2007-02-08 41 1 8 REPS 0 0 2007-02-08 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. 1 Bills R2710 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 1 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Nairn. Bill read a first time. 1 1 09:02:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2006-2007. There are two additional estimates bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). I shall introduce the latter bill shortly. The additional estimates bills follow on from the appropriation bills that were introduced into the House on the occasion of the 2006-07 budget. They seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last budget. The total appropriation being sought through the additional estimates bills this year is in excess of $1.8 billion. That amount is partially offset by expected savings in appropriations of around $464.2 million. Taking savings into account, the expected net increase in expenditure arising from additional estimates bills is approximately $1.37 billion, or about 2.1 per cent of total annual appropriations. These savings are described in the document accompanying the bills, titled the ‘Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations’, which I will table shortly. The total appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) this year is almost $1.2 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from changes in the estimates of program expenditure, due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in costs, reclassifications and from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget, most of which were described in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook document published in December last year. I now outline the major items provided for in the bill. An increase of $74.2 million will be made available to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to provide: an additional $12 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance; and an additional $14 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for interim income support; $17.3 million as taxable grants of up to $5,500 for eligible farmers, in areas that have been exceptional circumstances declared for more than three years, to obtain professional business and planning advice; and $30.9 million to assist former and current tobacco growers to move into other business activities. I know that many members will be very pleased with those additional appropriations. So many of us have large parts, if not all, of our electorates eligible for exceptional circumstances, which is the case in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. An additional $30.2 million will be provided to the Australian Federal Police to fund the Australian police deployments to East Timor following civil unrest in May 2006 and the contribution to the United Nations Integrated Mission in East Timor from December 2006. A further $11.6 million is proposed to increase the capacity of the Australian Federal Police to respond to peacekeeping, peace restoration and capacity-building overseas. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts will be provided with $34.9 million for the Protecting Australian Families Online program. Funding will comprise $23.4 million for a National Filter Scheme providing a free internet filter, or filtered internet service, for all Australian families and public libraries, and $11.4 million for a community education campaign. Additional funding is proposed for the Department of Defence to enable the following programs to proceed: $120.8 million will be provided for Operation ASTUTE to restore peace and stability in East Timor; $49.6 million for the first stage of a program to help improve the retention and recruitment of Australian Defence Force personnel; and $32 million to deliver stage 1 of the Enhanced Land Force initiative, to increase the size of the Australian Army by one light infantry battalion. These funding increases for the Department of Defence are partially offset by savings in other programs. The Department of Education, Science and Training will receive $53.6 million to implement the Skills for the Future initiative, of which $15 million will be used to promote the career options available under the initiative. The balance of $38.6 million will support people aged 25 years and over to undertake accredited literacy/numeracy, basic education and certificate level II courses by means of a voucher system valued at up to $3,000 each. In addition, the department will also receive $14.1 million for the National School Chaplaincy Program. The program will provide grants of up to $20,000 a year directly to eligible schools to contribute to the cost of engaging a chaplain. An additional $17.1 million will be provided to the Office of Workplace Services to support an increase in its compliance and enforcement activities in regional areas so that adequate employment protection is provided to employees and to raise public awareness of the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate. The Department of the Environment and Water Resources will be provided with additional funding to enable a further $84 million payment for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Structural Adjustment Package. These increases are partially offset by savings in other programs. $20.7 million is proposed for the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care fee assistance program to provide affordable child care to an additional 3,500 recipients in 2006-07. The department will also receive a further $10 million to assist 4,700 volunteer organisations purchase equipment. An additional $22.9 million will be provided to the Department of Finance and Administration to provide senators and members with additional resources to represent their constituents effectively, and also to provide one additional electorate officer to each member of the House and the Senate to enable senators and members to better service the needs of their constituents and fulfil their parliamentary duties. It is proposed to provide $30.4 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to reimburse it for the expenses it incurred evacuating Australian citizens and their immediate dependants from Lebanon. The Department of Health and Ageing will be provided with $15 million to fund an additional 40 applications for e-Health broadband infrastructure grants. In addition, $49.8 million will be made available to the department for a range of programs which had unspent appropriation in 2005-06. The Department of Human Services will receive $11.6 million to enable patients to claim a Medicare rebate electronically at their doctor’s surgery via the EFTPOS network. The department will also receive $36.7 million to centralise project management and procurement activities for the Health and Social Services Access Card project. These additional funds are offset from Access Card savings by Centrelink and Medicare Australia which are reported in the Statement of Savings document. An increase of $14.6 million will be provided for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to introduce a formal citizenship test, while an additional $13.7 million is proposed for workload increases flowing from an increase in case volume and case complexity in several visa categories. An additional $136.1 million is proposed for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources to provide rebates to encourage consumers to purchase new liquefied petroleum gas vehicles and convert existing vehicles to use LPG. The department will also be provided with an additional $10 million for the Cyclone Larry business assistance fund, which had unspent appropriation from 2005-06. A further $13.1 million is proposed for the Department of Transport and Regional Services to meet net funding requirements of administering and providing services to the territories. An additional $47.5 million will be provided to the Australian Taxation Office to help deliver the Simplified Superannuation suite of reforms that sweep away the complex tax arrangements surrounding superannuation and increase retirement incomes and boost incentives to work and save. The balance of the amounts in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relate to estimates variations, reclassifications and other minor measures. I table the ‘Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations’, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. 3 Bills R2702 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 3 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Nairn. Bill read a first time. 3 3 09:12:00 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 0 Mr NAIRN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides additional funding to agencies for: expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the territories, and local government authorities; and non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans. The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2006-2007 is almost $637 million. The principal factors contributing to the additional requirement since the 2006-07 budget include $277.4 million in additional payments to the states, territories and local government authorities, including: $222.5 million to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for exceptional circumstances assistance support; and additional compensation payments totalling $35.4 million to New South Wales and Victoria under the Snowy Hydro Ltd corporatisation agreements. The payments compensate for the lower dividends received by these states from Snowy Hydro Ltd as a result of the company now paying company tax, ensuring that the states are not penalised by the new structure. The additional payments arise because the sale of the company will not proceed. It would be really good if the major shareholders in Snowy Hydro in New South Wales and in Victoria reinvested that $35.4 million that we will be giving them in the company. It will ensure that the company proceeds appropriately in the future. I am very proud of the fact that that the Commonwealth pulled out of the sale of its small amount. This, within 15 minutes, forced New South Wales—who were going to do it all on their own—to pull out. They were going to privatise it all on their own, but, because our minor shareholding did not proceed, they pulled out. It is funny about that; I do not think that Mr Iemma was looking forward to the political heat that was going to be applied to him. Bill No. 4 also proposes $359.6 million in additional appropriation for non-operating expenses, the more significant of which I now outline. The Department of Defence will be allocated $49.7 million to acquire protective equipment to enhance the security and effectiveness of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also proposed to provide $18.6 million to the Australian Defence Force to meet the cost of responding to the civil unrest in East Timor. In addition, the Australian Defence Force will be provided with $14.2 million to fund the first stage of the Enhanced Land Force initiative. These funding increases are partially offset by savings in other programs. Capital funding of $22.5 million will be provided to the Australian Federal Police to increase its capacity to respond to peacekeeping and peace restoration assignments. In addition, capital funding of $17.3 million is proposed for the Office of Workplace Services to fund office fit-outs associated with its expanded regional presence and to develop an information technology application to manage claims and infringements. It is proposed to provide the Department of Finance and Administration with $60 million for the construction of the Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. This additional funding is required to meet increased project costs, including in relation to the lengthy breakdown of the Christmas Island port crane. The Department of Human Services will be provided with $34.4 million in capital to centralise project management and procurement activities for the Health and Social Services Access Card project. These additional funds will be offset by savings in Centrelink and Medicare Australia. An additional $12 million is proposed for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to reimburse the department for workload increases flowing from an increase in case volume and case complexity in several visa categories. The Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources will receive an additional $28.8 million to cover an increased liability for compensation payments accrued in 2005-06 to New South Wales and Victoria under the Snowy Hydro Ltd corporatisation agreements. An additional $14 million will be provided to the Department of the Treasury to meet the government’s obligations under the HIH Appropriation Act 2001. Finally, the Australian Taxation Office will receive additional capital of $11 million to help deliver the Simplified Superannuation reforms. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. 5 Bills R2706 5 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pyne. Bill read a first time. 5 5 09:18:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. On 27 July 2006 the government announced a $90.2 million package of reforms aimed at further safeguarding older people in Australian government subsidised aged care from sexual and serious physical assault. The Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, foreshadowed at that time that the reforms would include the creation of a new Aged Care Commissioner, new complaints investigation procedures, a regime of compulsory reporting of certain types of assault, and legislative protections for whistleblowers. I am very pleased today to be introducing a bill which amends the Aged Care Act 1997 to achieve these ends. Before I describe the reforms in detail, it is appropriate to first thank the older Australians and their families, together with approved providers, who have provided Minister Santoro with invaluable advice over the past year, and who have been instrumental in the development of these reforms. Since announcing the proposed reforms, the government has listened closely to numerous older Australians and their families. The minister has met with as many people involved in the aged-care sector as possible—nurses, managers, careworkers, residents, their families and, most importantly, some of the victims of abuse. He has also received and responded to many emails from the public, and held face-to-face meetings with a wide range of people. These communications have been critical to the government’s understanding of the needs of the sector and to how best implement appropriate reforms, including through the bill which I have the pleasure of introducing into the parliament today. The minister has also worked very closely with the sector to ensure the nature and degree of regulation is reasonable. At this point it is appropriate to acknowledge the contribution by members of the Aged Care Advisory Committee, especially the peak aged-care bodies for their cooperation and assistance in the development of this legislation. All have worked closely with government to ensure that this legislation strikes a good balance between the needs of both residents and industry. The vast majority of aged-care providers give excellent care, and most aged-care workers regard their duty of care to our vulnerable, frail and older Australians as sacrosanct. But the government must have the capacity to deal with those rare but distressing incidents of alleged sexual and physical abuse in residential aged care that came to light earlier last year. Like the minister and all caring Australians, I was shocked by these incidents. The government has acted as quickly as possible to improve the system and make it more effective in combating physical and sexual abuse. Today, the government