2007-02-06 41 1 8 REPS 0 0 2007-02-06 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 1 Condolences 1 1 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I move: That the House record its deep regret at the deaths of the Honourable Sir Robert Carrington Cotton KCMG AO, former Federal Minister and Senator for New South Wales and Ambassador to the United States of America and the Honourable Sir James Denis Killen AC KCMG, former Federal Minister and Member for Moreton, Queensland; and place on record its appreciation of their long and meritorious service and tender its profound sympathy to their families in their bereavement. In addressing this condolence motion I do so with an additional degree of personal feeling and fervour because of my long personal association with both of these remarkable men, who belonged to that remarkable generation that served Australia during World War II and then went on in public service to give so much to their country. Sir Robert Cotton was born on 29 November 1915 at Broken Hill, New South Wales. He was the eldest of six children. He was educated at St Peter’s College in Adelaide and went on to qualify as an accountant. Throughout his entire public life he retained a deep interest in financial matters. After training as an RAAF bomber pilot during World War II, Bob and his family built successful regional business interests and established the pastoral company at Oberon known as Carrington Park. Sir Robert Cotton was a foundation member of the Liberal Party. In 1947, in the first chapter of his political life, he ran against the then Prime Minister, Joseph Benedict Chifley, in the seat of Macquarie. He later held a range of senior positions in the Liberal Party, including president of the New South Wales division and federal vice-president. Between 1947 and 1950 he served as a councillor and as president of the Oberon Shire Council. When I joined the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party in the late 1950s, Bob Cotton was the president. Later, Senator Sir John Carrick was the general secretary, and both of them in different ways taught me a great deal about politics. Bob Cotton was a person of immense personal charm. He had a very deep commitment to the welfare and the interests of this country. He had a capacity to engage people of different generations, and he was a splendid example of that injunction to all of us—that is, to grow old gracefully. Bob was appointed as a senator for New South Wales in 1966, and he held that position until 1978. He was appointed as the Minister for Civil Aviation in the Gorton and McMahon governments. In the Fraser government he served for two years as Minister for Manufacturing Industry, as Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs and as Minister for Industry and Commerce. In 1968 and 1969 he was the Government Whip in the Senate. Between 1976 and 1978 he was Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. He also served on a large number of Senate committees. In the lead-up to 11 November 1975, in the intense debates that occurred in the Senate on the then government’s supply and appropriation bills, Bob Cotton led the debate on behalf of the opposition parties. His very considerable understanding of public finances, gleaned from a lifetime of study, came very much to the fore during those debates. In 1978, on retirement from representative political life, he was made a Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George for his services to government. In that year, he was appointed as Consul-General to New York. It marked something of a departure in the profile of those appointments and, with his business background and enthusiasm, he helped to boost Australia’s profile among financial and investment houses in the United States. When he returned to Australia after serving in New York, he was appointed as a director on the board of the Reserve Bank for some two years. He was then appointed by the Fraser government as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States in 1982. It is worth noting that, when the Fraser government lost office in 1983, Bob Cotton remained as ambassador and was highly regarded therefore by both the Fraser and Hawke governments. In 1993 he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to international relations. In his later life, Bob Cotton pursued photography and he held several exhibitions in the United States and in Australia, including a joint exhibition with his daughter Judy, a painter and writer, in Sydney in 2005. Bob Cotton was a person of immense personal charm and decency. He took a great hands-on approach to life. He was warmly regarded on both sides of politics. And it is noteworthy that the wonderful funeral service held at St Peter’s Anglican Church in Cremorne on 2 January was attended by several prominent members of the Australian Labor Party, including the father of the member for Barton, the former High Commissioner for Australia in the United Kingdom, Mr Doug McClelland, and Mr Barrie Unsworth, the former Labor Premier of New South Wales, with whom Bob Cotton had formed a close friendship in earlier years. Bob was blessed with a wonderfully close family. My wife, Janette, and I had the great privilege of attending Bob and Eve’s 50th and 60th wedding anniversary celebrations. Their long life partnership ended after some 63 years with Eve’s death some seven years ago. It was a source of very great pleasure to so many of us that Bob remarried some five years ago and, in the last years of his life, received the love and support of his second wife, Betty, whose family, along with Bob’s family from his first marriage, participated in the wonderful tribute to him in Sydney early in January. I want to record my own deep, personal gratitude to Bob Cotton for the friendship, support, counsel and encouragement that he provided to me through my political career. When I joined the Liberal Party in the late 1950s, one of the things that struck me then and has stayed with me forever was the great personal integrity and optimistic view of life adopted by its organisational leaders such as Bob Cotton. I thank you, Bob, for your contribution to our party, and I record my deep gratitude and affection for the help that you have extended to me. To your three children—Bob, whom many of us know as a very distinguished diplomat and very distinguished member of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and your two daughters, Judy Cotton and Anne Ferguson—and their extended families and your widow, Betty, we extend our very deep sympathy. You have every reason to be immensely proud of 91 wonderfully lived years of a wonderful life. I turn now to address some remarks to one of the great characters of this parliament. Along with Bob Cotton, I also served for the full duration of the Fraser government with Jim Killen as a ministerial colleague. Jim Killen, of course, is widely known throughout the Australian community not only for his great service to this great country but also for his remarkable wit, his great powers of oratory, his capacity to engage people on both sides of politics and the basic Australian humour and laconic style that he brought to his life. He was born on 23 November 1925 in Dalby, Queensland. He left school at an early age to become a jackeroo and in 1943, at the age of 18, joined the RAAF, reaching the rank of Flight Sergeant Air Gunner. After the war, he completed a diploma course and became a wool classer. Three years after joining the Liberal Party in 1946, Sir James became the Foundation President of the Young Liberal Movement of Queensland and a member of the state executive of the Liberal Party. From 1953 to 1956 he served as vice-president of the Queensland division. He was first elected to parliament in 1955—the same election that brought into this parliament such significant figures as Malcolm Fraser and Jim Cairns. He became the member for Moreton and he represented that electorate for 28 years, until his resignation in August 1983. He served as Minister for the Navy in the Gorton government from 1969 to 1971, Minister for Defence in the Fraser government between 1975 and 1982 and Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the House between 1982 and 1983. He was also Government Whip in the House of Representatives in 1967. He was knighted in 1982 and in 2004 was made a Companion of the Order of Australia. It is fair to say of Jim Killen that he waited a significant period of time to be made a minister and his first stint as a member of a ministry was short-lived. I would not be doing his political memory proper service if I did not record the fact that he was a strong supporter and close friend of the late John Gorton. When Gorton was removed as leader of the Liberal Party or ceased to be leader of the Liberal Party—it is not quite historically accurate to say that Gorton was removed as leader of the Liberal Party—Jim Killen went with him. Jim’s famous ‘non telegram’ is, of course, part of Australia’s political folklore. Both Gough Whitlam and I, at the state funeral in Brisbane, recorded the fact that, whether or not that telegram had been sent, Killen truly had been magnificent. Jim had a boisterous, engaging personality and he made friends on both sides of politics. He was a compelling orator. His friendships with Fred Daley and Gough Whitlam, which bridged the political divide in this country, engaged many Australians. They liked it and they warmed to the fact that people with different political views could become such good friends. Jim’s personal life was touched by great tragedy in the early 1980s when his daughter Rosemary suffered a very long illness and finally succumbed to cancer, leaving two very young children in the care of Jim and his first wife, Joy. Those of us who worked with him and tried, in our very inadequate ways, to help Jim through that very difficult period will remember the terrible impact it had on him and the way in which it changed his life. After the death of his wife Joy, the mother of his three daughters, Jim was able to find great happiness in his second marriage, to Benise. It was a source of very great comfort and happiness to his friends that he was able, later in life, after the death of his first wife, the mother of his three children, to find that happiness. Many of us on this side of the House and on the other side attended the state funeral held at the beautiful St John’s Cathedral in Brisbane. It was a remarkable tribute to somebody who had many circles of friends and influence. He never forgot his background in the Queensland bush, and he never lost his great love of horseracing. I suppose that he was at his happiest at Eagle Farm, as were many of his contemporaries. Jim gave great service to the Liberal Party, and I remarked in my contribution at his state funeral that if he had not won the seat of Moreton—whether there was a telegram sent or not—the course of Australian political history in 1961 would have been radically altered. That particular victory, finally sealing a narrow win for the Menzies government, meant a great deal in the political history of this country. For that reason, Jim Killen will always be regarded as a hero in the annals of not only the Queensland Liberal Party but also the Liberal Party throughout Australia. Jim was very kind to me during some of the more difficult periods the Liberal Party had in opposition in the 1980s. He would ring frequently with advice. It was always well meant, it was always very properly targeted and it was always very deeply appreciated. On behalf of all of my colleagues in the government and throughout the broader Australian Liberal family, I extend our deep sympathy to Lady Benise Killen and to Jim’s daughters, Diana and Heather, and to his grandchildren, Dana and Amanda. In closing these remarks, I note that these two remarkable contributors to Australian public life gave a lot to the Liberal Party, and it is a party that will always be indebted to them. Their broader service and commitment, in both war and in peace, was to the Australian nation. Both of them belonged to that quite remarkable generation that came to adulthood during World War II and endured a different life. Because of what they endured, they bequeathed to all of us the peace, stability, cohesion and prosperity which is ours today in 2007. In that way, they represent the contribution of a generation that has meant so much to this country. All of us, individually and collectively, are in their debt. 4 14:15:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —I second the condolence motion and support the remarks of the Prime Minister. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I extend our deepest sympathy to Lady Cotton and Sir Robert’s family. Sir Robert Carrington Cotton, or Bob Cotton, as he was better known, was a distinguished Australian who served his country in almost every way possible. He served with the Royal Australian Air Force during the Second World War. He served his community as a councillor, he served his state as a senator and he served his nation as a minister and as Consul-General to New York and later as Ambassador to the United States. Sir Robert was a founding member of the Liberal Party of Australia and was a New South Wales state president of that party and federal vice-president. He had a significant influence on his party and was very well regarded by all of his party’s members. He was a loyal and faithful servant of the Liberal Party and, whilst I lead Australia’s other great political party, I respect his deep commitment to the cause which the other side of politics in this country represents. Sir Robert believed profoundly in Australia’s potential as a nation and in the potential of all Australians. He said in his first speech in the Senate: I am a tremendous believer in the human resources of Australia. I have felt for some years that in peacetime we have never managed to obtain from the Australian people those qualities of initiative, leadership, character, ingenuity and resources which so characterise them in times of war. Faced with a challenge, the Australian people can rise to nearly any height. Their capacity is superb. In my humble view, the Australian people represent the greatest resource we have, as yet not fully utilised. Sir Robert was also a great believer in Australia’s place in the world and, as noted before, he served with distinction in the United States. As the Prime Minister has noted, Sir Robert had many friends across the political divide. He stood unsuccessfully against Ben Chifley for the federal seat of Macquarie—and, if you look at the period that we are talking about, 1949, it took some considerable political guts to stand against Ben Chifley. Although he lost the seat, he was a friend of Chifley’s, having known him locally while he was a councillor and president of the neighbouring Oberon Shire. He entered the Senate in 1965, during the Menzies government, and was later a minister in the Gorton, McMahon and Fraser governments. He held several portfolios, including civil aviation, industry and commerce. He left the ministry in 1977, and in the following year he was appointed as Consul-General to New York, a post in which he served until 1981. He became a close and warm friend of the United States, Australia’s most important ally. Prime Minister Fraser later appointed him as Ambassador to the United States, a position in which he stayed into the early years of the Hawke government. On his return, Sir Robert held many distinguished positions with Australian companies and also made an important contribution to other areas of national public life, such as the National Gallery. For 70 years he was devoted to the art of photography and had his work exhibited both here and in the United States. He was knighted in 1978 and was awarded an Order of Australia in 1993. He will be fondly remembered by all of his parliamentary colleagues. On behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, I offer my condolences to his family. I turn now to Jim Killen. Almost unique among the politicians of our age, Jim Killen earned the almost universal affection of his political adversaries. It was not just respect but genuine affection, and that is a hard to thing to achieve in this hard business in which the Prime Minister and I are engaged—the business of politics. It is as if he is a passing reminder now of a kinder, gentler age in Australian politics. We all know that Prime Minister Menzies and Ben Chifley were tough adversaries, but that did not prevent them, from time to time on a cold winter’s evening here in Canberra after a day in question time, from sharing the odd glass of scotch with one another. We should not be too misty eyed about the past—the differences were great then; the differences are great now—and Jim Killen was part and parcel also of the politics of 1975, which included the dismissal, one of the most divisive events in modern Australian politics. But there was always something about Jim Killen that set him apart from the viciousness of it all and, as we honour him in this condolence motion, we should reflect on what it was about him that made him different. The Liberal Party, of course, will honour him as one of their own, as they should, because his achievements have been considerable. For the Labor Party, Jim Killen was liked not just by Gough, not just by Fred Daly, not just by Clem Jones in my hometown of Brisbane, but by virtually all of us on this side of politics. Jim Killen was first and foremost a parliamentarian. He loved the parliament and he loved it with a passion. Parliament was in every sinew and fibre of his being. He loved the old parliament down at the end of the hill. He once described this new parliament up here as ‘the carbuncle on the hill’. He loved the Westminster tradition because of its continuity, taking us back to Runnymede and taking us forward to whatever challenges we face in the future. He loved its traditions, he loved its forms and he loved its language—and not purely for sentimental reasons; he was a classic Burkean conservative. He would always ask the question: why change things if they are working just fine? Tom Burns, the then Deputy Premier of Queensland, was telling me about when he became Leader of the Opposition in Queensland after the 1974 state election, when Labor in that parliament was reduced to a cricket team and was despondent. Labor attended the opening of the state parliament that year, and Tom Burns was despondent; this had not been our finest hour. The one person to offer him a word of encouragement and advice was Jim Killen, who walked up to Tom and said, ‘Tom, your job is as leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. You are integral to the functioning of this parliament. Your position is one of respect. Go to it; you’ve got a job to perform today.’ That says something about Jim, when, on occasions, your political opponents happen to be going through a lean season. So whatever side of politics we are from in this place—whether we are progressives, whether we are conservatives, whether we are Liberal, whether we are Labor—when we think of Jim Killen, we think of someone whose career was life itself. His passion for the parliament did something to raise the esteem of the parliament in the minds and the imagination of the Australian people—something which we do not often do ourselves but which he in his life and career succeeded in doing. Of course, in parliament we also saw his wit and his infectious sense of humour. He was often able to deliver a blow effectively while removing from that blow the personal barb. Ian Bartlett wrote recently that Menzies was impressed with Killen’s parliamentary style and asked Killen how he had got it. Killen, recalling his days as a jackaroo, replied that he had crafted his parliamentary oratory by talking to sheep. Menzies, without missing a beat, replied, ‘Now I understand; the audience has not changed.’ Jim Killen’s and Fred Daly’s friendship is, of course, a matter of renown. They became ambassadors for good humour in the old parliament. At one time Jim and Fred organised for eight aspiring Liberal backbenchers with ministerial ambitions to report to Malcolm Fraser’s office immediately, as Mr Fraser was working on a reshuffle. All competitors arrived at the same time to discuss their place in the reshuffle for an appointment which did not exist. Pandemonium ensued and Killen and Daly laughed and laughed heartily. When Daly retired from politics in 1975, Killen sent him a telegram, which he reproduced in his memoirs. It said: I learnt with very great regret of your decision to retire. Parliament will certainly be dull without you. Whether I survive politically or not, I will always recall with immense pleasure 20 years of vigorous conflict. If you arrive in heaven before me, plead vigorously on my behalf. I fear I will need your intervention. Regards. Daly responded: Many thanks for the telegram. Expect to resume career in heaven as leader of the house and, in political terms, expect to have the numbers to elevate you to archangel status without any left wing. Sorry for delay in replying but no staff means I have to think for myself for the first time. Cheerio, Fred. Lawrie Daly, Fred’s son, recalled that in 1976, when Jim Killen became Minister for Defence, Daly applied for the position of press secretary, saying his pension was too low and he needed a new job. At the time, Daly had an old english sheepdog. As those people who lived in Canberra at the time might recall, he was named Sir John, after another person of national renown. The dog was quite well known around Canberra at the time and it was decided that the dog should also apply for the job of Jim Killen’s press secretary. Jim Killen agreed to interview both and both were allowed to enter parliament to apply. Killen said that he would be delighted to employ the dog but not Daly, as the dog had stronger literacy skills. A photo was duly taken of Killen, Daly and Sir John signing his employment papers. That photo took pride of place in Jim Killen’s office. Unfortunately, such friendships from both sides of the House are a little fewer and far further between these days and we are probably the worse for it. In his first speech in this place, Jim Killen said that he would be guided by plain good intentions, and indeed he was, and that is how we on the Labor side experienced him. Jim Killen was a parliamentarian and a man of infectious good humour, but beneath all of that he was a man of deep humanity. I spoke last night to Lady Benise at her Brisbane home and talked with her about how we in the Labor Party best remember him. Jim Killen was a person of great humanity and humility, a man who loved the company of all people, whatever their background and whatever their circumstances. It was not just your classic: ‘Hail fellow, well met.’ Jim was genuine in engaging people. I saw this in our local community in the southern suburbs of Brisbane. He engaged each person as an individual, and that is the core reason we in the Labor Party could never blast him out of office, because he was fair dinkum. Jim Killen loved his family and his friends, and his friends and his family loved him. He reflected this in the poetry he loved to quote and the poetry he often read. In his own memoires, he quotes Hilaire Belloc: From quiet homes and first beginning, Out to the undiscovered ends There’s nothing worth the wear of winning But laughter and the love of friends. Jim Killen was a great parliamentarian, a man of infectious good humour and above all a man of great humanity. We are all, in this place, the poorer for his passing. On behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, my condolences are extended to Lady Benise and the members of Sir James’s family. 7 14:31:00 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 0 Mr VAILE —I would like to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition recognising the great contribution of two great Australians to the Australian political scene and to the nation: firstly, Sir Robert Cotton and, secondly, Sir James Killen. The well-known and legendary political journalist Alan Reid once described Sir Robert Cotton as a man ‘whose considerable subtlety of mind was masked by a direct, open manner’. Sir Robert Cotton was a great coalitionist. In the late 1950s, he was the president of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. As a result of his efforts, the New South Wales Liberals and the then Country Party developed joint opposition policies for the first time. They also reached a historic agreement on three-cornered contests. The Liberal and Country parties lost the 1959 and 1962 state elections, but their close cooperation was vindicated in 1965 when they swept into government after 24 years in opposition. The cooperation between the two New South Wales parties has continued, including in the present state election campaign. Bob Cotton’s good relationship with the Country Party proved to be essential in the confused days after Harold Holt disappeared off Portsea in 1967. Some people in the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party argued that Sir John McEwen should stay on as the Prime Minister, even though he was the leader of the Country Party. They were looking for a trade-off. They were prepared to give up the leadership of the country as long as McEwen agreed to amalgamate the two parties. Cotton thought this was a ridiculous idea. He checked with his contacts in the Country Party and concluded that the Country Party would never agree to amalgamate and worked within the Liberals to kill off the deal. At the same time, he knew the federal coalition had to continue, had to survive. He knew the Country Party would possibly leave government if the Liberals elected Bill McMahon as Prime Minister, so he turned his attention to making sure that McMahon stayed out of the leadership contest. It was a masterly performance that helped keep the coalition government together and in office. Seventeen years later, as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States—as has already been pointed out by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—Bob Cotton had to use his coalition and diplomatic management skills again. This time it was to help manage the ANZUS alliance. In February 1985, the New Zealand government of the day had refused to allow the USS Buchanan to visit New Zealand ports. The decision ended New Zealand’s role in ANZUS, but there were many in Washington who wanted to go further and impose sanctions on New Zealand. Bob Cotton was a key part of Australia’s successful efforts in talking the Americans out of this course of action. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once recalled that Cotton told them: You might think the New Zealanders are mistaken, but they’re good people, they’re worth having as friends, and if I were you, I’d treat this ships business as lightly as you can. Bob Cotton served Australia, the Liberal Party, the coalition and his state with great distinction, and history will record the many contributions he made in terms of good government in Australia. I would like to join the Prime Minister in extending to his family our condolences. On that lovable and wonderful Australian character Sir James Killen: he was always recognised as a great orator and debater. It is interesting to hear today how he honed those skills as a jackaroo, talking to sheep. I often reflect on how I honed my skills as an auctioneer, talking off a stump to nobody in particular, but it is interesting that some great Australians come from jackarooing backgrounds—often I speak at this stump to not too many either. The leader of the Country Party at the time when Sir James Killen made his maiden speech in the parliament, Artie Fadden, took him into the cabinet anteroom for a drink afterwards, and Bob Menzies even dropped in to say hello. Fadden said: By Jove, Bob, you’ve got some opposition here. That’s as good a speech as I have heard you make. Menzies evidently was not impressed with the comparison and, I suspect, was even less impressed when Killen dreamt up the famous telegram that was referred to by the Prime Minister. During the 1950s and 1960s, Killen spoke frequently in the House and at the same time studied for his law degree. He graduated in 1964 and immediately started building a criminal law practice during non-sitting periods. It was a very different time, and no-one seems to have criticised him for taking on the occasional murder case when parliament was not sitting. At one point, he was even swapping jovial notes across the chamber with Gough Whitlam about a young Labor official that he had represented in a minor case. Killen was commissioned as the Minister for the Navy in 1969 and took a strong interest in conditions for ordinary sailors. The military was astonished. One retired air marshal told him: Jim, you have an extraordinary reputation for visiting service establishments and talking naturally to people ... When I was chief of the air staff, my minister never came anywhere near us. He was appointed shadow minister for defence in 1975 and promptly announced, in his usual manner, that ‘we would not be able to protect Botany Bay against the enemy on a hot Sunday afternoon’. Killen got the opportunity to do something about that when he was commissioned as Minister for Defence in the Fraser government. He prepared Australia’s first white paper on defence and bought the FA18 fleet. He was also responsible for setting up the Australian Defence Force Academy, after a long argument with the Public Works Committee. Those are all important achievements that Sir James Killen will be remembered for. But, above all, he will be remembered as a great parliamentarian and a great participant in this, the clearing house of ideas in Australian politics. In his autobiography Sir James described how he felt as he left the old House of Representatives chamber down the hill for the last time: Here had been hush and uproar. Here had been tears and laughter. Here had been drama and absurdity. Here had been the men and women of Australia. And here, indeed, had been the country, and I had seen it all. I walked through the door for the last time. I was glad I was given the honour of walking though it the first time. Sir James Killen served his country, his state, the Liberal Party and all Australians with distinction. He will be remembered as a great Australian. I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in offering my condolences to Lady Benise and his daughters, Diana and Heather. 9 14:38:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I rise to offer my condolences and those of the Labor Party on the deaths of Sir Robert Cotton and Sir James Killen. We have heard in the House today about the lives of these two fine Australians. Both Sir Robert Cotton and Sir James Killen were contemporaries. Each fought for this nation in World War II. Each managed to forge friendships across the political divide. Each lived long and full lives with many accomplishments, and we have heard about those today. In recent tributes to the life of Sir Robert Cotton we heard seen him described as a Renaissance man—and I think it is a great description of a man whose life started in a mining town, took him through the Depression, through World War II, into political and public service and into serving this nation overseas. But the Renaissance man’s life did not end there. As the Prime Minister has indicated, he had a life beyond his work in public life, as an artist. He was an accomplished photographer who exhibited his work in this country and overseas. Robert Cotton was apparently inspired to take up photography by his second cousin, who was perhaps a more famous artist in her own right, Olive Cotton. It has been reported that Sir Robert’s interest in photography came after meeting Olive during a 1932 holiday at Avalon, during which she encouraged him to experiment with black and white photography as a hobby. At that time, Sir Robert was only 17 years old, and there started something that ran alongside his public life, increasingly became a passion and got him considerable public accolades in its own right. In recent years Sir Robert admitted that he did not see much of his cousin after she spurred his original interest in photography, but he did visit her many exhibitions. At one of these Olive gave her cousin—by this time an accomplished ambassador, minister, senator, grazier and businessman—a copy of her famous image Teacup Ballet. In a recent article Sir Robert admitted to having lost the famous 1935 still life, and I trust it was of some comfort to Sir Robert and to members of his family to know that a copy of this very famous work rests in the Australian parliament’s distinguished collection of artworks. The family’s artistic qualities did not end there. Sir Robert’s daughter Judy Cotton was also an accomplished painter and writer who exhibited works in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Getty Trust of Los Angeles, the New Orleans Museum of Art, the San Francisco museum of art, the Phillips Collection of Washington and, of course, our own National Gallery. The exhibition that Sir Robert participated in captured the scope of his work from his Broken Hill origins to his travels in North America. His photographs of the Australian landscape spanned six decades from 1939. He followed in the footsteps of explorers such as Burke and Wills and Charles Stuart and took images. I am sure that Sir Robert’s sense of self-accomplishment and pride in his own achievements and his daughter’s achievements were at a peak when the two were brought together in a special exhibition at the Wagner Gallery in New South Wales, which is of course home to Australia’s masters: Boyd, Blackman and Nolan. That exhibition was open as recently as March 2005. Those are the hallmarks of a life well lived and a life of rich diversity. My sincere sympathies go to Sir Robert Cotton’s wife, his three children, his stepchildren, his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. Sir Robert Cotton passed away on Christmas Day after a lengthy illness. Even after a long life well lived, it is obviously a tragedy to lose a member of your family on Christmas Day itself, so my very sincere condolences go to all members of his family. I also offer my condolences to the family of Sir James Killen on his death. I first learned of the death of Jim Killen when I was over in America. I was informed by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs that Sir James Killen had died. I think it is a mark of the man and of what a big and legendary figure he was in Australian politics that the two of us were immediately able to recall a number of the more famous parts of his life, some of the humorous moments from his life, and to share those reflections. Sir James Killen was indeed truly a giant of the Australian political stage. His wit, his larrikinism, his sense of mateship and his command of the theatre of the parliament have all been referred to by speakers today. Of course, as has been noted, Jim Killen served in the intimacy of the old parliament, where contact with one’s colleagues was not really avoidable—even if one chose to do so. He was certainly a master of that old parliament and he is remembered for his wit and his warmth. We know, of course, from the incidents that have been talked about today that Jim Killen was a political double act with Fred Daly, and their shared humour is going to be the stuff of legend for a long time to come. Can I briefly take the House to one incident which displays the bond between the two of them. On 19 March 1969, a former member for Hunter, behaving perhaps a little bit badly—something that, of course, would not happen in the modern age—decided that he would raise his concerns in the House; he had read that an article written by Liza Minnelli outlining her experiences with an Australian leading political figure was to be published in the Private Eye and that strenuous efforts were being made to prevent its publication. Of course, these references by Bert James were not really out of concern regarding the allegations being made, but a very thinly disguised way of making sure that the allegations could be raised in the federal parliament and, consequently, get more currency. He spoke to these matters and, of course, Jim Killen rose to accuse Mr James of attempting to smear another member of the House and criticised him for using a journalist who he said was notorious for scandal and had a widely-read newsletter which was heavily political and gratuitously offensive. Jim Killen called on members of the Labor Party to distance themselves from the allegations that had been made. Fred Daly then sought leave to get the call to reply, having been challenged by James Killen, as a member of the Labor Party. The Speaker, in fact, said that Mr Daly did not need leave in order to get the call. Sometimes, Mr Speaker, members in the parliament can be right about these matters and very occasionally Speakers are wrong. Mr Daly pointed out that he did need leave because it was during the adjournment debate and he had already spoken. It was consequently necessary for a motion to be moved that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Grayndler, Fred Daly, from making a second speech on the motion for the adjournment of the House. Jim Killen voted in favour of that motion to give Fred Daly the right to speak. Indeed, so many government members crossed the floor to vote for that motion that it was only ruled lost because it was tied. It is not something that one would anticipate happening in the House today, but an indication, I think, of a gentler age in which members of the House forged bonds that went beyond the cut and thrust of daily politics. We will never know whether the speech to be given by Fred Daly would have been the speech of apology that Sir James Killen sought or a speech of witticisms. One suspects it would probably have been a bit of both. Sir James Killen was, of course, well known for all of his wit and larrikinism, but that cannot overshadow a career that was full of accomplishments: his ministerial roles, his length of service and his achievement in 1955 of being one of the youngest people—at the age of 29—elected to this parliament. He was a knockabout Australian and, because of his character, he was able to forge connections and friendships which transcended political boundaries. He did the reputation of Australia’s parliament good. He will be missed. My sympathies and best wishes go to Lady Benise and his family. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. Debate  (on motion by Mr Abbott) adjourned. 11 Ministerial Arrangements Mr HOWARD (Bennelong —Prime Minister) 14:49:00 —On 23 January I announced a number of changes to the ministry. Ministers were sworn to their new positions on 30 January and, for the information of honourable members, I table an updated list, together with representational arrangements in the other chamber, of the full ministry. The document read as follows— FOURTH HOWARD MINISTRY 30 January 2007 Title Minister Other Chamber Prime Minister The Hon John Howard MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon Tony Smith MP Transport and Regional Services (Deputy Prime Minister) The Hon Mark Vaile MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Local Government, Territories and Roads The Hon Jim Lloyd MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Parliamentary Secretary The Hon De-Anne Kelly MP Treasurer The Hon Peter Costello MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon Peter Dutton MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Chris Pearce MP Foreign Affairs The Hon Alexander Downer MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Greg Hunt MP Senator the Hon Helen Coonan Trade The Hon Warren Truss MP Finance and Administration (Vice President of the Executive Council) (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Nick Minchin The Hon Peter Costello MP Special Minister of State The Hon Gary Nairn MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Parliamentary Secretary Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck Health and Ageing (Leader of the House) The Hon Tony Abbott MP Senator the Hon Santo Santoro Ageing Senator the Hon Santo Santoro The Hon Tony Abbott MP Assistant Health and Ageing The Hon Christopher Pyne MP Attorney-General The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Senator the Hon Chris Ellison Justice and Customs (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Senator the Hon Chris Ellison The Hon Philip Ruddock MP Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator the Hon Helen Coonan The Hon Peter McGauran MP the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon George Brandis SC The Hon Peter McGauran MP Defence The Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP Senator the Hon Chris Ellison Veterans’ Affairs Minister Assisting the Defence The Hon Bruce Billson MP Senator the Hon Chris Ellison Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Peter Lindsay MP Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Small Business and Tourism The Hon Fran Bailey MP Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Bob Baldwin MP Immigration and Citizenship The Hon Kevin Andrews MP Senator the Hon Ian Campbell Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Teresa Gambaro MP Human Services Senator the Hon Ian Campbell The Hon Mal Brough MP Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Deputy Leader of the House) The Hon Peter McGauran MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon Eric Abetz The Hon Peter McGauran MP Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Sussan Ley MP Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister Assisting the Prime Indigenous Affairs The Hon Mal Brough MP Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion Community Services Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion The Hon Mal Brough MP Education, Science and Training Minister Assisting the Prime Women’s Issues The Hon Julie Bishop MP Senator the Hon George Brandis SC Vocational and Further Education The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP Senator the Hon George Brandis SC Parliamentary Secretary The Hon Pat Farmer MP Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Assisting the Prime the Public Service The Hon Joe Hockey MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Workforce Participation The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz the Environment and Water Resources The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP Senator the Hon Eric Abetz Assistant the Environment and Water Resources The Hon John Cobb MP Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. Except for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the title of each department reflects that of the portfolio minister. There is also a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. 12 Miscellaneous Mr RUDD (Griffith —Leader of the Opposition) 14:50:00 —I inform the House that on 14 December 2006 I finalised the allocation of portfolios for the new opposition frontbench and I table a full list of the shadow ministry and parliamentary secretaries for inclusion in Hansard. The document read as follows— SHADOW MINISTRY Leader of the Opposition Kevin Michael Rudd MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Shadow Minister for Social Inclusion Julia Eileen Gillard MP Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister for National Development, Resources and Energy Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Water and Manager of Opposition Business in the House Anthony Norman Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and Shadow Minister for Territories The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Revenue and Competition Policy Christopher Eyles Bowen MP Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship Anthony Stephen Burke MP Shadow Minister for Industry and Shadow Minister for Innovation, Science and Research Senator Kim John Carr Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors Craig Anthony Emerson MP Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Affairs Laurence Donald Thomas Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Transport and Roads and Shadow Minister for Tourism Martin John Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Defence Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage and Shadow Minister for the Arts Peter Robert Garrett MP Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Shadow Special Minister of State Alan Peter Griffin MP Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Senator Joseph William Ludwig Shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Health Promotion and Shadow Minister for Local Government Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Robert Bruce McClelland MP Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers Senator Jan Elizabeth McLucas Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations and Shadow Minister for International Development Assistance Robert Francis McMullan MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry Senator Kerry Williams Kelso O’Brien Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women Tanya Joan Plibersek MP Shadow Minister for Health Nicola Louise Roxon MP Shadow Minister for Superannuation and Intergenerational Finance and Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry Shadow Minister for Education and Training Stephen Francis Smith MP Shadow Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan MP Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Attorney-General and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House Kelvin John Thomson MP Shadow Minister for Public Administration and Accountability, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility and Shadow Minister for Workforce Participation Senator Penelope Ying Yen Wong Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs Anthony Michael Byrne MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and Veterans’ Affairs The Hon. Graham John Edwards MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage Jennie George MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury Catherine Fiona King MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition John Paul Murphy MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations Brendan Patrick John O’Connor MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation Bernard Fernando Ripoll MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs The Hon. Warren Edward Snowdon MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs) Senator Ursula Mary Stephens 13 14:50:00 Questions Without Notice 13 14:50:00 13 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Did a submission proposing an emissions-trading scheme go to cabinet in August 2003? Was that proposal rejected? 13 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not carry in my head the details of every submission that has gone to cabinet. Let me simply say that our position in relation to an emissions-trading system is that we have, at present, at work a joint task group between the government and the business community. Tomorrow that task group will be releasing a discussion paper which deals with these matters. 14 14 14:51:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 Mr KEENAN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House the current state of the Australian labour market? Why is it that Australia now has the lowest unemployment level in 30 years? Are there any threats to this strong level of employment? 14 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Stirling for his question, which goes to the heart of economic achievement and prosperity in this country. There is no better mark of good economic policy than the success that a nation has in providing jobs for those people who want them. According to that measure, this country is doing better than it has done at any time during the last 30 years. I am proud to say that since the end of March last year, when the new Work Choices legislation came into being, 245,000 new jobs have been created. Real wages are now 17.9 per cent higher than they were in 1996 and the latest ABS industrial dispute figures show the lowest figure ever recorded, at 3.2 days lost per thousand employees. It is worth contextualising those three things. We were told when the new legislation came in that it would herald an era of industrial unrest, that it would drive wages down, that there would be mass sackings. None of those things has occurred. The truth is that Work Choices has added to the prosperity and the productivity of the Australian economy. There is an alternative. The member for Stirling, concerned as he is about the interests of the people he represents, wants to know whether there is any threat to these conditions. There is a threat. The threat sits opposite. We saw an example of the Labor Party trying to be all things to all men last week. The Leader of the Opposition was out there saying to the business community, ‘I’m really going to be a bit softer on Work Choices. I’m going to make it a bit more business friendly. Kim Beazley may have threatened to rip it up, but I’m sort of going to adjust it at the edges and it’s going to be a bit kinder and gentler.’ That is what he was saying. That lasted about 18 hours, because the next morning on the Today show the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Lalor, the hard woman of the Labor Party as far as IR is concerned, said, ‘No, you’re not getting away with that, Mr Leader; I want the world to know that we’re going to rip it up.’ In that memorable phrase that she will be reminded of for quite a long time she said, ‘First of all we’ll tear it up and then we’ll get rid of it.’ In other words, Labor policy is to bring back the nightmare of unfair dismissal laws for small business. Labor policy is to reinstate union control of industrial relations. Labor policy is to put at risk the 30-year low we have in Australia’s unemployment rate. Let me say to the member for Stirling: we are very proud of the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in 30 years and we are very proud of the fact that we have presided over the economic management and the policies that have delivered that remarkable outcome for all of the Australian people. 14 14 14:54:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his industry minister saying just six months ago: ‘I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change’? Does the Prime Minister support this statement? 15 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —It is not only remarks made by people in this parliament. There is a farmer I know who is sceptical about that connection as well! But we can debate. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that the jury is still out on the degree of connection. What matters is what you do about it. It is not an academic debate; it is what you do about it. This government has done more to tackle both of these problems. The Leader of the Opposition is rejoicing in the fact that he has called a summit on climate change. Can I remind you that the former minister for the environment, Senator Campbell, called about three summits on climate change. The most recent one was held back in 2003 and was attended by representatives of state governments and about 100 representatives of the business community from around Australia. So I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to debate the connection between the two, let us by all means do so. There is obviously some connection. The degree of that is a matter of debate. What really matters is what you do about it. And the biggest response to the problem of drought in the Australian community at this time is what this government is proposing to do about the Murray-Darling Basin. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —If there’s no connection, what can you do about it? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I notice the remarks made by the Premier of New South Wales. I notice the remarks made by the Premier of Victoria. I notice the variable remarks made by the Premier of Queensland—he is gradually becoming more supportive, and I welcome that, because I have always found him a man you can do business with if you get onto the right subject. I look forward to Thursday’s meeting in Canberra as being a great day for water security in this country. 15 Distinguished Visitors 15 14:57:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Jim Carlton, a former minister and member of this place. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 15 Questions Without Notice 15 15 14:57:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What do the latest economic indicators reveal about the strength of the Australian economy? How important is experienced economic management to its prospects? 15 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. I can inform him that the NAB quarterly business survey, which was released today, shows that business conditions improved solidly in the December quarter and expectations for the March quarter rose. That comes on the back of retail trade figures, released yesterday, showing that retail trade rose 1.3 per cent in the December quarter and was 4.3 per cent higher over the year. But, importantly, the consumer price index remains very restrained. It actually fell in the last quarter by 0.1 per cent. To a degree that was abstracting from things like petrol prices and bananas. When we leave out the volatile items the underlying inflation rate was about 0.5 per cent. But 0.5 per cent is a step down from the 0.8/0.9 we were getting in the last quarter in underlying terms and it shows that inflation is moderate. In addition to that, jobs creation in the Australian economy has been very strong, with jobs being created at the rate of about 20,000 per month in the last half of last year. Notwithstanding all that, there are still challenges for the Australian economy: the challenges of drought; the challenge of adjustment in the property market; the challenge of rising energy prices; the challenge of unfunded liabilities; and, the greatest challenge of all, the ageing of the population. These challenges will require experienced economic management. I see that the opposition also believes that experienced economic management is important. Apparently in a bid to boost their credentials on experienced management, the Labor Party is actively looking at luring John Brumby, the Victorian Treasurer, to Canberra. ALP figures say that Mr Brumby would boost federal Labor’s credentials. That is probably right, actually. Mr Brumby was a member of this House between 1983 and 1990. There is the prospect that Mr Brumby would go back into his seat of Bendigo. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Are you trying to undermine Ted Baillieu? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —When it was put to the member for Bendigo that Mr Brumby would not only boost Labor’s economic credentials but also boost the calibre of Labor’s candidate in Bendigo, the member for Bendigo said that, if he were to become Treasurer or finance minister in a Rudd government, Mr Brumby ‘deserves to be welcomed into a seat where he is not having to constantly worry about constituents’ problems’. That is how important Mr Gibbons, the member for Bendigo, thinks constituents’ problems are. The member for Bendigo thought that Mr Brumby ought to go into the seat of Scullin and take the place of Harry Jenkins, about which Harry Jenkins had a view that he had not gone through a preselection to pass the seat of Scullin across to Mr Brumby. The one thing that neither the member for Scullin nor the member for Bendigo said was that there was no need to get a new face up here to boost Labor’s economic credentials. Nobody would consider it unimportant to have a new spokesman on the economy up here. That is why the member for Lilley should be watching his back very, very carefully. 16 16 15:02:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your environment minister’s comments on 3 February. He said: ... the geology ... of the east coast ... is adequately elevated to deal with a one-metre sea rise. He also said that claims about rising sea levels are ‘very exaggerated’. Does the Prime Minister support this statement? 16 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I will check out his reference to it before I give an answer. 16 16 15:03:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 Mr BAIRD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on the process for scrutinising Airline Partners Australia Ltd’s takeover bid for 100 per cent of Qantas Airways Ltd? Would the government protect majority Australian ownership? 16 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. I acknowledge the fact that he represents a large number of Qantas employees and has a very great interest in the aviation and the tourism markets. I can inform the House that yesterday Airline Partners Australia lodged a notification under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, which will now trigger the provisions of that act and allow a scrutiny of the takeover bid that it has lodged for Qantas Airways Ltd. The act allows the government to scrutinise any bid which would result in an Australian company becoming foreign owned or a foreign owned company changing the identity of the foreign owner. The act prescribes a time limit for such a decision to be made and provides the possibility, if the bid is against the national interest, for it to be disallowed if it fits either of those categories. In addition to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, the Qantas Sale Act, which the Labor Party put in place when it privatised Qantas, will also be strictly enforced by this government. That means that foreign ownership of Qantas is restricted to 49 per cent. At the moment, the foreign ownership in Qantas is around 46 per cent. Foreign airline ownership of Qantas cannot go above 35 per cent. Qantas will be required to keep its head office in Australia. Qantas will be required to have its principal operation centre in Australia and Australians will have to make up two-thirds of the directors of Qantas. In addition, the presiding director at Qantas board meetings must be an Australian and the incorporation of Qantas cannot move outside of Australia. I want to make it absolutely clear that all of those conditions will be enforced strictly and in full. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act allows screening where a foreign corporation acquires 15 per cent or more or 40 per cent in aggregate of the shares or control of an Australian corporation. I welcome the fact that Airline Partners have notified. It was always the government’s view that they were obliged to and should do so. This will allow strict screening. This government will not allow majority foreign ownership of Qantas. We will insist that any bid which is put to the shareholders maintains this company in majority Australian control and majority Australian ownership. The matters will be carefully screened by the Foreign Investment Review Board and a decision will be made in accordance with the act. 17 17 15:07:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his answer to my previous question. I refer to this transcript of an interview between the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Turnbull, on the ABC AM program of Saturday, 3 February, where the environment minister says: But you’re talking about something less than a metre over 100 years. So this is not a sort of, you know, an Al Gore-type apocalypse that we’re talking about. He goes on: There’s a lot of very exaggerated claims and you have to bear in mind that most of our coastal population lives on the east coast of Australia and because of the geology or the [topography] of the east coast, you know, much of that is adequately elevated to deal with a one-metre sea rise. Prime Minister, do you support this statement? 17 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I will tell you what I do support: doing my own research. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table this transcript for the Prime Minister’s assistance. Leave granted. 17 17 15:08:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 1 Mr FORREST —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of measures taken by the coalition government to assist Australia’s farmers during the worst drought on record? 17 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Mallee for his question and recognise his great concern and interest in the issue of how we as a government—and therefore the nation—assist the many farming families that are still suffering from arguably the worst drought in Australia’s history. Last year, the government made a number of decisions and announcements about drought assistance, following visits that the Prime Minister and I and other ministers made to drought affected parts of Australia and following how those families in those regions were dealing with the severe circumstances of drought. Over the last couple of months we have seen some rain in Australia, mostly in the north. That has been welcome. But we should remember that there are still significant parts of agricultural Australia that are absolutely being devastated by drought. Since last year and the announcements that we made, there is about $2.1 billion worth of support available for Australia’s farmers and small business people in drought affected areas, including in the seat of Mallee in Victoria. It is very important to note that the government responded very quickly and provided a great deal of certainty and confidence to the farming community with regard to our support and our assistance. So it came as a surprise to me to read an article in the Weekly Times on 25 January where Labor’s agriculture spokesman, Senator O’Brien, was accusing the coalition of failing to help farmers affected by drought. How on earth could he conjure up that notion after the very generous measures that we have taken to assist the farming families across Australia—and more areas have been included in the drought exceptional circumstances areas announced by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry during January? I just do not know where Senator O’Brien is living. Maybe he should have gone on the trip out to the drought stricken areas near Canberra yesterday with the Leader of the Opposition and spoken to Mr Cameron about drought and other matters. Mr Cameron certainly belled the cat on the issue when he said to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘I’m inclined to think certainly natural weather patterns have a lot to do with it’—‘it’ being drought. If you have a look at the weather patterns over the decades in Australia, you will see that it is cyclical. It is very important that governments in Australia support their rural communities in times of drought, and we are doing that. According to the latest figures from the drought task force, following the announcements that we made in those support measures last year, the number of farmers accessing EC has jumped by almost 43 per cent. The member for Mallee would appreciate that in Victoria the number of farmers and small business operators accessing EC income support has jumped by 72 per cent. In New South Wales and Western Australia, the number has increased by 37 per cent, and in Queensland it has increased by 15 per cent. That is about the breadth of the support that we are giving and the accessibility of the support we are giving to Australia’s farming families. We take the advent of drought very seriously. We recognise the cyclical nature of drought. Can I make a genuine suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition that, next time he goes to talk to drought stricken farmers, he takes his spokesman on agriculture with him. 18 18 15:12:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr GARRETT —My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Will the minister raise Australia’s mandatory renewable energy targets? 18 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —Unlike the opposition, which has developed a closed mind on climate change issues, which seems to owe more to— Opposition members interjecting— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Very good; thank you. The response to climate change is a complex one. It requires an open mind, and it requires practical measures. What the opposition is giving us now is some kind of cramped political theology. Nobody is allowed to doubt. Sceptics are to be banned. Anybody with an open mind is to be banned. Anybody who considers a solution is to be banned. What do the International Energy Agency say about the responses needed to reduce greenhouse gases? They say that the measures will be energy efficiency, clean coal and nuclear power, in that order. What does the opposition do? It takes the third biggest contributor to reducing greenhouse gas emissions off the agenda totally. The government will consider— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you would have observed, that was a nine-word question—very specific. Will the minister raise Australia’s MRET? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I was listening carefully to the minister. I believe he was about to answer the very point that the Manager of Opposition Business raised. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have not called the minister yet. The minister does not have the call. Members will come to order or I will take action. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne has already been warned. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —The government approaches the climate change challenge with an open mind, and the mandatory renewable energy target has been particularly successful. We are on track to meet our Kyoto target and are committed to doing so. We are investigating emissions trading, just as we have investigated the options for nuclear power. All measures which are capable of combating climate change and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and which do so in a manner that protects and preserves our standard of living, will always be under consideration. 19 19 15:16:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 Miss JACKIE KELLY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the effect of workplace relations reform on job creation in Australia last year? Is the minister aware of alternative proposals which would adversely affect the impact of these reforms? 19 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr HOCKEY —I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I note that the member for Lindsay reminded me before question time that in 1996, when I went doorknocking in the by-election in Emu Plains, the unemployment rate in her electorate was 7.3 per cent under the old Hawke-Keating industrial relations laws. Today, under the Howard government’s workplace laws, unemployment is 4.2 per cent. As the Prime Minister said a little bit earlier in question time—there is a compelling table there—since the Work Choices legislation was introduced, 245,000 new jobs were created in the March to December period, which, when we compare it with every other March to December period, is by far the highest level of job creation since 1978. In addition, we now have the lowest level of industrial disputation since 1913, since records were first kept; we have the lowest unemployment rate, at 4.6 per cent, of any March to December period since 1978; and, importantly, we have the highest participation rate, 64.9 per cent, of any March to December period since 1978. The Work Choices laws are part of the equation that has helped to create this record job environment. The Labor Party’s agenda is to tear up these laws and replace them with the ACTU’s agenda, and—gee!—we heard about that last week, didn’t we? We heard it thanks to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who pulled the retractable cord, and the Leader of the Opposition came back onto the ACTU agenda. There is no doubt that the new laws have had a very positive influence on the creation of jobs in Australia—no doubt about it. The proof of the pudding is in the figures that are delivered, with more than 83 per cent of those 245,000 jobs being full-time jobs, the lowest level of industrial disputation and wages growth, wages going up, and the fact that the employment rate is at its lowest level since the comparable period in 1978. We want to know what the Labor Party is going to tell the Australian workers out there about the ACTU agenda they are going to roll out in a Rudd government, because the 139 paragraphs of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech to the Business Council last week did not address the secret agenda—or perhaps non-secret agenda—of the Labor Party on industrial relations. The coalition is about job creation, the coalition is about higher wages, the coalition is about less industrial disputation and the Labor Party is about the agenda of the trade union movement. 20 20 15:20:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it the case that after 11 years in government the government has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, failed to increase the mandatory renewable energy target and failed to introduce a national emissions-trading scheme? Prime Minister, how can a government that is full of climate change sceptics be part of the climate change solution? 20 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —It is true that we have not ratified Kyoto, because to ratify Kyoto would not be in Australia’s interests. The truth is that this government is composed of a lot of people who are sceptical about certain things. They are sceptical about knee-jerk environmental solutions that would damage the jobs of coal miners in Australia. They are sceptical about responses to climate change that would put Australia at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. They are also sceptical about ruling out solutions that are clearly in the long-term interests of this country. Let me say to the climate change purists, or the climate change fanatics, on the other side: the cleanest and greenest energy source of all is the one you will not look at, and that is nuclear power. It is the cleanest and the greenest, and those who sit opposite will not look at it. I am a sceptic, yes. I am sceptical about the capacity of the Australian Labor Party to provide an answer to this great challenge that does not damage the long-term interests of the Australian economy. 20 20 15:22:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 Mrs GASH —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Would the minister inform the House what action the government is taking to manage the effects of climate change? Is the minister aware— Opposition members interjecting— AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs GASH —I do not think that is funny— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! When members are asking questions they deserve to be heard in silence. I call the member for Gilmore. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs GASH —Is the minister aware of detrimental proposals in this area? 20 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She has a great passion and, indeed, knowledge about water matters. I have learnt a great deal about water, particularly groundwater, from her. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lingiari is warned! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —The Australian government moved quickly and decisively more than a decade ago to address the consequences of climate change. Australia was the first country to set up the Greenhouse Office or any organisation of that kind. We have a comprehensive climate change strategy in which we have invested, over a decade, $2 billion that is building scientific understanding of climate change, helping us meet our Kyoto emissions reduction target and investing in the future technologies that we need, such as renewable energy, clean coal and carbon capture for treating coal-fired power stations. We will need all of those because technology will be the key driver of the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The opposition, on the other hand, hold up one solitary proposition—sign Kyoto. They are spreading a most pernicious untruth. Opposition members interjecting— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —You know it is untrue. And that untruth is that, if you ratify Kyoto, the drought will break, global warming will stop and everything will be right in the world. The message from the IPCC fourth assessment report, the message from the Stern report and the message from every piece of science we have seen for many years is that there is so much inertia and so much heat in the system that global warming is going to continue for decades—probably until the end of the century. We have to live with the consequences of this phenomenon for many years. The mitigation efforts that we take today will rebound to the benefit of our grandchildren, if not our great-grandchildren. We in the government are committed to long-term planning. We are committed to ensuring that our children and grandchildren will benefit. I would compare that with the extraordinary complacency and neglect by various state governments with respect to their water resources. All around Australia the greatest manifestation of a hotter and drier climate is water scarcity, not just in the bush but also in the cities. Every day when pensioners pull muscles or crack backs lugging heavy buckets to water their gardens in Brisbane and they look at their dry and desiccated lawns and their dead roses, they remember the Leader of the Opposition. It was he and Wayne Goss who, in 1989, chose not to build the Wolffdene Dam. Brisbane is in a drought today. Brisbane is short of water today because of the failure to plan ahead. It suited the Leader of the Opposition politically and electorally not to build a dam. If that dam had been built, Brisbane would have enough water to tide it over this dry time. This is not just the case in Brisbane: Bob Carr did exactly the same thing. We know the Labor Party’s record on water resources. We know their form—and their form is just like that of Mr Micawber: ‘Something will turn up. Don’t worry. Cancel the project. Put it on the backburner. It’ll rain next week. Pray for rain.’ We are planning ahead. We have the runs on the board. We are looking at every option, including nuclear power. We are looking at an emissions-trading scheme. We have everything on the table. 84G Wilkie, Kim, MP Mr Wilkie interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Swan is warned! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —What does the opposition have to say in response to that? They have defined a new heresy. What is the heresy? It is the heresy of scepticism. A sceptic is a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Oh no! We cannot have any questioning or doubting—I question myself whether we are moving into some new form of totalitarianism—where the great edicts from the opposition, the gospel according to the Labor Party, cannot be questioned and cannot be queried. The government has moved to deal with climate change. We are mitigating climate change. We are adapting to climate change through the biggest investment in water resources this country has ever seen. We are making up for the failures of Labor governments to invest and we are working internationally through the AP6, through the United Nations, to ensure that we achieve what all of us know is the only answer to reducing emissions in a manner that will abate global warming, and that is a global commitment. Without that global commitment there will be no abatement, and all that we do—and we will do all that we can—on mitigation in Australia will be for naught without a global commitment. That is our policy: mitigation, global commitment and ensuring that Australia is secure and sustainable in the face of a hotter and drier time ahead. 22 22 15:30:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer to my previous question, where he indicated that a decision to ratify Kyoto would be a ‘knee-jerk reaction by environmental extremists’. Prime Minister, if that is the case, why did you sign Kyoto? Why did you say at the time that the Kyoto protocol was a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs? 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Eleven years! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley is warned. 22 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The Leader of the Opposition takes a debating point, which he is entitled to do, but he knows as well as I do that we have not ratified the Kyoto protocol. We will not ratify it not only because it would be a knee-jerk reaction but because it would actually impose obligations on this country— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Prospect is warned. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —that would be damaging to us because the same obligations would not be imposed on countries with which we are competitors. Our reason for not endorsing Kyoto—ratifying it or whatever description you want to use—is that it would damage this country’s interests unless we can have an international arrangement which includes the great emitters of the world—for example, the United States and China. Effectively, about 32 per cent of the world’s emissions are covered by those who have ratified Kyoto. This country emits 1.6 per cent of the world’s global emissions. It has been said before that, if we closed down everything in this country tomorrow, in nine months the emissions that were saved by the closure in Australia would be equalled by the addition to emissions by China. That is the scale of the international problem. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He can have his little debating points. He can turn around and look self-satisfied about having scored a debating point, but nothing can absolve him from the fact that he is advocating a policy that would put us at a competitive disadvantage with many of the countries against whom we must compete in a global environment. I want to make it very clear to him and to the rest of the House that, in responding to climate change, this government has no intention of damaging the competitive position of Australian industry. 22 22 15:32:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education. Would the minister inform the House on the progress of Australian technical colleges and how students are benefiting from this initiative, particularly when I lobbied hard for my electorate in the southern suburbs of Adelaide and secured one for the 112 students who will start next Monday? 23 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 Mr ROBB —I thank the member for Kingston for my first question. I also acknowledge his very strong interest in the successful establishment of the Adelaide South Technical College. The investment by the Howard government in the 25 technical colleges is an emphatic statement that the days when a trade or vocational qualification was deemed second-class are over. We want a nation where a high-quality technical qualification is as prized as a university degree. Our country made a big mistake 20 and 30 years ago when it turned its back on the old system of developing technical skills within technical colleges. On behalf of the government I am proud to report that, in respect of technical colleges, we have gone from an idea to reality in a very short space of time. It shows that if you get the community and industry behind such an initiative you can move mountains. In that regard, I would like to acknowledge the very significant work of my predecessor, the member for Moreton. I can report that by Monday of next week 20 of the proposed 25 colleges will have commenced, with another technical college opening in the Pilbara midyear and the remaining four on schedule to open in the early part of next year. The program is well ahead of schedule. It means that, in 2007, some 2,000 students across Australia will attend these technical colleges. We are seeing very high calibre students attracted to the colleges. It means we are on track not only for 2,000 students this year but for 7½ thousand students in 2009. Through this initiative, the government is supporting the dreams and aspirations of thousands of young Australians and their parents. We are getting on with doing what needs to be done. Yet what did we hear last weekend from those opposite? The member for Perth announced over the weekend that a Labor government would hand the Australian technical colleges back to the state Labor governments. Handing the colleges back to the states is code for handing them back to the unions. The unions are pulling the strings on this matter. The unions will insist that the employers involved be shown the door. As a consequence, the unique and innovative role of training students with skills that are highly tailored to the needs of local employers will collapse. The colleges will disappear if they are handed back to the states. If Labor were to hand back these colleges to the states, history would repeat itself and the status of technical training would be reduced once again to that of a second-class career. The Australian technical colleges are a major step in elevating the importance of and the interest in technical careers. They are a reality. They have a big role to play, and I urge the Labor Party to show some spine: stand up to the unions and support the dreams and aspirations of thousands of young Australians. 23 23 15:37:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to a letter of 1 November last year sent by the Tristar workers to the Prime Minister, a letter which followed questions to the Prime Minister on the same matter on 10 August and 2 November last year. Why didn’t the Prime Minister bother to respond to this letter of three months ago and why did the Prime Minister ignore the indecent way these Tristar workers were treated until their plight received media attention again this January? 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I deny having ignored their plight and deny having not replied. It so happens that a question that I was asked in the House last November was asked by the opposition in the presence of a large number of the Tristar workers. I am aware that there are some Tristar workers here today. I should also inform the House that, on my behalf, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations met the people from Tristar. I take this opportunity to tell the House that the dispute at Tristar is not caused by Work Choices. That is a fact that was acknowledged this morning by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she said, ‘It’s true that the immediate Tristar industrial issue is not a product of Work Choices.’ I understand that the workers’ redundancy entitlement was in an agreement under the pre-Work Choices system. That agreement has been terminated by the AIRC—the umpire under the old system rules. But, due to a change to the Work Choices legislation, the redundancy entitlements remain protected for an additional period of a year. In other words, under the system Labor had wanted us to keep, these redundancy entitlements would have disappeared with the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. So, as a result of an amendment moved by this government, the old redundancy entitlements remain on foot for an additional year. That was not the old law; it is the new law. I think even the member for Batman, as a former President of the ACTU, would understand the significance of that. In relation to the treatment of Mr Bevan, I have previously said that the company, although it may have behaved within a law which has applied to redundancies for decades under both governments, behaved well outside community expectations and decency. That was made very clear by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who, on the day he was appointed, was out there talking to the workers. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —So don’t you come up here with your phoney pro-worker hand-wringing exercise. It was this government that gave the redundancy another year. It was this Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations who, on his first day on the job, went out and talked to the men and women. So don’t you come here professing a concern and suggesting that we do not care. I do not believe that companies should treat their workers badly. I think companies should treat their workers in a very respectful and a very precious and proper way. I would remind those opposite and those in the gallery that all the laws in the world will not legislate or dictate— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Here is another phoney point of order when it is going badly for them. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a serious question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will come to his point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —It is on relevance. The Prime Minister was asked what he did between August and January to help these workers up here. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is very much in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —As I indicated a moment ago, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations met the Tristar workers—and I acknowledge their presence in the gallery. Opposition members interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I have been asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition and, because they do not like the answer, there is a constant barrage of interjections from the frontbench. Is that the way this place is going to be— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —Your answer is so poor that— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The minister met the Tristar workers prior to question time and he did visit the site two weeks ago. He has also been in regular touch with the company management. I understand Tristar claim that there is still work at the factory for the workers—a claim that the Industrial Relations Commission, the independent industrial relations commission which the Labor Party regards as the answer to every problem, upheld four weeks ago. I do not know whether that decision was right or wrong. I am not in a position to make a judgement. But the independent umpire of Labor Party esteem and dreams upheld four weeks ago the claim of the company that there was still work at the factory. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fowler will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Fowler then left the chamber. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I understand that this claim is disputed by the workers, and I can understand that. From what I have seen and been told, it seems to be an understandable view. But I have to point out for the accuracy of the record that the Industrial Relations Commission, which we are always told is the repository of all wisdom in these matters, found in favour of the company. I understand further that, on the basis of the concerns of the workers, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has asked the Office of Workplace Services to investigate further, and I am told that that investigation is progressing well. The government is not in the business of shutting down factories. However, if there is no work, the workers should receive their current entitlements—which, by courtesy of the changes that the government introduced, are more generous than they would have been if the old law had obtained. I know that is a rather difficult thing for the opposition to accept, but it happens to be a statement of fact in relation to this issue. I also think it is important to remind the House that one of the reasons the company may have suffered financial adversity is that it lost many contracts with car companies following the 2001 industrial action at the company, which resulted in 12,000 employees in the car industry being stood down, with an estimated loss to the Australian car industry of $230 million. I want the truth of this matter resolved. If these men and women are being kept physically at work in the hope that the company lasts out the 12-month period so that the company does not have to pay the more generous redundancy which is available under a Howard government amendment then I want that truth made known to the public. On the other hand, if that is not the case and there is work available, I want that known, because we are in the business of treating both workers and employers fairly. I simply say to those who sit opposite: you have not tried, at any stage, to really champion the cause of the workers but rather you have tried to score a few cheap political points, and you have been found out in the process. 26 26 15:45:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of recent counterterrorism developments in the Philippines? 26 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest. I think it is important, in the context of the so-called struggle against terrorism, that the House is familiar with the success in South-East Asia in that struggle against terrorism. The Indonesian government, supported by Australia, the United States and others, has been very effective in its work against terrorism. It is heartening that the Philippines has started to get some real results in the last few months. There have been some significant successes. As a result of sustained military pressure in the Philippines since 1 August, the Philippines military have killed Abu Sayyaf group leaders, one of whom was responsible for the so-called St Valentine’s Day bombings in 2005 and another who was responsible for the 2004 superferry attack which killed 120 people. The military have disrupted and closed Jemaah Islamiah terrorist training camps in the Philippines, they have reduced overall terrorist numbers and they have contained key Jemaah Islamiah personalities, such as one of the Bali bombers—a man called Dulmatin—on the island of Jolo. The point I make is that the government of the Philippines is now really starting to get results. They froze significant al-Qaeda linked bank accounts in December of last year, and in October they seized significant quantities of ammonium nitrate which had been smuggled in. Australia is working closely with the Philippines in this respect. We are spending around $10 million on counterterrorism activities in the Philippines which focus very much on training, in particular assisting with police training, and also the provision of appropriate and relevant equipment. Let me add that the United States also plays a crucially important role in assisting the Philippines. We are seeing real results in the struggle against terrorism in South-East Asia, specifically in Indonesia and certainly in Singapore and Malaysia, and now also in the Philippines. It is an illustration not just of the success of the policies and the determination of those governments but also of the role that countries like Australia, the United States and some of the European countries play in assisting that struggle against terrorism. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 26 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 26 26 15:50:00 Mr HOWARD,MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —On 14 and 15 August 2006 the member for Adelaide asked two questions regarding the employment of Billy Schultze at a BP service station in Adelaide. At the time, I said I would report back to the House when the OWS investigation was finalised. The first aspect of the member for Adelaide’s question was an allegation that Mr Schultze was underpaid when Adelaide Petroleum, the previous owner, withheld moneys because of drive-offs. Late last year, the OWS found that Mr Schultze was underpaid the amount of $160, and I understand that it has now been paid. On the second and more serious aspect of the member for Adelaide’s question, the Office of Workplace Services commenced proceedings yesterday in the Federal Magistrates Court against BP Australia Pty Ltd and No. 1 Riverside Quay Pty Ltd, the new owners. The OWS allege that BP have breached the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by placing duress on employees in the making of a workplace agreement and by making false and misleading statements to the employees. Work Choices has significant penalties for breaches of the law but it also has significant protections from those breaches. No industrial system can prevent employees or employers from being treated outside the law. Importantly, this action shows that the Office of Workplace Services is well armed to protect workers young and old from unlawful behaviour. Since Work Choices began operating, the OWS has recovered $6.73 million on behalf of workers and commenced 32 actions in court. This is, of course, the same agency that Labor have promised to abolish in their workplace revolution. I urge any worker who believes that he or she may have been mistreated to contact the Office of Workplace Services. 27 Personal Explanations 27 15:52:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —In response to a question this afternoon concerning Tristar workers, the Prime Minister said that the workers of Tristar had received no representation from me as the local member or from others on this side of the House. On 10 August I asked the Prime Minister a question which included whether he would use his office to ensure that redundancy payouts would be received by these great hardworking Australians. I received a dismissal. The Prime Minister was again asked in November. I met with the workers here on 2 November, when they travelled to Canberra. They wrote to the Prime Minister and asked for a meeting. I met them with the then Leader of the Opposition and the then shadow minister for workplace relations. Since then I have been to Tristar at least 10 times—well before the government discovered that this was an issue in January—and, again today, the workers of Tristar were here. I, with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for industrial relations, who came and visited the site last Thursday, met with those workers again today. I can assure the Prime Minister that we will continue to fight for their rights. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member has made his personal explanation. 27 Questions to the Speaker 27 27 15:53:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —I seek your assistance in clarifying the accountability of the members for Parkes and Sturt in their capacity as assistant ministers. The designation ‘assistant minister’ appeared not only in prime ministerial media statements issued last month but also in Gazette No. S15, issued on 30 January 2007. I refer you to standing order 98, which clearly rules out questions being asked of parliamentary secretaries but remains silent on the new designation of ‘assistant minister’. I particularly refer you to the comments from the member for Parkes, who stated in a media release that he would be responsible for the implementation of water resources in rural Australia. He therefore would quite clearly be eligible to be asked questions, under standing order 99, which allows for questions being asked if a member is responsible for a particular area of government policy. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the question. As he has noted, while two members, both of whom he has identified, have assumed the additional titles of ‘assistant minister’, they also continue to have the title of ‘parliamentary secretary’; therefore, under standing order 98, questions cannot be directed to them. However, questions can be directed to the relevant minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I seek leave to table an ABC report entitled Demotion: a blessing in disguise for Cobb, in which he stated: ‘I’m very excited about water being my area of responsibility in the future.’ Leave not granted. 28 28 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr PRICE —Further to the question that the Manager of Opposition Business has raised with you, do I take it that they will on their stationery and in all other manner be known as assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries for whatever their responsibilities are, given that they retain both functions, as you have indicated in your answer? 28 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I do not believe that is the responsibility of the Speaker. However, he may wish to take it up with the individual members. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —With great respect, the way members entitle themselves, I think, would be the responsibility of the Speaker. Strictly speaking, I understand it is the Prime Minister who allocates portfolios, but you did say that they retained both titles—that is, ‘assistant minister and parliamentary secretary for’. I just assumed we would not want to mislead the public or anyone else. That is the way they would communicate their responsibilities. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Chief Opposition Whip, and I understand the point he is making. However, I believe that, as they are also part of the executive in another form, that point is not the responsibility of the Speaker. 28 Personal Explanations 28 15:57:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —On 9 January this year I published an article in the Herald Sun entitled ‘The question is the same as it always was: why are we in Iraq?’ On the following day the Minister for Foreign Affairs published a rebuttal. In his rebuttal he claimed that I had stated in my article that ‘concepts such as freedom and democracy mean little to most Arabs and Muslims’. I said nothing of the sort. The relevant section of the article read as follows: According to John Howard, Australian troops are in Iraq to help build a free, democratic society, based on the rule of law. …     …         … Unfortunately, most Arabs and Muslim don’t quite see it that way. They think we’ve got different motives. In their eyes, our flowery rhetoric about democracy and freedom means little. They judge us by our actions, not our words, and we keep giving them plenty of reasons for being cynical. It is abundantly obvious, Mr Speaker, that the foreign minister’s characterisation of my words is completely false. 29 Questions to the Speaker 29 29 15:58:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 Mr SNOWDON —Further to the issue of parliamentary secretaries and assistant ministers, could you please inform us of the distinction between the role of a parliamentary secretary and the role of an assistant minister. Could you tell us: if those responsibilities are different, why can’t we ask questions of a person acting in their capacity of assistant minister? 29 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Lingiari. I have ruled on that matter. If the House chooses to change the standing orders, that is a matter for the House, but, while the standing orders remain as they are now, it is the responsibility of the chair to administer them as they are written. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —My question is: can you tell us of the distinction between the role of a member as a parliamentary secretary and the role of a member as an assistant minister? Having being a parliamentary secretary, I know what a parliamentary secretary’s role is, but I have absolutely no idea what the role of assistant minister is. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —For the benefit of the honourable member for Lingiari, the two members he refers to both still carry the title of parliamentary secretary and therefore, for the purposes of standing order 98, are still parliamentary secretaries. 29 29 15:59:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I draw your attention to the fact that a number of questions in writing have been on the Notice Paper for more than 60 days: question No. 2999 to the Treasurer on 7 February last year; 9 February, 3013 to the Prime Minister; 24 May, 3570 to the Treasurer; 30 May, 3589 and 3590 to the Treasurer, and 3595 to the Prime Minister; 19 June, 3718 to the Minister for Health and Ageing and 3719 to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; 8 August, 3819, 3820, 3831, 3834, 3836, 3837, 3838, 3839 and 3840 to the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs; 9 August 2006, 3869 and 3870 to the Minister for Justice and Customs, and 3872 and 3873 to the same minister; the same date, 3874, to the same minister; 15 August, 3942 to the Minister for Justice and Customs; 4 September, 3997 to the Prime Minister; 12 October, 4762 to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; 17 October, 4810 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; 18 October, 4816 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; 2 November 2006, 4856 to the Minister for Justice and Customs, who just refuses to answer any questions about security at Sydney airport, and 4857, 4858, 4859, 4860, 4861, 4862, 4863, 4864 and 4865—all about Sydney airport security; 27 November, 4918 to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 4919 to the same minister; 29 November, 4934 to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs; 5 December, 4955 to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage; 6 December, 4956 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; and also 7 December, 5281, 5282 and 5283 to the Minister for Trade, 5285 to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, 5286 and 5287 to the Minister for Human Services and 5288 to the Minister for Community Services. Mr Speaker, you have written to these ministers before on a number of occasions and we are getting no answers, particularly from the Minister for Justice and Customs about the security cameras at Sydney airport and the investigation into those cameras. It is a serious— 29 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Lowe. I will endeavour to follow up his request as soon as my office can arrange it, but it is quite a large request. We will certainly get on to it straightaway. 30 Auditor-General's Reports 30 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 15 to 23 of 2006-07 entitled No. 15, Financial statement audit: audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2006; No. 16, Performance audit: administration of capital gains tax compliance in the individuals market segment—Australian Taxation Office; No. 17, Performance audit: Treasury’s management of international financial commitments—follow-up audit—Department of the Treasury; No. 18, Performance audit: ASIC’s processes for receiving and referring for investigation statutory reports of suspected breaches of the Corporations Act 2001—Australian Securities and Investments Commission; No. 19, Performance audit: administration of state and territory compliance with the Australian Health Care Agreements—Department of Health and Ageing; No. 20, Performance audit: purchase, chartering and modification of the new fleet oiler—Department of Defence—Defence Materiel Organisation; No. 2, Performance audit: implementation of the revised Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines; No. 21, Performance audit: implementation of the revised Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines—corrigendum; No. 22, Performance audit: management of intellectual property in the Australian government sector; and No. 23, Performance audit: application of the outcomes and outputs framework. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 30 Documents Mr BALDWIN (Paterson —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) 16:04:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 2005-06. Gene Technology Regulator—Quarterly report for the period 1 July to 30 September 2006. Migration Agents Registration Authority—Report for 2005-06. Productivity Commission—Report No. 38—Waste management, 20 October 2006. Research Involving Human Embryos Act—NHMRC Licensing Committee—Report for the period 1 April to 30 September 2006. Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act—Quarterly reports on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July to 30 September 2006. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 30 Matters of Public Importance 30 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for a coherent strategy for our future that builds long term prosperity, preserves a fair go for all Australians and responds to the great national challenges of climate change and water. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 30 16:05:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —Following question time today we can look forward to a very interesting year in Australian politics. This year we will see a battle for ideas for the nation’s future. We are going to see a battle for a vision for the country’s future. We are going to see a battle for policies for the country’s future, and that is a battle for which the Labor Party now stands ready. The battleground on which we are going to engage this fight is one which centres around our two sets of values regarding the way we want to shape this country’s future. Our view is this in a nutshell: we have to build long-term prosperity without throwing the fair go out the back door and we have to build long-term prosperity and take action on climate change and water. That is our core set of values as we approach the events of this year. There is an alternative view, which is the government’s view, which sees these things as a zero sum game—that is, either you have prosperity or you have these other things. What they say in fact on prosperity is: you do not have to build prosperity; it somehow mysteriously just happens. They also say that if you are going to have prosperity then, as a consequence, you have got to ratchet back and ultimately sacrifice the fair go that is part of the Australian social contract. So let us be crystal clear about the two paths which lie ahead of us—our approach and theirs—because therein the choice will be made later this year. When it comes to the whole question of long-term prosperity, let us be clear-cut about this. Our approach is that we must invest in the nation’s future. There is a bogus debate about the economy, a bogus debate which has been kicking around in this chamber for more years than I can remember. It somehow assumes that there is a lack of consensus on the fundamentals of macroeconomic policy: the fundamentals of how monetary policy should be conducted in this country and the independence of the Reserve Bank and inflation targeting. There is a lack of consensus, they say, on the question of an appropriate setting for fiscal policy when it comes to achieving a budget balance across the economic cycle. They argue these things as if some consensus is lacking. Our argument in response is very simple: consensus was achieved on these questions a long time ago. Do not take our word for it. Read the Boyer lectures of Ian Macfarlane, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank. He said it in black and white. Read Saul Eslake, the ANZ Bank’s chief economist. Read the others. The consensus on their part about the consensus across the political divide on these core questions of macroeconomic policy is well set. Where there is no consensus is on what the appropriate settings should be for the reform of the labour market, on how we invest in the future of human capital in this country and on how we deal with the rest of what is called the microeconomic reform agenda for Australia. Our view is pretty basic. It says: (1) we have had declining productivity growth in this country for several years now; and (2) across those years and preceding those years we have also had declining real investment in higher education and flat investment in other forms of investment by the federal government in education. When you put those two sets of data together, the case becomes compelling. The reason we have declining productivity growth in Australia is that the government, over the last decade, have simply kissed goodbye their responsibilities when it comes to turbocharging our people for Australia’s future—investing in their skills. Therein lies the key difference. It is not just that productivity growth has been falling. It is not just that the government’s performance on human capital investment has been pathetic at best. It is that, over that period of time, the dramatic nature of these two events has been masked by one thing, and it is called the resources boom. The resources boom in recent years has led to so many truckloads of money rolling in the back door of this economy and into the public financial coffers of this country that it has effectively masked this government being asleep at the wheel on the core question of economic reform. In our party’s history in government in this country we have been a proud party of economic reform, from the first wave of economic reform in the 1980s and 1990s, following the internationalisation of the Australian economy and appropriate deregulation. From the mid-1990s on, again, there were achievements in the implementation of national competition policy. But since those two great waves of reform and the great yield to national productivity growth which they produced, we have had a government effectively asleep at the reform wheel. Now we come to the need for a third wave of reform, a reform which goes to the heart of our need to invest in our workforce skills for the future. We call it an education revolution. We have put forward a program whereby we intend to invest significantly in the future needs of the workforce. We want to invest more when it comes to Australia’s future workforce—starting from early childhood, continuing through the schools and through vocational education and training, moving on to the universities and into research and development and on to the highest forms of research science. If we invest the quantum and the quality of our investment there then we will set ourselves up for a long-term prosperity dividend for the country once the resources boom is over. What do we all know? Resources booms come to an end. The government have had literally tens of billions of dollars—and, according to Saul Eslake, hundreds of billions of dollars—flow into the public coffers as a result of the extraordinary resources boom. But have they used this money to invest in our long-term productive potential? No, they have not. In terms of investment initiatives by the government across the education spectrum, either in education or in infrastructure, can we point to a single, substantial national investment initiative to turbocharge us for the future? We cannot. The story is clear. It is one which rests on the numbers. There is declining productivity growth because, at best, we have had flat performance when it comes to investing in our people’s future. And all that time money has been rolling in the back door and has not been used for these productive investment purposes. That is what we have to say on the economy. That is our message on the economy. For us, education now becomes a core part of the economic debate. It is the engine room of the economy. It is also, for us in the Labor movement, the engine room of equity. We also believe we must invest in our future when it comes to climate change. On the issue of climate change, the message that came from the government in today’s question time, at the beginning of 2007, leaves most of us gobsmacked. We have the citadel of scepticism when it comes to climate change. In the statement made by the Prime Minister in question time today—the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, which has a large economy and 20 million people facing one of the great challenges of our civilisation and certainly of this country’s settled history—he said: ... the jury is still out on the degree of connection. It is not just the Prime Minister who says that. The industry minister says that he is sceptical about the existence of any connection whatsoever. But what is absolutely stunning is this bloke sitting at the table, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. On day 1 on the job as environment minister he took to the dispatch box and said that he also proudly wears the badge of a climate change sceptic. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —That’s not true. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —When you look at the Hansard and see what you had to say on that, Minister, I think you will be soberly surprised. I draw the environment minister’s attention to this document by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is called Summary for policymakers. It came out last Friday. I would encourage all those who read the Hansard and all those participating in this debate today to read this 22-page document carefully. On the question of the connection, I draw the minister’s attention—and I would like him to respond to this when we get to his response to the MPI—to a clear statement on page 3, which says: The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report— that was about five or six years ago— leading to very high confidence 7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming ... Going to the footnote, what is ‘very high confidence’ defined as? ‘Very high confidence’ means: ... at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct ... This is the document from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is the one in which how many Australian scientists participated, Minister? We were briefed the other day that, I think, some 40 to 42 Australian scientists participated. This is the document in which the international community is seeking to frame a consensus for responding to this global challenge of climate change, yet we have the three responsible ministers of this government today saying to the nation through the parliament, ‘We are still climate change sceptics.’ Minister, I would ask you sincerely on behalf of the nation to reconsider that position. When you look at the rest of what the minister had to say most recently—that we can easily cope with a metre sea rise; it is an interesting proposition—to the shadow minister’s question as to whether he would increase the mandatory renewable energy target, it was duck and weave from central casting. On the question that we put earlier to the Prime Minister about the submission that cabinet considered on a national carbon trading scheme back in August 2003, suddenly the Prime Minister—he whose memory never slips—had a memory lapse. That was in the vicinity of 3½ years ago. A cabinet submission was put to the cabinet of the government of this country to do something then on carbon emissions and what did they do? They did nothing. Why then do we have this sudden flurry of activity—at least at an apparent and public political level—on the part of this government on climate change? One thing has happened and it is simply this: the opinion polls have shifted. The surest barometer of this Prime Minister’s engagement with the serious political questions which face this country and the policy challenges which we face in the future is that, when the opinion polls turn, John Howard runs big-time after them. The science has been in for a long time. The only thing that has changed is the opinion polls—hence a flurry of apparent political activity. My challenge again is this: how can a government full of climate change sceptics be part of this nation’s climate change solution? Water cannot be dealt with effectively in the long term unless we are dealing with climate change. When we raised the matter of the blame game last year by reference to the report on the blame game between the Commonwealth and the states on the future of health funding, we received ridicule from the other side of the table in the House of Representatives. Since then, the opinion polls have turned and, once again, there is a flurry of apparent activity on the government’s part on the question of the blame game. But it still, as evidenced today in the environment minister’s response, adds up to a continuing attempt to evade responsibility on the key question of water as well. In the year ahead, we intend to put forward, as we have begun to on education, a positive plan for the nation’s future dealing with the education revolution, dealing with the decline in productivity growth, dealing with the needs of human capital investment and dealing with the real challenge of climate change and the associated challenge of water—dealing with ending the blame game. These are all about investing in our future. That is our positive message to the Australian people for this year ahead. I said before, however, that there is another part to the message. It is this: you can still build long-term prosperity without throwing the fair go out the back door. This government has said that, when it comes to prosperity, the only way you can do it is to ratchet back the working conditions and wages of Australia’s working families. What we have with their workplace laws is a clear-cut statement of what is demonstrably unfair in the minds and hearts of working Australians right across this country. Our message to the Australian people is that we intend to restore the balance when it comes to fairness. We intend to be in the business of investing in this country’s future and we look forward to advancing this debate in this election year. We will join this battle. We intend to put ideas forward in this battle because we intend to provide a plan for the future against a government still anchored in the past. We intend, in the events of this year, to prevail and to provide victory for the Labor Party at the upcoming election. 34 16:20:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 0 Mr TURNBULL —The balance I seek to restore immediately is the balance of accuracy. The Leader of the Opposition has misrepresented my remarks on AM not once, but twice. This is what I said: ... you have to bear in mind that most of our coastal population lives on the east coast of Australia and because of the geology or the [topography] of the east coast, you know, much of that is adequately elevated to deal with a one-metre sea rise. I went on to say: It’s a big factor. It’s something that we are working on, we’re working on with the CSIRO ... working with the Greenhouse Office ... it essentially requires a change in planning standards over the next few decades so that as new properties are developed they are either set back or adequately protected to ensure that they’re not impacted by storm surges. That transcript was available to the Leader of the Opposition. I was incorrect a moment ago; he misrepresented those remarks three times—twice to the Prime Minister and just here a moment ago. As far as climate change is concerned, the questions that really need to be answered are for the opposition and, in particular, for my neighbour, the member for Kingsford Smith. The Labor Party’s climate change policy, as they have stated, involves essentially two propositions. The first is to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We all recognise that ratifying the Kyoto protocol by itself will not result in Australia emitting any less greenhouse gases because we are already on track to meet our Kyoto target. It will not have, in and of itself, any effect on the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the second part of their proposition is to have a mandatory cut in emissions of 60 per cent by 2050. This is a very substantial cut and it would obviously have a very large cost. It is a reasonable inquiry to ask what the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow environment minister believe that cost would be. That gentleman journalist David Speers endeavoured to interrogate the member for Kingsford Smith yesterday, many times. He asked, ‘Are these industries, coal and the like, going to have to pay something?’ The member for Kingsford Smith said, ‘I don’t think anyone can skirt the issue,’ and then proceeded to skirt it. He said, ‘I don’t expect to start answering hypotheticals about where or where burdens may or may not fall.’ Mr Speers returned to the fray and asked, ‘Should we all expect to be paying more as part of the solution?’ He got no joy from the member for Kingsford Smith, who said: ‘I don’t think we need to get into a sort of scare game of saying to people that prices will go up by X tomorrow.’ Undaunted, Mr Speers went back and asked, ‘Shouldn’t there also be some raw information for people to look at when we’re talking about carbon trading and what it’s going to cost us?’ The member for Kingsford Smith replied, ‘Yes, there should be, and we’ll certainly continue to develop and build policy as we go forward.’ One last time this indefatigable journalist asked the question again, ‘Do you think people are prepared to pay more?’ The member for Kingsford Smith responded, ‘We don’t really know what pay more means.’ There it is. That is all we have been able to find out about the economic basis, the costs, the consequences of the key part of their climate change policy. Either they do not know what it will cost or what the consequences are, or if they do they are not prepared to share them with the people they are asking to elect them into government. There is also their rationale given for ratifying the Kyoto protocol. The member for Kingsford Smith said, ‘Our policy is to ratify the Kyoto protocol so we get into that international game.’ In an article in the Sun Herald on 4 February he said: ... it would draw Australia back into the international fold, it would create jobs, it would give us the entry price into the greatest debate of our time and it would give the nation some much-needed moral authority. What the member for Kingsford Smith overlooks is that the Australian government is actively engaged in the international debate on climate change—actively and constructively. The head of the Australian Greenhouse Office in fact is co-chairing the new international talks on post-Kyoto approaches for a long-term cooperative action on climate change on the global basis that all of us know is the only way greenhouse gases can effectively be reduced. We have set up the AP6, a coalition of the largest emitters—the United States, Japan, China, India and others—to work together to build the technologies for all countries, but in particular those big developing countries who need more energy. It is fine to say to the Chinese, ‘You should clean up your act.’ But they are entitled to say: ‘Our emissions per capita are a fraction of yours. Most of the carbon that is up there, you in the developed world put there.’ So there is an issue of equity. But the fact is that, unless they are part of the solution, and unless the United States is part of the solution, everything that we do—and we have done much and we will do more—will be in vain in terms of slowing global warming. But think of the complete absurdity of the opposition’s position on this: the proposition that we need to ratify Kyoto in order to have a place in the international debate. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto protocol. Does anyone imagine that there can be any international debate, any international agreement on emissions or climate change, without the participation, the active involvement, of the United States? The reality is that this is a solution that must be global. Our policy, our commitment, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia—and we have done so. By 2010 we will have eliminated from our emissions 87 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, the equivalent of the emissions of the entire transport sector. That is a direct result of the whole suite of programs—$2 billion worth over a decade—that the Australian government has committed to practical measures to reduce greenhouse gases. But most important is the need to deal with the consequences of climate change in our own country. While we have to mitigate climate change—we must do that and we are doing that—we recognise, from the fourth assessment report and many other reports, as I said in question time, that the consequences of global warming, the reality of global warming, is going to continue for many decades. That is why, with respect, this indictment of anyone who expresses a degree of scepticism is absurd. I should say that in every speech I have given I have said that climate change is a fact, global warming is a fact, and it is contributed to or largely caused by human activities. I do not know whether that makes me a sceptic or not, but I would hate anybody to say that I unquestionably accepted or refused to question accepted opinions. The key thing always, particularly in scientific matters, is to have an open and questioning mind. The point of view that the opposition presents as the right posture is that of some uncritical acceptance of a dogma. That is the worst way to deal with Australia’s challenges. We have to have all of the options on the table—and indeed we do. Consider the so-called climate summit that Labor is proposing to have. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘We want to have all the ideas on the table,’ and immediately a journalist said, ‘What about nuclear power?’ ‘Oh, no, we won’t accept that; that’s not on the table.’ So you can only have an idea if it is one that fits in with the rigid dogma of the opposition. The water challenge in Australia is the gravest challenge we face. The biggest consequence and the clearest manifestation of climate change—which means, for most of Australia, hotter and drier times—will be water scarcity. Not only is there likely to be less precipitation because of changes in the frontal systems that traditionally deliver the bulk of the spring and water rains in southern Australia but greater heat means more evaporation and transpiration and hence less run-off. We are all familiar, and have been for a very long time, with the sorts of figures which we have seen from Perth, where over a decade or so we have had a 21 per cent decline in rainfall and a 64 per cent decline in stream flow. It is that stream flow which is important. Relatively small declines in rainfall can result in enormous declines in water availability. Recognising that, the Howard government has committed to water reform and to tackling Australia’s water challenges in a way that no federal government in our history ever has before. The National Water Initiative was a first, bringing all the governments of Australia together to agree on a framework for sustainable water management and water reform. Previously, historically and constitutionally, water management has been entirely in the hands of the states. It was not something that Commonwealth governments became involved in—at least, not in any systematic way. That has now changed completely. John Howard is and has been, as Paul Kelly described him in the Australian, prescient on water; farsighted on water. He set the measures in place to restore our rivers to sustainable levels and set the agreement in place. Then, only 10 days ago, he announced the most important policy on water management in our nation’s history. If you go back more than 100 years, you will find that even before we became a nation Australians said that the Murray and the other interstate rivers should be under Commonwealth jurisdiction. It made sense. As Sir Josiah Symon said at the 1898 Constitutional Convention, ‘In the name of all that is federal, surely this should be a federal matter.’ It was not; that was not what they agreed. But it was common sense. Plainly, as the Prime Minister said, if you have four states with different interests then they are in the position of competitors and they cannot effectively manage the Murray-Darling Basin. The Prime Minister has sought a reference and we have already seen the New South Wales Premier saying he will refer his powers. We have seen very positive remarks from the premiers of Victoria and Queensland, and I believe that the Premier of South Australia, after further discussion, will join with the other states and refer those powers to the Commonwealth. What we will then have will be a governance and management structure for the Murray-Darling Basin which enables it to be run as one whole. This is the bread basket, the food basket, of Australia. This is where 80 per cent of our irrigated agriculture can be found. This is where, depending on whose statistics you accept, somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of all our agricultural output can be found. And it is under enormous stress as a consequence of drought and as a consequence of overallocation and water mismanagement over many years. And this will not be an easy problem to deal with. But John Howard, the Prime Minister, has taken that on and committed $10 billion over a decade to deal with these problems of overallocation. Around Australia, both sides of politics—including the member for Kingsford Smith, including his leader, including premiers, including scientists, including business leaders—have welcomed this far-sighted move. That is planning for the future; that is a commitment to the future. And it stands in stark contrast to the lack of detail and the knee-jerk slogans that we hear from the Labor Party. They talk about policies but have no idea what they will cost; they talk about signing the Kyoto protocol and have no justification for it beyond saying that it will get us into an international debate—or an international game, depending on the style of the reference—in which we are already playing, and have done for many years, a leading part. We are dealing with climate change through practical measures. We are dealing with water problems through practical measures. We are leading to ensure that Australia’s water future is a sustainable and a secure one. (Time expired) 37 16:35:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Here we are on the first day of parliament for this year and one thing has never been clearer than after question time today: the best days of the Howard government are behind it. Anybody watching question time today would have seen that clearly on display. These are the days of uncertainty and drift in the Howard government; these are the days when the challenges for the next 10 years that this nation needs to grasp and deal with are being ignored. Those challenges are clear. We need now to be building the next wave of economic prosperity in this country. That is what is going to matter for the next 10 years, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about the need for an education revolution and of making the Australian people the most highly skilled in our region so that we can compete with the world. These are the days where for the next 10 years we finally have to resolve the blame game in this country. We need to stop the waste, the buck-passing and the cost shifting that happen when the states and the federal government fight. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has been taking the lead on ending the blame game, including in the vital area of water. The challenge for the next 10 years includes getting our major cities right, dealing with the need for infrastructure development, dealing with problems of congestion and livability. The people of our cities know that these needs are pressing, and we have to get the shape of our cities right for the next 10 years. We have to deal with the question of climate change. And we have to get the balance for Australian families right and the balance in our workplaces right. We need to restore the balance so that there is fairness between employers and employees, but we also have to get the balance right for working families between the time and energy spent at work and the time and energy spent with their families. It is to these two issues—the issue of climate change and the issue of the balance for Australian families—that I particularly want to direct my remarks. Climate change and the unfairness of the Howard government’s conduct in relation to working Australians were the themes of question time today, and these are the issues that I want to direct my remarks to, because no two issues more clearly show the days of uncertainty and drift for the Howard government and more clearly demonstrate that its best days are behind it. Let us come to the issue of climate change, with the new Minister for the Environment and Water Resources at the table: the man who, with much flourish, took on the challenges of the environment and water for the Howard government. At the end of question time today, the new minister had three problems. He had a problem with sea water, he had a problem with sceptics and, at the end of question time today, he had a problem with being taken seriously—and that is the most difficult question of all for him to resolve. On his problem with sea water, he claims to have been misrepresented. But let me read precisely what he said on radio on 3 February. It is here. We know he was phoning a friend before, but let me clarify for him, in case there is any doubt, exactly what he said. He said: There’s a lot of very exaggerated claims and you have to bear in mind that most of our coastal population lives on the east coast of Australia and because of the geology or the [topography] of the east coast, you know, much of that is adequately elevated to deal with a one-metre sea rise. The minister at the table thinks that the ocean is like a giant indoor swimming pool and that, as long as there is a metre difference between the edge of the pool and where the water is, it does not matter if the water comes up a metre. I am no geologist—I would find it difficult to tell a diamond from a piece of granite—but let me tell you this: the ocean is not a dirty great swimming pool with a hard edge; the coast erodes. So, when the water goes up, you get erosion. And that is why a metre increase in sea levels, for anybody with a modicum of common sense, is a very big problem for our coastal cities, not the least of which is Sydney. Just because your house is a metre above where the sea is now does not mean you would be safe, Minister. Just have a little think about it. Get a scientist down from the CSIRO, and they will be able to explain it to you better than I can—but, really, anybody ought to be able to work that out. And then the minister has a problem with sceptics. He is trying to rebadge the word ‘sceptic’ because he knows that the Howard government is full of climate change sceptics, so now he is pretending that the word ‘sceptic’ in that context means someone who thinks and questions. But we all know that, in the climate change debate, a climate change sceptic is actually someone who says that there is no global warming. They are deniers. They are people who believe that the current things that we are seeing are just a result of natural weather patterns. If you are a climate change sceptic and you believe it is just the weather then you are a do-nothing person, because nothing can be done about the weather. That is what a climate change sceptic is—someone who does not want to do anything—and that is what your government is full of. Redefining the word ‘sceptic’ is not going to fix that problem for you. You have a problem with sea water and a problem with sceptics. You went on to say, ‘Sceptics are people who question dogma.’ The problem for you is that, with your government full of climate change sceptics, you are actually the people with the worst dogma, because you are the people who say, ‘The only way of dealing with all of this is to have nuclear energy.’ The Prime Minister was at the dispatch box today saying, ‘It’s the greenest and cleanest and safest,’ and all the rest of it. Has anybody ever heard of solar waste? Has anybody ever heard of wind power waste? How is it that nuclear energy is cleaner and greener and safer than solar energy or wind power energy? It is just absurd. The worst pieces of dogma come from the Howard government. You have a problem, Minister, with sea water, sceptics and being taken seriously. The parliament, including your own side, was laughing at you today. The Treasurer was laughing at you. The Leader of the House was trying to get you to sit down. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lalor will address her comments through the chair. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I saw the Treasurer laughing today. You might have observed it yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—I know you are an observant man. You might have seen the Leader of the House seek to have the minister at the table sit down. After the performance today, he is no longer a person who can be taken seriously. I turn to the other issue in question time today which once again demonstrates the days of drift and uncertainty for the Howard government—that is, the issue of industrial relations and particularly the issue of Tristar. There was the Prime Minister at the dispatch box today basically trying to pretend to the world—whilst he got angry and a little bit rattled—that everything was all right. Everything is not all right for those workers, who are sitting in an empty factory, not being able to get their redundancy entitlements. We asked the Prime Minister today: what did you do about it before it was in the headlines in Sydney? What did you do about it before Alan Jones was on the case? What did you do about it when it was Labor raising it in the parliament and workers writing to you? The truth is that, before it was in the headlines, this government did nothing—absolutely nothing—and the Prime Minister today at the dispatch box could only refer to those things that have been done since it became a public issue. Even then, at the dispatch box today, the Prime Minister continued the confusion. On the one hand, the Howard government say this conduct is not about Work Choices and it is not illegal. The Prime Minister said that. The minister said that to the Tristar workers. Then, as political cover, they instruct the Office of Workplace Services to investigate it. Well, they only get to investigate things if they are illegal—if they are breaches of laws or awards or agreements. How do these things add up? They are trying to put the political fix in, trying to look like they are responding. On industrial relations, this is what we will see this year. We will see that if a worker can become a headline, a human headline, they will get some attention from the Howard government, because the Howard government is interested in addressing its political hurt, not the hurt of Australian working families. But we will not see any changes of substance to the industrial relations laws. The Howard government will not do that. When we come to the next election and we are talking about the issues for the next 10 years, one of the biggest of them will be how we ensure that working families in this country are treated decently when they are at work and that they are able to balance up the demands of work and family life, and it will only be Labor who has the answers on those questions. (Time expired) 40 16:45:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Twelve years ago an opposition leader came into this parliament and made the case in an eloquent speech for a change of government. That was John Howard’s ‘five minutes of economic sunshine’ speech. It was a speech that went right to the heart of the credibility of the Keating government and the fact that the Australian people had lost confidence in them, and it struck right at the heart of the economic management of the Keating government. Sadly, I do not think many of us who heard the speech from the Leader of the Opposition today will remember it next week, let alone in 12 years time. There was minimal mention of how Labor would manage the economy better than the government. It seems that, when it comes to management of the economy, the ALP cannot fault the government. It seems that on management of the economy and national security, the two foundations on which any Australian government must rest, the Labor Party have failed to make any case for how they would improve things for the welfare of the Australian people. We have heard a bit about how Labor have decided on a new approach, to actually engage in the economic debate, and there are a whole lot of buzzwords: ‘investment’, ‘productivity’, ‘a turbocharged economy’. But at the centre of it there is one problem meaning the Labor Party can never be the better managers of the economy in Australia, and that is the trade union movement. It is almost paradoxical that, as membership of trade unions has declined in the workforce so that only about 20 per cent of the workforce hold a union ticket and about 16 per cent of the workforce in the private sector hold a union membership, the stranglehold of the trade union movement has become stronger over the parliamentary Labor Party. I guarantee we will not hear a lot over the next eight or nine months from the Labor Party on the position of the Australian Education Union, for example, on values in schools, on reporting and on having literacy and numeracy standards. I guarantee we will not hear a lot about the approach the Nursing Federation take on health policy. But have no doubt that in the background these will be critical considerations for the Labor Party and the way they address policy. You only have to look at the government’s Work Choices policy. Anyone who knows the most basic thing about economics knows that one of the ways of unlocking labour productivity is to have increased flexibility in the workplace. Labor even came to this realisation when they were last in government and they moved partly this way, but they could not go the whole way because the ACTU and the trade union movement prevented it. When the Labor Party talk about productivity, there is one aspect of productivity that they cannot address, and that is the labour market and flexibility. What we have seen with Work Choices, contrary to what was stated, has been higher pay, more jobs and fewer strikes—exactly the opposite of what the Labor Party said. Looking at the Australian economy today, unemployment is at 4.6 per cent. It is the lowest level since November 1976. We had low inflation in the most recent quarter. We have an economy which has been growing for 16 years. We have seen wages increase by 17.9 per cent in real terms since the Howard government was elected in March 1996. We have seen interest rates much lower. You can pick any one of the interest rates that operated while the Labor Party were in—interest rates now are lower than the 10 per cent they were when they left government, lower than the 12.75 per cent average over their 13 years in power and lower than the peak 17 per cent home mortgage rate which was reached when Paul Keating was last Treasurer. Most of the case by the Leader of the Opposition for a change of government was based on climate change and water. No fair-minded person could say that the government does not have a strong plan on climate change. We have spent $2 billion on measures which have reduced greenhouse emissions and reduced the greenhouse intensity of the Australian economy. No fair-minded person could say that the Australian government does not have a very strong plan on water. We had the announcement most recently of a $10 billion package for the Murray-Darling addressing the infrastructure and also addressing the purchase of water rights. We have a climate change plan—so does Labor; ours is better. We have a water plan—so does Labor; ours is better. The difference in approach is that the government acts and the Labor Party talks. The Labor Party solution to climate change is to have a summit—an old favourite of Bob Hawke. Looking at the specific issue of climate change, projections released in November 2005 show that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for the upcoming period, 2008-12, will be 108 per cent of the 1990 levels. That is our Kyoto target. That is what we committed to at the conference in 1997. We will have reduced emissions by 85 million tonnes by 2010. As the minister at the dispatch box, Mr Turnbull, said, this is equivalent to all of the emissions from the entire Australian transport sector. Had the Australian government not taken action, emissions would be 123 per cent above the 1990 levels; they are now 108 per cent. During the 20 years from 1990 to 2010 the economy will have doubled while the greenhouse intensity of the economy will have fallen by 43 per cent. The government has also had a number of initiatives to be on the front foot on climate change. The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate incorporates a number of the major emitters, which Kyoto does not. The weakness of Kyoto is that China, India and other developing countries are not part of it. This initiative also looks at technological solutions to address the whole issue of climate change. The message on Kyoto is that the Australian government, the Howard government, has acted and is on track with its Kyoto targets. The government takes this issue seriously, and it always has. The issue of water is especially prominent. We have had two severe droughts in the last five years. Last month there was the announcement of a $10 billion national water plan. This has been very well received in South Australia, and it has been well received by my constituents. I am disappointed that the Premier of South Australia has thought that an independent commission would be a better model. He cited the Reserve Bank of Australia as a preferred model. However, I know that the Reserve Bank take their decisions on the Australian economy as an aggregate. The advantage for South Australia with the federal government having a say is that South Australia has 23 members in the federal parliament and, in my experience, they have always been strong advocates for issues which concern South Australia, such as the wine industry, the car industry and the Murray. One of the problems concerning water has been the lack of investment in infrastructure. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition knows a bit about. We have never heard the full story of why the Wolffdene Dam in Queensland was not built and what role the Leader of the Opposition had in that. He was the policy tsar of the Goss government when it made the decision not to build that dam, which has now led to Brisbane’s current problems. This is a very important MPI. It was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to make his case for a change of government, but he has squibbed it. If you look at the different governments in Australia in 1949, 1972, 1975, 1983 and 1996, you will see governments that were not managing the economy or national security. Those governments lost the confidence of the Australian people. The feeling I get from my constituents is that they view this government as a strong manager of the economy. They broadly agree with us on national security. Those are the two foundations for any Australian government. The Labor Party have no proposals to do them better. They have not made their case. (Time expired) 42 16:55:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —The environment is an important issue, and I am pleased to be able to speak on it in this matter of public importance debate. However, I am disappointed that the two spokespeople for the government are from the Liberal Party. I would have thought that, as this debate concerns a very important part of Australia, the Deputy Prime Minister or someone from the National Party who actually lives in the Murray-Darling Basin would have been represented. But, given their history on this and other issues, I can see why the Liberals have ruled them out. I congratulate the member for Wentworth on his appointment to the ministry, and I wish him well. Although he did not say anything new today, I listened to what he said and thought that there was a lot of promise in it. He made mention of sceptics. I am a sceptic. I am sceptical about the history and performance of this government on water issues. The Prime Minister announced a $10 billion, 10-year, 10-point plan. I think it is commendable because, for once, the borders of our states are being looked at as impediments to water reform. Let us have a look at what we have done in terms of water over the last decade or so. The MPI mentions a ‘coherent strategy’. The Prime Minister’s plan is 10 days old. The New South Wales National Party is talking about inland diversions of water, with the Barnard River being diverted into the system. We have a coherent strategy? The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and the Prime Minister are talking about capping the groundwater and surface water systems within the Murray-Darling Basin. The National Party is suggesting that, rather than spend the $3 billion to take care of the overallocation problem, we pour some water into the basin from the Barnard River. If we are talking about a 10-point plan, we need to be a little coherent about what the strategy is. Only some months ago, when the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources was a parliamentary secretary, he and the Business Council of Australia talked about using pricing policy to divert water from the Murray-Darling Basin to Sydney. They proposed using pricing policy, market mechanisms, to drive farmers’ water back to Sydney to sell it to a higher value use. This is apparently the coherent strategy that the minister is referring to. The MPI talks about a fair go for all Australians. Let us have a look at that in terms of water policy and what has happened in relation to it in recent years. The Prime Minister spent some time talking about the need to look at sustainability within the Murray-Darling Basin and the overallocation of water carried out by the states. I am like a cracked record on that matter in this parliament. Obviously the issue of overallocation has to be looked at, but let us see where it has been looked at. Irrigators in the Namoi Valley came together and agreed with the state government that there was an overallocation of this resource and that, for there to be a move to sustainability, certain adjustments had to be made. The Commonwealth came into that process as well, and I commended the Commonwealth at the time, because at last there was a strategy where the Commonwealth and the states were working together to overcome an overallocation problem—and that problem was no fault of anybody. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, given your history on the issue of water resources you would remember this very well—and I would have loved to have heard you speak in this debate today; maybe you will on another occasion. The Commonwealth and the states together developed a package to compensate people for the loss of their entitlement, because they were losing a capital asset for the greater good of the nation. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is talking about—looking to the future, looking at sustainability, looking at the water resources as a whole within various aquifers or rivers in terms of the totality of the Murray-Darling Basin. Now what has happened? What is the Commonwealth strategy? When the money for loss of entitlement has been allocated by the states, by the Commonwealth and by the irrigators, the Commonwealth is going to tax the recipients of that money as if it were income in the year of receipt. About three months ago, when the minister was parliamentary secretary, he told me that this was all under control. If anybody really cares about individuals that are going to be impacted by changes in natural resource management policy—and I think there have to be changes—it is about time the government demonstrates that it is serious. The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, who is at the table, cannot wander around Australia saying: ‘We are here to take care of overallocation—there will be money to look after that. Don’t worry about it, irrigators—there will be money to look after that,’ when, in the six valleys in New South Wales, not only the Namoi Valley, you have this system in place where up to 47 per cent of the compensation receipts that they get to move to sustainability—the goal—are going to be treated as taxation. Let us look at the history of this matter, at issues such as climate change and carbon sequestration. A task force was set up recently to look at how market mechanisms may be established. The agricultural sector was left out; it was just not there. Doesn’t the minister or the Prime Minister understand the role of organic matter in humus in soils, how that can be used as a natural sink, how that can be used not only in the carbon debate but in the soil health debate, water infiltration rates—a whole range of issues? The farmer is left out. Where were the National Party? They were not to be seen. The farmers were left out of the debate. I think that is an absolute disgrace. Let us look back to the 1995 COAG processes. The situation was similar to what the Prime Minister is talking about now. The states and the Commonwealth came together, designed a strategy for the future and had as the mechanism of control the national competition payments for water reform. When these promises are being made about the next 10 years, let us look at what happened in the last 10 years: $4.6 billion in competition payments was handed from the Commonwealth to the states without real reform of water at all. There were intergovernmental agreements, a national action plan on water quality and salinity and catchment blueprints. There were documents coming out of the proverbial and money was handed over. The Prime Minister was saying, ‘We will have $3 billion to hand over to the farmers, the irrigators, if they agree to the cutbacks.’ Did he say they were going to be taxed at 47 per cent on that money? No, I have not heard that. Let us look at what the past has reaped in water reform. In that COAG process, the state and the Commonwealth were joint signatories. We were being told again that there was money on the table, and nothing happened. The Commonwealth was complicit in handing the money to the states without demanding that the property rights that were in the original agreement be recognised. The property right initiatives in that agreement have never been recognised. The new minister will go out to the farming community and say: ‘Trust us on this—there is money on the table. We can take care of a lot of the problems and you will get half the savings back.’ I have seen the letter from the Prime Minister to the premiers. There is a lot of fine print in relation to farm dams that the farming community want to know about. What does the fine print mean? What about diversions and the impact that they will have? Then there is the issue of agroforestry. What happened to the debate on salinity of a few years ago, where the demands were for more trees? Now we have this document saying that, if trees are grown, that will impact the totality of the cap within the system; therefore there will have to be adjustments within that process. Then you have got the National Party in New South Wales saying: ‘No, we will pump water in. Don’t worry about it. There is no problem—just add water.’ In terms of a coherent strategy that is fair to all those concerned, to those who live in inland Australia, we really need to make this a bit clearer than it has been made today. (Time expired) 44 17:05:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I understand the debate we are having today is on water and climate change. The most prominent person in the world at present on the issue of climate change is undoubtedly Al Gore, who is making the greatest noise on this issue. I have just completed an ethanol tour of the Americas. In Canada, the United States and Brazil, his name is everywhere; his position is ubiquitous. So let us look for a moment at Mr Gore and what he is saying. In his book An Inconvenient Truth, the first solution that he puts up is ethanol. When I entered America the hotel I was staying in had the latest addition of Newsweek magazine. It purports to be a little bit more intellectual than Time magazine in the United States, but the two magazines are like Tweedledee and Tweedledum. On the first page of solutions, the first item listed is ethanol. President Bush gave his State of the Union speech last year and again this year. What did he talk about in his State of the Union message? Last year, a big part of his speech was on ethanol, and this year again a big part of his speech was on ethanol. We do not have to race around and beat our breasts and throw ourselves on the floor—we know what the answer is. I cannot speak with authority on ethanol from grain. Mr Gore, in his book, says that there is a 27 per cent reduction in CO if you use ethanol. We have had a dreadful situation—we have had all this water in North Queensland. I think that the government is slowly coming to the realisation that we cannot hold on to this wonderful land that God has given us if it is empty and we are not using it. We say to other countries, ‘We’re not going to use it but you’re not going to be allowed to use it.’ Who would think that it was a fair thing for our nearest neighbour, which has 80 million of their 200 million population going to bed hungry every night? Who would say that that was a fair thing? What American mother would say: ‘I should sacrifice my son for these people who never settled this land’? They did not use it; it was just a wasteland that was not being used.’ You can fly from Cairns to Broome, as I have done on a number of occasions, and you will see no sign of human habitation—and yet you have flown over three-quarters of the nation’s water resources. It is all in the north, where we have 300 million megalitres; the rest of Australia has 100 million megalitres. The Murray-Darling, where we are trying to do all of Australia’s farming, has only 22 million megalitres. What the hell are we doing? There are 300 million megalitres of water up in the Gulf country and in the north-west of Australia—in the Ord, the Daly and the Fitzroy. Why aren’t we touching these areas? There is a tiny little dot in the Ord; that is all we are using. All of the great people in this nation—including Edward Theodore and John McEwen, whose photos are up on my wall—have said that this nation will not survive unless we settle these areas. Quite frankly, if you take out the golden boomerang, and a little dot around Perth and Darwin, there is no-one living in that country. The population of 85 per cent of the continent is 680,000. There is nobody there. The Australian government and the Australian people should read anything these great men—these thinkers, these great dominant forces in Australia—said. Australia is unique in the advanced farming countries of the world. We are the only country not looking at ethanol. Canada announced when I was there that they were compulsorily moving to five per cent ethanol. Every single bowser in Canada will have a minimum of five per cent. A lot of people who know what they are talking about in this place already know that in the United States five per cent of fuel is ethanol. It is five per cent by law, but the way the laws work out mean is that it is 10 per cent in most states. The United States President is no friend of Al Gore’s and Al Gore is no friend of his, but both sides of the political debate in the United States have no doubt which way we should be going. The President of the United States said that 75 per cent of our oil imports from the Middle East will be replaced by hydrogen and electric. What is the cheapest way to get hydrogen? The cheapest way to get hydrogen is from ethanol. But I think that is far away, and even the President would agree that that is far away. Electricity has a part to play—electric cars in the middle of the cities—but once you get to the outer suburbs it has no role to play. So effectively the President is saying that 75 per cent of our Middle Eastern oil will be replaced by ethanol coming from corn, but also from cellulose. Dadini assert absolutely that their plant is working commercially and successfully converting fibre material—grass, sawdust, bagasse from cane; all of those things—into ethanol now. It has some bugs; it is not for sale at this stage but over the next two or three years you will be able to go and buy a plant off the shelf, and at any plant they will convert your sawdust into ethanol to put into your motorcar. I think the House should look at some of the figures. I plead with those in the House to look at some of the figures, if you are serious about CO. I am one of the sceptics on global warming that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was talking about. I have read Al Gore’s book from cover to cover five times, and I have read all of the material that I can lay my hands on—including Tim Flannery’s book here in Australia—and material from the other side, and there is no doubt that there is a massive increase in CO, in my opinion as a result of human intervention. One of the most eminent scientists in this country, Dr Joe Baker—the founder of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and short-listed for a Nobel Prize—says that, on the evidence, the ocean may well be cooling, not warming. But even if you read Gore’s book you will find that it is very equivocal on the evidence. It is very equivocal but I think all of us agree that there is a massive increase in CO and that we should be addressing the problem. How do you address the problem? I was mines and energy minister in Queensland but I had responsibilities in that area well before I was minister. We were moving to put all of the government houses—government had 27 per cent of the houses in Queensland at the time—under solar hot water. Forty per cent of domestic usage is the heating of water, so you cut 30 to 40 per cent of electricity demand immediately—and that solution is available to us at the moment. But in the transport regime nobody in the world is seriously talking about 10 per cent any more; they are talking about replacing oil—the more expensive, more carcinogenic fuel and the more politically difficult fuel because it is causing wars in the world—with ethanol. Ours is the only government that is not doing this. In the Americas there are 600 million people now driving their cars on ethanol, but here in Australia we still have not moved on this. I look at the vast water resources. We have had problems in the last 10 years because in agriculture there is nothing we can compete on. Clearly, all of the other countries are subsidising their agriculture. The OECD average subsidy is 49 per cent. How can we compete? We have no subsidies and no tariff protection; how can we compete against countries that have an average subsidy of 49 per cent—though some of them are above average? So what I am saying to the House is that the answers are there in ethanol. In Northern Australia you have the landmass, you have the water and you have the sunshine. As Australians, God has been good to us. We have been given those resources and those resources are massively deteriorating. We have a dreadful natural cycle of erosion; it has nothing to do with man. We have a natural cycle of erosion in Northern Australia and I do not have time now to talk about that. To quote the deputy head of the NHT, the greatest environmental holocaust in Australian history is the prickly acacia tree, which has wiped out six million hectares of native flora and fauna in the last 20 to 30 years. But, if we control our river banks and look after them and put irrigated pasture on them to protect them and stop those weeds getting away, we will be husbanding the resources of Australia. In conclusion, there are 134 million megalitres of water just in the gulf alone. If we take just seven per cent of that water and apply it to the land, it will irrigate five per cent of the 40 million hectares which exist in the Gulf of Carpentaria. This five per cent of landmass is two million hectares, and this will meet all of Australia’s petrol needs forever. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. 47 Bills R2645 47 Bills R2644 47 Bills R2649 47 Bills R2626 47 Bills S552 47 Bills R2640 47 Bills R2621 47 Bills R2607 47 Bills R2656 47 Bills R2584 47 Bills R2583 47 Bills S515 47 Bills R2622 47 Bills S533 47 Bills R2646 47 Bills R2648 47 Bills R2670 47 Bills R2597 47 Bills R2654 47 Bills R2655 47 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 47 Bills R2654 47 Bills R2655 47 Bills R2648 48 Bills R2646 48 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 48 Bills R2622 48 Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House. 48 Miscellaneous 48 17:16:00 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) —Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable members for Fraser and Herbert and nominating the honourable members for Isaacs and Barker to be members of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. 48 Bills R2677 48 Bills R2672 48 Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 17:16:00 —by leave—I move: That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment 2006; and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Statements of Principles and Other Measures) 2006. Question agreed to. 48 Miscellaneous 48 48 48 17:17:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —by leave—I move: That the following order of the day, government business, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:  Condolence motion in connection with the deaths of the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton and the Honourable Sir James Killen. Question agreed to. 48 Committees 48 48 48 17:17:00 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) —The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip that they have nominated members to be members of certain committees. Mr PEARCE (Aston —Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) 17:17:00 —by leave—I move: That: Ms Roxon be discharged from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that, in her place, Mr K. J. Thomson be appointed a member of the committee; Mr Barresi be discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation and that, in his place, Mr Hardgrave be appointed a member of the committee; and Mr A.D.H. Smith be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and that, in his place, Mr Barresi be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. 49 Bills S498 49 Debate resumed from 29 November 2006, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Burke moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that: the Government has failed for more than six years to introduce sanctions for employers who employ unlawful noncitizens and individuals with work restrictions, despite a 1999 Government commissioned inquiry recommending it do so; the bill fails to address the need for higher penalties for employers who are repeat offenders under the legislation; and the legislation’s bar on employer culpability may be too low, the reference to ‘the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the worker is an unlawful noncitizen’ is sufficiently reserved that it may prove difficult to successfully bring sanctions against an employer”. 49 17:18:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —It is my pleasure to continue speaking on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, which the government has brought forward and which I support. The bill introduces new offences for employers, labour suppliers and other persons who engage illegal workers. The bill will make it an offence to allow noncitizens to work or to refer a noncitizen for work in breach of visa conditions. We have had many situations where illegal workers have been operating in various parts of Australia and they are very difficult to track down. We have had raids with tip-offs resulting in high-profile activities. The streets were closed off in Mossman when a raid was carried out on the Whale Car Wash and the result was that a few people were caught. Many people who were having their car washed were not particularly pleased with the event, and there were some accusations that it was a little bit over the top. But this new legislation turns the responsibility back on the employer. Instead of employers saying: ‘I never knew. It isn’t my problem. I employed them. They said that they were Australian or that they had residency rights,’ this is coming back to them and saying, ‘These are the penalties to the company if you do not check whether the person is here illegally, and the person who is working illegally needs to ensure that they have work rights; otherwise penalties will apply.’ Many small business operators might say, ‘This is a problem, because we made a check and we were told it was all okay and now you are confronting me with this fairly draconian piece of legislation which might result in a couple of years in jail.’ I think there are sufficient outs for those who are doing it without recognising the problems involved. Under the proposed legislation, employers would only commit an offence if they knowingly or recklessly allowed an illegal worker to perform work. This legislation followed consultation with employer groups which were concerned about the more onerous, strict liability offences and on-the-spot fines recommended by the review of illegal workers in Australia. Those requirements have not been introduced. So it is a pretty fair piece of legislation. The legislation is actually about those employers who deliberately flout the situation, who bring in illegal workers, who bring people out on holiday visas and then exploit the situation. Sometimes it concerns people who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation or people working in restaurants or in meat-cutting businesses or whatever. But the legislation is saying that these people who know what they are doing—and there has been clear evidence that they have brought in people on similar arrangements before; people have been caught working illegally in their establishment—are the ones the legislation is after. They are the ones that are being put on notice: ‘You had better check it out or we will be after you, and you can expect appropriate penalties.’ Of course, there is a worthwhile purpose in this; not only is it to catch out those who are illegally employing those who have no right to be in the country, or certainly not to work, but it is to look after those who are doing the right thing—who have been granted citizenship and who have been granted the right to work—and Australians who are out there looking for jobs. They find they have been undercut by somebody who is doing a deal with an employer who knows that they are doing the wrong thing but decides it would advantage them on an economic basis. This is the type of approach that other countries are taking, particularly the UK, Denmark and Sweden. The UK and Sweden—if we look at some of their approaches to illegal arrivals, and particularly asylum seekers—have fairly generous schemes. So we cannot say that they have draconian measures and that we are copying them. I think this is a sensible approach of encouraging people to do the right thing. They have to get their citizenship in order—their right to work—and then everything will flow from that. Those who want to flout the system will incur the penalties. The government is not expecting employers to be migration law enforcement authorities and it will not require all employers in Australia to do work rights checking. The employers will only need to carry out a work rights check where there is a substantial risk that the job applicant is an illegal worker. They can do that by various means—on the internet, through the department’s Work Rights Faxback Facility or by sighting a visa label. So it is clear that DIMIA—as it was called; it is now the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—will be looking at this in an appropriate way. The maximum penalties for the offences would be two years imprisonment and/or fines of $13,200 for individuals and $66,000 for companies. This is not for employers who just happen to have an individual working illegally who one day came in and was hired for a job—when everything told them that it seemed that they were telling them the right story; it is for those who deliberately flout the system. The penalty provisions for an aggravated offence are up to five years imprisonment and fines of $33,000 for individuals and $165,000 for companies. An aggravated offence will involve the employee knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, a worker has been exploited—that is, that the person is in a condition of forced labour, sexual servitude or slavery. As the person who chaired the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission inquiry into sexual servitude, I know that there are estimated to be 1,000 sex workers brought into Australia each year—often without understanding what their employment will be. The inquiry found that sometimes they thought they were going to be bar girls; sometimes they thought they were going to be simply working as hostesses in Thai restaurants—and, of course, that was far from the case. There were some dreadful experiences recounted to the committee. This legislation will also help to deal with that, and the appropriate penalties are in place. It is not intended that first-time offenders would be prosecuted. It is department policy to give employers administrative guidelines. Currently, it is estimated that over 46,000 people have overstayed their visas to visit Australia. Of that number, 56 per cent or 26,000 people have been in Australia unlawfully for over five years. So it is an issue we need to address, and this is one of the key ways that we can do it. Despite the efforts of the department, this illegal work situation will continue to be a challenge. The bill sets out a scheme of sanctions for employers or any other suppliers of labour who knowingly or recklessly engage illegal workers. In 2000 and 2005 there were reportedly around 18,000 visitors to our country who were located either in breach of their individual visa conditions or unlawfully staying in Australia. I support this bill. It does go to those who are abusing the system, who are bringing in illegal workers, who are overstaying their visas or who come on holiday visas and work. Often they are being undercut in their salary levels or exploited in various ways. This will certainly put on notice those people who regularly do this and the companies involved. For those employees who do not have work rights and are deliberately trying to flout the system, there are penalties involved. It puts everyone on notice of what is required. It is an attempt to cut down on the extent of illegal work being carried out in this country, with appropriate penalties. I certainly think it is a worthwhile piece of legislation, and it will assist considerably in improving an appropriate migration stream. It includes penalties for those who wish to illegally flout the situation. 