslim women in Victoria. 2004           66200 67524 $133,724 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1934 Casework, support and community education services for refugee youth in the South East region of Melbourne 2004           55224 0 $55,224 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1935 Casework, information sessions and advocacy for small and emerging communities in the City of Casey 2004           88153 0 $88,153 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1936 Casework and cross cultural training for small and emerging communities in the South Eastern region of Melbourne 2004           54672 0 $54,672 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/1937 Community development, information and support services for Afghans in Melbourne’s South East 2004           53672 0 $53,672 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V04/1943 Casework, advocacy and information sessions to the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Community in the north and south of Melbourne 2004           122400 0 $122,400 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V04/1947 Information, education and capacity building for refugee youth in the northern region of Melbourne 2004           58120 0 $58,120 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V04/1948 Enhacing services for young refugees in Victoria through support, coordination and capacity building in metropolitan and rural Victoria 2004           45900 0 $45,900 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V04/1949 Generalist casework, information and service development in the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne 2004           217260 62424 $279,684 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V04/1953 Information, referral and community capacity building for African refugees in Greater Dandenong 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V04/1954 Information and referral services and community capacity building for the Vietnamese community in the City of Greater Dandenong 2004           61200   $61,200 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V04/1959 Management of projects for new arrivals and refugees in Goulburn Valley. 2004           42840 0 $42,840 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V04/1961 Capacity building, referral and casework services for Arabic speaking communities in the Goulburn Valley 2004           68300 69666 $137,966 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V04/1962 Community capacity building, information an referral services to new migrant and refugee arrivals in Goulburn Valley 2004           73800 0 $73,800 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V04/1969 Case work, information, referral and consultation for Chinese migrants in Melbourne areas 2004           122400 0 $122,400 Greek Welfare Centre of Victoria V04/1971 Provide casework, advocacy and community education services to Greek speaking migrants in Victoria 2004           53500 0 $53,500 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V04/1973 Casework, information and advocacy for the Arabic speaking community in the City of Whittlesea 2004           54022 57077 $111,099 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V04/1976 Information, referral and casework for new and emerging communities in the City of Whittlesea. 2004           41863 62424 $104,287 Co.As.It. - Italian Assistance Association V04/1996 Strengthen partnerships with mainstream service providers through information exchange for the Italian community in Victoria 2004           52915 0 $52,915 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V04/1998 Strengthen access to mainstream services and community capacity building for Greek speaking migrants in Melbourne 2004           27056 0 $27,056 Australian Greek Welfare Society Ltd V04/2001 Address the residual settlement needs of Greek born migrants 2004           27055 0 $27,055 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V04/2003 Capacity building, information and referals for the Lao community in Victoria 2004           57293 0 $57,293 Spanish Latin American Welfare Centre Inc V04/2005 Management and coordination of settlement services for Spanish speaking residents in Melbourne 2004           65280 0 $65,280 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V04/2007 Information, casework and advocacy for new refugees and humanitarian entrants in Wyndham 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V04/2008 Casework, advocacy and community capacity builing for small and emerging communities in Wyndham 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V04/2009 Information, suppport and referral services for culturally diverse women in Hobson’s Bay 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V04/2010 Access to mainstream services for small and emerging communities in Wyndham and Hobsons Bay 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V04/2011 Information and referral services to recently arrived migrants in Hobson’s Bay 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Filipino Community Council of Vic. Inc. V04/2014 Casework, information and community development servies to Filipino migrants in Melbourne and regional areas 2004           45900 62424 $108,324 Jesuit Social Services V04/2021 Capacity building, support and referral services for refugee youth in Moonee Valley and North Melbourne 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Adult Multicultural Education Services V04/2022 Information, capacity building and referral services for newly arrived communities in Moonee Valley and Maribyrnong 2004           240000 240000 $480,000 Horn of African Communities Network in Vic. Inc. V04/2028 Information, referral services and capacity building for Horn of Africa communities in western Melbourne. 