honours our commitment to older Australians and their families by introducing legislation which achieves three main purposes: it establishes a scheme for compulsory reporting of abuse; it includes protection for people who make disclosures about abuse; and it establishes a new and independent Aged Care Commissioner. This is one component of several very broad reforms that enhance the department’s capacity to respond to complaints about aged-care services. Each of these initiatives is proposed to take effect from 1 April 2007. I would like to take a little more time to describe these reforms in more detail. Compulsory reporting First, the scheme for compulsory reporting of abuse. When the issue of physical and sexual abuse became a public issue last year, the major stakeholders within the aged-care sector, namely the residents and their families, urged the introduction of a formal system of compulsory reporting as an obvious response to the issue. The government listened very carefully and consulted widely, and today the bill that I am introducing establishes a requirement for approved providers to report allegations or suspicions of unlawful sexual contact, or unreasonable use of force, on a resident in a residential aged-care service. The report must be made to both the police and to the Department of Health and Ageing. It must also be made as soon as possible, and not later than 24 hours, after the allegation or suspicion comes to the attention of the approved provider. While it was the government’s original intention that all allegations of abuse be reported, the government received strong representations from the sector in relation to the very sensitive issue of assaults carried out by residents suffering from dementia or other forms of mental impairment. In these limited circumstances, the government is therefore proposing that there be a discretion not to report. In such a case, the focus should be on ensuring that there is in place an appropriate behaviour management plan to ensure both the safety of that resident and their fellow residents. While the discretion not to report to police and the department will exist in these very limited circumstances, it is important to note that this is no way obviates the need for all approved providers to, at all times, provide a safe and secure environment for residents and to take appropriate action if critical incidents occur. Under the changes, approved providers will also be required to ensure that there are internal processes in place for the reporting, by staff, of all incidents involving alleged sexual or serious physical assault. Staff members will be able to report to the approved provider or the approved provider’s key personnel or other authorised people. The bill also enables staff members to report directly to the police or the department. This may occur where, for example, a staff member does not feel comfortable reporting alleged incidents to the home. Failure to have the necessary systems and protocols in place, and failure to report incidents, will indicate regulatory noncompliance, leading to the possible imposition of sanctions. Protection for those who report The bill underpins these new compulsory reporting arrangements with protection for people who report abuse. It is obvious to me that people will be more likely to report incidents of assault where they do not fear reprisal from their employer, or indeed other staff. Protections will therefore be introduced as part of the compulsory reporting requirements. Approved providers will be required to have policies and procedures in place to ensure that the identity of staff who report is protected and that they are not unfairly treated as a result of making a report. The legislation expressly provides that staff members who make disclosures about assaults must have their identities protected and must not be victimised. The legislation also protects disclosers from civil and criminal liability in relation to the disclosure and, amongst other things, enables a court to order that an employee be reinstated or paid compensation if their employment is terminated because of the fact that they made a protected disclosure. Aged Care Commissioner The third main purpose of the bill is to establish a new and independent Aged Care Commissioner, replacing the existing Commissioner for Complaints. In consultations with residents, their families, approved providers, aged-care staff, and the previous commissioner, Mr Rob Knowles, it became clear to the government that the existing scope for investigation and action by the Commissioner for Complaints is too limited. The government is therefore implementing broader reforms not only in relation to the role of the commissioner but also to the whole way that complaints are handled. For example, a new Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance will be established within the Department of Health and Ageing that is responsible for investigating any information about possible noncompliance by approved providers. The new office will have the power to investigate all complaints and information, have nationally structured intake and prioritisation of all contacts by high-level, specifically trained staff and have the power to determine whether a breach of the approved provider’s responsibilities has occurred. Where a breach is identified, the office will have the power to require the approved provider to take appropriate action to remedy the breach. Importantly, the office will have the capacity to issue notices of required action to providers who have breached their responsibilities, and take compliance action where the provider fails to remedy the issue. The Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance will have greater capacity to take action than the Complaints Resolution Scheme which it is replacing. The experience of the latter has provided the government with much guidance in terms of these reforms. The new Aged Care Commissioner will play a critical role in these new arrangements. The commissioner will provide an independent mechanism to hear complaints about action taken by the new Office of Aged Care Quality and Compliance in the investigation of complaints, and also about the conduct of the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and its assessors. The Aged Care Commissioner will also have greater capacity to undertake ‘own motion’ reviews. These reforms significantly enhance the government’s capacity, and that of providers, to deal with information and complaints about the quality of care and services, including abuse, in aged-care services that are directly subsidised by the federal government. They place the government, providers, residents, families, advocates, indeed the entire community, in a much stronger position to respond to, and deal with, the issues and also to be proactive and effective in identifying areas of risk. Implementation As I noted in my introductory remarks, these reforms will, subject to the agreement of parliament, take effect from 1 April 2007. Prior to that time the government will be developing comprehensive principles which will be made under the act and which will provide extensive detail about each of the elements of the reforms. The department will also be issuing approved providers with information and guidelines on the new requirements. It is imperative that we get these reforms right, and that we continue to listen closely to the views of all stakeholders. The time the government has taken to develop the reform package, and to talk extensively with all concerned parties, has paid dividends. The bill before us is well thought out, appropriate, and adapted to the challenges that face us. It gives even greater confidence to the people of Australia about the already high-quality care that is provided in our aged-care homes today. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned. 8 Bills R2650 8 Debate resumed from 7 February, on motion by Mr Hardgrave: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Stephen Smith 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 recognises that the present Government has been complacent and neglectful about the Australian economy by: presiding over a skills crisis through its continued failure over more than 10 long years in office to ensure Australians get the training they need to get a skilled job and meet the skills needs of the economy; failing to make the necessary investments in our schools and TAFE systems to create opportunities for young Australians to access high quality vocational education and training, including at schools; failing to increase the number of school-based traditional apprentices and provide funding support for schools in taking up the places; creating expensive, inefficient, stand alone colleges, without cooperation with the States within the existing Vocational Education and Training framework; riding roughshod over the States and Territories in establishing these Colleges, despite the role the States and Territories play in vocational education and training; making Australian industry wait until 2010 for the Australian Technical Colleges to produce their first qualified tradesperson; failing to provide support to other regions that have skill shortages, but are not listed for a Technical College”. 8 09:29:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —I rise in this House to support the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006. But, like other members of the opposition, I have some grave reservations about the way in which this commitment has been made by the government and how it has been executed. I think it is very important for the Australian public to understand the context in which this commitment was made by the Howard government. This initiative was a knee-jerk response to the government’s own policy failure in the skills development of Australians. That is it, pure and simple. This commitment was made in the context of an election campaign after years of neglect by the Howard government in this area. I say this to the Australian people: the mark of a government’s sincerity on a particular issue is evidenced by its long-term commitment to the idea before it. In this case, we have the record of the Howard government very plain for us all to see. This government’s lack of public investment in vocational education and training has seen 350,000-odd Australians denied access to TAFE. The real context in which this initiative was made was an election campaign and declining public investment in vocational education and training by the federal government which has seen Australians denied the opportunity to improve their standard of living through skills development. This is a government that says it is okay at the boardroom level, at the stroke of a pen, for corporate executives to get an increase of tens of millions of dollars in their salary through no increased skill effort at all—merely the circumstance of the particular corporation they work for—yet it denies ordinary Australians an opportunity to develop their own personal and economic skills, to get a better shot at the title and to get a better standard of living for themselves and their families. That is the real mark of the government. If the government had come to the table with this proposal—a well-thought-out, planned proposal—I think the Australian public would have accepted the sorts of amendments we are dealing with here today as an indication of its sincerity and honesty. But the crux of this bill here today is an increase in funding because of the failure of government policy, the failure to plan correctly to meet the skills needs of Australians. The minister may well come to the dispatch box and say, ‘Here is evidence of a government that is increasing funding because of its commitment to skilling Australians.’ The government made the commitment in the context of a political campaign, in response to its own policy failure, and it cannot now claim, when it has botched the implementation of its own initiative, that the increase in funding that is evidenced in this bill is a demonstration of the Howard government’s commitment to skills formation in Australia. This is a government that can find a billion dollars for a misadventure in Iraq—a failed policy in Iraq—yet, when we look at the statistics here in Australia, the decline in public investment in the skills formation of Australians is absolutely appalling. I say that because the government ministers are all very happy to come to the dispatch box and quote the OECD as evidence of their great economic management—and I will deal with that in a minute. But the OECD has documented the failure of this government in this area. Public investment in technical and further education in Australia has declined over a period of time by some seven per cent while our competitors have ramped it up by some 50 per cent. Those are appalling statistics. Everybody in this House knows that the cutting edge in economic competitiveness is the capacity of your economy to innovate, the capacity of your workforce through its skills to translate ideas into products and services that will enable the Australian economy to keep on growing and Australians to achieve a better standard of living. So let us not have another minister go to the dispatch box and claim that this increase in funding is evidence of any real commitment to skills formation in Australia. The skills shortage that Australia is experiencing has occurred on the watch of the Howard government, pure and simple. If there is a responsibility for the skills shortages faced by industry, it is because the national government of the day took its hands off one of the most important tillers that has motivated economy after economy to achieve improved growth and economic performance. So ministers need to be very, very careful in this debate. Although in my electorate we are recipients of some of this funding, I will explain some of my reservations about how this has occurred. We have seen here, in the skills formation area, planning and administrative incompetence on a grand scale—and I brook no criticism of state Labor governments. I say to ministers opposite: you may well go to the dispatch box and try to score some base political points over the fact that Labor in government had and Labor in opposition have some fetish for university education over technical and further education. That is not so; it has never been so. It was not the case when Labor was in government and it certainly is not the case now. I see at the dispatch box the honourable member for Jagajaga, who has been intimately involved with these issues over a long period of time. Anybody who knows the honourable member for Jagajaga knows of her commitment to working people and to the skills formation of families so that they can enjoy a better standard of living throughout their working lives. The minister may argue the toss about Labor’s commitment, but where is your commitment to lifting technical and further education public investment to the levels experienced in our comparative trading partner countries? We know you have a knee-jerk migration response to the skills shortage that you have created, and you are deliberately using that to try and break down wages and conditions through a very weak policy designed at the end of the day to see working people get less for their labour rather than more. It is all very fine for members opposite to construct a taxation system that says that people can enjoy capital gains from changes in the marketplace, movements in the market prices of houses or other assets—and nobody is begrudging that—but what we want on the deck is a core commitment by the national government to the skills formation of ordinary Australians so that through the dignity of their work they can achieve a better standard of living for themselves and their families. The