51 17:28:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I rise in support of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 and, of course, the amendment. This debate is very timely indeed. The bill’s passage through parliament comes at a time when controversy rages over some employers exploiting migrant workers who are in Australia on temporary visas, at the expense of local workers. The passage of this bill comes at a time when it is estimated that there are over 46,000 overstayers in Australia, of which 26,200 have been here unlawfully for more than five years. Without access to work over a sustained period, these overstayers would find it impossible to support their continued unlawful existence in Australia, so we must assume that many are also illegal workers. These overstayers are potentially taking jobs away from locals and from lawful residents. The passage of this bill also comes at a time when the Howard government’s solution to Australia’s skills crisis is to import guest workers rather than to train our own. Notwithstanding the policy debacle that is the current skilled migration program, the government seems intent on compounding its policy errors by making operational errors. It has systematically run down compliance monitoring of employers to ensure they are not rorting the system at the expense of local workers. With its attack on Australian workers, through its so-called Work Choices legislation, the Howard government has not left much behind in the workforce that is good for our children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces. That is why this bill is so important—yet its passage is seven years too late. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that the bill’s genesis was the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Review of Illegal Workers in Australia: Improving Immigration Compliance in the Workplace, which was asked to analyse current approaches to combat illegal workers and whether legislative changes should be made. Even though that committee handed down its report in 1999, the government has taken seven years to look seriously at this issue. This has been despite the damning finding that, as at 30 June 1999, 53,000 people had overstayed their visas and 14,500 had been in Australia illegally for more than nine years, with many of them working in order to sustain their illegal existence in Australia. For these very good reasons, the government should have acted immediately to stem the tide of illegal workers in Australia. However, on this side of the chamber, we have often had to live in the hope that the Howard government would slowly but surely find the will to pursue a just and orderly immigration policy. An orderly approach to immigration policy would have immediately recognised and acted on the fact that illegal workers, particularly those who have overstayed their visas, have taken job opportunities away from Australian citizens and lawful migrants. An orderly approach to immigration policy would have immediately recognised and acted on the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the industrialised world that do not punish those who employ illegal workers. Under current laws, there is no obligation on employers to check the work rights of employees, even where there is a substantial risk that those employees are not entitled to work. So it goes without saying that market forces could favour the employment of illegal workers, particularly when they may be paid unconscionably low wages and/or forced to work in substandard conditions. Indeed, in recent weeks we have seen numerous employers exploit the skilled migration visa program, thereby showing their utter contempt for ordinary Australian workers and law-abiding businesses. Employers who have done the right thing by employing legal workers at fair pay rates and in acceptable conditions have for too long faced a competitive disadvantage within their industries. Members of the Howard government can feign surprise and concern at the damning number of illegal workers in Australia but, given the current state of our migration legislation, they have no right to. On 29 May 2003, four years after the review’s findings, it was reported in the Herald Sun that the government had: ... no specific time frame on developing legislation to cope with employers who employ illegal workers, but the department said it was a priority for the Immigration Minister ... It has taken a further three years to deal with legislation that apparently was a priority for the minister. If it has taken seven years to deal with a matter of priority, we can only assume that matters that have not been prioritised will make fascinating reading for those with a penchant for ancient history. Employers, along with ordinary Australians, must be shaking their heads at the ineptitude the government has shown in managing Australia’s immigration program. Had the government shown greater diligence, it could have done more to modify the behaviour of those who have contributed in no small part to the circumstances that led the 1990 review team to suggest that there was: ... sufficient evidence to conclude that the extent of illegal workers in Australia is a significant problem that denies many Australians the opportunity to access a job ... and that: Illegal work also places an additional burden on the Australian taxpayer in terms of compliance costs, uncollected taxes and fraudulently claimed social security benefits. That was in 1999. Given the government’s lethargic response to these issues, things are no better today. Though quick to adopt the softer recommendations in the 1999 review, including the introduction of kits, information pamphlets and warnings for employers, the government failed to deal with the harder issue of implementing a sanctioning regime that could truly change or modify improper behaviour. It got to the point where, in 2004 and 2005, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs issued 2,280 warning notices to employers and labour suppliers—a point where DIMIA understandably threw its hands up in the air and, in an act of sheer frustration, said, ‘Enough is enough; the time has come for something to be done.’ By throwing in the towel on monitoring and sanctioning unscrupulous employers, the Howard government has given them the green light to continue their assault on Australia’s immigration system. Rather than feigning concern about illegal workers in Australia and then showing indifference, the Howard government ought to have put this bill in place seven years ago. We know that companies that should be brought to task by the employer sanctions under this legislation will not be. We know that that is because this bill, which should have come before this House seven years ago, is still not in place. Members of the public are entitled to ask: why has it taken seven years to implement these relatively simple and yet important legislative amendments, and why has the Howard government responded disproportionately to different migration issues that, on their face, are equally important? The knee-jerk reaction flowing from the Prime Minister’s office in response to the granting of refugee status to 42 West Papuans saw the government attempt to push draconian legislation through the parliament in a matter of weeks. The government’s reaction to comprehensive evidence that tens of thousands of people work illegally in Australia has taken seven years. While the government was willing to push through a cynical bill in a policy of appeasement to placate, however temporarily, the Indonesian government, it has taken seven years to assist its own workers. That contrast could not be starker. Did the Prime Minister honestly believe that pushing through legislation as a result of the arrival of 42 refugees would serve the Australian public interest more than pushing through legislation that deals with tens of thousands of illegal workers? What sort of government is this that it will change its laws based on one isolated incident of 42 West Papuans fleeing confirmed persecution while dragging its feet on legislative changes dealing with thousands of people who work here illegally at the expense of Australian workers? It would appear that this government’s approach to policy development consists of flagrantly and gutlessly selling Australia’s sovereignty in a disgraceful act of appeasing other nations. Certainly, the Howard government’s approach to immigration policy tells us all we need to know about its priorities. Whether it is selling our sovereignty or using the issue of asylum seekers to exploit fears that may be legitimately held by the community, the government, in my view, has its priorities wrong. Despite all of the attention devoted to the removal of basic rights and justice for asylum seekers in the name of border security, a potentially greater threat to our borders in Australian society comes from the tens of thousands of people who already live here illegally. One way of making Australia less attractive to these overstayers is to turn off the magnet of illegal jobs. Yet the very simple measures employed in this bill to turn off this magnet have languished in the minister’s office for seven years. That is a disgrace and a completely unacceptable response to the protection of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system. Rather than talking tough and using asylum seekers as a smokescreen to conceal its failure to keep tabs on 46,000 illegal overstayers in our community, the government should start implementing important legislative changes that Australia truly needs. This bill is a belated step in the right direction. It is presently an offence under section 235 of the act for an unlawful noncitizen to work in Australia, for a noncitizen who holds a visa to work in contravention of their visa conditions. While illegal workers may be prosecuted under the current migration legislation, there is no scope whatsoever to prosecute an employer, irrespective of whether they knowingly or recklessly hired an illegal worker. The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 contemplates four types of offences against employers: section 245AB, allowing an unlawful noncitizen to work; section 245AC, allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition; section 245AD, referring an unlawful noncitizen for work; and section 245AE, referring a noncitizen for work in breach of a visa condition. Each offence may be aggravated, attracting tougher penalties, if the potential worker will be exploited and a person knows or is reckless as to that circumstance. I note the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s concern about the alleged uncertainty surrounding the bill’s threshold test of whether a person has knowingly or recklessly committed an offence. I say to this concern that allowing the most reckless employers to get away with hiring illegal workers without punishment is no longer an option. It is not an option to allow employers to show the utmost contempt towards, or pervert our orderly system of, immigration and get away with it. On this side we have long called for the government to meet the community’s expectation that employers who routinely take advantage of illegal workers will be prosecuted. It makes an abundant amount of sense to target, prosecute and punish those employers who continually breach the system, rather than continually targeting individual noncitizen employees. The collective power to put an effective stop to the rorting of our system lies with the employers, not with each individual noncitizen employee. It is also worth noting that, while some employers remain concerned about these rules, the rules are not nearly as tough as they could have been under the regime proposed by the 1999 illegal worker task force. Indeed, these rules are not anywhere near as tough as the rules in other nations, where there is no need to show fault or recklessness on the part of the employer as an element in a cause of action. Many nations have a strict liability regime: do the crime, do the time, irrespective of your state of mind. That is not what is being proposed in this bill. Indeed, employers are being afforded many luxuries within this bill that employees are not getting. The first is that prosecutors will need to show that the employer knew of or was reckless to the illegal status of a worker. It is worth noting that the element of recklessness has a much higher threshold than carelessness. While carelessness imports an objective standard as to what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances, recklessness imports a subjective standard that focuses on the awareness of the specific employer. This is a threshold that is much higher to climb—some may say prohibitively so—than mere carelessness. It is also worth noting what the explanatory memorandum says with regard to the meaning of ‘recklessness’ in the context of this bill. It says: … it would be necessary for the prosecution to establish that: there was a substantial risk that the worker was an unlawful noncitizen; the employer was aware of this substantial risk; and having regard to the circumstances known to the employer, it was unjustifiable for the employer to have taken the risk. In turn, a substantial risk would be present if there were a high proportion of illegal workers in the employer’s industry, if the illegal worker said anything in a job interview from which a court could conclude that the employer was aware of the possibility that the applicant was an illegal worker, or if the employer had previously been given a warning for employing illegal workers. Given the numerous hoops through which the prosecution is forced to jump, many would argue that the government has taken a ‘softly softly’ approach to this serious problem. The department has done what it can under the present legal regime to reduce the number of illegal workers in Australia. It is clear that voluntary compliance has not worked, given the number of employers who are not interested in cooperating. Given the department’s employment awareness campaign, entitlement verification online facility, faxback facility and illegal workers warning notices, there are no more excuses for employers to knowingly or recklessly employ people who are not entitled to work. Evidence given to the Senate inquiry into this bill suggests that the department still retains some discretion as to when it should refer the cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In this light, the shadow minister for immigration was spot-on when he said he would monitor very closely whether renegade employers were being punished under those changes. Many employers have no reason to fall foul of the laws. The government has taken a merciful path with respect to employer sanctions, despite the recommendations of its task force and the experience of other countries. In concluding, it is now up to the government to ensure that these new sanctions are administered sensibly, including but not limited to regularly undertaking compliance audits. History is not on the Howard government’s side, and this is why Labor will monitor the situation very closely. 55 17:46:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased today to speak on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. It is high time that this legislation was instituted. The legislation was introduced into the parliament last year and has been waiting to progress for some time. Why do we need such legislation? This bill provides for a scheme of sanctions on employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for work. This bill addresses a concern in the community about the exploitation of illegal workers. It addresses this problem by creating a series of new offences for employers, labour suppliers and others. The offences are aimed at persons who employ or refer for work anyone who is an unlawful noncitizen or is a noncitizen who has breached the work conditions of their visa. Quite rightly, it has never been more relevant that this country address this situation of illegal workers. Probably the highest source of illegal workers in this country is people overstaying their visas. Australia is quite proud of its system of migration, which has the utmost integrity. In fact, our migration system, and the fact that we know who comes and goes, is the envy of the world. That is why the government insists on border protection. People who come here illegally and people who come on planes and disappear, for whatever reason, or do not leave when their visas have expired have the potential to fall into this pool of illegal workers. Because of our very low unemployment levels, there is a huge demand for unskilled workers in a range of industries. I would like a dollar for every time someone in the community has asked me recently whether there is anything I can do to use not just those people who come here on a 457 skill visa but those on semi-skilled visas to address our huge problem. A company in Perth came to me the other day and asked whether there was any way they could bring in workers to drive their large fleet of trucks. They just cannot get anyone in Australia. They waste money on a weekly basis with advertisements in the paper for truck drivers but they just do not get any responses. I directed them to an immigration outreach officer in Perth who is charged with the responsibility of attracting people to areas where there are workforce shortages. There is one immigration outreach officer in the Chamber of Commerce, in Perth, and one with the Department of Minerals and Mining. They are addressing huge workforce shortages in our state, where unemployment levels have reached historic lows of 3.1 per cent. Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I imagine that is a figure that Tasmania would envy but, even so, it causes its own problems. As a result, there is an attraction for people to overstay their visas and to work illegally, as Australia is going through a strong economic boom and prices paid to all workers are extremely high. Just to put it into context, at Christmas lunch my nephew, who is working as a TA in Karratha, told me earns something like $1,200 a week. He is only 21. That is the sort of wage that is being paid around Australia at the moment. And they reckon politicians are paid too much! To put it in context, there is a great opportunity for people to be employed in this country but there is also a huge pool of illegal workers, as the previous speaker said. Illegal workers do cause a lot of problems. Firstly, they take job opportunities away from Australian citizens and lawful migrants. Even with unemployment at 3.1 per cent, there are still people in some areas looking for work and an illegal worker has a potential to take a job that could be theirs. Secondly, the cost of detecting illegal workers is an unwelcome burden on the taxpayer. The compliance measures are very costly, particularly with the numbers we are talking about. Thirdly, in some cases illegal workers are linked to organised crime, particularly in the sex industry. This is obviously a concern, because they work in aggravating conditions, which other speakers have referred to. The industries that illegal workers are drawn to are quite extensive. They are in areas such as the construction industry, the catering industry and the sex industry. That gives great concern for greater exploitation. Quite rightly, the unions of Australia have made it quite clear that they want to work with the authorities to make sure that illegal workers do not come into industries where the unions are involved and undercut the conditions and work rights of people being lawfully employed. This is a real concern, particularly in seasonal industries, where there are seasonal workers. You only have to think about the number of people involved in, for example, picking strawberries in some of the areas in my state. If there is some evidence that immigration officials or the police are going to inspect workers on a particular strawberry farm, you can see people diving over fences and hiding under anything they can find so that they will not be detained or interviewed. So there is still a problem. This legislation puts the onus back on the employer to say whether they have done everything possible to make sure that the person they employ has work rights and is a legal worker. The bill contains a number of fault based criminal offences relating to employers who engage noncitizens for work. I will put these on the record. The offences are: allowing an unlawful noncitizen to work—this offence is considered an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited; allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition—this is considered an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited; referring an unlawful noncitizen for work—an aggravated offence is committed if the illegal worker being referred will be exploited; and referring a noncitizen for work in breach of a visa condition—an aggravated offence will be committed if the prospective illegal worker will be exploited. There are also a number of penalties which I will refer to shortly. There is no excuse for people to employ an illegal worker and then claim that they did not know. As others have referred to, the department has put in place the entitlement verification online system, which is basically a faxback facility that allows the employer to check, within 48 hours, the status of the person that they are employing or potentially employing and to check the work entitlements of these noncitizens. There is an enormous range of people who are endeavouring to get jobs, particularly in areas like the Riverina where there is a huge seasonal work shortage. Until recently, these people were unable to find work mainly because they were only given three-month visas. Their visa conditions have now been varied to the extent where the visas have been rolled over to six months. This allows people greater flexibility in applying for those work rights. It is said that in the north-west of Australia, Western Australia, Broome and North Queensland the hospitality industry in particular would almost have to close if they did not have the opportunity to employ these people on vocational working visas. Many of us have been to these places where students, backpackers et cetera from a range of countries are working on this visa entitlement. Some do this as part of a year off from their studies or they do it as part of a world trip before they go back to the workforce in their country. Many of them see the attractiveness of Australia, which is great. Quite often, they come back on skilled visas later on—a visa we are very keen to have them on. There have been attacks—and we have heard some from the other side today—about this being exploited in terms of 457 visas. It is amazing that those opposite criticise the 457 visa system, which allows skilled workers to work in areas of need. These areas of need are published on MODL—which, at the moment, describes basically every skill you can think of. Those opposite say that people are being exploited because they are not employed in the skill area that they received a 457 visa for. It is actually an offence if that happens. If you bring somebody here on a 457 skilled visa and then employ them on terms and conditions that do not meet that visa requirement, you have actually committed an offence and the compliance people will certainly catch up with you when this is reported. The expected growth of the 457 program in this country has not happened, but it is a huge growth area that is being addressed. To cover 100 per cent would just be unrealistic, but that is the aim. As I said, if 457 visas are being exploited by ruthless employers, that will be exposed and penalties will apply. Having come from a state like Western Australia, it is amazing to see the Labor Party here in Canberra banging on about, ‘Shock, horror, these 457 visas,’ when the greatest users of 457 visas are state Labor governments. In fact, the greatest user of 457 visas is the New South Wales government in the area of health delivery—such as nurses and other medical professionals. I understand even Mr Rudd employs some of his staff on AWAs. Though they are certainly not on 457 visas, it is an example of the hypocrisy you get in this part of the world. In Western Australia, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party and Treasurer, Mr Ripper, is reported in the paper as complaining bitterly that the federal government will not relax the terms and conditions of the 457 visas to allow greater flexibility to attract more workers to Western Australia. We heard the other day that BHP is looking for around 200 workers immediately for one of its operations in the north-west. Unless BHP can get those 200 people expeditiously, that project cannot go forward. So, in one part of the country, federal Labor criticises and rails against 457 visas and, in the rest of Australia, state governments sponsor these visas and are asking the federal government to relax the terms and conditions. The reality in Australia at the moment is that we are seeking more workers, and there have to be ways of providing for semiskilled workers in the workforce—as, for example, Italy has. However, we do not agree with Italy’s program, because we would like to think that if somebody comes to this country they will be entitled to citizenship if they stay here long enough. If you go to Italy as a guest worker, you can never get citizenship. That is, in some respects, a form of exploitation, because you could spend your whole life in Italy, have children there and never become an Italian citizen. In Australia, the level of skills required of guest workers and semiskilled workers is relaxed, particularly in regional areas and in the north of Australia. This needs to be looked at, and there needs to be a bipartisan approach if we really want to see the rest of Australia go ahead. You cannot argue against the fact that we are desperately short of skilled and semiskilled workers, and while this situation exists we need to find ways to help. The government have addressed this shortage of workers through the harvest trail initiative and by increasing the number of working holiday-maker visas. We are very proud to say that those initiatives are working and it is helping fruit growers and growers of other seasonal crops throughout Australia—probably even in your state, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick. We have increased the annual migration program by expanding the temporary business entry visa program and by allowing extended stays for working holidaymakers who have worked for at least three months in regional Australia. The funny thing about it is that experience shows that some guest workers will not return home when their visas expire but instead find a way to make Australia their home, if they can do it legally. I think that should be encouraged because, as we know, Australia has a problem with negative population replacement. In terms of penalties, it needs to be recorded that the maximum penalty for offences would be two years imprisonment or $13,200 for individuals and $66,000 for companies. This legislation does create an aggravated offence provision for situations where an employer knowingly exploits a worker in a reckless manner. This particularly applies in cases of sexual servitude, where somebody might think they are going to work in a restaurant, often of ethnic origin, and then find that it is not the type of skilled work that they were not looking for. This legislation is timely. It addresses the concerns of the workforce and of Australian society in terms of the way we should conduct ourselves, our obligations and the humanitarian rights of people who come from countries where they are desperate to earn money. Somebody was telling me just the other day about the integrity of Australia’s migration system. They had visited Dubai, and the United Arab Emirates is desperately short of workers. We know of the legendary wealth in Dubai, and yet the guest workers live in tents out in the desert and are bussed in daily. They live in rather ordinary conditions in oppressive heat and on a mere pittance. We do not support that way of bringing semiskilled workers into this country. We think there is a far better way. But there has to be scrutiny, there has to be an orderly system, and this is what this legislation does. I commend the bill to the House. 59 18:05:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —Before I come to my contribution on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, I would like to take the opportunity to correct a comment made by the member for Canning. He is not alone in this; it is made quite regularly by members on the opposite side in purporting to put the argument that this side of the House opposes 457 visas. That is a complete misrepresentation of the position that Labor have pursued for a long time. What we do oppose is the abuse of the 457 visa system. The government obviously agrees with us, because they have brought this bill before the House. It is interesting that the member for Canning says that this bill is timely. I would say that it is more than overdue that we had the opportunity to address this bill before the House. I am very happy to contribute to this debate and to support the bill. It has taken a long time to finally come to this debate. My speech has had to have a number of revisions, as this bill has been constantly put off the agenda of the House. It is, however, important to note for the record that while the Howard government has been willing to introduce legislation in a heartbeat to tackle asylum seekers floating towards us on leaky boats, the government has been very slow, dragging the chain, to impose sanctions on employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers. The government was quick off the mark in early 2006 to appease the government of Indonesia when it expressed its displeasure at Australian officials following Australian law to grant asylum to 42 Papuans, but it has taken an extraordinary period of years to introduce this bill. I asked the former Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, in a question on notice in August 2005—following an answer he provided to my colleague the member for Reid—why no employers have been prosecuted in relation to, firstly, people detained for working illegally and, secondly, people detained for overstaying. In October 2005, the former minister was kind enough to respond to my question by saying: ... there are no specific offences contained in the Migration Act 1958 under which employers can be prosecuted in relation to people detained for working illegally and people detained for overstaying. This rather casual attitude was despite a report in 1999, Review of illegal workers in Australia: improving immigration compliance in the workplace, which concluded that there were significant problems associated with the numbers of illegal workers in Australia denying Australians access to jobs. The report found further that there was a significant additional burden placed on taxpayers in terms of cost compliance, tax avoidance and social security fraud. That 1999 report recommended that sanctions should be introduced against employers and labour suppliers who employed illegal workers. Here we are now in 2007—after eight years of inaction—and the government, which campaigned so ruthlessly on border protection, has finally found the time to bring this bill before the parliament. Illegal work in Australia is no small problem. It is estimated that, as of December 2005, there were 46,000 overstayers in Australia. Of these, 26,200 have been in Australia unlawfully for more than five years. The vast majority of the 46,000 overstayers—or illegals—did not arrive by some leaky boat floating listlessly in the northern or north-west oceans. The vast majority slipped into Australia by getting off a plane. As indicated, 26,200 never bothered to hop back onto a return flight after five years. This government has talked the talk on tough border protection and national security but it shirks the real, tough action or has had to be dragged reluctantly to act, as in the case of this bill. The number of illegal workers swells when one also accounts for those on visas who are in breach of visa conditions. Visa subclass 456 and subclass 457 are also being misused to get foreign workers into Australia. We heard of some examples only last year. These examples occurred, of course, post the introduction of the bill in 2005. The exploitation goes far beyond individual employers and extends to organised rackets. As the government’s own commissioned report concluded, these abuses have denied jobs to Australians but they have also burdened the taxpayer. During the October 2004 election Labor proposed a number of initiatives to halt illegal foreign workers. Labor would have issued photo ID cards to nonresidents who had a visa that entitled them to work. Each card would have been linked to the cardholder’s passport, DIMA file and tax file number. The card would have detailed the person’s name, nationality, passport number and visa status and would have expired on the same date as the expiry of the visa. Labor would have required employers to check the card and would have introduced a very similar bill to the one we are debating today. This bill would, however, have been in place two years ago. Last year, Labor made a series of announcements of measures to ensure that foreign unskilled workers could not be abused or exploited or deny Australians the opportunity of jobs and training. This bill finally proposes new offences that will deter employers and labour suppliers from employing illegal workers or referring them for work. It will also finally oblige employers and labour suppliers to verify the work entitlements of potential workers. The bill proposes new offences carrying criminal penalties of imprisonment for five years for serious offences and two years for other cases. It is time for all employers and labour suppliers to do their part in complying with Australia’s migration system. It is only sad that we have to go to the point of imposing sanctions to get them to do so. It is long before time that we stand up for the majority of employers in Australia who do the right thing by complying with the law. The previous speaker, the member for Canning, spoke of many of those who legitimately and properly utilise the 457 visas, including state governments. In defence of employers who do the right thing, we should not turn a blind eye to those who are doing the wrong thing. It is time that we stand up to the organised rackets, in particular, that are set up specifically to abuse and exploit illegal workers. Australia, of course, is not alone in trying to address this problem. Europe also has enormous numbers of illegal workers in the labour force, and for the last 12 months in the US there has been quite a controversial debate about illegal workers and what to do about them. Indeed, the debate in the US has been very interesting. In the US Congress a variety of policy positions have been advanced by both Democrats and Republicans in the House, in the Senate and even by the White House. Those interested in the debate should read an article in the November-December 2006 edition of Foreign Affairs, Immigration Nation: the case for reform. Recently in following that debate I came across a story published in CQ Weekly on 14 March 2005. That article was titled ‘An uneasy deal with illegal workforce’. Essentially the article made very similar points to the government’s own 1999 report, to which I have already referred. The article quotes a Colorado Republican as saying: Cheap labour is cheap to the employer, not the taxpayer. It quotes a study by an investment bank and securities firm, Bear, Stearns and Co., in January 2005 suggesting that: The US is simply hooked on cheap, illegal workers and deferring the costs of providing public services to these quasi-Americans. The article goes on to say: The key to survival for illegal immigrants is remaining anonymous. They are reluctant to complain about sub-standard housing, or to report stolen property, an assault or an abusive spouse. There is an example of a Hispanic woman with five children who paid $2,000 a head to a people-smuggler to leave Mexico for life in a trailer park in North Carolina. This woman earned $16,000 a year—about $8 an hour—plucking and cutting up chicken carcasses. According to the article, this woman lost her illegal job and was also diagnosed with kidney disease and a tumour on her liver. Apart from the challenge of recovering from these illnesses, this woman must now purchase a new identity and social security number for $1,500 to find new, low-paid work. In this place I am sure we can all relate stories of visits to our office by illegal overstayers, who have been found out by the department, in search of assistance and advice on how to remain in this country. Some are happy to reveal that they have a job—or indeed jobs—a tax file number, have purchased a house, a car, perhaps even an investment property. They argue that they have worked hard and paid taxes. Many even suggest, which I find incredible, that they are being discriminated against, treated differently, by the Australian migration system. They have no particular answer when asked the question: ‘Why didn’t you apply like many thousands do each year to come through one of the migration streams?’ Illegal workers are often found in the so-called ‘3-D’ jobs—that is, dirty, dangerous and degrading; if not all three, at least one of those. Many are in precarious and unprotected work. Many people may like to dismiss this by suggesting that these particular illegal immigrants have only themselves to blame. They are here illegally after all. That may be the case for illegal workers who have fairly good jobs, as I described just a moment ago, but I have some sympathy for illegal workers in the 3-D jobs—low-paid, exploited and abused—whose real chance of survival is to remain quietly anonymous. Not so long ago, in early 2001 at Helensburgh at the northern end of my electorate, eight Indian stonemasons were virtually imprisoned on a building site and were living, as the local paper, the Illawarra Mercury, reported at the time, in Third World conditions. The stonemasons were not illegal workers but were sponsored by the building proponents. They were paid, as a subsequent investigation concluded, $45 a month and a further $100 a week in Indian currency. They were not here for a week, a month or a year; they were here for three years, sponsored by the building proponents. Their existence and plight was only brought to public attention by a tip-off from the community at Helensburgh to the CFMEU and then the media. As I indicated, these eight stonemasons were not in Australia illegally or working illegally; they were sponsored, and the sponsors exploited and abused them. They imprisoned them on the site, made them live in Third World conditions and paid them in an appalling manner. How many others here illegally are facing the same circumstances? The International Labour Organisation suggests that between 10 and 15 per cent of migration today involves men and women entering and working in a host country without authorisation. Not all are unskilled. Many are in fact highly skilled and professional. We are concerned in Australia about the effect of the so-called brain drain—that is, skilled and professional Australians leaving to live and work overseas. Developing countries lose, according to the ILO, between 10 and 30 per cent of skilled workers and professionals. I am not suggesting that in these estimates all workers are illegal, but even a small fraction has to be assumed. I can appreciate why many people from around the world wish to live and work in Australia. Despite our daily debates in this place, in our electorates and in the media, Australia is an excellent country in which to live and work. This is confirmed every year by international surveys by the United Nations and other international organisations. Addressing the problem of illegal workers is no small task. It is complex and has many related policy links, including ours and other countries’ foreign aid and development assistance policies. It is not just about border protection and national security. It is not just about economics and jobs. It is not just about tax avoidance and social security fraud. It is not just about how illegal workers and those breaching visa conditions undercut Australian wages and conditions. In the final analysis, it is about the exploitation and abuse of women, men and children by organised rackets, particularly from developing countries. It is about sticking these people, although they are illegal entrants, into the dirty, dangerous and degrading jobs and leaving them there. It is about these people being conditioned to exploitation, abuse and low-paying jobs. Illegal workers should not be here or anywhere else in the world. Some will say I am being idealistic; I think it is practical. While I am critical of the government for introducing this bill after years of neglect, I support it. Some employers and labour suppliers in Australia have escaped their obligation to uphold the law. This bill finally seeks to do something about it. I notice that the new minister has in recent days been talking about increasing the level of observance of section 457 visa abuses, and I welcome that. It is simply frustrating that so often on this side of the House when we raise issues which we think are serious and which require a legislative response that position is ridiculed. It has happened on many occasions when we have raised concerns about the abuse of the 457 visa program. I am hopeful that through the introduction of this bill and the new minister’s comments in recent days the government will see that this is not about scoring points, saying that those of us on this side of the House oppose 457 visas or trying to pit the state Labor governments against the federal Labor opposition—that is a simplistic and pointless exercise. It is about the abuse of that system and the reality that for many people this form of abuse is not the sort of thing that any of us support—I am quite convinced that those on the other side of House are also committed to this. We do not support people who are living and working in this country being abused in their workplaces in the ways that we have seen come to light in the media. In particular, we do not support the disgraceful payments that are made to them, the disgraceful conditions that they are made to live under, the false dream that is sold to them by these racketeers and then having our country be the one where they learn that even in the supposed developed world and advanced nations, where we take pride in treating people with respect, their experience can be what it is. Unfortunately, the only way we will really address that is to apply sanctions, and not simply have a review which says that employer can no longer utilise section 457 visas. That has not been sufficient. The evidence shows that. It has sadly taken too long to get here. But it is here and it is time that we took action to ensure that those experiences no longer occur in our community. I commend the bill. 63 18:23:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 provides for a scheme of sanctions relating to employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for work. The bill is designed to protect the Australian labour market, prevent illegal workers from being exploited and preserve the integrity of the visa system to which Australia has international legal obligations. The traditional approach to dealing with the problem of illegal workers in Australia continues to be reasonably successful. This approach includes highly effective visa-processing arrangements for overseas visitors, students and other temporary residents. Sound immigration clearance ensures that those who enter have authority to do so, are who they claim to be and are able to provide other information about themselves if required. However, no matter how good Australia’s visa arrangements are, there will be some people who seek to take advantage of our desire to attract genuine visitors, students and other temporary visitors. During this time of our rapidly expanding economy it is essential that we as a government provide employers and employees alike the opportunity to confidently have the work choices that fulfil each other’s needs. The incidence of illegal work in Australia is a potentially significant problem that not only denies Australians the opportunity to gain employment but could result in the exploitation of noncitizens. The incidence of illegal work and exploitation is a very real concern to the government. It has a close association with the cash economy industries, which are often characterised by abuses of Australia’s tax, employment and welfare laws. The Australian government has worked assiduously at the protection of the Australian economy from exploitative elements of the so-called ‘cash’ or ‘black’ economy. The tightening of the welfare system, Work for the Dole programs, additional vocational training opportunities—not to mention the GST—have all been developed by the Australian government for the safety and prosperity of the labour market. In doing so, the government has provided sound opportunity for integration to all Australians, including those who are in the process of becoming Australians or those who legally are able to freely work in Australia. This bill introduces definitions for new offences for employers, labour suppliers and other persons who engage illegal workers or who knowingly allow unlawful noncitizens to work or allow lawful noncitizens to work in breach of their visa conditions. Specifically, the offences apply to businesses that allow illegal work through employment, found in section 245AB and section 245AC, and businesses that refer illegal workers for work with other businesses, found in section 245AD and section 245AE, such as you would find with cross-referencing in HR or labour hire agencies. The offences will only apply where an employer knows an employee is an illegal worker or is reckless to this fact. The bill provides for higher penalties where an illegal worker is being exploited through forced labour, sexual servitude or slavery, and will increase the mandatory prison sentence from two years to five years or equivalent fines. The Australian government acknowledges that an absence of effective penalties as deterrents for employers of illegal workers could potentially encourage people smuggling and trafficking activities for the purpose of illegal work. We are only too familiar with other countries, some in our region, which have given rise to the unscrupulous business of illegal people trafficking. Those victims who do slip through the net could become likely candidates for compromising the goodwill of Australian employers and the Australian system. It is the moral duty of Australia, a signatory to the United Nations International Labour Organisation, to make certain it does all it can to curb and penalise the presence of illegal workers and to legislate against schemes which may allow unscrupulous employers to benefit from illegal labour at the expense of the Australian community. It is important to note that the Australian government is not expecting or intending for Australian employers to be migration law enforcement authorities. Indeed, the legislation is there to ensure that they do not have to bear the responsibility of conducting any form of internal investigations. The law, after all, is the best guarantee for the economy. In Australia, employees are free to negotiate their terms of engagement in the context of workplace and labour agreements to mutual satisfaction, especially in times of labour shortages as the economy continues to boom. Labour agreements cover both permanent and temporary entry visa subclasses, such as visa subclass 457. These are formal agreements negotiated to meet special circumstances that cannot be covered by standard sponsorship agreements. Labour agreements can be negotiated between government bodies; employers, including industry or employer associations and specific employers; and other interested parties, including unions and professional associations, where all parties agree that the overseas recruitment of a specified number of workers to a defined set of vacancies is warranted. Section 457 visas are a valuable tool for business and for the economy in particular during times of skill shortages and for helping to provide a safeguard against those who would otherwise abuse the privilege, whether they are visitors or employers. In an article published in the Australian Financial Review last year, Kevin McDonald raised some very pertinent points about the 457 debate. Mr McDonald reminded us that over the past two years the size of the Australian workforce has grown by an incredible 603,000. This equates to the staggering amount of 1,160 new jobs being created every working day for two years. It demonstrates the remarkable strength of the economy, with job creation as its staple. Mr McDonald went on to say that, in spite of this emerging shortage of workers, the federal opposition and the trade unions are trying to create the impression that Australian workers are lying idle in unemployment lines because of the use of 457 visas, particularly with cheap labour supply from developing countries taking away local jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we know, unemployment is at its lowest level for over 30 years and, in Western Australia, there is considerably less unemployment than we have seen for many years. I also point out that this notion is bordering on racial incitement, as much of it is simply not a statistical fact. With more than 10 million Australians in the workforce, the number of people gaining work through 457s and coming from overseas for employment is less than half of a per cent of the workforce. According to the Australian today: Latest immigration department figures show demand for temporary foreign workers grew to 39,530 in 2005-06 ... As I said a moment ago, that is less than 0.5 per cent of the existing workforce. Two and a half times as many English-speaking workers come to Australia as those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, yet the opponents in the debate regarding the 457 visas selectively refer to only these nationals as taking Australian jobs. Instead of focusing on the skills the workers bring, which are carefully matched to Australian industry needs, opponents are focusing on the countries that these people come from. We cannot have this selectivity in this all-important debate, particularly when the Australian government is ensuring the best legislation to help protect employers and employees and to create more opportunities for people to become new Australians. The education campaigns that the Australian government has developed in managing and safeguarding against possible abuse are working and, more importantly, are providing more flexible work choices. For example, DIAC’s employer awareness campaign allows DIAC to exchange information with employers on a direct basis in order to responsibly manage changes in status that the employer may not yet be aware of. Sometimes the employees themselves accidentally overlook their responsibilities to communicate changes in their visa status. With the department’s new legislative measures, all components of the equation—employer, employee, department and the taxpaying community—are protected. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. 65 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 65 65 18:32:00 Mr HOWARD,MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I wish to correct an answer I gave earlier today. The Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question. He quoted a remark made by the industry minister: ... ‘I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change’ ... Does the Prime Minister support this statement? I mistook that as a reference to the connection between climate change and drought, and my interpretation is evident from the transcript of my answer, where I referred to a farmer who was mentioned in the press this morning. I also went on to talk quite a bit about the drought and the government’s response. Having read the transcript of the question, it is quite clear that I did mistake it. I was wrong to talk about climate change and drought when the question was about climate change and emissions. For the record, I do believe there is a connection between climate change and emissions. I do not really think the jury is out on that. I do think that the jury is out on the connection between climate change and drought, and that is a view shared by the shadow minister, the member for Kingsford Smith. I thank the House. 65 Bills R2537 65 Debate resumed. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 65 18:33:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —I appreciate the House allowing me leave to continue. It is worth noting that among the strategies available to employers through DIAC to assist in the prevention of illegal work are electronic online checking initiatives and the delivery of employer awareness sessions, primarily in workplaces where illegal workers have previously been identified. Industry categories visited and identified as the most likely sectors to hire illegal workers include property and business services, accommodation areas, cafes and restaurants, forestry and fishing, manufacturing and construction, retail trade and personal services, such as the sex industry. During 2004-05, the department delivered 1,090 employer awareness sessions, compared with 2,391 sessions in the previous year. These sessions were conducted across all industry categories, and mostly in New South Wales, where 993 sessions—92 per cent—were conducted. In 2004-05, the Employer Work Rights Checking Information Line received 3,005 work related calls, down 79 per cent from the 13,968 calls recorded in 2003-04. The number of calls to the Work Rights Faxback Facility decreased in 2004-05 to 27,283, down from 35,773 in 2003-04, a decrease of 24 per cent. The total number of people confirmed as illegal workers in 2004-05 was 3,870, about 14 per cent more than in 2003-04, when 3,405 people were located and confirmed as working illegally. During 2004-05, the department issued 2,280 warning notices to employers and labour suppliers of illegal workers, an increase of 20 per cent over the previous year, when 1,900 notices were issued. The true number of illegal workers is likely to be much higher when visa overstayers are considered, as not all people located—18,341 unlawful noncitizens in 2004-05—admit to working and it is not always possible to confirm this at the time of their location. Protection of the Australian workplace from labour opportunists and predators is essential. In a press release, the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said that DIMA: ... has the capacity to conduct unannounced site visits, and does so where necessary ... The claim by the opposition spokesperson at the time that DIMA will not be guaranteed inspection of company books suggests that he does not understand the penalties—which include suspension of employer 457 sponsorship and a bar from future sponsorship—associated with noncompliance with DIMA investigations. Last year the Australian government announced a $23.5 million package to be implemented over four years to combat the issues associated with the exploitation of temporary workers who are on 457 visas. This package includes the establishment and training of investigative mobile strike teams whose job it is to ensure that employers of temporary skilled migrants are complying. This measure alone will be worth up to $17.6 million. Secondly, measures to improve training and the negotiation and management of labour agreements for DIAC and DEWR will be implemented. All these measures have been developed by the Australian government over a period of time. Temporary skilled migration, as part of a carefully managed program, has been vital to the economic success of Australia over the past decade. These measures will continue to ensure the successful delivery of that program and the benefit to the Australian economy that 457 visa holders contribute. It is most unfortunate that recently a number of 457 visa holders were taken advantage of by rogue foreign labour hire agencies which placed a number of workers on an Australian construction site. And it has been previously reported in the Australian Financial Review that as much as $650,000 in wage underpayments was recovered by the Office of Workplace Services in conjunction with DIAC. This is not an insignificant amount of money. The company concerned swiftly repaid the workers and duly penalised the visa employer applicant, Hunan, a Chinese based labour hire agency. This is an indication of DIAC at work. The grass is not growing under their feet. They are paying very serious and diligent attention to the protection of the Australian workplace in this regard. Several industry organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the National Farmers Federation, one of the nation’s largest employer groups, support the bill, stating that they are confident in the new checks and balances which offer protection to employers and provide secure legal employment options for employees. I make mention of migration agents and labour hire agents who routinely engage with DIAC and equally need protection to lawfully recruit imported skilled labour according to market and economic drivers. This emerging pattern of labour hire agents recruiting unlawful noncitizens, welfare beneficiaries and people with visas that do not permit work is of serious concern. In some cases these agents may also be involved in facilitating or encouraging illegal entry for other reasons like terrorism or the laundering of crime dollars. The booming Australian economy has brought about a rapid development of the human resources sector, where often the scope for unbridled opportunity and sheer demand to fill jobs has required greater cooperation between DIAC, employers, hiring agents and employees. It is clear that the Labor state governments have not done enough to curb or regulate this sector in their jurisdictions. And it appears they have conveniently turned a blind eye in many a case to companies exploiting migrant labour during this present period of labour shortage. In an edition of the Australian last year, and in a subsequent ABC Lateline program which referred to the exploitation of 457 visa holders, it emerged that the measures which the Australian government has been putting in place through its constant and diligent review processes, as revealed in the $23.5 million management package, are working. Australia’s 457 visa scheme for temporary workers is effective in providing sound economic benefit to the Australian economy and to employers and industries that need those skilled people. DIAC have established effective policing methods and are achieving significant success in arresting rogue labour hire organisations and black-listing them. The 457 visa system allows employers to obtain labour from other countries in a legal and registered fashion, either directly or through experienced and registered migration employment agencies. It stipulates the need for a registered process. It protects the rights of the workers to have their pay negotiated through lawful and binding individual workplace contracts and agreements, the same as they would if they were Australian citizens. Properly registered migration agents are bound by the Migration Agents Code of Conduct, which requires agents to act in the lawful best interests of their clients and to act professionally. Employers and employees are always able to check which agent is registered properly with the Migration Agents Registration Authority. The department supports the engagement of agents, providing they are properly registered and known entities. The department is continuing its research into this subject aggressively to ensure the integrity of the Australian human resources sector. The law protects the parties from exploiting each other. These amendments and reforms, the recently announced 457 management improvement package that addresses these factors, will continue to anticipate, monitor and arrest the sometimes unfortunate aspect of greed in human nature that would seek to exploit, such as with shonky migration agents who are often not even operating in Australia. Secure process is very much part of our economic prosperity. Tightening of the registration processes with respect to migration agents at our embassies abroad will go further in securing who comes in to work in Australia, as well as making sure that they leave Australia, at the end of their employment term, a great advertisement for our workplace and our country as a whole. In conclusion, the Australian government have, rightly, carefully examined and extensively researched the matter within the business community to arrive at this juncture. They have ensured that there is flexibility and integrity within the employer community and that the law is abided by. They have provided a safe and flexible workplace with choices for employers and their employees. This legislation and the sanctions it delivers will serve to be a timely balance in a rapidly expanding economy where work choice is abundant. I support the bill. 68 18:43:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —Today I stand to support the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 because I support the introduction of a system of penalties that apply to employers who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for work. The amendments to the Migration Act 1958 contained in this bill create a series of new offences for employers, labour suppliers and others. The bill extends sanctions to anyone who employs or refers for work anyone who is an unlawful noncitizen or a noncitizen who has breached the work conditions of their visa. The provisions of this bill insert a new subdivision C into part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 which provides the controls for the arrival and presence of noncitizens. There are eight fault based criminal offences that relate to employing or referring noncitizens for work. I will go through those. One offence is allowing an unlawful noncitizen to work. This offence is considered to be an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited. Another is allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition. This is also considered to be an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited. Another offence is referring an unlawful noncitizen for work. It is again an aggravated offence if the illegal worker being referred is being subject to exploitation. Another offence is referring a noncitizen for work in breach of a visa condition. Again, an aggravated offence will be committed if the prospective illegal worker is exploited. I welcome the inclusion of these aggravated offences. When it comes to some of the aggravated acts, one aggravated act of exploitation is one too many. The introduction of these offences is very important. The introduction of sanctions aimed at addressing the causes of the problems, not simply their manifestations in the workplace, is indeed important. Stopping rogue employers in their tracks and stopping them from taking advantage of illegal workers or transporting individuals to Australia for the primary purpose of making them act in servitude are all welcome steps forward when it comes to bringing a halt to illegal workers being in Australian workplaces. While these steps, culminating in the introduction of the amendments contained in the bill before us today, are important, as has been stated in Labor’s second reading amendment the question remains: you have to wonder why it has taken so long for these matters to be addressed. Bear in mind that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs noted in the second reading speech: The government has long had concerns about those who seek to work illegally in Australia. He went on to say: The government believes that there needs to be provision for imposing sanctions on the small number of employers and labour suppliers who deliberately engage or refer noncitizens without the right to work in Australia. He also noted: However, no matter how good Australia’s visa arrangements are, there will still be some people who seek to take advantage of our desire to attract genuine visitors, students and other temporary residents. I find these statements to be quite contrary to the government’s actions in this case. The problem of the use of illegal workers by rogue employers is, quite frankly, not a new one. This government has known about the extent of the problem since 1999. As Labor indicated in its second reading amendment, this government now seeks to express deep concern when introducing these new penalties but has failed for the last six years to introduce sanctions on employers who employ illegal workers. I am following the member for Hasluck, and we read the same paper today—perhaps because there is a rather interesting poll in there. As I read on, I saw the headline ‘Changes to protect foreign workers’. This article deals with the employers who seek to exploit foreigners working on temporary work visas in Australia. I note the comments of the new immigration minister, Mr Andrews. He said: There are some cowboys out there and their behaviour is not acceptable and I intend to crack down on them. I applaud his comments, but this has been known about by this government for six years. It is very good to start referring to these employers as cowboys and to say that you are going to crack down on them, but what should have been cracked down on is the government being so lax in taking the time that it has to bring this matter forward. In 1999, the government commissioned an inquiry into the problems associated with illegal workers in Australia. The results were clear. The report, entitled Review of illegal workers in Australia: improving immigration compliance in the workplace, found that there were significant problems associated with the number of illegal workers in Australia denying opportunities for Australians to access work. The inquiry also found that the compliance regime imposed additional burdens on Australian taxpayers. That is interesting, considering that the report about these changes in the Australian today written by Cath Hart concludes: The changes follow moves by former immigration minister Amanda Vanstone to bolster policing of the scheme after it was revealed that compliance audits had dropped as the scheme grew. It is once again a matter of playing catch-up—this time in relation to compliance. The report recommended—and rightly so, I might add—that a system of sanctions be introduced in relation to employers and labour suppliers and that there should be a range of offences and penalties that reflected the serious nature of the offences. The situation we have at the moment is much removed from that, and it will probably take a lot of people by surprise. At the moment, if someone who does not have permission to work is found to be working as an employee, that employee will be subject to penalties, not the employer. At worst, the employer can be barred from accessing people on 457 visas. But the penalty imposed is imposed on the employee. That is quite clearly a substandard outcome in anyone’s book. If anything, it could be argued that it entrenches the likelihood of exploitation of these workers. It also creates no deterrent for unscrupulous employers who simply seek to attract illegal labour to this country for the purpose of cheap labour outcomes. For workers who are illegally engaged or who face sanctions for working illegally, the implications are quite clear. These people are going to be less likely to speak out in relation to their circumstances. After all, they are the people who would be fined or penalised under the current system, if that were to stand. It also means, I believe, that they would be more than likely to be subject to exploitation. If, under the current regime, it is an employee who faces the penalty for work, it is hardly likely that that employee is going to—as one might put it—squeal on the circumstances and identify themselves as working illegally. Employers move on without any sanctions being imposed presently. They can go about their business and seek to engage other people to come in, under the same set of circumstances, to simply replace the person who has had to leave because of being regarded as an illegal. There is something fundamentally wrong with that approach. It has been known for a long while now. This is something that has been identified for over six years, and we are only now in the position of simply moving these employer sanctions to redress that situation. I do not say that people who are caught working illegally should not be punished, but the punishment must be meted out to those who employ illegal workers as well as to those who work illegally. I do not think you would find anyone in the community who would consider that to be an unreasonable proposition. The provisions of the bill before us today allow penalties to be applied to employers who, quite frankly, overstep the mark in this regard. Inasmuch as this improves a position which was rather half-hearted when it was introduced in 2002, I have to say that this must occur, and it is only right that we actually do this now. To take you back, Mr Deputy Speaker: in 2002, in trying to address the issues that were raised by the report in 1999, a system of warnings was introduced by the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. That never really worked. If anyone seriously thought that an employer who was willing to employ illegal workers was going to take much notice of a sternly worded warning from the federal government, they were much mistaken. If the people who drafted that position in 2002 thought that employers who were prepared to engage workers illegally—and take the risk of bringing in further illegal workers—were simply going to be chastened by a sternly worded warning from the government, they must have been dreaming. It would be easy to stand here today and call for a strict liability regime in dealing with these issues, but a strict regime would be as inappropriate, I would submit, as having the existing ‘no fault on employers’ regime. Accordingly, Labor is not seeking to introduce such a regime. However, we are critical of the fact that the test of recklessness as applied through these amendments appears, in our opinion, to be too low. The test of an employer’s culpability is set by using these words: ... the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the worker is an unlawful noncitizen. This, as Labor’s second reading amendment notes, is far too reserved, and I am doubtful as to its ability to effectively impose sanctions on an employer. The proposed system is an improvement on the old one—there is absolutely no doubt about that—but I wonder whether simply taking a further incremental step in this general direction is an adequate response to something which has been identified as a significant and serious issue. As I commented earlier, there is no doubt that the provisions contained in this bill which seek to change the focus of the sanctions regime from penalties for employees alone to include penalties for employers are welcome. That change in approach means that the penalisation of rogue employers who have seen fit to employ unlawful noncitizens or to employ noncitizens contrary to the conditions of their visas stands in stark contrast to this government’s extreme industrial relations laws, which have given legal sanction to the actions of rogue employers. This government has actively sought to create a climate of fear for working Australians, in which they face the very real prospect of being squeezed through the downward wage pressure applied both as a result of Work Choices and as a result of the improper use of 457 visas. Many working Australians whom I speak to possess that fear. They believe that too many opportunities for employment are already leaving Australian shores and that too many of the opportunities that are left are now being filled by workers from overseas. I hear of many cases where employers provided with this option have abused the 457 visa system and employed cheaper labour by accessing it from overseas—and they take advantage of that. I would submit that, as legislators, we have a responsibility to make sure that the regime accommodates the employment of overseas workers and that that system works well. We need to know that the proper deterrents are there and that employers think twice before breaching the intent of that system that people be engaged lawfully. We also need to make sure that loopholes—like those created through the flimsy tests contained in the 457 visa regime—are not so easy to get through that they provide a backdoor means to achieve the same thing as employing illegal workers. We have certainly seen many cases where the media has gone out of its way to identify people working in these scenarios. Of all of those, I have to say that you would have to be quite sure that workers who are working illegally at the behest of an employer would be subject to some form of exploitation. We can be quite sure that these people are going to be the least likely to complain about their circumstances out of fear of the implications for them. We do not need another aspect of employment law that drives down the wages and conditions of Australians who are working in the same or similar occupations simply because of the contest of gaining cheap overseas employed people. Given the time that it has taken for the government to introduce this change—in excess of six years since the completion of the report that they themselves commissioned—I cannot help but think that only the interaction of the industrial relations regime and the temporary work visa system has brought about this legislation. The article today in the Australian concluded that the reason this scheme is being enacted presently is the drop in the compliance audits administered by the Commonwealth as the 457 regime extended. The government have tended, quite frankly, to give the green light to rogue employers, employers acting unscrupulously in that regard, but even they realise that the interaction of their industrial relations regime and the temporary work visa scheme has gone too far. In an electorate in the outer western suburbs of Sydney, I see how people have suffered from various aspects of the use of 457 visas. I hear from employers who complain about other employers who are suspected of using illegal labour. But, to date, in all those cases, if they are proved to be correct in their assertions that labour has been engaged illegally, the fault aspect has been directed only to the employee and not to the employer. As a consequence, we have developed a system which protects the so-called cowboys that the minister is now seeking to address. (Time expired) 72 19:03:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I certainly support the legislation before the House, although, unlike the honourable member for Werriwa, I cannot get too worked up about the subject matter. Quite often employers in this country are unable to obtain employees, and, while I certainly do not in any way approve of any breaching of the laws of this country, one has to feel a certain sympathy for those employers who are simply unable to find workers. I do not see this legislation as being the very high priority that the member for Werriwa does. I do not believe that the government ought to be criticised for the fact that it has taken some time to introduce the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. It is not the most important piece of legislation that has been before the government over the last six years. It is probably timely that it be introduced at this stage, but any criticism directed towards the government because of a tardy approach, in my view, is a criticism which is quite misplaced. With Australia’s wonderful lifestyle, our solid economy, our relative safety and our world-leading welfare system, it is little wonder that right around the world people seek to enter Australia and become part of our Australian family. In fact, a former Labor immigration minister told me that every year more than a million people knock on the door of Australia, seeking to gain access to our country. I suppose this fact is a wonderful testament to the great nation that we have built, but it also brings with it some problems and challenges. A specific class of problem is addressed in the bill being discussed here today, the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, which aims to help resolve the problem of overseas visitors illegally taking up paid employment while here. I know that there is evidence to indicate that in doing so these illegal workers take away jobs from people who are legal residents in Australia and who are legally entitled to work here to earn wages. Many of those illegal workers are probably doing jobs for which there are not people in Australia to perform the roles. However, not to have this legislation would be tantamount to supporting some misuse, abuse or breaking of the immigration and visa laws. It is really important that Australia does have a system of migration with integrity, and that is why this particular legislation needed to be introduced to the House. People who are overstayers and illegal workers may feel that they are not hurting Australia. The fact that there are allegedly some 46,000 people in this category does mean that the government has a problem which has to be resolved by legislation. People who do not have the right to work in Australia must work to survive. Understandably, many of them work to fund their existence—they have food, clothing and rent costs—but the fact is that they are working in breach of the law of Australia. There is a view that, if they earn money, it is money that has been denied a legal resident. I do not entirely accept that reasoning, because often there is no legal resident available to carry out a particular role. However, that does not condone, or it ought not to be viewed as condoning, any breach of the laws of Australia. I was very interested—and I might even go so far as to say astounded—to learn the costs of identifying and processing people who are in Australia illegally. It costs $3,712 for the location and deportation of a non-lawful citizen who is found to be working illegally. That amount increases to an average of $13,644 for each illegal worker who is found to have breached work conditions and who is detained and deported. These costs must be paid by the taxpayers of Australia. During the location and identification program throughout 2004 and 2005, some 18,000 illegal workers were identified in Australia. Illegal workers have been an issue in the construction industry; in the service industry, such as cleaning and maintenance; and particularly—and I find this to be a major concern—in the sex industry. This has been a considerable problem and is certainly one area where you would not want people working illegally in Australia. By working outside our legitimate systems, these workers also circumvent the protections afforded to workers by our laws more generally. The opposition tends to talk about our industrial relations changes as being draconian. I do not see them as being draconian at all. I see them as being moderate and reasonable—in fact, they could have gone further. However, the government took an on-balance approach, and the legislation which we have introduced will be to the long-term benefit of Australia, despite the carping and facile criticisms extended in our direction by members of the Australian Labor Party. In our system, we have laws—and laws, of course, are designed to protect employers and employees—but we need a system with integrity. On occasions, we find that unscrupulous employers have been eager to exploit those who are here illegally and who are unlikely to complain about poor work conditions or wages that do not conform to the minimum standards. While I think the extent of the damage that these people do to the Australian economy is arguable, it would be inappropriate for people to be exploited in any reasonable system. I think it is sad that people who are so desperate to come to Australia will resort to illegal and occasionally immoral means to get here and stay here; but, as I mentioned earlier, the lure of a nation as great as ours is simply too much to resist for many of those who are not enjoying their lives in their own countries. In one sense, the presence of illegal workers places a burden on our economy, so it is very important to make sure that our system has integrity and that our country and our own people are not disadvantaged. There is the situation where illegal workers who are employed in jobs that could have been filled by legal residents might force some legitimate workers onto welfare. There is also a view—and I think one that has some credence and validity—that people who are illegally working in Australia operate in the cash economy and, thereby, do not pay their share of income towards tax that Australians or those legally working here would normally do. The employment of illegal workers has further ripple effects through the community. Businesses that operate within the law and offer award wages may not be able to compete on price with rival businesses that operate with reduced overheads by employing illegal workers. This bill, which addresses the overall problem by affording changes to the Migration Act 1958, will introduce new offences for those employers and business owners who knowingly give a job to an illegal worker. The second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister, who led the opposition debate on this matter, criticises the government for this legislation not going far enough. While offences exist—including the cancellation of visas—for those who come here to illegally participate in work, the act to date has been somewhat inefficient in dealing with people—the employers—whose actions make these illegal acts possible. That has been rectified in this legislation. The opposition claims that, while the bill improves the situation, it simply does not go far enough. I do not agree with the opposition in this matter, and I can confidently predict that the second reading amendment will simply not be carried by the House—but, of course, time will tell in relation to that. The provisions in the bill will help to deter employers from employing illegal workers and overstayers and will encourage employers to check the details of any prospective employees to ensure that they are allowed to work in Australia. Hopefully, the changes foreshadowed by the bill will make a significant impact by reducing this problem in the future. The bill will also introduce safeguards for those employers who are genuinely unaware that an employee is an illegal overstayer or otherwise not entitled to work. It is important that the government does the best that it can to make sure that the laws of Australia are appropriately observed and that there are necessary sanctions to almost guarantee the observance of Australia’s laws. The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, while not the most important bill to be introduced into the parliament by the government, is nonetheless a bill that ought to be passed, and I am very happy to be able to commend it to the House. 74 19:14:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to support the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 and the amendment moved by the shadow minister. I cannot agree with the member for Fisher, who said that this bill is not the most important bill and therefore it does not matter that it is delayed. It was ridiculous to say that because the matter was not the most important matter we could delay a bill such as this for up to seven or eight years. In 1999 there was a report entitled Review of the illegal workers in Australia: improving immigration compliance in the workplace. The then minister was aware of that review, and nothing eventuated as a result of it. That was in 1999, in the government’s second term, and we have had to wait seven or more years for the government to choose to respond. One would have to ask the question: why has it taken the government so long to respond? The government and indeed the Prime Minister have taken so long to acknowledge climate change, which they did in question time today. This legislation goes to the way we regulate workers—whether those workers are legal or illegal—in this country. Until this week, the government had failed to respond properly to ensure that there were not people working illegally in this nation. That was a dereliction of the government’s duty. It is an example yet again of a government that is out of puff and is no longer focusing on those matters that concern ordinary Australians. It may well be that this matter has taken so long because it was about imposing sanctions on employers. However, I would remind the government that by failing to address rogue employers who are willing to exploit workers they are also hurting the majority of employers who do the right thing and employ people with a legal entitlement to work. Those employers who comply with the law are at risk because they are up against rogue employers who are willing to exploit vulnerable people. Those people, because they are working illegally, may not be able to raise concerns about things such as employment conditions. It is fair to say—and the member for Fisher touched on this—that there is a demand for workers. That demand is sometimes filled by workers who are not legally able to work. Again that points to the failure of the government, which has not focused on developing the requisite skills that workplaces in this country need. I will not lay the blame on the government alone, as it is a role of employers to forecast their needs as well as of others in society to request that these issues be looked at. But, in the end, the government has a great responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient skills in this nation to fulfil the work requirements. If people who are not legally able to fill jobs are filling them because they have the requisite skills, maybe those people should be given full status of citizenship. It is not for us to turn a blind eye, to pretend they do not exist and to allow them to work under the cover of darkness. This bill has been delayed for too long, and I concur with the shadow minister’s concerns about the deficiencies in the bill. The amendment acknowledges the delay in placing sanctions on employers but it also indicates some other concerns with the bill. Firstly, the bill fails to address the need for higher penalties for employers who are repeat offenders. Secondly, the legislation’s bar on employer culpability may be too low. That is: ... the reference to ‘the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the worker is an unlawful noncitizen’ is sufficiently [qualified or] reserved that it may prove difficult to successfully bring sanctions against an employer. In other words, it will be hard to prove that there was an intent of a particular employer, given the phrases that have been used in the bill. Hence it is rather a low onus and it will be difficult for prosecutors to ensure that employers who do the wrong thing are sufficiently punished. These deficiencies could be fixed immediately if the government accepted the amendments moved by the shadow minister. They are sensible amendments. We agree with the substantive provisions of the bill. We are critical of the delay—the lethargy that this government exhibits time and time again when it comes to regulating matters that are of importance to this country—but the bill is heading in the right direction, although some work is needed. There is an opportunity for the government to rectify that deficiency. The minister should come into this place and accept that there are ways to improve the bill, and I would invite him to do so during the course of this debate. It is important to note that the former Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs conducted a government commissioned inquiry into illegal immigration. Its report recommended that, amongst other measures, a system of sanctions be introduced and applied to employers and labour suppliers. The report also found that the use of illegal workers in Australia results in exploitation of very vulnerable people, who in turn deny Australians the opportunity to access jobs. There is a burden on the Australian taxpayer where there are not taxes properly paid and, therefore, when the tax laws are not complied with. Again, if people are knowingly working illegally and employers are deliberately having them work illegally, the employees themselves are hardly going to ring up the Australian Taxation Office and say, ‘I think I owe some money; you might want to take some money off me because I want to pay my fair share.’ Even if they were in their heart of hearts an honest person, I think it would probably be foolhardy of them to seek to ring a Commonwealth department knowing that they should not be working in this country. The review made those conclusions, and it therefore seemed sensible that the government respond. The minister for immigration at that time, instead of listening to his department, introduced a system of warnings to employers—like wagging a finger at the employers and saying, ‘You should not do this because it is not the right thing to do.’ We know that sort of approach in matters such as these is not the way to ensure that rogue employers resist trying to exploit situations for their own personal gain—exploiting not only vulnerable workers but also other employers who are doing the right thing. In 2004-05 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs issued 2,280 warning notices to employers and labour suppliers, which was an increase of 20 per cent from the previous financial year. So, despite evidence that the soft measures of the minister at the time were not going far enough, this government failed to take the necessary action. So it would not be fair to say that there were no warning signs. The review came out and made it very clear what the problems were and the minister, rather than embracing the recommendations made by the department, decided to put in place a self-regulatory approach to this matter. That in itself was not sufficient because there was evidence to show that, subsequent to the decision by the minister to have this self-regulation, there was a further increase in breaches. I think that again shows the government not wanting to do the right thing in this regard. Under the Migration Act as it currently stands, penalties are imposed only on the illegal workers, not the employer or labour hirer who hires them. That seems to me to be inherently unfair. I think the member for Fisher said that this is a country that would attract many people. If we were to look at the relative living standards of this nation when compared with most nations, we would see that we are indeed very fortunate. So it is, of course, not surprising that people would love to be able to reside in this country, to live a decent life and to be a part of this civic society. I think most people would understand that. The current law is unfair because it is entirely directed towards the illegal worker and not the person encouraging them or seeking to gain from their employment. While an ancillary power exists under the Commonwealth Criminal Code to prosecute those who aid and abet, it is reportedly very rare to be prosecuted under this law due to the amount of evidence required. This is certainly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. For a crackdown on illegal workers to be truly effective, you need to provide a strong disincentive to employers to deter them from hiring illegal workers. Currently, the only measures aimed at employers are information campaigns, a work rights checking facility and the issuing of illegal worker warning notices. I say as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation that we have been provided evidence that it is very rare indeed for a department to check whether visa applicants or others are properly monitored to see whether they have a legal right to work in this country. There is very little enforceability and very little scrutiny. The government is failing to enforce whatever existing laws there are now. So there is a further deficiency in the government’s conduct in relation to this matter. The bill will impose criminal sanctions on business owners, employers and labour suppliers who recruit illegal workers, where the employer knows or is reckless as to whether the worker is an illegal worker. The bill also consciously extends to bailees of chattels and to people who lease premises—for example, to cover brothel owners who claim to be renting rooms to their sex workers instead of providing employment. The penalty for each offence is two years imprisonment and if the offence is aggravated it is five years imprisonment. Aggravated circumstances are where exploitation occurs. The bill also provides that, where appropriate, a court may impose a fine rather than order a prison sentence. Those fines range from $13,200 to $165,000. After eight years since the review was undertaken, this bill will incorporate some of the recommendations that were then made by the department. The bill underlines the failure of the government to take heed of what the department’s own review expressed in 1999 and underlines the great delay of the government in bringing this matter before the parliament to properly regulate matters. They are things that need to be put on the record, but I think the bill underlines more than that. I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, but I think there is more to be said about this matter. This government has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to focusing on the skills required in workplaces. That is one of the reasons that employers seek to employ workers who may not have a legal right to work here. There is no doubt in my mind that that is one of the reasons. There is also no doubt in my mind—indeed there is evidence of this—that some employers have chosen to exploit the vulnerable position in which people have found themselves. These vulnerable people, who wish to stay in this country, have been offered employment by Australian employers who seek an advantage due to their position. These employers quite often pay these workers below the legal rate of pay and have them on inferior conditions. This is unfair not only to those workers but also to the majority of employers who comply with the industrial relations laws and the immigration laws of this country and choose not to aid or abet someone to break the law in order to gain financial advantage. I hope this bill goes some way to improving the regulatory system for people working in this country so that we have a fair and decent regulatory system. I hope this bill significantly reduces the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable workers by employers. I also hope that, when enacted, this bill provides a system that is less subject to exploitation and less open to abuse. I only wish that the government had responded at the time the department made its recommendations, which was in 1999—almost eight years ago. 77 19:31:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 1 0 Mr FORREST —It is fascinating to be part of the discussions that occur in this chamber. I have a different point of view from that of the member for Gorton. I presume that he is speaking of industries other than the one which I am most concerned about, and that is horticulture. I am not the least bit fazed by the fact that the government has hastened steadily with the introduction of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. The pre-preparation and discussion of this bill has caused me enormous angst, over the five or six years during which it has been considered, on behalf of my employer growers in horticulture. The bill has been the subject of formal discussions and consultation over that period, since the review of illegal workers was conducted in 1999. This was a study to assess the problems associated with illegal workers in Australia, and its purpose was to investigate ways to curb the abuse of Australia’s visa system by not-work-entitled visitors. A report was prepared by a committee which was chaired by the former member for Riverina, Mr Noel Hicks. I expressed a little disappointment at the time, because one of the recommendations was to introduce a system of sanctions against employers to act as a disincentive. My horticulturalists were horrified. It was hard enough for them to attract and find the labour they needed to extract their precious crops, and it was a nightmare for them to try to establish who was lawfully entitled to work and who was not. It was beyond them. I was one of many members who were urging the then minister, now the Attorney-General, to hasten steadily with the introduction of a bill which would include significant sanctions against those employers who were not able to work their way through establishing who was legal and who was not. The prospect of finding that they might face penalties and sanctions for mistakenly employing an illegal worker did not appeal to them at all. I opposed the introduction of this bill for many years. I felt that much more needed to be done to assist employers with the task of confidently identifying who was entitled to work before this very significant step was taken. After all, at that time, unlawful noncitizens who worked in Australia did commit an offence under section 235 of the Migration Act. Although it was difficult, it was possible to prosecute employers using ancillary provisions of the legislation. So I argued that we needed to proceed with caution and not undo some of the valuable work that was being done to break through the problems that horticulture, in particular, has in identifying illegal workers. I also felt that there needed to be a greater emphasis on education of employers, and I am grateful that this has been done. In fact, a great deal has been done. So whilst I have been very reluctant to support the need for this bill, and I have actually resisted it through the course of two former ministers—one I have already mentioned and latterly the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone—and now a new minister, I am grateful that they did listen. They consulted widely and have produced a bill which seems to meet the expectations of a broad section of the Australian community. In November 2000, the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs introduced initiatives to stop illegal workers. These included a new work rights telephone information line with a faxback facility which provides advice on whether an individual is eligible to work. My growers inform me that this is an excellent service and it gives them a great deal of comfort. There is also an employer awareness program including information kits for employers. These are the sorts of things that I said needed to be done before the introduction of a tough bill like this one. There was an announcement foreshadowed in 2001 that a graded system of sanctions would be introduced, and this has driven the discussion and process ever since. My growers and their farming associations have taken a keen interest in it. As the member for Gorton mentioned, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have been issuing warning notices. It is sad that over the years, particularly last year, a number of these notices came to growers in my constituency. Over the same period, DIMA have also been conducting an intensified and systematic program of raids on properties suspected of employing illegal workers. This has created an acute awareness of the issue in my electorate along the Murray Valley. Over the years I have expressed considerable anxiety over the method of these raids and the systematic arrogance which has been very much a characteristic of DIMA in the past. In fact, at one stage, I publicly lamented that DIMA was a department that was completely out of control. Most departmental people listening to my contribution here will be aware of my past views. Things have changed for the better of late, but I still believe that this comment was justified then, given the subsequent findings of the Palmer report on the behaviour of DIMA. Thankfully, many of Palmer’s recommendations have now been put in place and this level of arrogance has abated. I mention this because it has been a very significant factor in my reluctance to agree to legislation like that which we are discussing today. I simply did not have the faith that DIMA would use such a powerful tool sensitively when it came to dealing with my horticultural growers. I realise, and so do they, that the use of non-legal labour is as much an issue in other industries and that it is not just contained in horticulture. I suspect the member for Gorton was referring to other sectors. I realise it is very much an issue in tourism, in the restaurant trade and in other industries that I do not care to mention. But my interests have always been with my horticulturalists, the ones who charge me to represent their interests in this place—the vegetable growers and the grape, citrus and stone fruit industries that contribute so much to the economy and to the region I represent. For years it has been a desperate struggle for them to attract the labour they need to harvest, pack, prune and irrigate their crops. Let us face it: come harvest time when they have a whole year’s income of sensitive product hanging on a vine or a tree, it is arms and legs they need to get their crop off to market as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. The lack of labour and impending bad weather can often cause them to take enormous risks. With few measures to help them to accurately identify legal workers, the risk is high—or was high—and they could inadvertently have made mistakes. A too-early introduction of this legislation would have seen them disadvantaged substantially. In the early days of discussion of this bill, there did not seem to be a great deal of sympathy for this fact. I am pleased to recognise that some of this has changed, and a great number of programs have been introduced to assist horticulture to meet the demands for labour, particularly during the harvest season. Much has been done on the harvest supply issue. The coordination of a national harvest labour trail, funded substantially by this government, the increased source of approved backpacker visas and a greater sensitivity to the needs of growers all cause me to now be more relaxed about the introduction of this bill. I say to my growers that we have had ample time to educate ourselves and we have had ample time to have our input, but it is now time to have certainty put in place so that we can ensure that all the valuable work that has been done will continue. It is still very much an issue, of course, in my electorate and very much one of the influencing factors as to why I have taken a different position from others on immigration matters. The ready labour market available in the Murray Valley means that we are a natural magnet, attracting people of the nature we are discussing today. That is evident simply by walking down the main streets of some of my communities of Robinvale, Mildura or Swan Hill and observing the multicultural nature of the people who are assisting with our crops. Whilst there was no way that I would have supported the bill in its original form—and I did say so—I was not trying to be deliberately difficult. I had genuine problems with it, but I am comfortable enough to say that I support it. I would like to commend the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs minister, Senator Vanstone, who has been very responsible and consulted widely, particularly with the National Farmers Federation and its Victorian subsidiary, the Victorian Farmers Federation, as well as government members who represent these industries in this place. I commend her willingness to do this consultation and I recommend to the new minister that he continue that trend. I am now satisfied that there are enough safeguards in the bill to prevent growers being charged or unintentionally using illegal workers in the harvest season. It is beholden on the government to continue to do more, though. The demand continues, because there is just so much development occurring in the Murray Valley that demand continues to grow and grow. It is measured in the thousands, particularly around Sunraysia, Robinvale and Swan Hill. To be quite frank, this issue has caused me to be a great supporter of the introduction of a form of identitification facility. It would overcome a lot of the challenges. Many of our competitor countries have a formal identity process in place. In fact, towards the end of last year on a visit to Malaysia, I was briefed on the health smartcard and identity card utilised in that country. I just do not understand the resistance of Australians to the introduction of such a facility. However, that is a debate for another occasion, and I hope that one day soon it will be an issue that we might have the courage to discuss in this place. It would certainly make life a lot easier for my growers. ‘No ID, no work’ would make their decision simple. There is also a very significant change that has occurred with regard to the supply of labour in horticulture which now reinforces the need for this legislation. Many growers have become tired of the anxiety of determining who is eligible to work—as well as all the other associated challenges to do with finding labour—and they have resorted to the use of contractors to supply their labour. They need make only one phone call to a contractor to engage, say, 50 or 100 workers, be they pickers or pruners, which saves them the worry of determining eligibility on an individual basis. At the completion of the work, the contractor is paid by the grower and it is the contractor’s responsibility for payment of individuals. The contractor also has all the other responsibilities associated with compliance, superannuation and the like. It could be that these are the style of people the member for Gorton was referring to. This has become an ever-increasing trend and provides my horticultural growers with a great deal of peace of mind. Sadly, however, I hear many reports that some of these contractors do not do the right thing by the individuals they have engaged with regard to payment of their proper wages and meeting some of their other responsibilities. It is a very sad reflection on them. I urge the department to pay particular attention to this, because I most vigorously and vociferously refute the allegations that this reflects on my growers. They grow stone fruit, grapes and vegetables. That is their speciality, and they produce excellent crops. To suggest that all they are after is cheap labour is completely unfair and I refute it intensely. They just want labour and they are prepared to pay the correct rates—in fact, even more—for it. In order to keep them, some growers go further in the payment of their rates when they see good people. I think this is a message that DIMA has finally understood, as it has been a lot less judgemental of my growers latterly. So I am asking the department to be mindful of this when it gets to the stage of implementing the provisions this bill offers, and to keep its eye on the activities of contracted labour suppliers. Also, those contractors need to get the message loud and clear. After all, these sanctions are significant—and I fail to understand the nature of the amendment moved by the opposition alleging that they are not. They are substantial: up to five years imprisonment and the right to impose both financial and imprisonment terms. These are substantial fines, and my growers find this appalling. The message to those contractors is: be warned. To the department, I continue to say: be mindful of the needs of growers and continue to do more to assist those who do not use labour contractors to identify legal workers. Be aware that I will continue to take a dim view if any of the habits of the past are revisited in my electorate. There has been a huge amount of discussion on this bill. As a result, I believe we have incorporated enough balance to ensure inadvertent mistakes are not cause for penalties to apply. In fact, I note there have been some suggestions that the bill has been so watered down as to be of little use—that I refute. I think it will be useful. To this I simply say: let us get it in place and see how it operates. If in the future it can be demonstrated that stronger measures are still needed then let us consider them then. In the meantime, I congratulate the former ministers on their willingness to consult and their recognition of the need for balance and of the needs of my horticultural growers. I also congratulate them for their willingness to listen to the growers and to the members in this place who represent them. I believe that balance has been achieved, and I commend the bill to the House. 81 19:47:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. I will relieve the mind of the member for Mallee by observing that, as a member of the joint committee on migration over a decade ago, this House and the Senate were alerted through the report that we then tabled about the problems of labour supply to the agricultural industries that he and a number of other members of this House represent. Sadly, remedies in relation to the abuses that were occurring at that time were slow to follow. I think that the issue raised by the member for Mallee creates a very interesting framework for examining the debate in front of us. The ultimate solution that has been adopted involves two parts—firstly, to recognise that there was an unsatisfied demand for labour. Our recommendation was that we develop what we called a pickers trail, which I understand has been adopted only recently by the government, well after the recommendations of our committee to this House over a decade ago. Secondly, we recognised that there was an economic imperative that was not being satisfied by the arrangements that were then in place. We did not have the mechanisms to encourage an effective way for Australians who wanted to travel between various locations where seasonal opportunities for employment were available to do so while minimising their costs and improving opportunities in the industry. The other side of it was that the government of the day, the Howard government, turned what had been illegal conduct into legal conduct. It massively increased the number of working holiday visas. It did not say, ‘The people who were doing this before would have been called illegal workers.’ The problem was solved not by preventing people undertaking what they had done illegally whilst they had been travelling in Australia before but by the Howard government substantially increasing the number of working holiday visas—under some criticism because the pickers trail issue had not been picked up at that stage; we criticised the number of working holiday visas that were being issued. Eventually we had a two-part solution to the issues facing the horticultural industry. It may not be completely adequate in terms of labour demand and supply, but both strands were recognised by not treating people as criminals when they were holidaying and travelling through Australia supplying a useful utilitarian labour need to those agricultural growers that could not be supplied lawfully by the existing structures. It was not turning those people into criminals and turning a blind eye to it but regularising a program through an expanded working holiday visa and then picking up the pickers trail idea, which meant that you could have Australians more easily entering into those employment opportunities. The crazy thing is that we still have some areas of policy which are mad in terms of their inconsistency. For example, you can come to Australia perfectly lawfully through an airline or an ordinary scheduled arrangement—not an ‘illegal entrant’ as this government so often traduces those who claim refugee status who arrive by boat—but then claim refugee status because of an asserted threat to your personal safety by reason of your political views or some other conventionally related matter. If you do so, I think, within 21 days—I may be wrong; I am subject to correction here—you will be granted work rights while your claim is assessed. But if you leave it past 21 days because you are not advised about the framework or the opportunities, or you foolishly sweat on making such a claim and wait until you would ordinarily face having to return home, then you cannot work. You will be permitted to stay in Australia, but you must not work. I picked that one area of visa allocation out by way of illustrative example that we have in Australia quite a substantial number of visa categories under which the people, the government and the community have every expectation that the person will remain in this country for a protracted period of time—and they are not allowed to support themselves. They are not allowed to work. That is just a mad phenomena which invites abuse. Just as we had that mad phenomena where we had an unmet demand for labour and no structures to put in place Australians to pick it up, through a pickers trail initiative or something that was worked through with the trade unions to make certain that available Australian labour could be facilitated to provide that service, and we had a blind eye turned to the provision of illegal labour being provided by people who we have now regularised as working holiday visa holders, we have this crazy situation where we have people living in Australia in a substantive, known capacity but with no working rights. Then we turn around and say, ‘These people are to blame for seeking out some way of putting sustenance on their table and providing food for their families.’ With all of that framework, until this bill we never had a framework that actually looked at the people who were abusing the system by offering employment. Sometimes it was for—I do not think you can talk about proper award wages anymore, Mr Deputy Speaker; there is no such thing—wages which were not below the community norm, if I might put it that way. But sometimes they were abusive of people who did not have work rights. Historically over the last decade, whilst everything else has been occurring as I have described, there has been no regime to deal with the people in that circumstance. Now we have these laws, and I hope that they put the balance where it should be. It is crazy to treat as criminal conduct that which Australians overseas, when they are young and sometimes a bit reckless, routinely engage in. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know about the people you mixed with when you were younger, and I do not know the people whom you see when you travel overseas, but routinely when I have travelled overseas—and certainly when I was younger—I have met many Australians who thought it not a greatly consequential thing to pick up a bit of bar work without having a visa in the United States, in Europe or when travelling through South America. People do these things because it suits the way they are as itinerant young people. Yes, certainly, if they are detected, they will often be the subject of immigration removal, particularly now, as laws and attitudes have toughened up in some of these countries. But in the past, this was something that was just part of a rite of passage for many young Australians as they travelled around the world—ski bums and what have you doing a little bit of work here and a little bit of work there. Certainly, they did not conceptualise themselves as criminals. If they did, there are a hell of a lot of criminals, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you and I and probably even the minister at the table know who have done such. We also have the good fortune to come from one of those countries where essentially, in most parts of the world, we as Australians are treated pretty benignly. I remember talking to a friend of mine who was living in the United States on a spouse visa. She was a woman who was married to an Australian who had been granted work rights in the United States. The spouse did a little bit of work from time to time—I imagine quite a bit of little bits of work—without, at that stage, having regularised her entitlement to do so. She later did. I asked her: ‘You are putting yourself and your family at some risk, aren’t you? Because, if this is detected, it could be quite consequential. Your husband could perhaps lose his position. You might have to leave the country.’ And the response was, ‘They look out for Mexicans; they do not look out for people who look like us.’ I think there is an element of truth in that, and I think there is an element of truth in the way in which we in our community conceptualise these issues too. The people we have in our minds when we talk about illegal workers are some kind of ‘them’, and in our minds the ‘us’ who go about the business of doing these things in a pretty ordinary and routine way never come into the frame in that way. So, if we are not going to be total hypocrites about the whole thing and demonise the people who are not given work rights but have to live here, and if we are not going to demonise the people who, in circumstances like young Australians travelling overseas, might seek some work from time to time, let us do the sensible thing. Let us put the obligation on the employer to at least have some kind of basic scrutiny that the person is entitled to work for the firm or the individual who employs them. That is what this law does. It imposes a pretty thin test, to be honest. It says that you are only liable for criminal prosecution if you knowingly or recklessly employ such a person. So if you satisfy yourself—albeit on grounds which are not ultimately sustained—if you ask somebody: ‘Are you regular? Do you have work rights?’ and you take reasonable, modest precautions—asking for a tax file number or something of that kind—then it would be almost impossible to sustain a prosecution. The second reading amendment draws attention to that issue and says, ‘We might have to look at that again.’ For my own part, I am reasonably relaxed about that particular burden. I am reasonably comfortable about it because I think it would be wrong to impose a framework of strict liability. When somebody comes before them and presents themselves as an employee, unless there is something manifest about that person, I do not think we should expect employers to be detective agencies. If we find that these provisions are still abused and are not effective, we may have to re-examine them. I take some comfort from the comments of the member for Mallee that there is an education program going on now with employers who have a traditional association with the employment of large numbers of people who are not documented and not entitled to work, and that these new arrangements and the penalties may be adequate to serve the purpose. We can revisit this if it proves not to be the case. Now that we have addressed this issue, we really should not have on our laws the blot that says that we will have in the community a substantial number of people awaiting determinations on refugee claims, or in other circumstances where they have a visa and are entitled to live here, who have no other expected means of support but who cannot work. That, coupled with these new arrangements which will mean that employers will be accountable for employment, is likely to create significant difficulties. Compassionate people who, for example, may have given such people an odd bit of work here or there just to make certain they do not starve may find themselves inadvertently caught up in this net if somebody wishes to press those matters. DIAC has had a reputation of focusing exclusively on those kinds of enforcement issues—sometimes with a degree of zeal—and not looking at employers. These issues intersect, and I think the member for Mallee has correctly raised concerns that members of this House have about the way in which these new arrangements will be administered. I have great regard for Andrew Metcalfe, the new Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and I believe that he is genuinely pursuing a reform agenda within that department. I hope that through this process we actually see sensible, effective enforcement of these provisions directed principally at people who are abusing the law. People talk about five-year imprisonment penalties for this, but those very severe penalties are directed at the most abusive of employers. They are directed at people who, for example, might be misusing their power to deal with people who are very vulnerable. The ordinary provision is for a maximum of two years imprisonment for an offence. Of course, I do not imagine anything of that nature would be imposed for a first offence. I imagine that, in the first instance, people would get a slap over the knuckles and be told not to be reckless in relation to employment. I suspect that very few will be deliberate in flouting this law, but there is perhaps too great a degree of casualness in relation to checking and the like, and, when issues stand out, employers do not advert themselves to an obvious problem when they ought to. The offence provisions at the moment for aggravated offences—for example, people working in conditions of sexual servitude or the like—are understandable; we expect a higher penalty. For other offences, there are penalties of up to two years imprisonment. One would imagine that those two-year imprisonment penalties would apply only to repeat offenders or to people who quite knowingly go about abusing the law and perhaps recruiting people who do not have work permits in order to exploit them by paying them less. Somebody in that circumstance might find themselves facing a first penalty at the higher end. I believe that the government has moved sensibly but late in relation to this matter. It has taken a long time for the various pieces in the jigsaw to be put together and there are still missing pieces. There are still unfairnesses that exist because of the way in which the pieces are now put together. The key unfairness is that we still have a large number of people who have long-term residency entitlements in Australia until their matters are determined or who have other entitlements that permit them to remain here but who are without work rights. As long as that persists, we are going to have, in terms of human compassion, some pretty sad cases at the very least, and some inconsistencies and allegations of hypocrisy which can be levelled against us in our approach as law-makers. I conclude my remarks by saying that I hope that the implementation of these laws is given proper resourcing—it will require resourcing if it is not just to be a rhetorical flourish—and that these laws are administered in a way which is consistent with the reform agenda that the department has committed itself to, at least in rhetoric, and, I hope, increasingly in practice. I am pleased that ultimately this parliament has had this bill before it. I believe that it will have an impact. It is a more rational way of dealing with the problem than pretending that you can go after individual persons who are not entitled under their visa conditions to work and treat them as criminals. Frankly, that approach does not work with Australians when they are overseas; we can hardly expect it to work the other way around for those who come to these shores. 85 20:06:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —This has been a long time in the process; the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 has been listed for a significant period of time. Coming from the Riverina area, the electorate that I represent, I have a significant population of constituents who are reliant on visa workers to get their crops off to a market in order to earn a dollar. I recall when the review of illegal workers was taking place. I was very new in the House. The review of illegal workers was in fact presented by former member for Riverina Noel Hicks. That was presented in November 1999. I must say that I was extraordinarily concerned for the wellbeing and welfare of the growers that I represented. As the new member for Riverina, in 1998-99 I went to the hearings and expressed my major concerns with the way the committee was heading in trying to provide a platform of blame and penalties for the growers in my region who were simply doing no more than trusting the evidence and information that they were given and trying to get a product to market. They were going to bear the brunt of this entire report. So I am very happy to see that there have been some very common-sense movements with respect to employers. I really have to thank the former minister for immigration, the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, for her absolutely common-sense appraisal, approach and attitude towards this whole issue. Under the proposed scheme that we have before us now, through the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 employers would only commit an offence if they knowingly or recklessly allowed an illegal worker to perform work. The recommendations regarding the more onerous strict liability offences and on-the-spot fines in the Review of illegal workers in Australia will not be introduced. That is of grave importance to me and to the growers that I represent in the Riverina and it is a huge amount of relief. This bill will not require all employers in Australia to do work rights checking. Employers will only need to consider doing a work rights check where there is a substantial risk that the job applicant is an illegal worker. The MIA is a melting pot of multiculturalism, a melting pot of different nationalities. I cannot imagine—and I questioned this with the committee when it was doing the report—where a potential employer would legally stand if somebody who might not appear to be a resident of Australia presented to them and the employer had to continually enforce some type of test upon them to prove that they were Australian. The majority of my electorate are of multicultural descent but were born in Australia. Many of them do not speak clearly when framing the English language. It could very well be construed that each and every one of those people presenting for work might be an illegal immigrant or somebody who does not have a work right. It puts an employer in an enormously difficult situation—that is, how to prove that someone who comes to their workplace is an Australian, was born here and has lived here all their life. I was always concerned about the potential for discrimination on the basis of colour or speech. An employer might not ask a Caucasian who comes through the door, who obviously speaks very strong ocker, Aussie English, to prove that they are an Australian citizen with work rights, that they were born in Australia or that they have a right to work. I could not see how this was going to work in my electorate, and it was of grave concern. At that time, the particular issue of unskilled labourers in my electorate of Riverina was of increasing concern, and it still is. It will go on being an increasing concern. One such thing that I will try to resolve—and, I suspect, if I am fortunate enough to be elected in the next parliament, I will still be trying to resolve—is how I can get unskilled workers to do the work that is required from my growers. When I raise this issue publicly in my electorate I get attacked from every union known to man, on the basis that (1) I am trying to take away Australian jobs, (2) I am trying to force people into low-paid wages or force draconian conditions on them and (3) I am responsible for the demise of jobs for people without higher education. I object to that. I can tell you that no matter what we pay and what we do Australians on the whole are not willing to do this work. Many times it is people who have come from other countries who have done similar work and who are well equipped to work who are very comfortable in that working environment, very comfortable with the award wages that are offered. In fact, the accusation has been put to me that my growers underpay these people and that they do not get their rights. They get their superannuation payments, they get award payments. My growers themselves do not have superannuation. My growers are sometimes living day to day, week to week. They try to get off-farm work to subsidise the family farm. So there is a need to understand the whole dynamic of what is required. We have a recognised shortage of electricians, doctors, dentists, nurses and workers in pathology and in a whole host of other areas. But there is not just a shortage of skilled workers; there is an unskilled labour shortage. That shortage affects the economy in the Riverina enormously. As is my right, I will always advocate for, encourage and enable visitors to undertake this work without harassment from those who say that I am trying to advocate against Australians getting these jobs. I repeat: Australians are not willing to come in and do these jobs. This has been proven by the crops that remain on the trees and in the ground simply because we cannot get anyone to pick them. My electorate relies on transient tourists and visa labour to meet its market requirements. Primary producers in Griffith are reliant on our backpacker market, and we have had some fabulous working holiday visas implemented by the minister in order to meet some of the requirements. The problem that I have is that it is not a reliable source of employees for my growers. There is limited access to the Riverina through public transport. There is no bus that goes from Sydney to Griffith. There is some rail, but the cost is quite high. Most of our backpackers and those on working holiday visas would rather go to the coastal areas and do light duties—picking strawberries, tomatoes and mangoes and other tropical fruits. They have beaches to swim off and warm weather. We attract some through the MIA in the Riverina, because it is the most glorious place to go. If they really knew what we had to offer then I am sure that we would attract more. But we have not got the infrastructure and the facilities—such as backpacker accommodation that is affordable and available—to encourage these working holiday visa holders to come into the Riverina. It is very difficult to attract them to my electorate from off that path of sunshine and sand. That leaves my growers at a substantial disadvantage when they are looking at how they are going to access workers to get their crops picked. We also have crops that backpackers and those on working holiday visas are not adequately physically equipped to deal with. It is extremely hard work. To harvest citrus and vegetable crops can be backbreaking work, so to speak. One needs to be accustomed to that. There has been some comment, and I have indicated this also, that it is unskilled workers who come in to bring in the citrus harvest. But in fact the workers are quite skilled. They are very skilled, because there are very few people who can stand up to the rigours of citrus picking and vegetable picking. It takes a certain type of skill and a certain type of person. You need to have an inordinate understanding of the harvest and the citrus-harvesting process. It is all manual. It is not done by machines. It is a very manual job that is carried out there. It is the same for vegetable produce. Those people need to have integrity and a strength of character so that they are able to endure the very harsh conditions that exist at times out in the field. They are very willing to do this work if they can get a reliable visa. My growers are very willing to pay for that work to be done. There will be good and bad growers—I am not saying that every grower operates perfectly. There is good and bad in absolutely everybody and everything. Yes, you may get a grower here or there who may not do the right thing. Twelve months ago, a contract labourer took money off the producers to pay to a labour contract hire group and he took off with that money. But that was not the producer; the producer paid the money out to the labour contractor. The labour contractor did not pay it to the people who did the work. That was a very sad thing. But it was not the employer—my producers—who did the wrong thing there. If we had appropriate and sufficient harvest labour from people with work rights then you would certainly see the use of illegal workers extraordinarily minimised. As I said, my growers go through every avenue that they can to determine whether or not a worker is a legal worker. But, as I said, how do you confront people and embarrassingly ask them if they have the right to work in Australia when they may very well be Australian born citizens? We have many hurdles to overcome in the area of labour shortages. I am fully supportive of any legal initiative that can be put in place to assist them to remain viable and productive producers. The introduction of this amending legislation will assist my producers greatly in this effort. They certainly need our help and protection in a number of areas, and this legislation will protect their rights in a scheme that was designed to help them cope with the skilled labour requirements of the harvest. I commend this amendment bill. To frame the offences in this way ensures that the focus is on employers and labour suppliers of concern to the government without imposing any undue and additional burden on business generally. An employer will only be reckless if there is a substantial risk that the employee is an illegal worker. Recklessness may be proved in prosecution if a number of basic conditions are satisfied. I am quite happy with this. One of the elements that might go to proving recklessness is where the employer in question has previously been warned about employing illegal workers and has been given guidance on how to check work rights and then continually offends in this area. I do not have any problem with that. I am not here to support any employer abusing any person providing labour on their properties—that is certainly not what I am about. But I am here to establish that employers, in the main, do the right thing and are generally caught out unbeknownst to them. Also, the concept of allowing an illegal worker to work is defined broadly to capture work related relationships that are commonly used in industries where illegal workers are found. There are 46,000 visa overstayers in Australia, and it is believed that a substantial proportion are working illegally to support their stay here. I must say that we do have a highly effective processing arrangement, but we also have a highly effective immigration department. They are continually on surveillance in my electorate, and I encourage that to happen because I think that we need to recognise the difficulty that illegal people have in staying in Australia. It is not fair on them that they should be continually running from the law, so to speak. Sometimes it is in their very best interest to be caught, to be accountable and to go through the process in the legal channels rather than to be continually at risk of abuse. I think it is very unfair. I have seen my fair share of people who are continually on the run, moving from one place to another for years. I have had people come to my office who have been running from the process for 20 years. Inevitably I say, ‘You really have to just give yourself up to the process, because this is no life.’ Many of them have had children whilst they have been in Australia, and of course they are submitted to this continual moving and a lifestyle of hide-and-seek, which is very unfair on the children as well. My farmers are desperate to employ. When I was going through many of the submissions to the review of illegal workers, I was sad to look at the submissions that came in from Griffith City Council, the development corporation, Pickers Plus and the area consultative committee and to see what issues and concerns they outlined—why we were so reliant on backpackers and people who were transient to meet labour demands. This put my growers at some substantial disadvantage or at risk of inadvertently employing illegal workers. It is real desperation. I was sad that in 1999 there was a regional labour shortfall of approximately 500 people required for harvest, and I suspect that it is still very similar to that. I have a trail of correspondence to the former minister to try and resolve this in a number of ways. We have a policy—and I fully support the policy—of a non-discriminatory, open immigration process that does not allow me to target a particular sort of aid program or support program in the Solomon Islands or other areas that I know would be able to fulfil this role for the producers and in turn give great benefits to the islanders. Fortunately—and unfortunately, at times—we do have a non-discriminatory policy. You just cannot allow one country to come in and provide this sort of work. But there has been a trail of correspondence since my election, and I suspect it will continue, because I will not stop looking for an answer to how my growers can sustainably survive and get reliable seasonal workers. That really is not seasonal work now; it is really 12 months of the year. But I commend this amendment bill to the House. I am very pleased. (Time expired) 88 20:26:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 provides for a scheme of sanctions relating to employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for employment. The introduction of these new sanctions against those who do deliberately engage in that behaviour will replace the current system of voluntary compliance, a system which has manifestly failed to protect vulnerable workers, whether they be legal or illegal, from dodgy employers and labour hire companies who seek to profit from human exploitation. This bill, then, goes some way to redressing a gross imbalance in our current immigration laws, an imbalance that this government acknowledged back in 1999 but has until now failed to act upon, an imbalance that has magnified every year as new ways of exploiting legal and illegal workers in Australia keep coming to light. Currently it is an offence under section 235 of the Migration Act for unlawful noncitizens to work in Australia. Likewise, there are existing penalties for noncitizens who work in breach of their visa conditions. That is fair enough. But the full weight of those migration laws currently rests squarely on the shoulders of the illegal worker. Unscrupulous and exploitative employers have, to date, escaped any form of sanctions. There have been no primary offences that apply to employers or others who allow or perhaps induce or even force noncitizens to work illegally. Although some commentators have argued that it is possible to prosecute such employers using existing ancillary offences, the fact that only one employer has ever been prosecuted under these provisions adds increased weight and credibility to the calls for these new employer sanctions. The one employer who was prosecuted, interestingly, was convicted on two counts of being knowingly concerned in visitors working without permission and two counts of misleading department of immigration officers. This was back in 1993, 13 years ago, and that guilty employer was placed on a $1,000 bond to be of good behaviour for two years. A slap on the wrist is hardly an effective deterrent for those unscrupulous employers who stand to profit handsomely from human misery and misfortune, and unfortunately there have been many. Maintaining the status quo is not acceptable, and Labor have long argued the need for sanctions. We went to the last election with a policy to combat the use of illegal workers in Australia and have long called for the introduction of a foreign worker ID card, demonstrating a real entitlement to work. This card would, of course, work in a similar fashion to the American green card, which has been in place for more than 60 years. Labor remains committed to the imposition of penalties and sanctions on exploitative employers, so we are supporting this bill. But it is by no means perfect. It does not go as far as we would like in some areas, whilst other areas remain completely untouched. Why has it taken so long for the government to bring this bill before the parliament to debate? Its origins date back to at least 1999, when the then minister for immigration, Philip Ruddock, commissioned a study to gauge the problems associated with illegal workers in Australia. This government has been very good on commissioning reports. The study resulted in the report Review of illegal workers in Australia: improving immigration compliance in the workplace, which was released with much fanfare by the minister in December 1999 but conveniently buried soon thereafter. One of the report’s recommendations was that a system of sanctions, just like the ones we have tonight, be introduced in relation to employers and labour suppliers and that there be a range of offences and penalties reflecting the seriousness of the offences committed. It also recommended infringement notices for lesser offences. It has been seven long years since those recommendations came down. The Australian people were assured then that appropriate measures to deal with employers who breached immigration law would be put in place. What a lazy government! Only now, on the first day of parliamentary sittings for 2007, has the government bothered to deal with the serious issue of employer sanctions. Thousands of illegal workers have been seized in the interim years, but not a single exploitative employer has been held to account, since 1999. Despite the tough talk of successive ministers, Australians know that addressing inequity between workers and employers has never been a high priority of the Howard government. As the 1999 report made clear, illegal work causes a number of problems for the Australian community as well. It denies Australians opportunities to work, it burdens the Australian taxpayer and it results in the exploitation of vulnerable people. Illegal work is almost invariably bad for the person working, but it is also bad for the decent business men and women that have to compete with such unscrupulous employers—no level playing ground there. It is also bad for Australian workers who have been denied that opportunity to work or who now have to compete with those lower rates of pay—not a chance. The only people to benefit from this illegal activity are the dodgy employers, who have so far got off scot-free. According to the government’s own estimates, there are around 46,000 people who have overstayed their visas and are now living in Australia. Of these, some 26,200 people have been in Australia unlawfully for more than five years. There is little doubt that a substantial proportion of just those people are working illegally to support their stay here. I do not think they come with bags of money. In 2004-05 the department of immigration located 18,341 persons who had either overstayed their visa or were in breach of their visa conditions. Many of the people located by the department worked illegally in Australia but, as the minister for immigration admitted in response to a question on notice, DIMA does not have definitive statistics on those working illegally. In 2004-05, the total number of people confirmed by DIMA as illegal workers was just 3,870, or 21 per cent of the total number of unlawful noncitizens and people found breaching their visa conditions. These figures do not reflect the true extent of illegal work in Australia. In the same 12-month period, DIMA issued 2,280 illegal worker warning notices to employers. This was an increase of 20 per cent over the previous financial year, when 1,900 notices were issued. To date, these warnings have been the only deterrents available. It seems a lot of work for very little outcome. Most warning notices, 34 per cent, were issued to the hospitality sector. Twenty-three per cent were issued to manufacturing; 18 per cent to agriculture, forestry and fishing; 15 per cent to personal and other services, including the sex industry; and 10 per cent to construction. Illegal worker warning notices carry no sanctions. So employers are issued with warnings knowing full well that if they are caught doing it again they will simply be warned yet again. It is no surprise, then, to find that a total of 90 employers received more than one warning notice in the 2004-05 period—lots of serial offenders and lots of work for people to issue the notices, but, again, little outcome. The effectiveness of this strategy is at best questionable. But a system of warnings which is not backed up by a system of sanctions has absolutely no teeth and, as such, is pointless. The bill before the House today goes some way to redressing this inadequacy and sets out eight fault based criminal offences relating to employing and referring noncitizens for work. These proposed new offences carry criminal penalties of imprisonment for five years for an aggravated offence and imprisonment for two years in any other case. The higher penalties for offences where aggravating circumstances are present are for incidents where the illegal worker is in a condition of sexual servitude, forced labour or slavery. This penalty is very welcome, although it is worth noting here that there are other examples of exploitation, like the deliberate undermining of minimum salary rates in this country, which are not covered by this legislation. These new offences will only apply where the employer or labour supplier knew the person was an illegal worker or was reckless to the fact. Like my Labor colleagues, I am concerned that the definition of ‘reckless’ in this bill may deliberately—or unwittingly; who knows?—allow some employers to escape liability even though they have employed illegal workers. The impact of the term ‘reckless’ as it is defined in this legislation should and will be closely monitored by us to ensure that it does not allow continuing exploitative employers to get off the hook. Likewise, the comment in the bill’s explanatory memorandum that it is expected that first-time offenders would be given a written warning—here we go again!—rather than being prosecuted deserves ongoing attention to ensure its effectiveness. There are no such second chances, of course, for illegal workers. Curiously, the government’s zero tolerance for illegal workers apparently does not extend to guilty employers or to labour suppliers. There are an estimated 1,500 illegal workers based in the Newcastle and Hunter region at any one time, so the issue of illegal work has particular resonance for Novocastrians. With Newcastle and many other parts of the Hunter undergoing a building boom in recent years, the problem of illegal workers in the construction industry has been especially acute. In January 2006, DIMA confirmed that they had picked up another seven illegal workers at a building site at Nelson Bay, in my neighbouring electorate of Paterson. Six of these workers were detained at Villawood detention centre before being sent back to China. Just two months later, another four illegal workers were located on a building site at Soldiers Point, also in the electorate of Paterson. The following day, another illegal worker, a Korean man, was discovered in an operation near The Entrance, on the Central Coast. More recently, union and industry representatives have expressed concerns about the probable exploitation of Chinese workers by a subcontractor on a building site in Newcastle West. Whilst these workers have been employed in areas of alleged skill shortages, both union and industry representatives insist that they could fill these positions immediately with local employees. I understand that the Chinese employees have been working seven days a week, including after hours and night work, and that they worked throughout the Christmas break, without proper supervision, while all the other workers were away on holidays. These Chinese workers are in a very vulnerable situation. Having been told that they will be sent home if they talk to the union, they have been left with no voice or advocate to ensure fairness and equity. Their occupational health and safety certainly appears to be at risk. The construction industry is by no means alone in its propensity to employ or to exploit illegal workers. A popular local restaurant chain, with restaurants in both Beaumont and Darby streets in my electorate, is well known to DIMA’s compliance section. Both restaurants have been the site of numerous DIMA raids, which have resulted in illegal workers being found and taken to the Villawood detention centre. Last month, a constituent contacted my office to raise serious concerns about the way in which these workers were treated during a DIMA raid on their residences. I made representations to the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, seeking her assurance that proper procedures were in fact followed, but I have not received a response yet. My constituent was most upset. He was not associated with the place of employment. As a customer, he had become friendly with the workers and was very concerned about their not being given proper interpreter services, that they were taken without proper support or information and that they were confused and frightened. This case clearly demonstrates the gross imbalance that currently exists in immigration law. Here we have a restaurant chain that is well known to DIMA officers as a repeat offender when it comes to the employment of illegal workers, yet it is the worker who alone faces the full brunt of our immigration laws. It is the worker, not the employer, who is deemed guilty and punished, and the employer is seemingly free to reoffend without the threat of sanctions. This is the imbalance that we hope this legislation will redress. Notwithstanding the extreme difficulties that unions now face in getting access to workplaces, unions remain a major source of tip-offs about the location of illegal workers and offending employers and companies. I would like to acknowledge the positive contribution of the local Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Newcastle Trades Hall Council in uncovering unscrupulous employers in our region. The union will always stand up for the rights and dignity of all workers, no matter where they come from. But far from recognising the valuable role that unions play in exposing exploitative employers, the Howard government, with the introduction of its extreme IR laws, remains determined to restrict union entry to workplaces and, thus, to silence those who have a genuine interest in the health and wellbeing of all workers. At a time when record numbers of temporary business visas, including the infamous 457 visa, are being issued, the capacity of DIAC to properly monitor them and ensure that these jobs cannot be filled locally is in serious doubt. The parliamentary secretary, in his speech on this bill, referred to clause 245AC in the legislation and asserted that it would address concerns where an employer has improperly employed a person under a 457 visa. It is true that in a situation where a worker comes to Australia because of a particular set of skills but ends up being in breach of their visa conditions by working in a different skill set or a lower skilled area, this legislation provides for an extra penalty on the employer. But there are other abuses of the 457 visa system—abuses that are no less exploitative and that remain untouched by this legislation. Of particular note is the situation where the minimum rate under a 457 visa, while being technically complied with, has been effectively undermined because the worker in question has had to spend thousands of dollars to purchase their job. Cases where people have paid $20,000 or more for a job that pays $42,000 per annum have been well documented in both the media and this parliament. The recent announcement by the Office of Workplace Services that 38 temporary workers in NSW were underpaid $650,000 is further proof that exploitation of overseas workers is rife under the government’s 457 visa program. The day before, the very same Office of Workplace Services announced that it had found that a Melbourne printing firm had underpaid four overseas workers $93,000 over the past 12 months. At Senate estimate hearings last October, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs revealed that 190 companies are now being investigated for possible breaches of the 457 visa program. Regrettably, DIMA’s 2005-06 annual report shows that compliance checks on 457 visa sponsors have plummeted by more than one-third in the past three years—even though we have this supposed skills shortage and employment boom—as the number of employer sponsors grew by 20 per cent to nearly 10,000. These examples show just how big the problem of exploitation of overseas workers is and just how little the Howard government has been doing about it. Unfortunately, when this bill becomes law, we will be in no better position to sanction employers who deliberately undermine minimum salaries. By any measure, this practice is wrong, but this bill will not make it illegal. Nor will this bill help to stamp out the practice of underpaying overseas workers. Such practices are clearly exploitative and should attract serious penalties, but they will not under this legislation. Notwithstanding the government’s frustration with Labor’s ongoing calls for reform of the 457 visa program, the need for such reform is based on the very same logic that underpins this legislation—namely, that exploitation and abuse in the workplace is unacceptable. All workers in Australia have a right to expect that their workplace will be free of exploitation—the ‘fair go’ that seems to have been missing from the psyche of this government for a long time. People with no rights to work in Australia are, of course, especially vulnerable. Sadly, it is precisely their vulnerability which makes them the least likely to report abuse in the workplace. Similarly, people on a temporary work visa are unlikely to report for fear of losing their job and being deported. This bill does, however, put an end to the grossest forms of exploitation in the workplace. It deals specifically with people in some of the worst situations of exploitation, such as those in sexual servitude, forced labour or slavery and, in that way, these provisions are welcome. It is outrageous to think that until now, under the Migration Act, it has been the victim who has been seen as committing an offence, not those who enable such gross violation of human rights. I am pleased that, once this bill has passed, the persons who are responsible for placing overseas workers in such appalling situations will also be guilty of an offence under the Migration Act. This is a much needed improvement in the act and has Labor’s complete support. The real test, however, will be the number of successful prosecutions, which of course should be closely monitored. Ultimately, Labor wants to see an end to all forms of exploitation in the workplace. When there is a genuine shortage of skills that cannot be filled locally, we want the best people available from around the world to fill those gaps. But we do not want to see the 457 visa program being used in ways that amount to exploitation by any definition and certainly not by the limited definition of this bill. While this bill is a step in the right direction, I urge the House to accept Labor’s second reading amendment. The amendment highlights that the government has failed for more than six years to introduce sanctions for employers who employ unlawful noncitizens and individuals with work restrictions despite the 1999 report that I mentioned. The bill also fails to address the need for higher penalties for employers who are repeat offenders. A toothless warning system has to be avoided. Finally, the legislation’s bar on employer culpability may be too low. The reference to the employer knowingly or recklessly employing illegal workers may be used as wriggle room by unscrupulous employers to escape sanctions. I urge the House to support this legislation with Labor’s amendment. Maintaining the status quo is not an option. The Australian people have the right to demand and expect fairness and equity in the workplace—a point that this government would do well to remember and, unfortunately, one that Australian people now doubt will ever return under the coalition’s governance. 94 20:47:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. I initially indicate endorsement of the opposition amendment, which goes to the issues of the protracted time that it has taken for this legislation to arrive, the use of the ‘reckless’ requirement to minimise the possibility of convictions and the issue of higher penalties for those employers who are repeat offenders. Many opposition speakers have made mention of the protracted history of the road to this legislation. Having listened to a number of the government’s speakers, I really have some feeling for the ministers involved—it is quite clear from the contributions of the members for Mallee, Riverina and Fisher that there is no great enthusiasm for this legislation on the government benches. The member for Riverina spoke of a grower here or there possibly being a problem. She seemed to be preoccupied with possible embarrassment to employers in asking people whether they were ‘illegals’. She actually referred to the reality, in her mind, that you would be categorising certain nationalities. Just for her advice, perhaps the issue is a bit more complex because, from recollection, the main overstayers are from the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and China. The member for Mallee spoke in a similar vein. The member for Fisher, in his characteristic idiosyncratic way, went a bit further. He spoke of a ‘carping opposition’ on these matters. He said: ‘It is not an important piece of legislation. It is very timely that it has arrived now after seven or eight years,’ and he thought that criticisms of tardiness were misplaced. Whilst on the surface one might think that there has been a lack of action by ministers involved, I perhaps feel that they have had a really hard row to hoe in bringing this legislation here, given a significant number of government members are preoccupied with the interests of particular industries. They have no interest whatsoever in the situation of Australian workers who are being undermined by this dereliction and whose conditions—their livelihoods and their families’ livelihoods—are being destroyed every day. These government members obviously have very little interest in the predicament of those people working illegally in often tenuous legal circumstances. We have had some history of these matters. On 9 February 2004, Amanda Vanstone, the minister for immigration at the time, sent a letter to the national secretary of the construction, forestry and mining union. This week, as a matter of fact, she spoke of considerable work being done to make it easier for employers to check the work rights of visa holders. She said: In addition to the work that has been done developing this legislation, my department has continued to conduct educative programs et cetera. But, most particularly, she spoke those three long years ago of the proposed employer sanctions legislation which was ‘on the government’s legislative agenda’. She said: My department is currently exploring options to ensure this proposal is an effective means of sanctioning employers who continue to employ illegal workers. Three years ago we had assurances that legislation was just around the corner—that the department was working strenuously on the matter to try and get there. That was a whole three years ago but it was only a minor point along the road. There was also the 1999 inquiry. Once again the member for Riverina seemed to be critical of the inquiry, but it certainly determined that there was an area of exploitation and a need for action. We can also talk about the ANAO audit of 2004-05. The member for Riverina assured us about DIMIA’s activities in following up people in her area but that ANAO report was not too fulsome in its praise of the department’s performance in this field. It said: Although DIMIA publishes its estimate of overstayers, it is unable to provide an estimate of the number of noncitizens who are likely to be in breach of their visa conditions, for example, by working illegally. That was in the report of 2004-05. That report further noted: The ANAO suggests that DIMIA could assist users in interpreting the overstayer estimate and enhance the transparency and clarity in its external reporting by monitoring report of the error rate. It also spoke of a number of criticisms of the department’s performance in this area. Previous ANAO performance audits into DIMIA’s onshore compliance function found that the development of data transfer arranged with other agencies at the state, federal and local authority levels had been slow. It noted the importance of effective coordination. It also spoke of failures in the development of IMTel. No evidence was found of any of the above quality assurance processes being in place or being considered for development. It further noted the need for more consistent integration of compliance target group profiling with DIMIA’s intelligence gathering and analysis capability et cetera. So in this field we have had a significant number of assurances over the years from Ministers Vanstone and Ruddock and the CFMEU, which has been the most active union in this area, that the government was going to legislate. But it is seven years since the report and we have seen very little until this point. And, as the opposition’s amendment makes clear, we still have an unsatisfactory piece of legislation. Bodies such as ACCI want to describe any criticism in this field as xenophobia. Quite frankly, I think the reality is that this government, which won an election in this country by indicating falsehoods about refugee claimants and their arrival in this country, has had a parallel policy of indicating to the Australian electorate a degree of toughness with regard to asylum seekers and a degree of toughness towards people who should be held in detention centres but, at the same time, has had a policy of ensuring that conditions in this country are minimised by opening the doors in relation to work visas and through a lack of action to protect conditions in this country in the immigration field. I want to give a bit of credit to the former minister for immigration, Minister Vanstone. One thing about this politician is that she is very honest and very direct about what she says. She is the only person in this government to confess publicly that behind the liberalisation in relation to visas was a policy to repress wages. She actually went on the record in the last month to indicate that that was part of the situation. So whilst others have been less fulsome, she clearly belled the cat in that area. At last report there were 46,000 illegals, and a significant number of them were people who were working illegally. According to the department’s records, as at June 2006 there were 630,000 people on temporary entry visas—an increase of 8½ per cent over the previous year—and 155,000 of those people had been here for over a year. Given the ANAO’s research and their indictment of the department and a situation which has not improved markedly over time, I cannot have the confidence of the member for Riverina that, with these huge numbers, there is the interest of the government or the department to make sure that conditions are protected. We have had indications from government members that there is not really a problem and that perhaps legislation is unwarranted or a bit over the top, but I have a contrasting story about what is happening in this country. I could refer to five young Cook Islanders who came to Australia on individual contracts with a promise of a better life. One of the five, Sam Kautai, came here at 17 years of age, signing a contract to work 60 to 70 hours a week and receiving only $50 a month in payment. He was vigorously assaulted by his employer—his jaw being broken—when he questioned the practices of Freliesma Guttering Pty Ltd in February 2006. The contractor actually set conditions with regard to his private life and what he was allowed to do. As I say, that is typical of the other side of this agenda, where contracts are being utilised in this field to seriously undermine conditions. I could refer to workers who have died on the job. I could refer to the infamous Lake Cargelligo circumstance, where a South African worker, Mr Malothane, was treated so badly as to entertain the interests of the South African government. He was then put on a plane and whisked out of the country. It took CFMEU activity inside South Africa to try to take up his case. Work safety on that site put people in severe danger, and the situation was such that this South African worker was rushed out of the country when injured. He is quoted as saying that he was never paid any money whatsoever. Mr Malothane spoke no English. He could only converse in Afrikaans and Tswana. I congratulate the Australian on following up that story. So we have a more complex picture than desperate Riverina farmers who cannot get any Australians to work for them and who, out of kindness, are looking to pay people award rates. The situation is far more complex. In Sydney we now see the industry largely being at the behest of tourists. Illegals are becoming a very common phenomena on building sites—sometimes with their spouses accompanying them, working into the late hours of the evening. That is one picture behind this legislation. There is a need for this legislation. It is long overdue. There has been a lot of media focus. We also had the death of Mr Kow Chey, an illegal worker who died on a Strathfield building site, on the verge of my electorate. His employer would not even contribute to the funeral. The employer, as usual, knew nothing about his status. So when we say how difficult it is and how embarrassed employers are to ask about whether someone is illegal, the other part of the picture is the reality where many of these employers are clearly aware that the people they are employing are illegal, that they are in very difficult circumstances legally, that they do not want to go near the department, that they are fearful for their future and that they are desperate to stay here. As the member for Riverina noted, many of these people will work for lower wages and conditions due to the fact that the wages and conditions in the nations that they derive from are far less than those in Australia. This legislation is long overdue. On many occasions there have been assurances from ministers that this was around the corner and that things were happening. When the member for Fisher says that there is no tardiness and that it is not an important piece of legislation, I wonder which piece of legislation he is comparing it to. Perhaps he was comparing it to the new citizenship legislation in this country—where we require people to be permanent residents here for four years rather than two—which took a year to get to the debating stage and, in the interim, over 100,000 people became Australian citizens when it was supposedly a security risk to the country because they were only required to be here for two years. In conclusion, I support the opposition’s amendment, noting that the legislation is overdue and noting that the ‘reckless’ requirement will make it very difficult to procure prosecutions in an area where it is very necessary. 97 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 97 97 21:00:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I rise tonight to speak, as I have before, about the future of a regional economy in north-east Tasmania. Last week it was announced that a company part owned by the Tasmanian government, Taswood Growers, will no longer be supplying sawlogs to the Scottsdale mills run by Auspine. This news came as a bitter blow to the north-east community, which is now very concerned about the loss of up to 300 jobs directly and, of course, the flow-on effects that such a closure could have on a small regional centre. I have great hopes for the Scottsdale community and its resilient and, I have to say, magnificent people, and I am working hard to assist in all ways I can to help guide the community through this time of great uncertainty. This week I have formed a task force designed to plan for our region’s future. I will outline for the House my hopes for the north-east, but first I want to make some very important points about the Tasmanian Labor government, which has much to answer for in its mishandling of this softwood resource security issue—or, rather, lack of resource security. This is despite repeated warnings. I am very angry that the state government in Tasmania, by its neglect, has likely damaged a regional economy, and I just wonder how long that damage will last and whether or not it can be mitigated. For more than two years in this place and in the public arena—it is on the record and on the Hansard—I have been calling for forward planning by the Tasmanian government on the issue of softwood resource supply. I have spoken on this issue in the adjournment debate over the last two years. I have issued press releases and I have called on the Tasmanian government. I remember one press release two years ago in which I said, ‘Now is not the time to panic, but we need to plan and we need to cease the export of pine logs to other countries for processing.’ I said that we needed to ensure that the mills operating in Tasmania were given some security for the future. I was ignored. The silence then and now from state and federal Labor members of parliament has not gone unnoticed in that north-east community. The fact is that this issue could have been resolved by facilitating the granting of a wood supply contract at any time during last year. Instead, the supply will go to a rival company, which will build a mill in a different region, and it will employ just 100 people instead of 300 people. I gladly put on record that I am pleased for that Tasmanian company, Forest Enterprises Australia, which has won the supply. I congratulate it on its bid. It has done what companies do: it put up its hand for an opportunity when it presented itself. But this whole process and the outcome do not augur well at all for the north-east community and specifically for the township of Scottsdale and for the Dorset community. I know from firsthand accounts what a very difficult time it has been recently for that Auspine workforce of 300 people, their families, other businesses, the schools and the whole sense of community. It has been a heavy knock. They really are very concerned for the future. They look to people like me and other politicians and say, ‘What will you do to support us and what will you do to help?’ Very unfortunately, sometimes we look at them, unable to say very much, because unfortunately the damage has been done. We have a lot of work to do, and I will be very proud and pleased to be a part of it and to be a proactive worker. It is vitally important at this time to consider the long-term economy of this region in areas like tourism, dairy and potential water developments. As well as sawmilling and value-adding in the timber industry, these all need to be part of a plan for our region. Time evades me this evening, but I will simply say in closing that the task force that I have formed will meet for the first time this Friday. I am looking forward to good support around the table. I have invited people from all levels of government, including people from opposing parties and community representatives. We must get this right in this window of opportunity that we have been given. I look forward to working constructively and cooperatively with this new group. I thank the House. (Time expired) 98 98 21:05:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —In between the Daily Telegraph’s latest castigation of parliamentarians—this time it says we are too lazy to walk to work—and the Howard government’s blindness to the impact of global warming, I had the opportunity to meet with Mr Stephen Ingrouille from the Going Solar environmental consultancy and to talk about his proposal. He argues that climate change is leading to rising sea levels and increased weather extremes such as drought and megafires. We have increased particulates in the atmosphere which lead to a phenomenon known as global dimming and could have a profound impact on our ability to produce food. These problems, coupled with increased oil prices and poor urban design, are likely to lead to significant social disruption and breakdown. Problems associated with our over-reliance on motor vehicles include resource depletion, spatial demand, global warming, global dimming, pollution, congestion, loss of amenity, social exclusion, waste creation, heat island effect, road trauma and, most particularly, the destruction of habitat and cultural values. To overcome these seemingly intractable problems, Mr Ingrouille proposes the setting up of a joint government task force to address the problems of greenhouse gases created by the transport sector. To this end, it is essential that we start reassessing our reliance on the motor vehicle, along with the building of roads and the allocation of valuable and scarce space for roads and parking. His proposal is to establish a sustainable cities authority that will work in conjunction with existing federal, state, territory and local government bodies and agencies to seek out and encourage innovative and sustainable transport solutions. In effect, this will be a ‘better cities program’ that also aids rural and regional areas. We are essentially stuck in dysfunctional cities. The federal government presently funds the construction of roads but does not fund public transport. The federal government circumvents its responsibility by nonchalantly palming responsibility off to the states. Naturally, the states need to lift their act; however, given the enormous resources available to the feds, surely the buck stops here. The solution is not to throw money at the problem; rather, it is about the initial design of our new suburbs—I saw a figure of about $60,000 per household in the south-west just for roads to those blocks of land—and the renovation of our existing suburban areas. This task is currently outside the expertise of our existing agencies. Under this proposal a sustainable cities authority would ultimately have offices in every state and territory. The SCA would work with existing departments in each region, including transport, tourism, infrastructure, planning, environment, sustainability, health and regional development. Each regional SCA would interact with and seek advice from local technical and community organisations, as well as other relevant government agencies. Whilst the ALP is not committing to this proposal, we believe it is essential that we engage with the wider community in order to expedite the efficient outcome for the community, as opposed to the federal government’s current ‘hear no evil, see no evil’ approach, which has all but ignored the built environment since coming to power more than a decade ago. 99 99 21:08:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to remark on a terrific event that happened yesterday for the people of Wakefield. I had the opportunity to attend the opening of the Australian Technical College in Northern Adelaide. It was the first day for 106 young people to this college. These students have come as the first students in what is the rebirth of a focus on technical training around Australia, particularly in northern Adelaide. In the past, the northern part of Adelaide had technical high schools that were closed down in the seventies. It had Australia’s premier technical training centre, with the apprentice training centre at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, which was closed down in the early nineties. The whole focus on trades has been subsumed by a fascination by many people, particularly in the education sector, with getting people to university. With the growth of the economy we have seen a demand for skills, and whilst funding that has continued through VET courses and other things has increased the number of people undergoing traditional trades, we have not had that focus, so one of the election commitments of the Howard government in 2004 was to bring in technical colleges throughout Australia. Some people ask me why I have the slogan ‘Working with you in Wakefield’. I think this is a good example where we had three different consortiums coming together and saying that they wanted to bid for a technical college in northern Adelaide. In working with them, we were able to get a degree of collaboration so that we had strong bid in northern Adelaide. I am pleased to say that, in the end, we were successful in securing a technical college which is a partnership between the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide and the Northern Adelaide Industry Group. The good thing about this technical college and why it is a revolution for our young people in the way they are getting trade training is that it is a new model of school based new apprentices that is industry led. So, rather than an academic or educational institution training people in accordance with, perhaps, a syllabus or the equipment they have available and then hoping that at the end of that process somehow these young people might fit an employee’s expectations, this college is industry led. John Ats, representing Hirotec, is the chair of the board and we have other people such as Wayne Perry and Rod Keane, the national operations manager of GMH, on the board. They are leading and directing this technical college, saying, ‘These are the kinds of skills and this is the kind of knowledge we want young people to have so that we can bring them seamlessly into our workplace.’ The young people will still do academics leading toward their SACE—the South Australian Certificate of Education—but it will have a focus and it will be relevant to their workplace. So the maths they do is industrial maths and the communication or language they study is workplace communication. It helps them to understand how as an employee and, down the track, as a manager or owner-operator of their own small business they can effectively communicate. So we are wrapping up into one package the opportunity for these young people to gain traditional trades skills with the kinds of business skills and application they will need to be successful in their career as well as in any future aspirations they may have to operate their own business. So these 106 people, which include young women, have enrolled in courses covering things such as commercial cooking, building and construction, electrotechnology, metals and engineering, and automotive engineering. They are starting that process now. In a few months time employers from around the electorate of Wakefield and beyond will be coming in to start having interviews with these young people with the object of signing them on as school based new apprentices by the middle of the year. That means that these young people will not only receive training but also build relationships with employers such that they have clear and effective pathways out of their training into the start of a career. This is a good model. It is a model that utilises existing resources so that we are seeing a partnership between TAFE and the technical college and so that we are getting the maximum benefit for these young people and for the employers in the electorate of Wakefield. This is an election commitment by the Howard government to work with people in Wakefield, and we have delivered. 100 100 21:13:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —Finally something has happened. Finally Senator Helen Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, has announced the successful tenderer for the Do Not Call Register. I know, Mr Speaker, that you will be pleased about this, because you have put out a press release in your own electorate saying what a wonderful thing the Do Not Call Register is. I think everybody in this parliament has been on the Do Not Call bandwagon and, finally, the minister has at long last announced that an operator, Service Stream Solutions, will be in charge and that it will be operational by May this year. This is a very good thing, but it is well and truly overdue. Had the government allowed a vote on my private member’s bill in October 2005, the good burghers of Australia would not be putting up with at least 75 telemarketing calls each year—that is, 75 telemarketing calls a year that each one of us is getting. I have done a quick calculation which shows that we are losing up to two days a year with these wasted phone calls. There are 1.5 billion telemarketing calls coming into Australian homes each year, but finally the government has announced that the Do Not Call Register will be up and running in May—and it is about time. Almost 95 per cent of people who responded to the Herald Sun’s issues of the 2006 survey said they wanted marketing calls at home outlawed. So in a survey of all the issues that affected people in 2006, the No. 1 issue was telemarketing calls. Recent research has shown that we are fielding up to 1.5 million calls a year—that is about 75 calls for each Australian—and many of these calls are coming from overseas centres, predominantly from India. An increasing number of Australian centres are shifting their call centres offshore to India, so many people have been complaining about the loss of jobs within the industry. The industry has already moved offshore, and we are getting these calls from overseas. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman recorded 1,738 complaints about telemarketing calls last year alone—that was double the previous year. So not only are we being annoyed by these calls but they are getting far more aggressive, far more abusive and the tactics the telemarketers are using to cold call and sell you something that is always too good to be true is also getting on people’s nerves. We have seen a proliferation in these calls and in the pressure tactics to buy. Over the two years that I have been running the campaign to get a Do Not Call Register in place, I have received literally thousands of calls and emails at my office from people desperate for their sanity and peace to be returned at home. The ones I am most distressed about are elderly people at home who are often suffering from early stages of Alzheimer’s and dementia. Often we have had calls from very distressed family members whose parents are struggling at home and have been put literally into a state of complete and utter depression where they will not answer the phone any more because they do not know who it is. Nowadays a lot of these calls are connected from overseas, so there is a blank before you hear the caller. For a lot of elderly people sitting alone at home that is quite unnerving because they often wonder: is it a burglar down the road wondering if I am here and am I going to be robbed? They do not understand that it is a delay in the phone system, and five minutes later somebody is going to be on the phone saying: ‘Hello, Mrs White. Haven’t you heard about this wonderful product?’ She has not, she does not want to and she wants to be left alone. I have also heard of numerous first-time mums who have struggled to get baby down to sleep and, you bet, there is that phone call they did not want. These phone calls mostly come at the witching hour, as I refer to it, the wonderful time when you are trying to get children fed, bathed and off to bed. The calls are coming, they are annoying and you do not want them. This Do Not Call Register cannot come soon enough. While I commend the government for finally doing it, it is too late. Up to a million registrations are expected in the first week alone, two million within the first 12 months and seven million within the first two years. This is based on the experience of the US, Canada and the United Kingdom. There are a million households in Australia who are waiting for this register to be up and running. They have taken too long, but I finally want to say: at least it is here, and I hope some sanity will be returned to our homes in May. 101 101 21:18:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —In the Australian parliament tonight I wish to honour a great Australian who died on 12 January 2007, an Australian who lived in Chapel Hill, a suburb in my electorate of Ryan in Queensland. He was an Australian who served his nation in uniform as a member of the Royal Australian Air Force and served his nation and its people in the national parliament for 28 years. I speak, of course, of Sir James Killen KCMG, AC. Sir James was 81 when he died but his life was all about service to others, to this great country and to living life to the fullest. He was a class act, an inspiration to so many people. He was a compelling orator that few in this chamber and in public life can equal. All Australians should take note of Sir James’s career as a shining example of a man who was truly dedicated to his country and to the betterment of its people. At 18, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force, attaining the rank of Flight Sergeant Air Gunner. A lawyer by trade, Sir James won the seat of Moreton at the young age of 29 in 1955 and went on to be returned at 11 successive elections. He served under eight prime ministers in total and was twice a minister: first, as Minister for the Navy under Prime Minister Gorton from 1969 to 1971 and then as Minister for Defence under Prime Minister Fraser from 1975 to 1982. He had a great impact not only on our nation but also on the formation of the modern Liberal Party. Sir James served as the foundation president of the Young Liberal Movement and then later as vice-president from 1953 to 1956 of the Queensland division. Sir James was a man of charisma and intelligence to the extent that he gained the respect and affection of leaders and leading political figures from both sides of politics. He was a man who was able to give genuine friendship and have that friendship returned. Evidence of this is from no greater figure than the Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Sir James was a gentleman and a scholar. I remember quite often Sir James would drop me a note or call me as the new local member for Ryan thanking me for something I had done in the community or encouraging me as the local Liberal member. He would respond very personally via a handwritten note. He was someone who quite often would speak well of others he had encountered. I regret very much that I did not have the opportunity to know him very well at all compared to many others in this chamber and, of course, those in the community, but I did know him in my capacity as the federal member for Ryan in the five years that I have been the member. It was a great honour to have met him on several occasions and to have been able to speak with him and learn as much as I could in the brief encounters that we had. I gather very clearly that he was a man of remarkable integrity and sincerity. He was a man even in his later stages of life of great charm, courtesy and wit. I think that Australian politics is unlikely to witness the likes of him again, and this is something to the detriment of our national political life. I hope that many Australians who may only know of Sir James Killen in the press will take a little time to perhaps read more of this great Australian. He was a man who, as I say, should be a shining example to all of those in this chamber as we go about serving our constituencies and to the government of the day as it goes about serving the people of Australia. 102 102 21:22:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —I would like to speak about a policy that was released yesterday by Labor’s spokesperson on families and community services, the member for Jagajaga. She announced plans to help local governments develop a single waiting list for childcare places in each local government area. I want to raise this policy issue in the adjournment debate because it has a particular resonance in my electorate of Gellibrand. Maribyrnong City Council already runs a waiting list of the eight council affiliated childcare centres. Although this might seem staggering, there are 700 children waiting for long day care places on this list. There are a further four childcare centres in the municipality. Two are private providers and two are based at the Victoria University campuses. They all presumably run their own waiting lists, making the figures even higher. The figure of 700 is staggering, and Maribyrnong council only covers half of my electorate, so it is really quite a worrying situation for many parents in my electorate. The other half of my electorate is covered by Hobsons Bay City Council, who keep a single waiting list for the two council run long day care centres and their family day care providers. At the moment there are 261 children on that list. However, there are five more community providers and six private operators in Hobsons Bay in addition to that, so the reality is that there are many more children on waiting lists in the municipality. It is not very hard to imagine that we could easily get to 1,000 on waiting lists in my electorate. We do not have the exact figures, but there are hundreds and hundreds of parents in very difficult circumstances, not knowing how they can ensure that their children are getting the care that they need. Hobsons Bay Council would like to set up their own central waiting list to make life easier for parents. That is actually the proposal that the member for Jagajaga announced on Monday. But they are waiting on some money becoming available for them to help establish this project, and it seems likely that under the Howard government they will be waiting a long time. A number of local governments have taken action to consolidate their waiting lists in an effort to try to help parents save time. That is of course a sensible solution, a solution that Labor sees would help many families. But it is something that the government refuses to do. Childcare centres themselves, of course, are also quite supportive of this idea. They do not have the time to ring every parent on the waiting list—sometimes up to 300 of them—to see if they have found appropriate care in the meantime, and parents do not want to have to ring around four or five centres every week to see if something has come up. Labor’s plan aims to take the burden off centres and off parents and to give us a more accurate picture of what services are needed. The Howard government, though, has its head in the sand and is telling us that there are places out there. But we know that there are not enough to meet the need. When we are talking about these sorts of figures, even if the figures for Maribyrnong and Hobsons Bay were only half the number, we still have hundreds and hundreds of families who are affected by this problem. We do need local solutions, and I have to say that Maribyrnong council, who run the central list for their eight services, admit that their system is not perfect. They do indeed have some vacancies, but they are not the vacancies that parents need. I know, Mr Speaker, that you would appreciate from your electorate that it is not much good finding a vacancy on Tuesday if you work on Wednesday, and it is not much good finding a vacancy for a four-year-old if your child is only two. Those are the sorts of problems that the government just does not want to address. The council are trying to develop a new system that will give a more accurate picture of childcare demand, and they have expressed a desire to work with all childcare providers in the municipality, both community and private, to make life easier for parents. It is exactly this sort of model that Labor is interested in pursuing across the country, and the member for Jagajaga has already given some preliminary advice to Maribyrnong council, or certainly to us, that she would like to meet with them to gain some additional knowledge from their experience and see what would assist them. This is an area of Commonwealth government responsibility, but my council in my electorate, Maribyrnong council, has been forced to go it alone because the government do not want to give councils a better picture of childcare demand. They just seem to not want to hear the bad news—that there is a childcare shortage and that they have failed families who need and want to go back to work. We need a comprehensive approach like that which Labor has been announcing and unfolding in the past few weeks. I do not have time today to talk about our plan for an extra 1,500 university places in early childhood education and our plan to make sure that every four-year-old around the country can access up to 15 hours a week of early childhood education, but they are part of a comprehensive package that is not only going to give our kids the best start in life but also aiming to make sure that parents and childcare centres get the assistance they need to be able to deal with the very high and sometimes unpredictable demand. Those are the sorts of solutions that will help us locally. I know that the councils in my areas will welcome them and I urge the government— (Time expired) 104 104 21:28:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —In the short time that is available to me I would like to raise the issue of roadworks in my electorate of Paterson. We have suffered the ‘Iemma dilemma’, where the New South Wales government will spend a billion dollars on a tunnel in Sydney, yet very little money in the Hunter Valley. Recently we made an announcement that the federal government would fully fund Weakleys Drive Interchange. It is at the intersection of the New England Highway and is a project that I have been pursuing and pushing for for some 10 years. It is a project which we have seen the management by the New South Wales government blow out from around $12 million to $52 million. That $52 million has to be 100 per cent funded by the federal government. Indeed, to Minister Lloyd’s credit, the money has been provided and work will start very shortly. But there has still been nothing from the state government on the Myall Way flyover, which was promised as part of the $110 million construction between Karuah and Tea Gardens. It is a flyover that is needed and that has blown out in cost from $5 million to $16 million. But the state government will not prioritise that $16 million until some time 16 years from now. The then roads minister, Minister Costa—he is the third most recent roads minister—said that if the federal government was to provide extra money, they would build the flyover. As you would be aware from when you sat in this House on budget night last year, Mr Speaker, the federal government provided an extra $160 million to the New South Wales government for work on the Pacific Highway. We gave them $160 million and yet there has not been one ounce of prioritisation for the Tea Gardens-Myall Way flyover. It is a disgrace. What Morris Iemma and his cohorts in the New South Wales Labor government have left us with is the ‘Iemma dilemma’, and they stand condemned for their actions. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. 104 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 104 Notices The following notices were given: 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to validate certain increases in court fees, and for related purposes. (Family Law (Divorce Fees Validation) Bill 2007) 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr Brough to present a bill for an act to enhance the provision of Commonwealth benefits, and for related purposes. (Human Services (Enhanced Service Delivery) Bill 2007) JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George to move: That the House: notes that: on nearly any night there are around 100,000 Australians who are homeless and that nearly half of these people are under 25, with young people aged 12‑18 making up a quarter of all those who are homeless; and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) is often the last resort for people who find themselves without, or at risk of being without, safe, secure or adequate housing; expresses concern at the recent findings of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), which show that: SAAP is able to accommodate 12,335 people on an average day; SAAP is unable to accommodate all who request immediate accommodation, with an estimated 304 people (193 adults and unaccompanied children and 111 accompanying children) turned away on an average day; over half (56 per cent) of the people making valid requests for immediate accommodation on any given day were turned away; family groups had more difficulty in obtaining SAAP than individuals; and a large proportion of the homeless population do not receive SAAP accommodation; and urges the Government to: recognise the immense pressure under which SAAP funded services are operating, with reduced real funding levels under the current agreement; provide additional funding to meet unmet demand; and develop strategies and work co-operatively with other levels of government to reduce homelessness. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms Vamvakinou to move: That the House: acknowledges that the ongoing detention without trial of David Hicks is inconsistent with both international and Australian legal standards (including the principle of habeus corpus) and contravenes the individual rights and protections for which these standards provide; acknowledges that the newly revised rules for the US Military Commissions under which David Hicks is to be tried, but under which no US citizen can or will be tried, remain in breach of both the Geneva Conventions and the Australian Criminal Code and for this reason, do not constitute a fair trial but instead set an unacceptable precedent for the detention and trial of an Australian citizen overseas, especially by sanctioning the use of hearsay evidence and evidence obtained by coercion and by not permitting the accused to be privy to all the evidence; notes that one of the charges laid against David Hicks relies on the use of retrospective legislation, while the Government asserts that he cannot be tried in Australia because it would require retrospective legislation; calls for the immediate repatriation of David Hicks to Australia to face trial under Australian law; urges members of the United States Congress to help facilitate David Hicks’ repatriation to Australia by passing a resolution in Congress to this effect; calls on the Government to release advice provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the viability of charging David Hicks in Australia; acknowledges that we in this place have a responsibility to monitor and protect the welfare and rights of Australian citizens imprisoned overseas, and for this reason; calls for an immediate and independent assessment of the mental and physical health of David Hicks by relevant experts to ascertain the validity of allegations made concerning the deteriorating well being of David Hicks; seeks concrete assurances that any such assessment will not jeopardise or in any way prejudice the treatment of David Hicks whilst he is in Guantanamo Bay; and acknowledges that the ongoing imprisonment of David Hicks, and the denial of his basic rights, runs counter to the principles of freedom and democracy in the name of which the ‘war against terror’ is being fought, and threatens to undermine the international effort to combat terrorism. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price to move: That the House: notes, and congratulates, Red Lea Farm Fresh Chickens on its 50th anniversary of operation; notes that Red Lea has operated from its Blacktown site since 1957 and has remained a proud local Australian owned and operated business throughout its lifetime; notes that Red Lea currently employs more than 1,000 staff, has 35 retail outlets, 26 delivery trucks and processes in excess of 18 million chickens each year; and reaffirms its support for Australian owned and operated businesses, with particular emphasis on the workers they employ and communities they help build. 107 Questions in Writing 107 107 1103 107 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 10 May 2005: What sum was spent on recruitment agencies in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, and (d) 2004 by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio. Will the Minister provide a list of the recruitment agencies which are used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio. 107 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The sum spent on recruitment agencies in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 by each department and agency in the Prime Minister’s portfolio is as follows: Agency (a) 2001 (b) 2002 (c) 2003 (d) 2004 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabineta - - - $49,604 Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsmanb $99,021 $98,799 $2,276 $1,001 Australian National Audit Office $296,863 $287,364 $93,517 $36,987 Office of National Assessments Nil Nil Nil $4,295 National Water Commissionc Nil Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Nil Nil Nil Nil Australian Public Service Commission $150,262 $92,781 $204,077 $424,133 Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General $132,149 $287,127 $335,283 $451,796 aThe Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet cannot separately identify the costs for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. bThe Commonwealth Ombudsman outsourced its recruitment function to a recruitment agency in 2001 and 2002. This function was brought in-house in 2003. cThe National Water Commission was created in October 2004. The following recruitment agencies have been used by the department and agencies in the Prime Minister’s portfolio over the period 2001 to 2004: Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Alliance Recruiting/Quadrate Allstaff Careers Unlimited Design Emergency Drake Personnel Effective People Pty Ltd Ernst & Young Frontier Group Australia Hansen Searson Ford Hays Personnel Services (Aust) P/L Hudson Josal Enterprises Pty Ltd Kelly Services (Australia) LTD Kowalski Consulting P/L Occasional & Permanent Nannies Patriot Alliance Professional Careers Australia. Recruitment Central Recruitment Management Co. Pty Ltd Recruitment Solutions Ltd Regent Personnel Pty Ltd Regional Group SAC Report Writing Services Select Appointment Pty Ltd Select Australasia Skilled Group Limited Spherion Education Pty Ltd Spherion Outsourcing Solutions Spherion Recruitment Solutions Pty Ltd Staffing & Office Solutions Pty Ltd Summit Global Resources Summit Recruitment Tabma Training Temps Only The Green and Green Group Pty Ltd The One Umbrella TMP Worldwide Troy’s Hospitality Wizard Personnel & Office Services 108 108 2691 108 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006. 108 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) Answers were included in response to Question PM 70 from the Budget Estimates Hearings of 23 and 24 May 2005. Answer was included in response to Question PM 37 from the Budget Estimates Hearings of 22 and 23 May 2006. 109 109 2919 109 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 8 December 2005: For 2004-2005, what sum did the Minister’s department and portfolio agencies pay to (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors for legal services. Which partners or principals of (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors were responsible for undertaking or supervising legal services supplied by the firm to the department or agency in 2004-2005. For each partner or principal listed in response to part (2), what was the total amount billed to the department or agency for services undertaken or supervised by that partner or principal in 2004-2005. What are the details of the legal services provided to the department or portfolio agencies by (a) Clayton Utz, (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron, (c) Philips Fox, (d) Sparke Helmore, (e) Freehills, (f) Minter Ellison, (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth, (h) Mallesons Stephens Jacques, (i) Deacons, and (j) Craddock Murray Neumann Solicitors in 2004‑2005. 109 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: For 2004-2005, the sums paid to each law firm listed in the question by each agency within my portfolio, including the Department of the Environment and Heritage, were as follows: Department of the Environment and Heritage (including the Australian Greenhouse Office) (a) Clayton Utz $58 823.64 (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron $172 371.27 (c) Philips Fox $0.00* (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00* (e) Freehills $0.00* (f) Minter Ellison $107 853.85 (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00* (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00* (i) Deacons $0.00* (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00* * - The Department did not engage these firms during the period. NB: These amounts are inclusive of the expenditure on legal services by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO), which was integrated into the Department in October 2004. Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (a) Clayton Utz $0.00* (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron $984.45 (c) Philips Fox $0.00* (d) Sparke Helmore $0.00* (e) Freehills $0.00* (f) Minter Ellison $0.00* (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00* (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00* (i) Deacons $0.00* (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00* * - The portfolio agency did not engage these firms during the period. Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (a) Clayton Utz $0.00* (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron $0.00* (c) Philips Fox $0.00* (d) Sparke Helmore $43 384.44 (e) Freehills $0.00* (f) Minter Ellison $0.00* (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth $0.00* (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques $0.00* (i) Deacons $0.00* (j) Craddock Murray Neumann $0.00* * - The portfolio agency did not engage these firms during the period. The effort required to answer this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources for my Department which I am not prepared to authorise. The effort required to answer this question would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources for my Department which I am not prepared to authorise. Details of legal services provided to the Department and portfolio agencies in 2004-2005 are as follows: Department of the Environment and Heritage (including the Australian Greenhouse Office) Firm Legal Services Provided (a) Clayton Utz Legal advice for generator efficiency and the greenhouse challenge, and for professional services. (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Legal advice on intellectual property and greenhouse funding arrangements. (c) Philips Fox The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (d) Sparke Helmore The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (e) Freehills The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (f) Minter Ellison Provide reports on legal risks and procurement advice as well as legal and commercial advice. (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (i) Deacons The Department did not engage this firm during the period. (j) Craddock Murray Neumann The Department did not engage this firm during the period.   Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator Firm Legal Services Provided (a) Clayton Utz The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron Drafting confidentiality agreement for software acquisition. (c) Philips Fox The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (d) Sparke Helmore The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (e) Freehills The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (f) Minter Ellison The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (i) Deacons The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (j) Craddock Murray Neumann The Agency did not engage this firm during the period.   Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Firm Legal Services Provided (a) Clayton Utz The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (b) Blakes Dawson Waldron The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (c) Philips Fox The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (d) Sparke Helmore Legal advice pertaining to sale of Commonwealth property. (e) Freehills The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (f) Minter Ellison The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (g) Corrs Chambers Westgarth The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (h) Mallesons Stephens Jaques The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (i) Deacons The Agency did not engage this firm during the period. (j) Craddock Murray Neumann The Agency did not engage this firm during the period.   111 111 3009 111 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 9 February 2006: What sum was paid in Child Care Benefit in the electoral division of (a) Hunter, (b) Charlton, (c) Shortland, (d) Newcastle, and (e) Paterson in 2004-2005. 111 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Child Care Benefit is administered on the basis of parental entitlement not electoral division. Information on the amount of Child Care Benefit paid to customers is not readily available at the level of detail requested and would require too many resources for collation. 112 112 3066 112 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 16 February 2006: On what basis has the Government excluded parents whose children attend pre-schools from the entitlement to the 30% child care rebate and is the Government reviewing the issue. 112 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Only those parents that receive Child Care Benefit (CCB) for approved child care and work, train or study at some time during the week are eligible for the Child Care Tax Rebate. Approved child care is care provided by a child care service that is approved under the family assistance legislation. Approved care services must meet Australian Government standards in relation to opening hours and a range of quality assurance measures. The linking of CCB funding to satisfactory participation in the quality assurance systems provides the Australian Government, and families, with a level of accountability that services are committed to providing quality outcomes for children. Approved child care services can include centre‑based long day care services, family day care services, in-home care services, some occasional care services, and outside school hours care services. As approved services are primarily designed to assist families participate in the workforce and the community, they must be available to families for a minimum of eight hours a day, on each normal working day for at least 48 weeks a year. Preschools provide early childhood education for a limited age group and are not designed to cater for the needs of working families and as such are open for fewer hours per day than child care centres. Preschools also have scheduled breaks during the year aligned with school terms. Some preschools have met the requirements to become an approved child care service, which allows eligible families using those services to receive the CCTR. The funding of preschools is the responsibility of the state and territory governments. There is nothing to prevent state and territory governments from providing assistance to parents with children attending preschools. I note that the New South Wales Government under funds its preschool system by an estimated $90 million per year. 112 112 3180 112 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 27 March 2006: How many Australian permanent residents with more than two years residency have not taken out Australian citizenship. What are their countries of origin and how many from each country. 112 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs does not hold electronic data from which a response to the honourable member’s question can be derived. See answer to question 1. 113 113 3207 113 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programmes and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each programme, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 113 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio administers a number of Indigenous-specific programs that could potentially benefit indigenous communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley and these are detailed in the table below. Where funding has been provided to an applicant within the Electorate, the expenditure has been provided. In relation to the number of people the programs are intended to assist nationally or in the electorate of Chifley, in general, the programs are application driven, designed to assist national Indigenous communities and individuals across Australia and number targets are not applicable. Where numbers are applicable, these are provided. Further details of these indigenous programs and other mainstream funding programs that could potentially benefit indigenous communities in the Electorate of Chifley that meet eligibility requirements can be found at agency websites. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Outcome 1: Arts Name of Indigenous Specific Program Available to Indigenous Communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire Program) administered funds National Arts and Crafts Industry Support Program $4.4million Indigenous Visual Arts Special Initiative $1 million Indigenous Culture Support (ICS) formerly known as Regional Arts and Culture Program (RACS) $6.672 million Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records (MILR $8.532 million Return of Indigenous Cultural Property (RICP) Program Note: Expenditure breakdown on electorate basis is not possible for this program. Funding is provided to 8 major Australian museums to undertake repatriation of Australian indigenous ancestral remains and secret sacred objects held in their collections. $600,995 [Funds for the RICP Program comprise monies from the Australian Government (50%), States and Northern Territory (50%)]   Outcome 2 – Sport Name of Indigenous Specific Program Available to Indigenous Communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire Program) administered funds Indigenous Sport and Recreation Program $11,535,991 Outcome 3 – Communications Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley Indigenous Broadcasting Program Gadigal Information Service Aboriginal Corporation, Koori Radio 93.7FM 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $13,341,000 2005-06 Expenditure in Electorate of Chifley $391,648 2005-06 – Number of people program is intended to assist in the electoral division of Chifley It is estimated that there are approximately 50,000 Indigenous people served by the Gadigal Information Service (serving the Indigenous population of greater Sydney).   National Archives of Australia Name of Indigenous Specific Program Available to Indigenous Communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire Program) administered funds Bringing Them Home (BTH) Name Index (note: The budget allocation is for a technical position based in Canberra to develop the new reference interface which will assist all accredited users to better access the BTH Name Index on behalf of Indigenous clients) $60,000   The Australia Council for the Arts Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley Through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board the Australia Council provides a suite of Indigenous specific funding programs available for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $409,250 (total expenditure and commitments) 2005-06 Expenditure in Electorate of Chifley One grant was awarded to a recipient in the electoral Division of Chifley in 2005/06 under the New Work grant program of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board of the Australia Council as follows: Client Name: Robyn Caughlan Project Description: New Work Grant Category grant Waiting at the Gate - an autobiography of Robyn Caughlan with the assistance of a writer. Amount funded: $20,000 Project Start Date: 24 January 2006 Project End Date: 24-January 2007   Australian Sports Commission (ASC) Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley Elite Indigenous Travel and Accommodation Assistance Program 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $485,218 – allocated to support Indigenous sportspeople (athletes, coaches, officials and trainers) selected to represent their state/territory or Australia in mainstream club and school sport. 2005-06 – Number of people program is intended to assist nationally 600+ 2005-06 Expenditure in Electorate of Chifley $2,871.07 for 4 Indigenous sportspeople Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley National Network of Indigenous Sport Development Officers 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $2.034m ($1.684m salary, $0.350m program support) – allocated to 28 Indigenous Sport Development Officers. 2005-06 – Number of people program is intended to assist nationally 100,000+ 2005-06 Expenditure in Electorate of Chifley Indigenous Sport Development Officers based in Silverwater and Homebush Bay cover the Sydney Region. It is expected that: a percentage of the Indigenous Sport Development Officers’ time is spent in the Electorate of Chifley delivering sport participation and development activities for Indigenous people; and Indigenous people who live within the Electorate of Chifley also take part in participation and development activities delivered across the Sydney Region. Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley National Indigenous Sporting Development Program 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $0.700m – allocated across 16 National Sporting Organisations to deliver participation and development programs/initiatives to Indigenous communities, in partnership with Indigenous Sport Development Officers where possible. 2005-06 – Number of people program is intended to assist nationally 100,000+ 2005-06 Expenditure in Electorate of Chifley Of the 16 funded National Sporting Organisations, only 4 deliver participation and development programs across the Sydney Region (Surfing Australia, Australian Rugby League, Australian Golf Union and Cricket Australia). It is expected that Indigenous people who live within the Electorate of Chifley take part in the participation and development programs delivered by the 4 National Sporting Organisations in other areas within the Sydney Region. Australian Film Commission Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley The Indigenous Branch of the Australian Film Commission. Funding is available to Indigenous filmmakers on a national level. 2005-06 Annual Expenditure (entire program) – administered funds $2,459,000 (Indigenous Branch Budget).   Australian Film Television and Radio School Name of Indigenous Specific Program available to indigenous communities and individuals in Chifley The Indigenous program initiative is available to Indigenous filmmakers on a national level. 2005-06 Annual Expenditure $117,374 (Budget).   Other Portfolio Agencies The following portfolio Agencies advised that they either do not deliver any specific programmes/services for indigenous communities and individuals or that they do not deliver any specific programmes/services for indigenous communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley: Australia Business Arts Foundation Limited Australian Film Commission Australian National Maritime Museum Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bundanon Trust Film Australia Ltd Film Finance Corporation Aust Ltd National Gallery of Australia National Library of Australia National Museum of Australia Australia Post Telstra Australian Communications Media Authority Australian Broadcasting Corporation Special Broadcasting Service Corporation NetAlert Ltd 116 116 3270 116 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a public relations, public affairs or media management consultancy in 2005; if so, what was the (a) purpose and (b) cost of each engagement. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged for these purposes. For 2005, what sum was spent on public relations, public affairs or media management consultancies by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 117 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (3) This information is published in Defence’s Annual Reports. 117 117 3329 117 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the department or any agency in Minister’s portfolio pay for massages for its staff in 2005; if so, what sum was spent on this purpose; What was the cost per massage; and How many staff made use of the service. 117 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: in 2005 the department spent $1,610 on massages for staff as part of a Health Week initiative; the cost per massage was $5; and 322 staff made use of the service. No other agencies within the DEWR portfolio have paid for massages for their staff in 2005. 117 117 3364 117 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2006: Did the (a) Minister and (b) his personal staff receive any media training in 2005. What was the cost of the media training. What was the name and postal address of each company engaged to provide media training. 117 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. Nor did my predecessor the Hon Robert Hill, or his staff. and (3) Not applicable. 117 117 3443 117 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 9 May 2006: When was the Offshore Protection Command established. Will the Minister explain its structure, including its key and total personnel, to whom they report and its internal and external lines of control. What additional positions have been provided to the Command and which positions, if any, have been transferred to it and from which agencies were they transferred. What sum was allocated to the Command on its creation, what are its annual allocations for the forward estimates period and what sums have been allocated to its assigned functions for the forward estimates period. Under what provisions of the Defence Act and Regulations, or other legislation, are ADF personnel allowed to report to a Minister other than the Minister for Defence. Are there any embedded units in the Command; if so, how many personnel, at what levels do they comprise and from which departments and agencies have they come. Are there any plans to embed other departments or agencies into the Command; if so, which departments or agencies, when and at what strength and level. What guidance has been given to the Command and against which criteria will the success of its operation be assessed. 118 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Border Protection Command (BPC) - formerly the Joint Offshore Protection Command was established on 30 March 2005. BPC brings together the resources and expertise of both the Australian Customs Service (Customs) and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to create a single maritime surveillance and response system. BPC is comprised of two organisational units: the Coastwatch Division of Customs and Defence’s Northern Command, under the command of a serving Rear Admiral. BPC reports to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Customs Service and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF). In turn the CEO and CDF report to the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Minister for Defence who have joint responsibility for the BPC. Officers are subject to the human resource policies and conditions of service of their parent agency. BPC is staffed by 207 personnel drawn from Customs and the ADF. Many of the Northern Command staff have additional responsibilities, such as those that fall within Defence Aid to the Community commitments. There are four SES equivalent positions within BPC. All positions that fall within BPC remain either Customs or ADF positions. Forward Estimates for BPC responsibilities are contained in Output 4 of the Australian Customs Service Portfolio Budget Statements and Outcome 1 of the Department of Defence Portfolio Budget Statements. As described in (2) above, BPC reports to both the Minister for Justice and Customs and the Minister for Defence. Each Minister retains operational responsibility for the personnel drawn from his agency. See my response to part (2). In accordance with decisions taken within the 2006-07 Budget process, staff representing the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Customs Enforcement Operations Coordination Unit are now co-located in BPC headquarters in Canberra. Additionally, the Customs National Marine Unit has outposted a Liaison Officer to Northern Command. The Command operates under a Directive signed by the CEO of Customs and the Chief of the Defence Force. The success of its operation will be assessed against this directive and the performance measures of its constituent units. 118 118 3592 118 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 31 May 2006: Will he rule out locating a high level nuclear reactor in the federal electoral division of (i) Adelaide, (ii) Aston, (iii) Ballarat, (iv) Banks, (v) Barker, (vi) Barton, (vii) Bass, (viii) Batman, (ix) Bendigo, (x) Bennelong, (xi) Berowra, (xii) Blair, (xiii) Blaxland, (xiv) Bonner, (xv) Boothby, (xvi) Bowman, (xvii) Braddon, (xviii) Bradfield, (xix) Brand, (xx) Brisbane, (xxi) Bruce, (xxii) Calare, (xxiii) Calwell, (xxiv) Canberra, (xxv) Canning, (xxvi) Capricornia, (xxvii) Casey, (xxviii) Charlton, (xxix) Chifley, (xxx) Chisholm, (xxxi) Cook, (xxxii) Corangamite, (xxxiii) Corio, (xxxiv) Cowan, (xxxv) Cowper, (xxxvi) Cunningham, (xxxvii) Curtin, (xxxviii) Dawson, (xxxix) Deakin, (xl) Denison, (xli) Dickson, (xlii) Dobell, (xliii) Dunkley, (xliv) Eden-Monaro, (xlv) Fadden, (xlvi) Fairfax, (xlvii) Farrer, (xlviii) Fisher, (xlix) Flinders, (l) Forde, (li) Forrest, (lii) Fowler, (liii) Franklin, (liv) Fraser, (lv) Fremantle, (lvi) Gellibrand, (lvii) Gilmore, (lviii) Gippsland, (lvix) Goldstein, (lx) Gorton, (lxi) Grayndler, (lxii) Greenway, (lxiii) Grey, (lxiv) Griffith, (lxv) Groom, (lxvi) Gwydir, (lxvii) Hasluck, (lxviii) Herbert, (lxix) Higgins, (lxx) Hindmarsh, (lxxi) Hinkler, (lxxii) Holt, (lxxiii) Hotham, (lxxix) Hughes, (lxxx) Hume, (lxxxi) Hunter, (lxxxii) Indi, (lxxxiii) Isaacs, (lxxxiv) Jagajaga, (lxxxv) Kalgoorlie, (lxxxvi) Kennedy, (lxxxvii) Kingsford Smith, (lxxxviii) Kingston, (lxxxix) Kooyong, (xc) Lalor, (xci) La Trobe, (xcii) Leichhardt, (xciii) Lilley, (xciv) Lindsay, (xcv) Lingiari, (xcvi) Longman, (xcvii) Lowe, (xcviii) Lyne, (xcix) Lyons, (c) Macarthur, (ci) McEwen, (cii) Mackellar, (ciii) McMillan, (civ) McPherson, (cv) Macquarie, (cvi) Makin, (cvii) Mallee, (cviii) Maranoa, (cix) Maribyrnong, (cx) Mayo, (cxi) Melbourne, (cxii) Melbourne Ports, (cxiii) Menzies, (cxiv) Mitchell, (cxv) Moncrieff, (cxvi) Moore, (cxvii) Moreton, (cxviii) Murray, (cxv) New England, (cxvi) Newcastle, (cxvii) North Sydney, (cxviii) O’Connor, (cxix) Oxley, (cxx) Page, (cxxi) Parkes, (cxxii) Parramatta, (cxxiii) Paterson, (cxxiv) Pearce, (cxxv) Perth, (cxxvi) Petrie, (cxxvii) Port Adelaide, (cxxviii) Prospect, (cxxix) Rankin, (cxxx) Reid, (cxxxi) Richmond, (cxxxii) Riverina, (cxxxiii) Robertson, (cxxxiv) Ryan, (cxxxv) Scullin, (cxxxvi) Shortland, (cxxxvii) Solomon, (cxxxviii) Stirling, (cxxxix) Sturt, (cxl) Swan, (cxli) Sydney, (cxlii) Tangney, (cxliii) Throsby, (cxliv) Wakefield, (cxlv) Wannon, (cxlvi) Warringah, (cxlvii) Watson, (cxlviii) Wentworth, (cxlix) Werriwa, (cxlix) Wide Bay, (cl) Wills. 