2004           61239 62463 $123,702 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V04/2039 Youth and family support services for the Vietnamese Community in the Western Region of Victoria 2004           61200 0 $61,200 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V04/2045 Information, advocacy and referreral for post IHSS refugees, recent arrivals & emerging communities in Barwon Region 2004           60450 62424 $122,874 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V04/2051 Casework and community capacity building for Vietnamese people in Melbourne’s west. 2004           59338 0 $59,338 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/2057 Information, community capacity and referral services for recent arrivals in the City of Moonee Valley 2004           61200 62424 $123,624 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/2059 Information, community capacity and referral services for Sudanese women and families in southern Melbourne 2004           59680 0 $59,680 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/2061 Information community capacity building and referral services for new arrivals in Inner South and Central Melbourne 2004           60571 0 $60,571 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V04/2062 Information community capacity building and referral services for recent arrivals in the Southern Region of Melbourne 2004           58120 59282 $117,402 Centacare Catholic Family Services V04/2094 Capacity building for southern Sudanese and African migrants in Melbourne 2004           36000 0 $36,000 Russian Ethnic Representative Council in Victoria, Inc. V04/2134 Casework, advocacy, referral and cultural awareness for newly arrived Russian speaking migrants 2004           27300 0 $27,300 Dianella Community Health V04/2144 Casework and capacity building for newly arrived and young refugees in Hume 2004           59225 60820 $120,045 Dianella Community Health V04/2145 Casework, information and referral for newly arrived Kurdish and Turkish women and their families in Hume and surrounds 2004           40884 0 $40,884 African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc V04/2159 Casework, co-ordination, and outreach services for African communities in the northern and western regions of Melbourne 2004           85680 0 $85,680 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V04/2174 Information, referral and advice to newly arrived Arabic speaking refugees and migrants in Moreland and Hume 2004           45900 62424 $108,324 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V04/2175 Casework, community education and referral services for Arabic speaking youth in northern and western Melbourne 2004           45900 62424 $108,324 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V04/2209 Casework, information, referral and capacity buiding for Chines speaking migrants in the Melbourne eastern metropolitan region 2004           122400 0 $122,400 Albanian-Australian Community Association Inc. V04/2216 Casework, information sessions and support groups for the Albanian community in the west, north and south of Melbourne and Wodonga 2004           57620 0 $57,620 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2263 Information, casework and referral for post IHSS humanitarian and refugee entrants and family stream migrants with a focus on issues facing men. 2005             60000 $60,000 Migrant Information Centre (Eastern Melbourne) Ltd V05/2264 Information, casework, referral and community capacity building for humanitarian and family stream migrants living in the eastern region of Melbourne 2005             120000 $120,000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2266 Casework and community capacity building to refugee and migrant communities in the City of Casey. 2005             90000 $90,000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2267 Information, capacity building and referral services in Melbourne’s south east region for humanitarian entrants from Afghanistan. 2005             60000 $60,000 Springvale Indo-Chinese Mutual Assistance Assoc. Inc. V05/2281 Casework, information, referral and capacity building for the Vietnamese community in Greater Dandenong. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2282 Information, casework and referral services to post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants living in Brimbank and Melton. 2005             60000 $60,000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2283 Casework, information and capacity building for post IHSS humanitarian and family stream youth in Brimbank and Melton. 2005             60000 $60,000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2284 Casework, information sessions and referrals for post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants. 2005             60000 $60,000 Migrant Resource Centre North West Region V05/2286 Casework, information, community development and settlement planning to post IHSS humanitarian and family migrants in the City of Hume. 2005             280000 $280,000 North Richmond Community Health Centre Inc. V05/2292 Casework, information and referral services to newly arrived Vietnamese and Chinese migrants within the City of Yarra and greater Melbourne Area. 2005             63800 $63,800 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2294 Casework, information and capacity building services to refugee youth in the cities of Greater Dandenong and Casey. 