essence of this bill is to increase the funding appropriated under the act to the task of setting up and operating these 24 Australian technical college facilities. The funding has been increased from $343.6 million to $456.2 million over the period 2005 to 2009. This is an increase of $112 million. In my home state of Victoria we have the Liberal opposition whingeing, carping and complaining that the Bracks government can never bring a project in on time and on budget. That is not so. What about your own here in the federal parliament? Your knee-jerk reaction was to a problem that was brewing under your watch. Then, when it blows out, you claim some sort of credit for the increase in expenditure under the bill. It is planning administrative incompetence on a grand scale, as well as a lack of vision. This particular problem must be rammed home to the Howard government because if Australia has any break in its prosperity it is because it had a national government obsessed with fighting wars rather than skilling its own people. Why is Australia facing a skills crisis in 2007? This problem did not happen overnight because the Chinese economy started booming and started demanding more coal, iron ore and other resources. That is a nonsense. When you get down to the ground level in communities such as Geelong and the electorate of Corio, you see that the skills shortage has little to do with those sorts of developments in the wider economy—and I will explain a little more about that later. This is a problem that has been brewing for over a decade. We have the crisis because of a lack of investment in skills formation by the federal government and underinvestment in skills formation by Australian industry. You can prattle on all you like about the failure of the states in this regard but, at the end of the day, look in your own backyard, Minister, because the government has failed to keep a hand on one of the most important tillers of growth in the Australian economy. Since the Howard government came to office, some 325,000 Australians have been turned away from TAFE because of the failure of this government to properly finance public technical and further education—325,000 people have been turned away because this government has failed in its duty of care to Australians in this very important area. The minister and his colleagues come to the dispatch box, as I said before, and make these cheapjack political points about Labor being obsessed with university education and not having its eye on technical and further education. The minister had better come down to Geelong and we will show you the Gordon TAFE, which was refurbished by a Labor government after years of neglect by state and federal Liberal governments. I am very proud of the fact that in East Geelong we have a campus called the Geelong Manufacturing Industry Training Centre, courtesy of a federal Labor government in cooperation with a state Labor government—not exactly evidence of a lack of commitment to working people and skills formation in the Geelong region. So, Minister, be very careful. I know you will say, ‘We’ve allocated some $20 million to a technical college in Geelong’—and for our part we have worked hard to make your incompetence work in our electorate—but guess what? Where it is going to be located? It is going to be located in a Labor facility, in the manufacturing industry training centre. It was due to open in early 2006 but it opened in early 2007, and the recruits will not be coming out trained and ready to take their place in Geelong industry and the Geelong economy generally until 2009. Yet in my community we have a skills crisis, as we speak, like other regional communities throughout Australia. Once again, I pay tribute to the Victorian government, a Labor government, for the fact that it provided funds to conduct a regional skills shortage survey for the Geelong and Colac regions. It was very important for that survey to be done. It has assisted local businesses in Geelong to identify skills shortages so that we can better plan to meet the skills needs of Geelong industry over time. It makes interesting reading. Remember, this is the output of a Labor government that the Howard government constantly accuses of not having its heart in skills formation in the Geelong area. As I have said, the survey was done by the Labor government. The technical college will be financed by the Howard government but it will be located in a Labor funded technical and further education facility in the Geelong region. It is a very interesting survey because it is comprehensive. It is very simple but gives industry some very good pointers as to where their skills shortages are in a broad sense. It gives educators, planners and others in the Geelong community very valuable guidance as to what we need to do to meet the very practical needs of industry in the region. As far as the trades are concerned, the survey shows that there is a lack of metal fitters and machinists, bakers and pastry cooks, roof slaters and tilers, bricklayers, electricians and cabinet-makers. In the professional and associate professional areas, registered nurses, real estate associate professionals and welfare associate professionals are in strong demand. In the category of labourers and intermediate production and transport workers there is a lack of cleaners, mobile construction plant operators and road and rail transport drivers. In the clerical, sales and service workers area there is a shortage of general clerks, sales representatives, dental assistants and sales assistants. We can go to some other areas as well where there are decided skills shortages. It is very important that people in a region, and commerce generally, have an opportunity to plan to meet the needs of their region. A lot of cooperation has gone into the planning of this initiative that is being funded by the government. We did not rush to judgement; we wanted to at least get something right, even if the government could not. Yes, we welcomed the fact that it made the initial decision, but we wanted to make sure that things were not rushed onto the ground for political reasons. We needed to make sure that we got it right. In recent times we have had skills conferences to determine what we need in a regional sense. John Hansen, the Executive Officer of the Geelong Area Consultative Committee, has documented the output of the skills conference that was recently held in Geelong. The issues have been narrowed down. It is very important that any future response to the skills needs of the region is based on these propositions. A need for better links between industry and schools, involving parents and pupils as well as industry, was identified. Also identified was the need for an audit of government programs, because there is a lot of activity at the federal and state levels and there is a need to avoid duplication. Further needs that were identified were: industry specific forums designed to inform and educate business owners, employer training in workforce planning, the promotion of apprenticeships and traineeships in schools and colleges, campaigns to market Geelong as the place to work, and ongoing research to measure the impact of the strategies employed. Hansen made the comment that there is no silver bullet for our region. Indeed, nor is there one for the other great regions of Australia or for the nation. We all appreciate that this is a complex area for government as well as industry. But—for heaven’s sake!—you cannot compete over the long term, you cannot innovate over the long term and you cannot raise the standard of living of your people over the long term if you do not have a strong core commitment to funding in the vocational and training area. (Time expired) 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Whilst the member for Corio has left the centre square and is now playing with his characteristic flair and enthusiasm from the back pocket, I remind him that earlier in his speech he did not refer his remarks through the chair. The chair was not embarrassed by them, but if he wishes to engage the minister in conversation he should do so through the chair. WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will certainly honour the advice that you have given. 8 09:50:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 0 Mr ROBB —The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 demonstrates the continued success of the Australian technical colleges program and reflects the progress that has been achieved to date in implementing this initiative. The additional funding provided under this bill will ensure that the colleges are resourced to provide the highest level of support to both students and the employers who engage students as school based apprentices. A number of Australian technical colleges are operating sooner than anticipated, which is great news. Several will now operate from multiple campuses to better service their region, which is great news. All students at Australian technical colleges will be trained using the latest machinery and equipment. It is a pity that the members opposite have such a limited understanding of the facts about the Australian technical colleges. Contrary to their comments, 20 Australian technical colleges are operating from term 1 this year, with one more to open in the next few months, in the Pilbara, in Western Australia. Some 2,000 students across Australia will attend Australian technical colleges in 2007. Four more Australian technical colleges will commence operation in 2008, with some 7½ thousand students attending technical colleges each year once they are fully operational. This initiative is being implemented well ahead of schedule. Given that the legislation appropriating funds for this initiative only became available in late October 2005, this is a fantastic achievement by the government. It normally takes an average of about three years to establish a new school. This government has established 20 new Australian technical colleges in less than 15 months. This extraordinary achievement is all the more remarkable when you remember that these are not ordinary secondary colleges but a completely new approach to combining academic study and apprenticeship training at the full trade certificate III level. To suggest that Australian technical colleges are duplicating TAFEs or are a parallel system to TAFEs, as stated by the members opposite, is to completely misunderstand this program. How many TAFEs or RTOs are giving year 11 and year 12 students the chance to complete the first year of an apprenticeship and to complete their HSC? The answer is none—not one. In fact in many regions the Australian technical colleges are working with the TAFEs and the RTOs cooperatively, and it is a pity that more are not. This is the nature of this program: to bring together a consortium of the best available skills and facilities within a region to create this unique facility that we have in place now in 20 Australian technical colleges. I acknowledge the support of my colleagues around Australia in the establishment of these colleges, including the member for Canning, a great advocate of the Perth south technical college. That college is open and operating, and, while I have not been directly involved, I am advised by the department that all the necessary information has now been provided and the construction of the campuses is now underway. This important nation-building initiative—which has been enthusiastically embraced by the community, by industry and by employers—is offering an education and training alternative that was not previously available to students. This initiative, one of many that demonstrate this government’s commitment to addressing the skills needs of the nation, is already raising the profile of vocational and technical education. Business and industry have shown great support for the Australian technical colleges initiative, and all of the colleges have been strongly supported by local industry. Industry and business people are taking a leading role in the management of the colleges to ensure that the colleges reflect industry needs. The Australian technical colleges are highly targeted colleges with significant student support and industry liaison resources to ensure the highest quality outcomes. Australian technical colleges will deliver training according to latest best practice methods. College students will receive training on the latest machinery and equipment, the same state-of-the-art equipment used by industry. Australian technical colleges will be properly resourced to ensure that Australian technical college apprentices are as work-ready as possible to fully meet the needs and expectations of employers. Australian technical colleges are focused on producing apprentices of the highest calibre. A number of colleges have determined that a multicampus model is necessary to provide appropriate coverage for their region and to ensure that as many young people as possible from the region have the opportunity to attend the college. For example, the Hunter technical college in New South Wales will operate from campuses in Singleton, Maitland and Newcastle. The technical college in Gippsland will have campuses in Bairnsdale and Sale. A key feature of the Australian technical colleges program is flexibility. Each college has been able to establish an integrated education and training model that best meets the needs of the region in which it is established. The flexibility provided by the Australian technical colleges in meeting the needs of employers and students is unique. Students in some cases undertake on-the-job training for weeks at a time. This is far more effective than the day here or there of on-the-job training which has characterised most previous attempts at integrating trade and academic training. The success of this initiative extends well beyond the opportunities now available to the thousands of students and employers across Australia who will directly benefit from the Australian technical colleges. The leadership shown by the Australian government through the Australian technical college initiative has resulted in all state governments removing barriers to students undertaking full trade apprenticeships while still at school. This has been an example of great leadership producing important other results at a state level. In fact it is encouraging to see that some states are now endeavouring to follow the Australian government’s lead and have announced their own initiatives to improve trade training in schools. We hope that these initiatives will be properly resourced and implemented. Furthermore the Australian technical colleges will spearhead a change in culture whereby trade qualifications become a highly valued alternative to a university degree and develop a reputation that will show students and parents that vocational education and training provides access to careers that are secure, lucrative and rewarding. We need a situation in this nation where a high-quality technical qualification is as prized as a university degree. These colleges have been clearly embraced by the communities in which they are being established. They will provide opportunities for young people in a number of regions throughout Australia to complete a year or more of their trade apprenticeship while completing their senior secondary studies. It is a unique model. It is a fantastic achievement. It is going to do great things for skills training in this nation. This will ensure that, over the longer term, industry will have access to a supply of highly qualified workers who will be trained according to local industry requirements. I expect that many Australian technical college students will become the business leaders of the future. The Australian technical colleges initiative is just one of a range of vocational and technical education initiatives that the Australian government is delivering from 2006 to 2009. In fact, this government’s investment over that period will total more than $11.3 billion, the biggest commitment to vocational and technical education by any government in Australia’s history. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Smith’s amendment) stand part of the question. 10:03:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 80 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Costello, P.H. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 57 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 8 Mr ROBB (Goldstein —Minister for Vocational and Further Education) 10:10:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8 Bills R2701 8 Debate resumed from 7 December 2006, on motion by Mr Ruddock: That this bill be now read a second time. 8 10:11:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —I rise to speak on the AusCheck Bill 2006. The bill seeks to establish a regulatory framework for the conduct of a centralised background-checking service to be conducted by the Attorney-General’s Department. The bill provides authority for the department to coordinate background criminal and security assessments for applications for the aviation security identification card, the ASIC, and also the maritime security identification card, the MSIC. Labor note with some concern any subsequent schemes, and that is a matter I will comment on later in this debate. The bill also provides authority for the department to maintain a database of applicants and card holders, to collect, use and disclose information and to recover costs for conducting background checks. That sounds reasonable enough, but in these matters the devil is often in the detail. As the name of the bill implies, the concept of background checks is not something that this parliament should be legislating for without careful consideration to ensure that the civil liberties of Australian citizens are not unduly impinged upon. Clause 5 of the bill in fact defines a ‘background check’ as an assessment of information relating to an individual person. It includes an assessment of information about the person’s criminal history; information about the security assessment that ASIO makes of the person; and information about the person’s migration status if the person is not an Australian citizen. We should not blithely pass over the invasiveness of these assessments. They are important assessments, particularly for the aviation and maritime industries in a post-2001 environment. It is critically important that people in these sensitive areas are properly and thoroughly checked for the safety of all involved. But these are not simply identity checks; these are exhaustive, quite invasive security checks on a person’s background. That is what is required in those sensitive security areas. We in this parliament should understand that, and I am sure the people of Australia would want to have attention drawn to the fact that these are significant security assessments and personal background checks. They should not be conducted lightly and they should not be conducted on citizens frivolously or vexatiously. It is important that, in adopting and considering this bill, we establish a framework that not only ensures the security and safety of the Australian public, which we all expect as one of our basic rights, but also protects the civil liberties, individual rights and freedom of citizens and safeguards unwarranted and obtrusive investigations into their personal lives, which these sorts of security checks involve. Another concern emerges when looking at clause 5 of the bill. The explanatory memorandum to this bill also defines a background check as: ... other ... information about the person that may be described in regulations. That is, apart from the matters listed in this bill, the government is seeking the power to establish by regulation other information that it may wish to obtain. I appreciate that they are disallowable instruments; I received that assurance from the Attorney’s office during the past week. But I think the government does need to explain the sorts of information that it anticipates it needs that power for. One of the things that we will be seeking to have further explored in the Senate and to a lesser extent during the consideration in detail stage here is the nature of the information that the government thinks it might want to collect beyond that provided for in this bill but which it thinks it needs the power by regulation to establish. We see a number of references to criteria to be set out in regulations. For that reason, this AusCheck bill does go further than Sir John Wheeler’s recommendations. Sir John Wheeler, of course, was the United Kingdom expert engaged by the Howard government to conduct a review of aviation security. His review, a public report, is a 50-page chronicle of the things this government has got wrong in aviation security. It was a 50-page report of what it should have been doing since 2001 and unfortunately had neglected. He did make a number of recommendations and comments about the problems of security at the airports in Australia and the problems about security checking of staff, but I think the scope that this bill establishes goes beyond that provided for by Sir John Wheeler in his report. In fact, the bill allows the government to slip new criteria in by regulation, and even a new scheme into the regulations, that need not be related to national security. I am not certain that the safeguards in this bill go far enough to protect the basic rights of Australians in dealing with that. The bill’s purpose is sound and good and we support it, but as I mentioned before the devil is in the detail. We will be seeking from the Attorney-General, here and in the Senate, assurances and further information about those matters. I acknowledge that there are some safeguards in the bill, but I am concerned about their adequacy. As the bill currently reads, clause 14 is a safeguard on the retention and subsequent use of information in the AusCheck database. Information can only be used in an incident that poses a threat to national security, and the dissemination of criminal intelligence or security intelligence is restricted. The identities of people are safeguarded, and I understand the arrangements that are intended to apply for statistical and research purposes are sound. It is desirable that the database be available for research purposes, and that is provided for in the bill. What Sir John Wheeler intended by a centralised data collection agency was improved aviation security and, as I have acknowledged, that is an important thing that we support. Sadly, the government’s track record in this field is very poor. The ASIC system and aviation security in Australia in general need reform. In 2005 the minister for transport, who has responsibility for the ASIC, set an arbitrary cut-off date for ID card applications of 31 December 2005, failing to take into account the time taken for pilots to pay for and receive police checks. In fact, that deadline was not able to be met, and at the time the government acknowledged that problem, claiming that the deadline could not be met because of ASIO’s workload associated with security matters around the Commonwealth Games. Well, surely with proper management the government would have foreseen any difficulties there. The Commonwealth Games was not a surprise event; it had been in the planning for many years. The government and ASIO had full knowledge of the nature of the security checks required for the Melbourne Commonwealth Games; they established a time frame for the ASIC assessments that should have been well informed by the demands of ASIO at that time with the Commonwealth Games. They simply got it wrong and mismanaged the system. The minister for transport was subsequently forced to change the deadline to 31 March 2006, and even that has not fixed the problem. Pilots who missed the original December deadline but submitted their applications by the March deadline still have not received the ASICs and in some cases are therefore not able to access their aircraft air side. There is perhaps a more worrying aspect of the operation of the ASIC by this government, and that is the lost ASICs. This has been a problem since the system began. In the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on 23 November 2005, evidence was given that 384 ASICs had been either lost or stolen—384 high-security passes to our aviation industry could not be accounted for. That is a pretty alarming statistic when you consider that at that time not a lot of ASICs had actually been distributed. I have to say, in the current context of a smartcard debate, one can only imagine the chaos that will be the lot of Australians under the mismanagement by the Howard government in its attempts to look after a nationwide smartcard distribution. The fact of the matter is there are about 10,000 or 15,000 ASICs—aviation security identification cards—and about 400 of them have already been lost. The government does not know where they are and cannot account for them. Imagine what is going to happen with 15 million smartcards. There are going to be tens of thousands of these smartcards lost. The government is making a great play about the importance of this card in solving identity theft, and we all want to ensure that identity theft is properly addressed. But this government’s mismanagement in the security area shows great incompetence. The thought of 15 million smartcards being managed by the Howard government does not instil a great deal of confidence when you consider that, with just a few thousand security cards in the aviation industry, they have already managed to lose 300 or 400 of them. It will be interesting to watch how they go about the development of the smartcards. Hopefully they will not make the same mistakes they have made with the management of the security cards in the aviation industry. In July 2006 the aviation industry magazine Australian Aviation had a very interesting article about the mismanagement of the aviation security cards by the Howard government. There was an article in it that quoted Mr Kerans, who was the Australian Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association vice president, I believe. It quoted him as saying that when he went to collect his ASIC from Qantas in Canberra, he was shown a box of red plastic cards that were all on lanyards and was left to sort through them unsupervised to pick out the one that was his. He said in the article, ‘I could have pocketed any quantity of ASICs I wanted.’ Those cards are the high-security passes that guarantee people access to the sensitive security areas of our airports and aircraft. The government’s mishandling of this extends not just to the calling for applications, the processing of applications, the management of the system and the recovery of lost cards but even to the process of how they distribute them. Can you imagine a bundle of high-security cards being placed in a large box and someone being left in the room by themselves with that large box and told, ‘Go and get the one that’s yours’? There was nothing stopping that person picking up half a dozen of them if he wanted to, other than his own good sense and honesty. That is the high-security system that this government is managing. This bill will establish a central agency—and that is a good thing. We support that. John Wheeler recommended it and we have been advocating it. We support that purpose of this bill, but having a central agency is not going to help improve security if we have the level of incompetence that this government has shown in the way in which it subsequently goes about handling the administration. The threat to Australia following 11 September 2001 is genuine, but the mismanagement of the aviation sector by this government has simply been dangerous. The Howard government have been in power now for far too long—more than a decade—and it is long past the time that they should have seriously addressed the problems that beset security in Australia’s aviation and maritime industries. They rolled out a maritime security identification card system, and that is something that is also supported by the industry and by this side of the House. That involves detailed background checking of Australian maritime workers. That is a necessary thing. The industry understands it and the unions understand it. It has improved security amongst Australian-flagged ships. I say ‘Australian-flagged ships’ deliberately, because whilst this government has required Australian crews to undergo thorough, invasive security and criminal background checks it does none of that with foreign crews. That is a problem that should be ringing alarm bells for a government in any situation, but for this government it is an even bigger problem because they—like no government before them—have misused and abused the process of giving permits to foreign-crewed ships to travel around Australian ports. There has been a system in place for many years to enable foreign-flagged, foreign-crewed ships to operate the Australian coastal route by special permit. That is a sensible enough mechanism to deal with the ebb and flow of demand and supply of ships on the Australian coastal route. This government have used it as a tool to attack the Australian-crewed ships and their economic viability around Australian ports. The simple fact of life is that this government, as I have commented before, have handed out these permits like tickets in a Friday pub chook raffle. If you want to get permits to travel around the Australian coastline with foreign crews on foreign-flagged ships all you have to do is ask. This government do not do any of the security checks on those crews that are done on Australian crews. In fact, it is worse than that. Not only do they not do the checks; they do not even enforce their own laws. The government have a requirement that ships coming to Australian ports from overseas have to advise of their crew and cargo 48 hours before arriving in port. That is a sensible law; we support it. The incompetence of the Howard government, though, does not implement it. The truth is that there are a significant number of ships that come to Australian ports without ever having provided that information. And that number has grown in the last 12 months. The figures demonstrate that the number of ships arriving in Australian ports without advising of their crew and cargo has increased over the last 12 months of available data. So the situation is getting worse, not better. The mismanagement of the Howard government in these matters is jeopardising security. In 2005 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a damning report on the state of Australia’s security arrangements called Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. That report identified the danger of foreign-flagged vessels carrying dangerous goods around the Australian coastline. Labor has warned the Howard government about this problem on many occasions. We have specifically warned about the dangers of foreign-crewed, foreign-flagged vessels for which there has been no security check carrying ammonium nitrate around Australia’s coastline. I can recall a couple of years ago being at the Gladstone port with Kim Beazley, the then leader of the Labor Party, conducting a press conference, and a foreign-crewed ship, carrying 300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, was in the background. The government had done no checks on the security of that crew or the vessel’s owners. Ammonium nitrate is a highly volatile material. When it is mixed with fuel, it becomes a very seriously dangerous explosive. It has been the explosive of choice for terrorists around the world for some years. This is