119 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I announced the Terms of Reference for the uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy review on 6 June 2006. The review will contribute to a wide ranging public debate on Australia’s future energy needs and the broad range of emerging energy technologies. The review will consider the following matters: Economic issues The capacity for Australia to increase uranium mining and exports in response to growing global demand. The potential for establishing other steps in the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia, such as fuel enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing, along with the costs and benefits associated with each step. The extent and circumstances in which nuclear energy could in the longer term be economically competitive in Australia with other existing electricity generation technologies, including any implications this would have for the national electricity market. The current state of nuclear energy research and development in Australia and the capacity for Australia to make a significantly greater contribution to international nuclear science. Environment issues (a) The extent to which nuclear energy will make a contribution to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. (b) The extent to which nuclear energy could contribute to the mix of emerging energy technologies in Australia. Health, safety and proliferation issues The potential of ‘next generation’ nuclear energy technologies to meet safety, waste and proliferation concerns. The waste processing and storage issues associated with nuclear energy and current world’s best practice. The security implications relating to nuclear energy. The health and safety implications relating to nuclear energy. The terms of reference therefore will provide for an informed and thorough examination of the issues surrounding nuclear energy. The Taskforce is chaired by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, and includes members highly qualified for the task. The Taskforce will produce a draft report for public consultation in November 2006. A final report will be completed by the end of 2006. When announcing the Taskforce, I said that the Commonwealth itself would not be constructing nuclear power stations. 120 120 3609 120 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 1 June 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on: travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for his visits to the United States, Canada and Ireland from 12 to 25 May 2006. 120 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 28 September 2006, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has paid the following costs (a) $35,593.90 for travel, (b) $30,606.64 for accommodation, (c) security costs are met by the Attorney-General’s Department and (d) $16,352.69 for all other expenses. See also the answer to Questions on Notice No. 2070, answered in the Senate on 15 August 2006. 120 120 3610 120 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 1 June 2006: What sum was spent by the Commonwealth Government on (a) travel, (b) accommodation, (c) security, and (d) all other expenses for his visit to India from 5 to 8 March 2006. 120 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised that as at 28 September 2006, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has paid the following costs: (a) $107,364.83 for travel, this figure includes the cost of a charter aircraft between New Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai, (b) $8,074.95 for accommodation, (c) security costs are met by the Attorney-General’s Department and (d) $2,313.80 for all other expenses. 120 120 3683 120 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 Ms Plibersek asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 19 June 2006: Do any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio offer childcare to employees; if so, which agencies. In respect of agencies that offer childcare, (a) is the childcare (i) long day care, (ii) outside school hours care, or (iii) another type of care, (b) is the childcare facility located at the agency’s premises; if so, (i) what is the maximum capacity of the childcare facility, (ii) is enrolment at the facility available to children whose parents are not employees of the agency, and (iii) do the children of agency employees receive preferential enrolment over the children of non-employees; if so, what are the provisions of the preference rule; and (c) will the Minister provide a copy of the information sheet given to employees seeking employer assistance with childcare. Are employees given the option of salary-sacrificing childcare offered by the agency. How many employees within each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have made salary-sacrifice arrangements with the employing agency for childcare expenses. In respect of the employees identified in the response to part (5), how many use on-site childcare. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have salary-sacrifice agreements relating to childcare with employees who do not use the on-site childcare centre; if so, how many agreements of this type are there. Will the Minister provide a copy of the childcare benefits provisions from the Certified Agreements of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. What financial assistance for childcare, other than salary-sacrificed fees, is available to employees (including those on AWAs) of each of the Minister’s portfolio agencies. Have any agencies in the Minister’s portfolio sought private or public rulings from the Australian Taxation Office relating to childcare and fringe benefits tax; if so, when. Do any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies have arrangements with other Government agencies to provide childcare to employees, such as sharing childcare facility costs at a site within, or external to, one of the agencies. 121 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. N/A N/A None. N/A No. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) is the only DEWR agency which provides for childcare in its certified agreement. The following is an extract from the 2006 EOWA Certified Agreement: 197. Where staff are transferred to another geographical location (i.e. another state or territory) within the Agency, full costs of family care (aged and child) are to be paid by the Agency for an aggregate period of 1 month. 198. Where staff are required to be away from their home base for more than two consecutive days for work purposes, they may claim reimbursement of up to $25 per day from the Agency for family care (aged and child) costs arising from that travel. 199. During the December/January school holiday period, the Agency will reimburse childcare costs up to $25 per day for each child of an employee with childcare responsibilities who is required to attend the Agency for operational reasons. The maximum payment that can be made is $175 per week per employee. 200. The Agency will provide employees with access to a national childcare information and referral service. The Agency will consult with staff to ascertain the level of demand and the programs of more interest. Agency policies allow for staff to be reimbursed for additional work-related expenses which may include additional child care costs if, for example, an employee is travelling away from home overnight or is recalled from leave. No. No. 122 122 3753 122 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 21 June 2006: Further to his reply to part (6) of question No. 3195 ( Hansard , page 135, 19 June 2006) is he able to indicate whether Lantus will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by 31 December 2006; if not, why not. 122 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: LANTUS® (insulin glargine) was listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes on 1 October 2006. 122 122 3791 122 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr Garrett asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 8 August 2006: Is he aware of a proposal from Sydney Airport Corporation Limited to build a 60,000 square metre commercial development, which has provision for a shopping centre and car park. Will he confirm that Sydney Airport Corporation Limited has submitted a revised plan for the development of a commercial complex on airport land. Considering his statement on 14 June 2006 that: “…if there were to be a proposal for a commercial development it would be subject to public consultation processes”, (a) what will be the form of the consultation process; (b) how long will the consultation process run; (c) what role will local councils play in the consultation process; (d) what role will the New South Wales Government play in the consultation process and (e) what provision will be made to provide for effective participation by residents in the consultation process. In respect of his statement on 14 June 2006 that: “…a development on an airport site should meet similar kinds of development conditions as would apply if it was across the road”, what conditions will he place on a revised plan by Sydney Airport Corporation Limited to ensure that any proposed development is consistent with local and state planning laws, and with community expectations. Is he aware of any breach this year of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 in the suburbs of (a) Eastlakes, (b) Coogee and (c) Randwick, within the electorate of Kingsford Smith. For each breach of the curfew identified in part (5), will he provide information on (a) when the breach occurred, (b) where it occurred and (c) what penalty, if any, was incurred. 122 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL) submitted a revised plan on 28 July 2006. The consultation process for all MDPs is identified under Part 5 Division 4 of the Airports Act 1996 (the Airports Act). Under s.92(1) of the Airports Act, the public consultation process requires an airport to advertise its proposal in a newspaper circulating generally, make copies of its proposal available for public inspection and purchase, and invite written comments. The public consultation process is for 90 days. This concluded on 30 January 2006. In addition to their opportunity to comment as part of the public consultation process, and in addition to its normal consultation with officers from the neighbouring councils (Botany Bay, Rockdale and Marrickville), SACL has met with the Mayors of Sydney, Ashfield, Hurstville, Leichhardt, Randwick, Rockdale and Waverley to discuss its plans. SACL also provided a presentation to the Marrickville Council Mayor and several councils during the consultation period. The Councils of Ashfield, Botany, Marrickville, Randwick, Rockdale, Sutherland and the City of Sydney all provided written submissions during the consultation period, as did the Local Government Association of NSW and the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. I am advised that SACL met with the NSW Government Planning Minister on 21 June 2006 and the NSW Roads Minister on 23 June 2006. The NSW Department of Planning provided a written submission on behalf of the NSW Government. See (a) above. Further to advertising and making it plans publicly available, SACL gave presentations to local councils and also received 13 submissions from members of the public during the consultation period. The draft MDP is currently under assessment by my Department. I will not prejudge what conditions might be placed on SACL if the draft MDP is approved. There have been no confirmed breaches of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (the Act) this year. See answer to question 5 above. 123 123 3795 123 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 8 August 2006: When was the report of the Ministerial Reference Group on Natural Resource Management Program Delivery, chaired by Mr Kim Keogh, submitted to the Natural Heritage Ministerial Council. Can the Minister provide information on the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report referred to in part (1); if this information is not yet available, when will the Minister be able to provide it. In respect of the report referred to in part (1), (a) will it be released to the public; if so, when and (b) when will the Government announce a response to the report. 123 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Ministerial Reference Group for Future NRM Programme Delivery presented its Review of Arrangements for the Regional Delivery of Natural Resource Management Programmes (‘the Keogh Review’) to the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board in March 2006. The conclusions and recommendations of the Keogh Review are now publicly available. The Ministers for the Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry released the Keogh Report on 3 October 2006 and it is available on the Internet at : www.nrm.gov.au/publications/regional-delivery-review/index.html. A copy of the Report has been provided to the honourable member and further copies are available from the House of Representatives Table Office. Please see the response to Part 2. (b) A formal response to the Keogh Review will be considered within the context of the Government’s consideration of future NRM arrangements. 124 124 3796 124 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 8 August 2006: For each financial year from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005, what was the actual expenditure by the Commonwealth Government on (a) the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality for each of the 21 priority regions in Australia most affected by salinity and water quality problems and (b) the National Heritage Trust, specifying expenditure at national, State, regional and community level for (i) Envirofund, (ii) the Landcare Program, (iii) the Bushcare Program, (iii) the Rivercare Program, (iv) the Coastcare Program and (c) the National Land Care Program. 124 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality was established in 2000-2001. Expenditure for each of the 21 priority regions was as follows: Region 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 Lachlan-Murrumbidgee 0 0 $3,866,800 $12,847,750 $4,802,530 Murray 0 0 $4,702,965 $7,245,945 $5,611,220 Macquarie-Castlereagh 0 0 $110,375 $5,055,676 $4,387,090 Namoi-Gwydir 0 0 $52,500 $5,152,762 $5,197,973 Goulburn-Broken 0 $1,598,675 $4,150,000 $5,707,000 $5,623,000 Avoca-Loddon-Campaspe 0 $1,477,100 $3,139,000 $4,351,000 $4,335,000 Glenelg-Hopkins-Corangamite 0 $2,216,750 $5,742,000 $5,092,400 $5,985,000   Lower Murray $25,000 $3,602,395 $9,363,761 $16,760,423 $13,204,720 Mt Lofty-Kangaroo Is-Northern $25,000 $711,435 $1,944,490 $2,535,562 $1,243,052 South East $25,000 $1,250,000 $1,243,645 $692,460 $90,000 Burdekin-Fitzroy $270,000 $216,351 $926,834 $3,119,138 $4,488,984 Lockyer-Burnett Mary $270,000 $86,197 $19,607 $1,368,546 $4,236,287 *tBorder Rivers & Ballone Maranoa $135,000 $150,514 $1,476,425 $2,067,946 $2,577,965 * South West 0 0 0 0 $142,514 * Condamine $125,000 $78,938 $190,058 $1,056,246 $1,689,673 Condamine-Ballone-Maranoa (NSW) 0 0 $44,706 $2,634,473 $154,975 Border Rivers (NSW) 0 0 $30,000 $1,820,298 $1,865,742 Avon 0 0 0 $613,099 $142,500 Northern Agricultural 0 0 0 $427,325 $114,375 Ord 0 0 0 $156,015 $355,025 South West 0 0 0 $639,054 $223,500 South Coast 0 0 0 $571,545 $213,077 Midlands 0 0 $53,740 $1,773,300 $500,000 Darwin-Katherine 0  0  0  $45,000 $500,000 Total $875,000 $11,388,355 $37,056,906 $81,732,963 $67,684,202 * These regions constitute the regions in which NAP investment is delivered in QLD, formally covered by the Condamine Balonne Maranoa (QLD) NAP region and the Border Rivers (QLD) NAP region. t The Queensland Murray Darling Catchment administer NAP for the Border Rivers and Ballone Maranoa region. Natural Heritage Trust expenditure from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005 was: Year 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 $m 36.32 131.38 234.91 294.50 283.27 274.73 249.94 249.98 307.61   Funding for Envirofund did not commence until the 2002-2003 financial year. All Envirofund expenditure is at the community level. Expenditure was: Year 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 $m 31.25 19.76 19.47 to (iv) Funding by ‘cares’ did not commence until the 2002-2003 financial year. Expenditure was as follows: 2002-2003 ($ million) * Local Regional National Air & Waste Total Bushcare 10.86 23.96 63.02 - 97.84 Coastcare 2.98 8.38 28.48 - 39.84 Landcare 8.46 19.82 30.33 - 58.61 Rivercare 8.95 15.75 24.77 - 49.47 Air & Waste - - - 4.18 4.18 Total 31.25 67.90 146.61 4.18 249.94 Note that in 2002-03 administrative expenses were attributed against the investment streams and programs. 2003-2004 ($ million) * Local Regional National Administration Total Bushcare 7.36 42.06 42.14 7.64 99.21 Coastcare 1.94 16.33 14.68 2.92 35.88 Landcare 4.09 28.95 34.09 5.85 72.97 Rivercare 6.37 22.86 6.36 6.07 41.67 Air & Waste - - 0.25 - 0.25 Total 19.76 110.21 97.53 22.48 249.98 2004-2005 ($ million) * Local Regional National Administration Total Bushcare 9.22 53.98 47.37 8.54 119.11 Coastcare 1.67 26.74 26.66 3.27 58.32 Landcare 2.18 41.16 28.20 6.53 78.08 Rivercare 6.40 23.34 15.57 6.78 52.09 Total 19.47 145.22 117.80 25.12 307.61 * Due to rounding some columns and rows may not add exactly to totals. Expenditure on the National Land Care Program from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005 was as follows: Year 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 $m 65.51 54.44 54.90 38.10 35.93 44.48 26.67 39.05 37.80   126 126 3830 126 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 8 August 2006: Given that the Budget Papers provide for the Commonwealth’s remaining stake in Telstra to be sold in 2006-07, have projected Telstra dividends been removed from the forward estimates for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10; if not, (a) why not, (b) what are the projected Commonwealth Telstra dividends for the forward estimates, (c) when will these dividends be removed from the forward estimates and (d) what will be the effect on the fiscal and cash balance in each forward estimate year. How does the media release, issued jointly by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Administration on 5 May 2006 and announcing the transfer of $18 billion in seed capital to the Future Fund, reconcile with the Department of Finance and Administration estimate of the 2006-07 Future Fund Special Account Balance of $26,474,365. What additional asset sales and amounts are expected to be transferred to the Future Fund in 2006-07. 126 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: to (d) The estimates in the 2006-07 Budget were based on an assumed full sale of Telstra in 2006-07. Accordingly, the Budget estimates assumed that the Government would receive only Telstra dividends paid in the first half of 2006-07 and that no Telstra dividends would be received by the Government in 2007-08, 2008-09 or 2009‑10. The Government announced on 25 August 2006 that a Telstra share offer would proceed and that the Government would transfer the balance of its remaining shares to the Future Fund. The estimates have been updated as part of the 2006-07 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook update to reflect this announcement. The 2006-07 Finance and Administration Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS), on page 254, refers to a figure of $26,474,365,000 in relation to the Future Fund Management Agency, rather than $26,474,365. The $18 billion in seed capital was transferred to the Future Fund during the 2005-06 financial year (on 5 May 2006). The $26,474,365,000 shown in the 2006-07 PBS for the Future Fund Management Agency was the then estimate of further credits to the Future Fund Management Agency Special Account during the 2006-07 financial year, not the balance of the Fund as at 30 June 2007. This amount includes Telstra sale proceeds assumed to be paid into the Future Fund, and estimated interest and dividend earnings of the Fund. Following the Telstra 3 Share Offer, the Government will transfer around 2.1 billion shares that were not required in support of the Offer to the Future Fund. In addition, the proceeds from the first instalment payment in the Offer, over $8 billion, will be transferred to the Fund in January 2007. Proceeds from the final instalment will be transferred following receipt in 2007-08. Separately to the Telstra 3 Share Offer, on 29 September 2006, the Government announced that it will transfer $13.638 billion to the Future Fund during 2006-07. 127 127 3850 127 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP 0 Mr Burke asked the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 8 August 2006: That the new Purchasing Allowance Scheme (PAS) will not result in additional contract payments to the current service provider GSL; and Any changes to the scope of the kitchen assistance and cleaning duties under the Meaningful Activities Program will not result in any form of payment or compensation to GSL due to a variance of the Government’s contract with the service provider to operate detention centres in Australia. 127 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The new Purchasing Allowance Scheme replaces the existing Merit Point System and will be administered within the current contract arrangements. The Government allocated additional funds in the May 2006 Budget for changes to the Detention Services Contract, in respect of cleaning and catering services, following an independent review by Mr Michael Roche. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is currently negotiating these contract changes with GSL. It is not expected that changes to detainee activities associated with the Purchasing Allowance Scheme will require additional changes to the contract. 127 127 3858 and 3859 127 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 Ms Bird asked the Treasurer and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 9 August 2006: In respect of the announcement of 29 June 2006 regarding the establishment of a $5 million Port Kembla Industry Facilitation Fund (the Fund), has a Task Force been established; if so, when, which departments and/or agencies comprise the Task Force, has the Task Force met, what are the administrative arrangements for the Fund, when will the guidelines for the Fund be published, will the Fund be advertised, how will project applications be assessed, what projects will be eligible for funding, which department and/or agency will assess project applications, will the Minister of the department and/or agency referred to in part (i) have a role in assessment; if so, what will be the nature of that role, will the Fund consult with federal Members of Parliament representing the Illawarra region; if so when and how will this occur, will the Fund consult with the New South Wales Government, local government authorities, businesses, trade unions and other relevant stakeholders, will BlueScope Steel be eligible for project funding, and when will the Fund cease to exist. 128 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —On behalf of the Treasurer and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, in early July 2006. Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Department of Education and Workplace Relations, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Education, Science and Training, Department of Transport and Regional Services, and the Department of Finance and Administration. Yes on 7 July 2006. The Fund will be administered by AusIndustry the program delivery division of the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources. The Customer Information Guide for the Fund was published on Friday, 11 August 2006 and is available on the AusIndustry website. Advertising for the Fund commenced on Saturday, 12 August 2006. Advertising will be through the press including the Weekend Australian, the Illawarra Mercury, the Wollongong Advertiser and the Warilla Lake Times and on radio stations WAVEFM and I98FM. Project Applications will be assessed against eligibility and evaluation criteria as detailed in the Customer Information Guide. Projects that will grow or secure sustainable employment opportunities in the Port Kembla and surrounding areas will be eligible for funding. AusIndustry, the program delivery division of the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources, will assess the applications. Advice on the merit of the applications will be provided by a panel comprising representatives of the Australian Government and industry experts from the Port Kembla and surrounding areas. The Minister will not have a role in the assessment of the project applications. AusIndustry staff briefed one local federal Member of Parliament on the implementation of the Fund following the program launch on Friday, 11 August 2006. One other Member was briefed on Monday, 21 August 2006. AusIndustry staff briefed senior representatives of the NSW Department of State & Regional Development and a senior staff member of Wollongong Council on Friday, 11 August 2006. Staff from Wollongong and Shellharbour Councils were at the program launch and interested stakeholders had the opportunity to attend briefing workshops held in Wollongong on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 and Thursday, 24 August 2006. BlueScope Steel and its related companies are ineligible for project funding. The Fund ceases on 30 June 2008. 128 128 3863 128 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 9 August 2006: At the Community and Disability Services Ministerial Council meeting of 26 July 2006, did the Federal Government agree to review Commonwealth legislation, policy and eligibility criteria that currently prevent grandparents who care for their grandchildren from accessing services and income support; if so, by what date is the review to be (a) completed and (b) made public. Will the Government review Centrelink allowance and pension eligibility criteria, including minimum job-seeking and/or work requirements, of grandparents who care for their grandchildren. 129 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. The Australian Government did not agree to review Commonwealth legislation, policy and eligibility criteria that currently prevent grandparents who care for their grandchildren from accessing services and income support. At the Community and Disability Services Ministerial Council meeting of 26 July 2006, the Australian Government agreed that jurisdictions work together to develop a mechanism to allow grandparents, caring predominantly for their grandchildren without formal authority, to be eligible for appropriate Australian Government and State and Territory Government payments and services. At the states’ and territories’ insistence, this excludes foster care payments. This is at a preliminary stage and details have not yet been discussed. However, the Minister also noted that the states’ and territories’ requirement to exclude grandparents from accessing foster care payments may make finding a suitable mechanism difficult. The Australian Government values the important role of grandparents who have primary caring responsibility for their grandchildren. To support these grandparents, the Australian Government has implemented a number of specific measures, which include: waiving the Child Care Benefit work/study/training test for grandparent carers providing access to a special rate of Child Care Benefit called Grandparent Child Care Benefit funding the Transition to Independent Living Allowance for a further four years and expanding the eligibility criteria to assist young people in grandparent/relative care through Centrelink, implementing a service strategy and launching a booklet to increase customer, community and staff awareness of issues facing grandparent/relative families, and implementing a new approach to the family law system which, amongst other things, reinforces the important role of grandparents. 129 129 3912 129 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 August 2006: Has the Minister’s Office, or any department or agency in the Minister’s portfolio, engaged any consultant or other form of external assistance in the preparation of any speech to be made by the Minister in the financial year 2005-06 129 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. 129 129 3917 129 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 August 2006: Has the Minister’s office, or any department or agency in the Minister’s portfolio, engaged any consultant or other form of external assistance in the preparation of any speech to be made by the Minister in the financial year 2005-06. 129 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. 130 130 3935 130 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms Owens asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 15 August 2006: Is the Government considering removing branded pharmaceuticals from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) list. How many PBS prescriptions were filled during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in (i) New South Wales and (ii) the federal electorate of Parramatta. How many PBS prescriptions were filled during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2150, (ix) 2151, (x) 2152, and (xi) 2153. How many PBS prescriptions were filled for concession card holders during (1) (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in (i) NSW and (ii) the federal electorate of Parramatta. How many PBS prescriptions were filled for concession card holders during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2150, (ix) 2151, (x) 2152, and (xii) 2153. In (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006, how many PBS prescriptions were filled for people in New South Wales who did not hold concession cards. How many PBS prescriptions were filled for people who did not hold concession cards during (a) 2003-2004, and (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2150, (ix) 2151, (x) 2152, and (xii) 2153. How many PBS prescriptions costing the consumer a maximum of $23.70 were filled during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in (i) New South Wales and (ii) the federal electorate of Parramatta. How many PBS prescriptions costing the consumer a maximum of $23.70 were filled during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2150, (ix) 2151, (x) 2152, and (xii) 2153. How many PBS prescriptions costing the consumer a maximum of $3.80 were filled during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in (i) New South Wales and (ii) the federal electorate of Parramatta. How many PBS prescriptions costing the consumer a maximum of $3.80 during (a) 2003-2004, (b) 2004-2005 and (c) 2005-2006 in the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2150, (ix) 2151, (x) 2152, and (xii) 2153. 130 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. (6) (8) and (10) part (i) for NSW 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 (2)           Total prescriptions filled 57,522,388 58,612,737 57,687,957 (4)           Total concessional 47,654,911 48,772,111 48,497,031 (6)           Total General 9,867,477 9,840,626 9,190,926 (8)           General non- safety net 7,790,195 7,546,226 7,015,969                 Concessional - non-safety net 35,776,660 35,807,250 35,592,014                 General safety net 2,077,282 2,294,400 2,174,957 (10)         Total concessional co-payment 37,853,942 38,101,650 37,766,971 Notes to data Prescription volume excludes Doctor’s Bag. It is assumed that a ‘concession card’ refers to a Centrelink concession card, not a card earned by reaching the PBS safety net amount. The amount of $23.70 in part 8 was the general co-payment amount in calendar year 2004 but not in 2003 or 2005 or 2006. In order to obtain meaningful and comparable figures the $23.70 has been taken to mean the general co-payment amount over the three financial years specified. The amount of $3.80 specified in part 10 has been taken to mean the concessional co-payment (non-safety net) amount and the general safety net amount over the three financial years specified. (6) (8) and (10) part (ii) for Parramatta electorate. The Department releases selected items of electorate information on an annual calendar year basis. 2004 2005 (2)           Total prescriptions filled 1,175,200 1,164,800 (4)           Total concessional 963,500 972,600 (6)           Total General 211,800 192,300 (8)           General non- safety net n.a. n.a. (10)         Total concessional co-payment n.a. n.a. Notes to data Data rounded to nearest 100. Prescription volume excludes Doctor’s Bag. It is assumed that a ‘concession card’ refers to a Centrelink concession card, not a card earned by reaching the PBS safety net amount. (7) (9) and (11) The Department does not release information by postcode area. The smallest geographical area for which the Department routinely produces statistics is the Commonwealth Electoral Division. 131 131 3937 131 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 Mr Snowdon asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 15 August 2006: Will he (a) advise what sum has been allocated and/or expended from the Aboriginal Benefits Account for the financial year (i) 2004-05 and (ii) 2005-06; (b) itemise all expenditures or allocated sums; (c) identify the recipients of all expenditures or allocated sums; and (d) itemise the purposes for which all sums were allocated or expended. 131 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Details of the amounts expended from the Aboriginals Benefit Account (ABA) in the 2004-2005 financial year including details of recipients and the purposes of allocation are set out in the Annual Report of the ABA for that year ending 30 June 2005. Details of the amounts expended from the Aboriginals Benefit Account (ABA) in the 2005-2006 financial year including details of recipients and the purposes of allocation are set out in the Annual Report of the ABA for year ending 30 June 2006. 132 132 3960 132 Quick, Harry, MP AV5 Franklin ALP 0 Mr Quick asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 16 August 2006: In respect of the case of Cadet Eleanore Tibble, (a) what sum has been spent on legal fees defending anti-discrimination, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity actions in the Supreme Court of Tasmania and (b) what sum has been paid to each legal team, including the Department of Defence legal team. 132 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 5 September 2006, the legal costs and disbursements for defending the claim brought by Ms Campbell before the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Tasmania were as follows: Professional costs - $66,297 Disbursements - $10,878 Plus GST – $7,656 Total - $84,831 As at 5 September 2006, the legal costs and disbursements for defending the proceedings before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission were as follows: Professional Costs and disbursements - $113,396 GST - $11,340 TOTAL - $124,736 As at 5 September 2006, in relation to Ms Campbell’s application before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the costs were as follows: Professional Costs - $33,201 Disbursements - $89,515 GST - $12,245 TOTAL - $134,961 As at 5 September 2006, the legal costs and disbursements in respect of the application to the Federal Court of Australia were as follows: Professional Costs - $91,056 Disbursements - $88,889 GST - $17,777 TOTAL - $197,722 As at 5 September 2006, the legal costs and disbursements in respect of the Commonwealth’s appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court were as follows: Professional Costs - $30,265 Disbursements - $16,777 GST - $4,583 TOTAL - $51,625 As at 5 September 2006, the legal costs and disbursements in respect of the mediation with Ms Campbell and others were as follows: Professional Costs - $49,468 Disbursements - $24,848 GST - $7,432 TOTAL - $81,748 Phillips Fox represented the Commonwealth in each of the proceedings brought by Ms Campbell, and in the injunction application before the Federal Court. To date, the total amounts for professional costs and disbursements (which include counsel’s fees) that have been invoiced by Phillips Fox are $675,623. The Australian Government Solicitor was consulted in relation to the constitutional issues that arose during the course of proceedings, in accordance with the requirements of the Legal Services Directions issued by the Attorney-General, and also represented the Commonwealth in respect of the mediation with Ms Campbell. To date, the total amounts for professional costs and disbursements (which include counsel’s fees) referable to the mediation are $93,066. The total amounts for professional costs and disbursements referable to the Federal Court proceedings are $31,082, giving a total of $124,148. Costs are payable against an itemised account in taxable form, and are certified as being appropriate for payment by the instructing officer within Defence Legal, and approval is then sought from the approving delegate, in this instance, the Director of Litigation. The lawyers within Defence Legal do not bill for their legal costs and disbursements. Defence also paid $80,000 by way of legal costs and disbursements in relation to Ms Campbell’s participation in the Federal Court application concerning the jurisdiction of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Tasmania. A further $126,698 was paid by way of legal costs and disbursements in relation to Ms Campbell’s other matters, giving a total of $206,698. 133 133 3973 133 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What is the Government’s position in respect of the use of benzene in soft drinks. What is the Government’s response to a recent Food Standards Australia report that some 10 percent of soft drinks contain a level of benzene exceeding the standard recommended by the World Health Organisation. What are the potential health risks posed by benzene in soft drink products. 133 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Benzene is not used in the manufacture of soft drinks.  However benzene has been found to form at very low levels in some beverages due to a reaction between common components of these beverages (that is ascorbic acid [also called vitamin C] and sodium benzoate which is used as a preservative).  Both of these additives are approved food additives for soft drinks, though ascorbic acid also occurs naturally in fruit and fruit juices. Food Standards Australia New Zealand sampled a range of flavoured beverages and had them analysed for benzene.  More than 90% of these products had benzene levels below the World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water.  There is no World Health Organisation guideline for benzene content beverages or soft drinks.  Food Standards Australia New Zealand performed an assessment and established that exposure to benzene from beverages represents a minor contribution compared to total benzene exposure from other routes.  The major sources of benzene exposure are from air inhalation, such as from traffic pollution, from filling up cars with petrol as petrol contains benzene, and both active and passive smoking.  According to the World Health Organisation benzene limit, people would need to drink more than 20 litres of a drink containing benzene each day to equal the amount of benzene inhaled from city air. In response to the survey results, Food Standards Australia New Zealand has liaised with other government departments and the food industry to ensure that levels of benzene in beverages are kept as low as can be achieved, while still ensuring the microbiological safety of these products. Manufacturers with products where benzene was detected have been advised of the results and referred to a guidance document to assist them in minimising the possible unintended formation of benzene. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand survey results do not raise any public health concerns in relation to benzene levels in flavoured beverages, as the trace amounts found make a negligible impact on overall benzene exposure. 134 134 3981 134 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 Mr Adams asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 4 September 2006: In respect of the roll-out of digital television and the transition of ABC radio programs to FM, will the Minister guarantee that ABC services throughout Tasmania will be equal to, or better than, (a) analogue television services and (b) AM radio transmissions. 134 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires all free-to-air broadcasters, including the ABC, to provide equivalent digital coverage to their existing analogue services as soon as practicable, and at the latest, by the end of the simulcast period when analogue broadcasts will cease. In March 2006 the ABC’s main Northern Tasmania Local Radio service was moved from 711AM to 91.7FM. The ABC has advised that there are a number of benefits in converting from AM to FM transmissions. Transmissions on the FM band are better protected from electrical interference, provide consistent reception coverage both during the day and in the evening and have cleaner, clearer audio quality than comparable AM transmissions. In northern Tasmania, all other ABC Radio services transmit from the high-powered FM tower at Mt Barrow (Radio National, ABC NewsRadio, Classic FM and Triple J). This site provides more modern facilities than provided at the previous AM transmission site, to ensure continuity of transmissions. This includes the provision of a dedicated standby transmitter for the 91.7FM Local Radio service in circumstances when the main transmitter fails, which was previously not available. There are also 15 dedicated local ‘infill’ services that broadcast ABC Northern Tasmania Local Radio, supplementing the main regional service from Mount Barrow. These services have been established in the last twenty years to compensate for 711AM reception problems. 135 135 3983 135 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 Mr Adams asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 4 September 2006: In respect of the CDMA mobile telephone network; (a) what was the cost of implementing the network in Tasmania; (b) how many CDMA towers or repeaters were built in Tasmania; and (c) what was the cost of implementing CDMA services in the Central Highlands of Tasmania. 135 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Telstra was approached to provide the information requested about its CDMA network in Tasmania. Telstra has not provided responses to questions (a) or (c) as it considers information on the cost of its network to be Commercial-in-Confidence. In regard to question (b), Telstra has advised that it has 142 mobile phone towers and repeaters in Tasmania. Of these, 45 were constructed specifically for the CDMA network. 135 135 4001 135 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: In respect of the incident in which a sliding door to a secure area at Sydney Airport was kept shut with only a chock made from a piece of wood, has he, his office, or his department initiated an inquiry into how this incident was permitted to occur; if so, (a) by whom was the inquiry initiated, (b) when was it initiated and (c) what were the results; if not, why not. Is the incident described in Part (1) being investigated by the Inspector of Transport Security; if so, when did the inquiry commence; if not, why not. 135 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The NSW State Security Manager for the Office of Transport Security (OTS) initiated the inquiry into this incident. OTS Transport Security Inspectors first inspected the site on August 15 and a number of subsequent inspections of the site were held during the following week. The inspections found that the area is secured to a standard to prevent unauthorised access to the airside through the construction site. No, the matter has been dealt with by Sydney Airports Corporation Limited as the responsible entity, in conjunction with Qantas and the OTS. 135 135 4014 135 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: Has he or his department, examined the possible impact on safety at Essendon Airport, particularly in respect of the buffer zone for aircraft, of road-works for the Tullamarine-Calder Interchange. What advice was sought and received, and what approvals were given, by his department in respect of the project referred to in Part (1). 136 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The airport-lessee company for Essendon Airport, Essendon Airport Pty Ltd (EAPL) consulted the Airport Building Controller, the Airport Environment Officer, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia and the Department of Transport and Regional Services. These discussions on the impact on aviation operations also included discussions with VicRoads and the Tullamarine Interchange Alliance. The development required the Airport Building Controller to issue a series of works permits. In addition, as licence issued by EAPL to provide for access to the airport site was to a state government authority (VicRoads), the Department of Transport and Regional Services was required to approve this licence. 136 136 4016 136 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contract, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by and departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005–06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 136 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard — I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: None. None. Not applicable. 136 136 4020 136 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 136 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Nil. Nil. Not applicable. 136 136 4021 136 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 137 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: None. None. None. None. Not applicable. 137 137 4026 137 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 137 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (b)      None. and (b)      None. Not applicable. 137 137 4028 137 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 137 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Crosby/Textor were not granted any contracts by the Minister or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. Crosby/Textor were not awarded any contracts by the Minister or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, for (a) 2006-07 and (b) 2007-08. N/A. 138 138 4039 138 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 138 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: None. None. None. None. Not applicable. 138 138 4040 138 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 138 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No contracts have been granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, department or portfolio agencies in the years specified. 138 138 4042 138 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Workforce Participation, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts, if any, were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Minister, or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. What contracts, if any, have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for (a) 2006-07 or (b) 2007-08. In respect of each contract referred to in Parts (1) and (2), (a) what was, or is, the cost and (b) what work was, or will be, carried out by Crosby/Textor pursuant to that contract. 138 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 Dr Stone —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Crosby/Textor were not granted any contracts by the Minister or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, in (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2005-06. Crosby/Textor were not awarded any contracts by the Minister or by any departments or agencies in the Minister’s portfolio, for (a) 2006-07 and (b) 2007-08. N/A. 139 139 4048 139 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1). 139 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised by my department that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Contracts above $10,000 are publicly available on AusTender. Those contracts below that amount are: 2004-05 Australian Public Service Commission  - Speaking fee and related travel costs $4,758   139 139 4052 139 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1). 139 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Department of Finance and Administration and (2) Description Contract Value $ (including GST) 2004-05   Assessment of Business and Integrity Risks - develop revised Fraud Prevention and Control Framework - Phase One. 2,031.11 Assessment of Business and Integrity Risks - develop revised Fraud Prevention and Control Framework - Phase Two. 11,550.00 Provision of audit advice on probity issues relating to the evaluation of a tender. 1,260.00 Provision of expert advice on a Communication Strategy for the development of the Australian Government Online Service Portal (AGOSP). 30,000.00 Provision of expert advice on a Stakeholder Management Strategy for the Business Process Interoperability Framework. 160,630.00 Evaluation of the Government Electronic Resources Network (GOVERNET) project. 9,515.00 Review of Canprint Communications contract. 1,846.46 Provision of services relating to the Commonwealth Financial Statements and Final Budget Outcome. 27,676.00 Provision of advice on Australian equivalents to international financial reporting standards – Financial Reporting Branch. 77,218.00 Provision of advice on Australian equivalents to international financial reporting standards – Accounting Policy Branch. 27,500.00 Facilitation of input by agencies of monthly estimates profiles for 2004-05. 6,510.00 Facilitation of input by agencies of the 2004-05 Mid-Year Update of monthly estimates profiles. 5,393.30   361,129.87 Description Contract Value $ (including GST) 2005-06   Provision of advisory services to Comcover fund members. 11,045.00 Provision of specialist business advice on IT initiatives. 117,496.00 Training, review and lodgement of Finance’s 2006 fringe benefits tax (FBT) return. 13,000.00 Provision of assistance in the preparation of quality assured monthly/annual actual and estimated Consolidated Financial Statements and provision of accounting advice as required. A 12 month extension relating to a three year financial reporting alliance contract. 834,632.00 Provision of assistance in the preparation of quality assured monthly/annual actual and estimated Consolidated Financial Statements and provision of accounting advice as required. A five month extension relating to a three year financial reporting alliance contract. 250,000.00 Provision of assistance in preparation of quality assured monthly/annual actual and estimated Consolidated Financial Statements, and provision of accounting advice as required. Financial Reporting Alliance contract for ensuing three years (to 2009). 4,400,000.00 Provision of personnel services - engagement of a qualified contractor to assist the Office of Evaluation and Audit in the conduct of an audit of the Indigenous Housing Organisations. 30,300.00 Provision of services for an audit of 12 community developed employment projects. 235,000.00 Provision of services relating to the upgrade of Underlying Cash Balance model. 9,668.00 Provision of services to test aspects of the Central Budget Management System (CBMS). 95,500.00 Provision of services to undertake testing of data migration in CBMS. 95,000.00 Provision of technical advice relating to CBMS. 5,500.00 Provision of services to conduct a review of departmental appropriation accounting and reporting - extension of contract. 33,720.00 Provision of services to conduct a review of departmental appropriation accounting and reporting - Stage One. 23,328.00 Provision of independent quality assurance testing relating to the implementation of CBMS. Test monthly reporting process with Budget Estimates and Actuals Management. 45,522.00 Provision of advice on the accounting treatment of Concessional Higher Education Loans. 9,988.00 Provision of independent quality assurance testing relating to the implementation of CBMS and testing estimates reporting processes. 40,582.00 Provision of quality assurance and technical advice in the preparation of the administered 2006 FBT return. 20,000.00 Undertake a financial viability assessment of a preferred tenderer. 2,145.00 Provision of financial analysis and reporting services to the Budget Analysis Branch. 130,000.00 Provision of three estimate analysis units to monitor agency and programme reporting. 249,000.00 Facilitation of input by agencies of monthly estimates profiles for 2005-06. 4,207.50 Facilitation of input by agencies of the 2005-06 Mid-Year Update of monthly estimates profiles. 14,692.00   6,670,325.50 Description Contract Value $ (including GST) 2006-07   Provision of services for the testing of estimates consolidation processes in CBMS. 33,720.00 Provision of services to conduct a review of the internal controls and processes supporting the Appropriation and Cash Management Module of CBMS. 29,750.00 Provision of advice relating to the accounting treatment of Concessional Higher Education Loan Programme Loans. 8,500.00 Provision of threat and risk assessment services for the development of the AGOSP. 64,000.00 Assistance in monitoring agency and programme reporting on a monthly basis. 240,000.00 Facilitation of input by agencies of monthly estimates profiles for 2006-07. 9,735.00   385,705.00 Australian Electoral Commission and (2) Description Contract Value $ (including GST) 2006-07 Supply of IT labour services. 300,000.00 Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA) Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) ComSuper Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA) No contracts have been awarded to KPMG by ARIA, CGC, ComSuper or FFMA. Not applicable. 142 142 4056 142 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by Departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1). 142 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the following agencies have all awarded contracts to KPMG in one or other of the years in question: Australia Council; Film Finance Corporation Aust Ltd; Australian Film Commission; National Archives of Australia; National Museum of Australia; Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Australian Communications and Media Authority; Australian Sports Commission; Australian Postal Corporation; and Telstra Corporation Ltd. Telstra considers all contracts between the Company and external service providers to be commercial-in-confidence. The other parts of the question do not apply to Telstra. Details of the contracts awarded, and their costs, can be found in the agencies’ annual reports. The following agencies have no record of any contract with KPMG for the years in question: Australia Business Arts Foundation Limited; Australian Film Television and Radio School; Australian National Maritime Museum; Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; National Gallery of Australia; Film Australia Ltd; Bundanon Trust; National Library of Australia. 143 143 4057 143 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1). 143 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: 2004-05 CONTRACT TITLE START DATE FINISH DATE CONTRACT LIMIT/VALUE Viability assessment of Northern Territory Gas Pipeline (TTP) 22-Feb-05 26-Apr-05 $85,000 Review of Payroll Data 02-May-05 15-May-05 $19,800 Provision of review services for HR 10-May-05 30-Jun-05 $19,800   2005-06 CONTRACT TITLE START DATE FINISH DATE CONTRACT LIMIT/VALUE Financial Technical and Accounting Services for the ABA 02-Dec-05 30-Nov-07 $176,000 (estimate) Supplementary Panel for Audit, Risk Management, Fraud Control & BCM Services 20-Feb-06 20-Feb-09 $600,000 (estimate) Conducting Risk Assessment for Business System Replacement Project 15-Mar-06 31-Mar-06 $59,400   2006-07 Nil return 143 143 4074 143 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr Garrett asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 5 September 2006: Is he aware of the Government’s Digital Content Industry Action Agenda report. Is he aware of the commitment made by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to support the Digital Action Agenda, and the statement that digital content was a high priority. Is he aware of the extent of the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association (AIMIA) TradeStart Export Assistance program; if so, will he explain (a) why the program’s funding was halved and (b) upon what recommendations, reviews or reports, if any, this decision was based. Did he consult with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in respect of the decision to halve the AIMIA TradeStart Export Assistance program. Has he received any representations from the industry in relation to this decision; if so (a) from whom, and (b) what was the nature of those representations. 144 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes Yes Yes Overall assistance to this industry sector by Austrade is unchanged. Austrade has undertaken a realignment of export assistance services in this area. This decision followed an internal review by Austrade of the extent to which TradeStart office locations align with assessed needs and priorities, as recommended by the Auditor-General in September 2005. No. The level of overall assistance to this industry sector by Austrade is unchanged. Yes. Representations from industry organisations and individuals have been received and responded to. 144 144 4080 144 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 5 September 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 5.35 am on 30 August 2006. Was the aircraft referred to in Part (1) given a dispensation to breach the curfew; if so, (a) why and (b) what measures were implemented to minimise noise impacts upon Sydney residents. Can he provide copies of the documents relating to the reporting of the curfew breach referred to in Part (1). Will a fine be issued in relation to this curfew breach; if so, what sum. Can he provide records of any other flights that landed prior to 6 am on 30 August 2006. 144 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: to (4) There was no breach of curfew. Three approved aircraft movements occurred prior to 6am on 30 August 2006 – flights BA15, QF6 and a light twin-engine aircraft.