2005             120000 $120,000 South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2296 Community capacity building and information services to small and emerging communities in Melbourne’s south east. 2005             77492 $77,492 Whittlesea Community Connections Inc. V05/2313 Volunteer, mentoring and placement of newly arrived migrants and refugees in the City of Whittlesea and surrounding areas. 2005             61024 $61,024 Australian Lebanese Welfare Inc. V05/2315 Information, referral and advocacy for Arabic-speaking refugees and migrants in the Northern, Western and Southern Metropolitan areas of Melbourne. 2005             63800 $63,800 Jesuit Social Services V05/2332 Information, referral and support to Horn of Africa youth in western and inner Melbourne 2005             63800 $63,800 Victorian Multi Ethnic Slavic Welfare Association Inc. V05/2333 Information and referral services and community capacity building for refugees and migrants from the former Yugoslavia. 2005             63800 $63,800 Jesuit Social Services V05/2334 Casework, group work and community capacity buiding to the Vietnamese community, with a focus on youth in western and northern Melbourne 2005             63800 $63,800 Jesuit Social Services V05/2335 Casework, community education and community capacity buildng to Vietnamese women in northern and western Melbourne 2005             63800 $63,800 Serbian Welfare Association of Victoria, Inc. V05/2342 Casework, information and advocacy services to Serbian and mixed marriage humanitarian entrants and refugees in Melbourne’s south east and north west. 2005             95700 $95,700 Kurdish Association of Victoria V05/2348 Casework, information, referral services and capacity building for the Kurdish community in northern and western Melbourne. 2005             63800 $63,800 Sunraysia Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V05/2354 Information and capacity building services to small and emerging communities in the Mallee including Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill. 2005             200000 $200,000 Southern Ethnic Advisory and Advocacy Council Inc V05/2357 Information, referral, casework and capacity building services for refugee youth in the south central region of Melbourne. 2005             70000 $70,000 Albanian-Australian Community Association Inc. V05/2360 Casework, information and referral services for recent arrivals from the Albanian community in Melbourne, Dandenong and regional Victoria. 2005             63800 $63,800 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V05/2369 Planning, co-ordination and supervision of settlement services to target group arrivals in the Goulburn Valley region. 2005             69000 $69,000 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V05/2374 Information, referral and community capacity building services to Muslim women throughout Victoria. 2005             65800 $65,800 Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria V05/2376 Information, referral and settlement related casework for Muslim women with a focus on sole parents and their children throughout Victoria. 2005             65800 $65,800 Lao Australian Welfare Assocation Inc. V05/2380 Information, referral and advocacy services for the Lao and Thai communities in Victoria 2005             60000 $60,000 Vietnamese Community In Australia/Vic Chapter V05/2394 Casework, information, referral, advocacy and community capacity building services to the Vietnamese community in Melbourne’s western region. 2005             127600 $127,600 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V05/2399 Statewide refugee youth development and policy program in Victoria 2005             69000 $69,000 Merhamet Muslim Welfare Association Inc V05/2411 Casework and information services to Bosnian refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne. 2005             95700 $95,700 Australian Croatian Community Services V05/2412 Casework, community and service development for new entrants from former Yugoslavia in Western, Northern and South Eastern Metropolitan regions. 2005             63800 $63,800 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V05/2418 Casework, information and referral services for newly arrived refugees and migrants in south eastern Melbourne and Greater Dandenong. 2005             63800 $63,800 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V05/2419 Young Refugees in the Picture - A Sector Capacity Building Project: Phase 3 (Victoria - metropolitan and rural) 2005             64975 $64,975 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V05/2423 Information, referral, community capacity and advocacy services to Chinese-speaking community in Monash, Whitehorse, Boroondara, Manningham and Knox. 2005             135000 $135,000 Federation of Chinese Associations (Vic) Inc V05/2433 Casework, information, referral and community education services for Chinese migrants in Melbourne metropolitan area. 2005             135000 $135,000 Cambodian Community Welfare Centre Inc. V05/2449 Casework, information and referral services for the Cambodian community in Melbourne. 