not a fanciful proposition. Indeed, there have been explosions involving ships carrying ammonium nitrate that have occurred by accident. Those incidents have occurred without the problems that we confront in a post-2001 world. The most notorious of those incidents occurred just after World War II, when the French freighter the SS Grandcamp, carrying 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, was docked at Texas City. On 16 April 1947, the ship’s decks caught fire and the ammonium nitrate exploded. That explosion was so great that it was heard 150 miles away. It produced a mushroom cloud that rose 2,000 feet in the air. The locals thought there had been a nuclear bomb attack and that the United States was at war. In fact, the explosion was so severe that the SS Grandcamp’s anchor, which weighed 1½ tonnes, was thrown two miles and ended up embedded 10 feet underground. That was the size of the explosion caused by that ship carrying ammonium nitrate. Yet, virtually every week of the year, without conducting anything like the security check required of Australian seafarers, the government hands out voyage permits authorising foreign crews on foreign-flagged ships to travel our ports while carrying dangerous chemicals like ammonium nitrate. The proper course of action is that Australian seafarers, who have had those security checks done on them and who are fully trained and appropriately equipped to deal with these situations, should be carrying those goods. But the Howard government, for other reasons and agendas, is happy to let that unfold. Frankly, it is irresponsible and typical of this government that it has arrogantly avoided any serious probe of foreign-flagged vessels carrying dangerous goods around our coastline. The example I gave of the Texas City incident involving the French freighter the SS Grandcamp would have devastated any Australian port, but still the government refuses to heed the warnings. It is not just in these areas that Labor have sought to raise concerns. We have also pointed out that, in our region of the world, Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah have acquired the skills and have the opportunities to launch a maritime terrorist attack. These groups operate in South-East Asian waters, near to our borders, and in waters in which the incidence of piracy is the highest in the world. Again on the last available figures, there are two acts of piracy per week in the waters just to our north-north-west—exactly the area in which those terrorist organisations operate. These concerns are compounded by the knowledge made available by United States intelligence sources that the al-Qaeda group is suspected of owning or having a long-term charter fleet of between 15 and 18 bulk general cargo vessels. This American intelligence assessment is publicly available. Whilst it is believed that these vessels are used to generate revenue to support the group or to provide logistics for the terrorist network, it is also feasible that one of these vessels could be used as a floating bomb on a suicide mission, making use of an explosive just like ammonium nitrate. Against that background, the failure of the Howard government to ensure that these dangerous chemicals are handled by crews who have been properly checked and cleared—and at the moment that applies only to Australian crews—is a great disgrace. Let us think about the consequences of that for a moment. Al-Qaeda has access to maritime vessels, it has expertise in maritime terrorism, it has expertise in explosives and it has access to those explosives, yet the Howard government runs at a snail’s pace in upgrading maritime security. Labor keeps a watchful eye on the bills presented by the Attorney-General. His bills have become somewhat notorious for undermining important rights or for simply being poorly drafted. Who can forget the Attorney-General’s bill introduced into this parliament that included a number of quite offensive provisions, subsequently removed? In 2005, he introduced into the parliament a bill that included things like the strip-searching of minors. There was also the one-word bill that changed ‘the’ to ‘a’ to overcome a drafting problem in a hastily prepared earlier piece of antiterrorism legislation. Quality, considered and well-balanced laws have not been the hallmark of this government when it comes to dealing with security matters. We will seek to refer this bill to the Senate legislative committee for closer scrutiny, particularly the possible future applications of the powers conferred in it beyond the ASIC and the MSIC. As I have commented, the purpose of this bill in establishing a central checking agency for ASIC and MSIC is supported; it is a sensible provision. We have been calling for it for some time, and the sooner it is up and running the better. It will not solve the maladministration of aviation and maritime security that has been the hallmark of this government, and it is because of those concerns that I move the following second reading amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to provide necessary security upgrades to protect Australians, including: its careless roll-out of the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) scheme. That flawed roll-out included the loss or theft of ASICs and a history of airport security bungling; its delays in rolling-out the Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC) scheme and its careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crew who do not undergo appropriate security checks; permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes without appropriate security checks; and failing to; ensure ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival; x-ray or inspect 90 per cent of containers; establish and properly fund an Australian Coastguard; and establish a Department of Homeland Security to better coordinate security in Australia”. There are a number of aspects of the second reading amendment that time has not permitted me to address. I should make a couple of quick comments before I conclude, though, about one aspect of it. We have here a bill, to be administered by the Attorney-General’s Department, dealing with security, largely in the transport department. Therein is highlighted one of the difficulties that Labor has been pursuing for the best part of the last six years. Our view on this side of the parliament is that the best solution to the modern threat of non-state terrorism is to have a dedicated department, a department of homeland security, where all of the agencies involved in providing that web of protection for Australians are administered under one minister and under one department. At the moment, this government has those responsibilities divided up over half-a-dozen different ministers and even more departments and agencies. You need only look at an airport to find that three or four ministers are all responsible for the security that goes on in that one place. Where you have that degree of overlap it invites error, it invites omission and, of course, it invites a waste of resources. We can afford none of those things in responding to the threats that we now confront in this world. Labor has for years argued the importance of having this single department with responsibility and a clear chain of command. The odd thing is that, when the chips are down and there are important events to be held, the government actually understands that and adopts what would be Labor’s approach. When Australia was charged with looking after the Olympics, for example—perhaps the most challenging security event in the world—it gave all security command to one person: the New South Wales Police Commissioner. So, although we had, for example, federal police and military personnel, for the purposes of their tasks at the Olympics the military personnel were under the command of the police commissioner in New South Wales. They knew there had to be one structure, one line of command, and to make it work in the most challenging of environments, at the Olympics, they did that. One wonders why, in the years since then, and particularly since 9-11, the government have not seen fit to establish an ongoing structure that mirrors that same rationale. I also draw attention to a concern I have in relation to clause 8 of the bill, relating to the establishment of the scheme. Subclause (2) sets out the purposes for which background checks may be conducted. It is an extraordinarily broad list of items. Most of them are straightforward and to be expected. Of course we expect security checks to be done for the prevention of the carrying out of a terrorist act, for national emergencies, for national security, for the defence of Australia or for a number of the other things that are listed. But that provision seems to give scope for the Commonwealth to do background checks for any purpose whatsoever which may have no relationship at all to issues of security, defence or dealing with terrorist acts. One of the things I hope the government will be able to shed some light on during the consideration in detail and in the Senate inquiry is the purposes for which they intend those powers to be used and the need for legislation to be drafted in such an extraordinarily broad manner. We look forward to pursuing those matters of detail at the appropriate time. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the amendment seconded? 8 10:41:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I second the motion. It is with some pleasure that I stand in support of the position adopted by the Labor Party on the AusCheck Bill 2006 and especially the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister and member for Brisbane, Mr Bevis. This is a very important bill, as has been previously stated by the member for Brisbane. It is all about trying to make sure that we in Australia can sleep at night without any significant fear with respect to the battle against terrorism. It is a common-sense bill, in my opinion, that provides the regulatory framework for the conduct of a centralised background-checking service operated through the Attorney-General’s Department. Given the international challenge of terrorism at the moment, it is very important that we have a coordinated approach to this very serious challenge that confronts, at this particular point in time, not only Australia but also, importantly, the global community in which we live. It is interesting to note that the bill is another endeavour to configure correctly our national security settings and results from recommendation 19 of the Wheeler review. As the shadow minister for transport up until the last election in 2004, I have to say that I thought the Wheeler report presented many balanced and informed recommendations. It represented a comprehensive review at that time of what should be done to strengthen the security arrangements that operate within Australia—and they are so important to Australia’s desire to have the best possible armoury in the global fight against terrorism. The bill therefore correctly provides for the creation of a new centralised division of the Attorney-General’s Department, to be known as AusCheck. This agency will be responsible for conducting background checks on those who work in the secure areas of air and sea ports. That is obviously important to my shadow ministerial responsibilities for transport. It applies namely to the holders of the aviation security identification card, ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, MSIC. Once fully established, it is envisaged that the division will operate on a cost recovery basis. In my opinion, this bill builds on all the work done in the previous parliament with respect to the development of the aviation security identity cards and the maritime security identity cards, because they go hand in glove with comprehensive legislation going to aviation and maritime security in Australia that was properly considered in a cooperative way by both sides of parliament. AusCheck will commence operations from 1 July 2007. But I must say that the opposition has considerable criticism of the fact that this is two years after the decision of the government in 2005 to establish the new division. I would have thought that the challenge of terrorism would have required a little bit more haste and a certain decisiveness by the government to get this framework in place sooner than the late hour at which we are now considering this important legislation. From my point of view, the delay seems a relatively lengthy period of time for what should have been a relatively simple process. But we do welcome AusCheck’s establishment, despite the government’s tardiness on this front. AusCheck will require additional enabling legislation to conduct background checks outside the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Obviously, a maritime security identification card is required if a person needs to work unescorted or unmonitored in a maritime security zone. That is a pretty fundamental requirement as far as I am concerned. This obviously covers waterfront workers, seafarers on Australian regulated ships, Customs brokers, shipping agents and contractors as well as service providers and maintenance workers—a comprehensive list of workers who are engaged in one way or another in the Australian maritime industry. With respect to the aviation field, identification cards are required by many persons working in an airside or a landside security zone at a security controlled airport that has regular transport services. Whilst these cards are exceptionally important, the opposition still maintains considerable concern about the failure of the government to adopt a more comprehensive approach to aviation security arrangements in regional airports around Australia such as those at Wyndham and Burnie in Tasmania. We think it is ridiculous that at some of these airports you can board a plane unchecked; yet when you arrive at, for example, Melbourne Airport, you actually have to go through security having already undertaken the trip. We have previously indicated that, in our opinion, the threat of terrorism is real. Although we have comprehensive security, regimes at major capital city airports, such as in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, there seem to be gaping holes in the security arrangements at some of our key regional airports around Australia. I remind the government that we need a further examination of this challenge, because the last thing we need is for someone who wants to do Australia and Australians harm to work out these weakness in the system and exploit them for their own ends. Holding either identification card indicates that the holder is of a suitable character to work in a secure area, having undergone background checks including a criminal history check, a security assessment by ASIO where required, and an authority to work in Australia check by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to ensure that the person is a citizen or permanent resident. The bill also provides authority for the department to maintain a database of applicants and cardholders; to collect, use and disclose information; and to recover costs for conducting background checks. Obviously it is important that we guarantee the security of this information, because it goes to considerable information about individuals in the Australian community. I remind the authorities to have a wary eye with respect to maintaining the security of this personal information. The database is about minimising duplication of effort where individuals have a need to undertake background checks for different purposes, and should improve the Australian government’s response to a security alert by providing a centralised repository of information on persons who are required to enter a secure area. Hopefully, over time, this will streamline security procedures with respect to people who work in these highly sensitive industries. Background checks have increasingly become a critical aspect of the workforce, with Australian Background reporting that 21 per cent of the 1,000 applicants it surveyed lied about their skills, experience or qualifications—which is of considerable concern to all of us. Interestingly, some five per cent had criminal convictions and, of these, 21 per cent or one in 100 applicants had prior convictions for theft or embezzlement. So, in many ways, this is no longer just about security; it is also about the major challenges of theft and fraud in some of the industries that operate in Australia. So it is important that we have a proper eye with respect to these challenges too. In 2002, fraud cost the Australian economy $5.8 billion, which represents over 18 per cent of the total cost of crime. However, rates of reporting fraud are low, with about 25 per cent in small business and around 60 per cent in large companies. This means that, due to the nature of the crime, perpetrators can re-offend in another company or agency that does not conduct thorough background checks. I think it is important that these issues be brought to the attention of the House, because they are of fundamental importance to the operation of business in Australia from not only a security point of view but also the point of view of guaranteeing that honest practices prevail in the operation of Australian business. In the context of my portfolio responsibilities as shadow minister for tourism in addition to transport, I well understand that security at our air and sea ports is vital to Australia’s tourism industry, because this industry employs over half a million Australians. Many of those people are young people starting out in their working lives, and there are also increasing opportunities for more mature-age people to work on a part-time basis. We need to try to overcome some of the major challenges that exist with respect to attracting labour to and retaining labour in the very important export-earning tourism and hospitality industry, which Australia has been so good at for so long. I also remind the House that, with my former responsibilities as shadow minister for resources, I have on a number of occasions raised the importance of ensuring that maritime security is upheld at all times to the highest possible standard, going to background checks and identity cards for anyone in the gas industry who works on board or offshore. Obviously, the importance of that is understandable. In addition, there are also the important issues raised by the member for Brisbane, which went to foreign-flagged vessels, foreign crews and sensitive cargo, such as ammonium nitrate. The opposition, especially through the speeches of the former Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has pursued these issues on numerous occasions. But, unfortunately, the government has continued to turn a blind eye to the importance of maintaining an efficient domestic maritime industry more regularly staffed by Australian crew rather than having our waters principally devoted to foreign ships with foreign crews without adequate security checks. We will continue to remind the House of these issues, especially when you consider some of the cargo, such as ammonium nitrate, that is being carried from port to port around Australia. It is imperative that the security regime that exists in Australia is second to none in the world. The opposition takes the issue of maritime and aviation security very seriously and takes the view that there is no room for complacency on this front—a view we believe is also shared by the Australian public. The workers dutifully perform their tasks on the wharves and in the airports, and I believe that they and their families have a lot to gain from a secure maritime and air travel environment. If anything goes wrong, they are the first affected. As is the case with any employment arrangement, we have to make sure that all Australian workers have the capacity to work in the safest possible environment. In any survey of Australian workers and their families, the issue that always comes out first is not the wages and conditions of employment but the desire to ensure that, when a worker goes to work each day, he or she is not killed or maimed at work and is able to come home. I regard this security regime as being important, in the same way as normal occupational health and safety standards are important to Australian workers and their families. It is also important to recognise that these workers are not the barrier to making sure that we have the best security regime in the world. They are the eyes and ears that will alert us to any threat. In our modern-day world defined by a climate of fear, we can sometimes mistakenly see the fear as inordinate in relation to the actual threat and, in doing so, place unnecessary intrusions on the private lives of ordinary citizens. I raise this because of my regular contact with the aviation and tourism industries. Whilst it is important that we have the toughest regulatory regime possible, we have to maintain a balance with what is required given a particular level of threat. That requires not only ongoing consultation and proper assessment of the security arrangements required in Australia and for the purposes of international travel but also having proper regard for the potential impact on the operation of Australian industry. With respect to the travelling public, it also requires us to have proper regard to how we manage and put in place the ever-increasing number of changes that are being pursued in the security regime in Australia. For example, as has happened overseas, we will soon, in an international aviation context, go with more thorough and restrictive requirements regarding taking fluids on board international carriers. This issue will have to be worked through very carefully. There will also be greater checks on what we carry onto those international carriers. I ask the government to ensure that they properly consult industry when putting these changes in place and allow sufficient time, and minimise the inconvenience to the travelling public, with respect to the introduction of these major changes. The second reading amendment is vital because it proposes two important alterations. They involve deleting two unguarded clauses for criteria in future regulations—clauses 5(d) and 8(c). In proposing and supporting the second reading amendment, the opposition calls for a complete definition of what a background check is—so that people understand more fully what is involved—and for the scope of the AusCheck scheme to be embedded in the bill. We believe that this would provide for an additional safeguard against the misuse or potential misuse of AusCheck. While this might appear an overly cautious amendment, it does address a number of concerns surrounding so-called Big Brother legislation—and I note comments from the government party room this week on Big Brother legislation and personal identity cards for the purpose of the operation of the social security system in Australia. It is perhaps easy to blur our sense of perspective in this world of 24-hour, seven-days-a-week live and instant media that can seemingly elevate everything to crisis level. In this climate, it is easy to assume that our present situation confronts us with threats like no other and that our world is the most dangerous, the most hazardous and the one most plagued by terror. Every era has had its threats and its own focus on the origin of those threats, and I contend that the 21st century is no different to any other. This is not to say that the threat of terrorism today is not greater than it was before that tragic day 5½ years ago on September 11 in the United States. It is greater, and our democracy is more fragile than we think as a result. It has been claimed by the Attorney-General’s Department that a terrorist act aimed at Australia’s interests has been carried out, aborted or disrupted every year since 2001, which is something that we have to have in mind in considering this type of legislation. Our fear of the threat may, from time to time, be out of proportion, but it is real and legitimate. That is why I stand here today in support of this bill and encourage the swift and efficient establishment of the new division, AusCheck. It is also why I support the second reading amendment, which provides an additional safeguard against the misuse of a centralised background-checking service. Our national security is, as we would all agree, of the utmost importance—but it cannot come at any cost. I commend the second reading amendment to the House and indicate the opposition’s overall support for the bill. 8 10:59:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —I endorse, without exception, the remarks of the member for Batman in this debate on the AusCheck Bill 2006. It is important to realise that when it comes to the security of airport and marine installations it is fundamentally the safety of those who work in those environments that is also at issue and that we have to temper our fear with a realistic appreciation of the harms that can befall us as a society if we give way to too great a degree of reliance on authoritarian responses, particularly if they are imposed without regard to the interests of those who are working in those environments. This bill seems a practical measure to bring together the vetting arrangements for those who will work in environments where some degree of pre-clearance is required. It also avoids the need for those pre-clearance arrangements to be undertaken by employers—so that the employers would become aware of personal circumstances in ways which might otherwise be seen as breaches of privacy—and confers on an agency of the Commonwealth the management of this process. In that regard, it appears to be sensible. It has the support of the unions that represent workers in the employment areas that are most immediately relevant, and it seems to offer a practical and convenient way of addressing what we all reluctantly accept as a necessity for the modern age. I will just make a couple of short points. The area that I wish to raise is one which the shadow minister has said requires examination in the Senate. I am a little concerned about the growing practice in legislation proposed to this House that provides for the making of regulations to determine matters which should be set out in the principal legislation. Two particular parts are a good example in relation to this legislation. Proposed section 5 defines what a background check can be. It says that it is ‘an assessment of information relating to one or more of the following’ and then sets it out: the individual’s criminal history; matters relevant to a security assessment of the individual; the individual’s citizenship status, residency status or the individual’s entitlement to work in Australia, including but not limited to, whether the person is an Australia citizen, a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen … Those matters, I think, the House and the Senate will find uncontentious. But, then, the provision goes on to say: such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations. Given that this is establishing a legislative arrangement for a security regime which will currently apply principally to our ports and airports but is capable of extension across a wider range of circumstances, I think it is reasonable to say that the parliament itself should determine whether or not some other matters are going to be made the subject of inclusion within the background-checking process. I do not think there are suitable guarantees in saying that it is always open for either house to move a motion of disallowance if the regulations extend those processes into areas where there would be concerns. I do not think it is satisfactory for two reasons. Firstly, with the increasing volume of regulations, the capacity of this parliament to critically examine the raft of regulations is increasingly being tested. Secondly, the executive has, in a practical sense, control of a majority in both the Senate and the House. It might be said in response to that point that any legislation that could be proposed is likely to pass, equally. But I think there is, in a practical sense, no doubt that greater scrutiny occurs when legislation is put forward in this House and subject to forensic examination, the sunshine of public exposure and debate and the requirement for its rationale to be explained to the parliament as a whole. I do not think there is any doubt that that is a much more rigorous process of examination than permitting the executive to make a regulation that will stand until a proposal to disallow occurs, with that only occurring in circumstances where it is likely that those who have proposed the disallowance know that the executive has control of both houses and probably will defeat it. I think that the mandatory requirement to subject any extension of the background-checking regime to legislative amendment is a proper one. If we were to have that examined in the Senate and, if that were the conclusion of the Senate, it would be one I would certainly be very comfortable with. I see no reason why the government would reject that proposal. It is quite capable of bringing forward a bill and, if there is a sufficient rationale for a significant change, advancing those arguments in the parliament and having those arguments examined. There is a concern in the community about the growing authoritarianism and intrusion of identity and security checking. It has been manifested in the coalition party room—I think somewhat intemperately, if I read the headlines correctly—in relation to allegations that certain new proposals amount to a national identity card. But, whether intemperate or otherwise, I think it is one of those crucial areas of public policy where this House and the Senate need to insist that, if we are going to widen the range of matters that a citizen can be subject to by security check before they can get employment in particular areas, this parliament should have oversight of it and not delegate a possible net-widening capacity to the executive in a way which is effectively less well checked or unchecked. The second area where the regulations have a similar potential effect is in relation to extending the areas in which the AusCheck scheme can operate. At the moment, the scheme will operate in the aviation areas under the Aviation Transport Security Act or the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act, and then there is the omnibus regulation-making power for such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations. We are not given to anticipate where this might be but, if we are going to extend the requirement for security checking pre-employment and exclude from employment Australians, because of those security requirements, who do not meet the checking, it is equally proper to say this parliament should decide which industries and what circumstances those intrusions on citizens’ rights are going to be extended to. I do not like the current trend, which is in a sense to put up framework legislation and then effectively allow the executive, through regulations, to extend the reach of the legislation, the circumstances where it will apply, the areas in which it will apply and what can be done under the legislation. Traditionally, regulations passed under an act made by this parliament have been to facilitate the implementation of substantive provisions already existing in the legislation. Routinely, we would pass an act that sets out the bounds of what is possible under the legislation and then gives the executive power to make regulations so that the detail can be filled in. The kinds