2005             68800 $68,800 Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Inc. V05/2452 Information, advocacy, referral services and community capacity building for African refugees and humanitarian entrants in Melbourne’s south east. 2005             63800 $63,800 Dianella Community Health V05/2465 Casework and capacity building for newly arrived Kurdish and Turkish women and their families in Hume, Glenroy and Fawkner. 2005             59225 $59,225 Ballarat Regional Multicultural Council Inc V05/2469 Casework, information, advocacy and capacity building services for migrants settling in the central highlands. 2005             40076 $40,076 Centacare Catholic Family Services V05/2472 Capacity building and information for families from Southern Sudan and Ethiopia in Western Melbourne. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2473 Information, casework, advocacy and support services to migrants and refugees focusing on women in the Hobsons Bay area. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2474 Information, referral and assistance with access to community services and resources in the Hobsons Bay area. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2475 Information, referral and assistance with access to mainstream services and resources in the Wyndham area. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2476 Information, referral and assistance accessing community services and resources for small and emerging communities in the Wyndham area. 2005             63800 $63,800 Migrant Resource Centre Westgate Region V05/2478 Support to new and emerging communities in the areas of Hobsons Bay and Wyndham through capacity building, advocacy and service planning. 2005             63800 $63,800 Women’s Health in the South East V05/2488 Community capacity building and support for isolated newly arrived migrant and refugee women in the cities of Casey and Greater Dandenong. 2005             63800 $63,800 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V05/2489 Information, referral and capacity building for refugee youth in the northern region of Melbourne. 2005             60000 $60,000 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2490 Information, community capacity building and referral services for new arrivals in the inner south and central regions of Melbourne. 2005             60000 $60,000 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2492 Manage settlement service delivery provided to humanitarian and family entrants in Moonee Valley, Melbourne, Stonnington and lower Monash. 2005             63800 $63,800 Chinese Community Social Services Centre Inc. V05/2495 Information, referral, advocacy and community capacity building services for the Chinese communities in Darebin, Moreland, Yarra and Banyule 2005             63800 $63,800 South Central Region Migrant Resource Centre V05/2497 Information, capacity building and referral for recent refugee and humanitarian arrivals in the south central metropolitan region. 2005             60000 $60,000 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V05/2500 Casework and capacity building to newly arrived refugees and migrants and cultural training and advocacy to mainstream services in Moreland. 2005             260000 $260,000 Eastern and Central Africa Communities of Victoria Inc V05/2506 Settlement information and community capacity building for African communities in Victoria 2005             169500 $169,500 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V05/2511 Information, referral and casework services for dependants of skilled migrants in the Geelong and Colac regions 2005             60000 $60,000 Geelong Ethnic Communities Council Inc. V05/2514 Information, advocacy and referral services to humanitarian entrants in the Colac and Geelong region. 2005             65000 $65,000 Northern Migrant Resource Centre V05/2524 Casework and capacity building to newly arrived refugees and migrants and cultural training and advocacy to mainstream services in northern Melbourne. 2005             180000 $180,000 African Australian Welfare Council of Victoria Inc V05/2529 Community strengthening and capacity building for African communities in Victoria from refugee and humanitarian backgrounds. 2005             130000 $130,000 Community Connections (Victoria) Ltd V05/2538 Information, casework, referral and capacity building services for the Sudanese community in Warrnambool. 2005             69000 $69,000 Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc. V05/2579 Capacity building, community development, settlement information and referral services to target group arrivals settling in the Goulburn Valley. 2005             99000 $99,000 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V05/2582 Community capacity building to increase participation in education and employment by target group arrivals settling in the Goulburn Valley. 2005             45000   $45,000 Cutting Edge - UnitingCare V05/2583 Settlement information and capacity building for women and youth in the Goulburn Valley 2005             45000   $45,000 Swan Hill Rural City Council V05/2630 Information, referral and casework services to dependants of skilled migrants in the Swan Hill region. 2005             30000   $30,000 Australian Multicultural Foundation/Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues V05/3153 Humanitarian Youth from Africa Project 2005             40000   $40,000       Total $4,776,359 $5,031,774 $4,758,206 $5,286,302 $4,437,005 $5,597,334 $6,423,564 $36,310,544