of regulations that are being proposed here do not do that. They do not fill in the detail; in fact they widen the ambit of the legislation and give the capacity to widen the kinds of matters that would be subject to security checking. In a sense this parliament surrenders its sovereign power to define the reach and ambit of legislation to the executive. It is not quite what used to be called the Henry VIII clause, which allowed the executive to overturn or suspend a provision of legislation, but it is awfully close to it in its practical application. The legislation sets out certain things which, on the face of it, are unobjectionable but then leaves to the executive the capacity to extend them into other areas of employment where this parliament may or may not wish the legislation to extend. It also extends the range of matters that are subject to security checks beyond the ordinary—criminal checks, national security and the like, citizenship—into subject matters which are not defined and which the government has not illuminated us on in relation to its intention. But they potentially could have very grave ramifications were they to extend into areas such as, for example, the private personal lives of people, their conduct in various regards, their political allegiances and the like. I do not know of anything that gives rise to particular concerns but, if there are no reasons to fear the parliament’s scrutiny, it would be far preferable to make any extension the subject of further amendment in this House. This would be subject to proper examination rather than proceeding in this rather unfortunate way, where the primary legislation simply becomes a vehicle for potential extension rather than for defining the law, using regulation simply to fill in the gap. It is wrong in principle. It is not a satisfactory way to use this parliament. It ought to be condemned. This parliament ought not to further facilitate what is an increasingly common practice which degrades the oversight that this parliament routinely and traditionally has exercised in relation to substantive legislation. With those short remarks, I commend the bill to the House and to its scrutiny by the Senate, and I would hope, picking up on those points that I have made, that there is some opportunity for further reconsideration of the structure of the legislation, particularly the very wide and sweeping capacity to make regulations which might transform what is quite an acceptable and very appropriate piece of legislation into something that we did not anticipate during its passage through this parliament. 8 11:13:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —The AusCheck Bill 2006 provides a framework for a centralised background-checking service by the Attorney-General’s Department and to coordinate criminal and security assessment for aviation security identification card and maritime security identification card applicants. It also provides the authority for the department to maintain a database of applicants and cardholders, to collect, use and disclose information and to recover costs for conducting background checks. Labor supports having a central vetting agency, believing that it has the capacity to improve efficiency, particularly the response time should they be needed in any security alerts or upgrades. We hope—and we would insist—that it would actually improve privacy for those people submitting themselves to background checks. We do have some concerns, however, about some clauses in this legislation. That is why, with my Labor colleagues, I support the amendment to refer the bill to a Senate inquiry. In particular, we would like to see changed the section which leaves the definition of a background check open to amendment by regulation. We would perhaps suggest that there would have to be very good reasons to change that. Similarly, the section which allows the scope of the AusCheck scheme to be expanded beyond ASICs and MSICs by regulation should, we think, be changed. As with many of the security related matters which are increasingly coming before us in this place, the challenge is to get this rather delicate balance right between security, making sure that our travelling public are safe, and making sure that people’s individual rights and civil liberties are maintained as much as is possible. We would be concerned that moving all of these powers into the Attorney-General’s Department could lead, if there is wriggle room in legislation, to a Big Brother attitude. With all that information centralised in one place, in a security culture which certainly becomes quite emotional and, at times, highly politicised, we would have to make sure that the right checks and balances existed—and they should be in this legislation. The establishment of AusCheck follows a recommendation of the Wheeler airport security and policing review that the background checking for ASICs be tightened, centralised in the Attorney-General’s Department and harmonised with maritime cards as well. As Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which completed its own thorough review of airport security last year, I am pleased to see some action from the government, which we think has been dragging its heels on aviation and port security for too long. In fact, the committee reported back in June 2004 on problems with airport security in Australia but resolved to revisit the subject after mounting community concern over travelling safety became very apparent. Some people will recall that that concern came to a head with the notorious camel suit incident at Sydney airport, where a baggage handler rode around on a cargo trolley wearing a dress-up suit he had pulled out of someone’s luggage. Committee members and the public were rightly concerned about aspects of the Schapelle Corby case and the allegations of organised drug-smuggling among some staff at Sydney airport. So there are many reasons to make sure that aviation security is well controlled, well maintained and informed by events and by the industry as well. The committee recommended that Sydney airport in particular be the subject of regular unannounced security audits. I look forward to the government’s response on this. During the committee’s second review of airport security, I kept a file of publicly reported incidents of security breaches at our airports. Sadly, that file now—and I keep it current—has almost 100 incidents listed. There would be many more, I imagine, that are never reported publicly. So I think it is important that we say that the security of the travelling public must be paramount. The latest incident recorded was at Sydney airport. An unidentified object was found in a bag. It was believed to be a weapon, and it caused a security scare and evacuation. These are major disruptions. In October last year a Pakistani national was arrested for holding fake passports and was believed to work as a security guard at Melbourne Airport. There is no doubt that you have to know who works at airports and around our ports. You have to know that they have been thoroughly background-checked and that their employment is appropriate for maintaining safety and security. I think we have all seen over the years that the staff involved are making more of an effort to use ASICs, especially in regional airports. I can remember seeing staff jump off planes and not bother to put their ASIC on because they were in a regional airport. I never see that now, fortunately. ASICs are required if a person needs to work in a secure area, on the tarmac area in particular, either on the air side or land side of a security controlled airport that has regular public transport services. That is a lot of airports in Australia. Under the current system, issuing bodies are individually responsible for background checking, issuing the ASICs and reclaiming expired ASICs. A hundred and eighty-eight registered airports and airlines currently issue ASICs. That is a lot of issuing bodies. The committee found, in submissions from the industry and from people who had received ASICs, that there were varying outcomes from and processes within the issuing bodies themselves. It was alleged in submissions that it was easier to get an ASIC with some issuers than it was with others, and that assessments did not always match security risk. It was alleged that if you went to the right issuer you could get an ASIC. We were concerned about that. While I am pleased that this legislation is tidying up the background-checking process, there are still a number of recommendations by the JCPAA committee that relate to ASICs which I would have liked to have seen in this legislation. Our committee heard in November 2005 that there had been 384 lost or stolen cards. That was a major concern. We were of the view that some centralising of the management of ASICs could help reduce the number of lost or stolen cards. It was an unacceptably high number and certainly unacceptable as a benchmark for any government department. We recommended, therefore, that AusCheck should issue the cards, take responsibility for their return and also be required to provide an annual report to parliament on the number of non-returned ASICs. Labor, though, is concerned that centralising the issuing as well as the background checks in the Attorney-General’s Department could become a breach of people’s privacy and an opportunity for data matching and data sharing that is not necessary or warranted and which could infringe on people’s privacy. It was very strongly stated in the committee’s aviation security report that these sorts of decisions should be taken in consultation with industry and with advocacy groups for the travelling public. The committee also recommended that decisions relating to background checks made by AusCheck be subject to appeal. We are talking about people’s livelihoods, and it would be unacceptable if they were barred from gaining an ASIC or an MSIC unfairly. We do think there should be an appeal process. Our recommendation was that it should be through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is unclear whether this will apply to any expansion of AusCheck’s role made under regulations, but I think it should. That is one reason why I think that aspect should actually be referred to and reviewed by a Senate inquiry. We also recommended that AusCheck should be required to monitor, and report annually to the Attorney-General on, the adequacy of the completion of background checks for aviation security identification card applications by ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. We want expediency. We want to know that all those agencies are doing their job properly. We do not want to think that any of those departments or those very important security, police and immigration agencies use information incorrectly or misuse that opportunity to do the correct background checks. We do think that should be reported on annually in terms of the adequacy of those checks. If they are dragging the chain and not doing their job, we do think the government should know about it. We have also been concerned about the expiration and termination of cards for cardholders working in aviation. We recommended that an annual report to the parliament should be made on the number of non-returned identification cards. Our concern was that there were already so many cards out there unaccounted for that the parliament deserves to know every year whether we are achieving better outcomes. So we were very firm in our belief that this is an important area that has to be monitored, and I hope this legislation under review by the Senate inquiry will make sure that we do achieve some of those best-case outcomes. Newcastle is my electorate and I am particularly aware and conscious of what any aviation security legislation means to my area. The screening of baggage at regional airports was quite an issue in our report. We also asked DOTARS to report in three months time—that is, at the start of March—on whether further regional airports need mandatory baggage screening. This is one of the most controversial areas in aviation security. Air travel through Newcastle Airport has grown by 400 per cent in just the last few years. So there is certainly no time to delay in improving airport security. Interestingly, industry is moving ahead, but so is research. I note that Newcastle university researchers are developing drug and explosives screening techniques using chemical sensors. A leading international toxicologist is employed there and funded with Australian Research Council grants. I am pleased to see that happening. MSICs were required from 1 January this year. Talk about the security of ports has been continuing for some time. I congratulate the Port of Newcastle on the very expedient and successful implementation of its port security plan. I know that has been used in the industry to guide the other port security plan developments. We are a very busy port and we are very conscious that we do need to know who is in our port. Sometimes we think that there needs to be greater understanding of the movement of people from ships in ports as well as people who work in those environments. This week I spoke to a maritime union official from the International Transport Workers Federation regarding an incident on board a Greek owned ship in Newcastle. ITF was denied entry onto that ship. That is very unusual; as a matter of fact I do not know of it happening in our port before. I think it is important that the unions, who are working in those environments every day, being some of the people who get the first tip-off about any security risks, are given good access to our ports. I am told that, after publicity, the ITF official was allowed entry. I also note that the MUA has raised concerns about ports, like ours having ammonium nitrate passing through it and having flag of convenience ships crewed by foreign workers who have not had to have MSIC screening. I also think it is very important that we do not go too far. I know that in Townsville recently there were people locked up on their ships who could not get out because there was no-one to security-clear them to leave their ship, leave the port and go into town. So, yes, it is very important that we tighten up on MSICs, identity checks and the return and management of cards—we have to make sure that our ports operate safely. But we also have to be sensible and think about the welfare of crews and port users. I think the Howard government can do a lot more on aviation and port security. I am mindful of the fact that the Wheeler report was done some time ago, and it still has many outstanding provisions. One recommendation that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audits did not make—not for the lack of me suggesting it—was that a department of homeland security be established. I still think that this is such a complex area that a dedicated government department is absolutely needed. This government has had long enough to deal with all aspects of transport security. This bill does move in the right direction, but it seems to me that the wheels are turning too slowly. 8 11:29:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —I rise to support the AusCheck Bill 2006 and the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane. In his second reading speech the Attorney pointed out the policy objective of this bill. He said: ... the government agreed to establish a centralised background checking service in the Attorney-General’s Department as part of a wider initiative to strengthen the ASIC and the MSIC systems. ASIC relates to aviation security identification cards and MSIC relates to maritime security identification cards. The Attorney-General continued: The new division has been established, now known as AusCheck, and it will help the aviation and maritime industries to identify high-risk individuals who should not be granted an ASIC or an MSIC. …         …         … The decision to establish AusCheck followed a recommendation of Sir John Wheeler’s Airport Security and Policing Review and is an important part of the government’s ongoing commitment to improve aviation and maritime security. That recommendation was recommendation No. 19, which states: A new national card-authorising body within the Attorney-General’s Department is required to bring together the national security and criminality streams and immigration checks on a timely ‘live’ basis and to apply judgements as to who is a fit and proper person for the purposes of access to sensitive airport areas and aircraft. Appeals against decisions of this body should be to a special section of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as is currently available with respect to ASIO decisions. Employers also have a responsibility to screen prospective staff carefully before seeking an ASIC and to monitor any relevant behaviour after issue. This improved aviation system has a clear analogue in the maritime sector. So what the government is attempting to do with this legislation is laudable. I think it is something that deserves the support of all of us in parliament. I think there is a history where, at times, there has been a bit of slackness—which I do not necessarily need to go into. In the heightened security environment the public would expect that areas like this are streamlined, are more efficient and are seen to be more effective. The problem we have, I suppose, as a federation, is that we have eight states and territories and a Commonwealth, and at times, quite frankly, things fall through the cracks because of jurisdictional borders. The same is true in relation to different agencies. Things can fall through the cracks from different agencies not talking to one another. So what we are seeing here is a capacity for different agencies to talk to one another and to be able to have this new national card-authorising body operating in a timely and efficient manner with a single database. As the honourable member for Denison pointed out, there are some question marks over whether some aspects of this scheme should be in the legislation or should be in regulations. He pointed out two sections of the bill. Clause 5 is really the guts of the bill—‘Definition of background check’. It states: A background check, in relation to an individual, is an assessment of information relating to one or more of the following: the individual’s criminal history ... No problems with that. Clause 5(b) states: matters relevant to a security assessment of the individual ... No problems with that. Clause 5(c) states: the individual’s citizenship status, residency status or the individual’s entitlement to work in Australia, including but not limited to, whether the person is an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen ... No problems with that. Clause 5(d) states: such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations. That is a very broad section of the act, and it is open to manipulation by governments and bureaucrats in relation to what those ‘other matters’ are that are going to be prescribed by the regulations. I can understand the need for regulations as against legislation in a number of instances—indeed, the benefit of a regulation is that it allows rapid action to be taken in times of emergency. But a disadvantage is that accountability and control are lost. Another section that is a cause for concern is clause 8—‘Establishment of AusCheck scheme’. Clause 8(1) states: The regulations may provide for the establishment of a background checking scheme (the AusCheck schem e) relating to the conduct and coordination of background checks of individuals: for the purposes of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act; and for the purposes of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act; and— here is the problem subclause— for such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations. What we would say—or what I certainly say on this side—is that that is a very broad subclause, together with clause 5(d), in terms of just saying ‘for such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations’. That is a really wide power to be handing over to the minister without proper guidelines. Under clause 5, you can tell that we are worried about specific things: criminal history, ASIO checks and citizenship status. What can come under clause 5(d)? Someone’s political affiliations? Will the old Communist Party membership disqualify you? 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Are you still a member? 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —I am not a member and have never been a member, unlike some on your side who have been members and supporters of fascist parties and engaged in dodgy activities. 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—Order! I remind the member for Banks that it is appropriate to reply to interjections by addressing his remarks through the chair. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am entitled to answer what is an interjection and what needs to be dealt with. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Banks is arguing with the chair. If the member for Banks wishes to— 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is relevant to this bill. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the member for Banks wishes to respond to an interjection, which is unparliamentary, he will at least have the courtesy of addressing his remarks through the chair and not directly engage in conversations with the member opposite. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —It is actually relevant to this legislation, because the truth is that, if this legislation had been enacted in the fifties, the Menzies government would have been able to disqualify people on the basis of Communist Party membership. We went through that charade in the fifties, where the High Court knocked over the government’s legislation and the people also rejected the government having those powers. So the interjection that the minister made is pertinent because it shows his prejudices. It also highlights how he as a minister would have a power that, in my opinion, is open to abuse by him because of his own prejudices should he say, ‘If you’re a member of the Communist Party’—or whatever—‘that will disqualify you in relation to this legislation.’ So even though it is out of order his interjection is relevant, which is why I took it up. And I thank him for it, because it does not take much to scratch this particular minister and get out his bile and his prejudices. He is now a minister of the Crown. Those sorts of interjections are unbecoming of a minister of the Crown. He is not an ordinary backbencher. He should act how his office requires him to act: responsibly, without prejudice. That is exactly the point that I make about those two particular subclauses that cause me to have some concern. The government is to be applauded in the main for this legislation. It is based on protecting and securing our nation, and the government or the opposition should not be the repository of that. It is our responsibility as members of parliament and as ministers of the Crown. And, when ministers of the Crown make regulations, they should be doing so in terms of certain principles, not certain prejudices. All I am saying to the minister at the table and the government, and to anyone listening, is that I have no problems as long as the basic principles are enunciated. The parliament should be entitled to adopt those principles so that ministers or governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, cannot go off on frolics. Unfortunately, we are living in an environment where there is a new McCarthyism. There is a fear out there in the community. Governments of all political persuasions are responding and coming up with quite oppressive laws. In relation to this legislation I say to the relevant minister that he is right in having this legislation as it pertains to the criminal history and security of an individual, and the assessment of that, and citizenship status. If there are other matters that the minister feels should come into the background check then I believe it does not necessarily need to be done, as a parliament, by regulation. Earlier I quoted the advantages of some regulations, because they do allow for urgent situations. We should not be naive enough to think that there will not be urgent situations in this area and that, as a result of conduct that is worrying, some instances or recommendations might require some urgent action but might not come to the attention of government and the bureaucracy. I am not standing up and saying that in all instances, even in relation to this legislation, governments should be totally constrained, but there have to be some principles and the principles have to go to security. They have to go to the vulnerability of the systems that are currently in place and go to improving the systems and giving confidence to members of the public. What worries me is whether it will be a situation where unionism will be outlawed in relation to individuals. I have a view about the security of our airports that we are a lot more vulnerable with the outsourcing that is taking place and the contractors who have a role there than with having an extension of the Australian Protective Service or public servants who are properly trained and with whom you would not necessarily have the turnover that you might have with an outsourced organisation. You could bring in public servants, properly remunerate them, give them pride in their job and properly train them to, in effect, do the baggage and security checks and profiling at airports et cetera. In my humble view, if you have a trained Public Service, you will have a more secure system than if you have an outsourced system that, with it, might bring people who are not necessarily criminal or a security problem, or whatever, but who, as a result of necessary cost cutting and other things, are not necessarily the best individuals to be in jobs that we regard as important. With those short remarks, I commend the bill to the House and commend the government on bringing it forward. There are certainly advantages to this bill that are not currently there in the current system. I thank the minister for his disorderly interjection because it enabled me to point out how the system can be abused. I am sure that, in relation to the matters that I raise, the Senate committee and the minister will, hopefully, at least have a look at them. If there is merit in what I say then there is merit in the government looking at it. If it is not meritorious then it is a matter for the government. 8 11:45:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I agree with the comments the member for Banks just made about outsourcing. We should have trained public servants in our airports and our ports rather than outsourcing for contracted workers. But he was too kind about past and current problems. As is my wont, I will go much further than the member for Banks and say there are people who are still conducting criminal activity at Kingsford Smith airport. They have been doing it for decades. They have been doing it in such a way, across a series of areas, that they have been undetected. They will not be broken up unless we have an activist Australian government willing to go into Sydney Airport and the other major airports and break the cabals that have been operating without proper scrutiny for years now. There has been so much movement of illegal drugs Australia-wide, undiscovered through major airports. Certain people have not been pinged because we do not have a dedicated police force. The general approach has been that the state police force and state detectives should not be involved in our major airports. I think they should be, because the Australian Protective Service, no matter how good a job it does, is not made up of professional policemen trained in this area to pick up criminal activity and chase it down. Police should be involved, as long as we have got the normal regulation and control to ensure that there is not a corruption of those officers working in this area. The money is so great because of the amount and value of the drugs and other contraband that are moved through there that we need a dedicated force that will go in practically and crack the back of this. This is because there is also another fundamental connection here in our ports and our airports that the state police, the Federal Police and our security agencies are concerned about. What this bill is striving to do by getting a better picture of it and a better hang on it with the AusCheck proposal—which I am fully in favour of—is to underline the fact that we need to look at the deadly combination of criminality and terrorism. We have already seen that there have been people with active terrorist contacts working in Sydney Airport. One of the first people taken out of the place was a baggage handler at Sydney Airport. In terms of the potential for terrorist activity in Australia, you could not get a much more vulnerable situation than having people inside, working in the baggage area. We know from the terror plots that have been discovered so far that there has been a concentration on aviation. The undiscovered areas are maritime and rail, as we had with Madrid. But we also know that what has been done so far to try to crack the problems, particularly at KSA, is not enough. And we are trying to drive the government harder and faster to address these problems, because there is not that much time. You cannot step back and do it in a fashion where you just expect that things will go your way. You cannot just take partial measures here. I know the normal response is to look at something and say: ‘Well, there might be a few problems here. You know, it’ll be blown up in the media; it’ll be blown up whether it’s in print, radio, TV or whatever else.’ But the member for Lowe—who sits next to me in this House and has an adjacent electorate—has, by working day in and day out asking questions to ministers, pinned down exactly what the situation was with security cameras in Kingsford Smith airport. One security camera was out of focus, and another was turned against the wall. They just happened to be in those areas that were most vulnerable. You need an active Customs Service and an active Australian Protective Service, and I think we need to engage in this area with the state police. We need a state police presence, with people who are experienced in detective work, to really go in and clean out these areas so they will not be as vulnerable as they are. I will say here again, as I have said previously on questions of security at Kingsford Smith airport—and I know that the Attorney takes these matters very seriously—that there are significant problems that have not yet been got at. And the reason they have not is the nature of the whole process. The member for Banks alluded to this when he spoke about the outsourcing. I know outsourcing is the flavour of the decade: walking away from government responsibilities and deciding that we will not have government staff do the work and that we will not have all of the on-cost involved in that. That has happened at federal, state and council levels. People have made all sorts of savings—big savings—and efficiencies. But I can only say that in the most capitalist country on the planet, the United States of America, you will not find them outsourcing their security service, their baggage-handling service, their customs service or their protective services. There is a whole range of fundamental security mechanisms that are in place in the baggage and cargo checking and handling. You will not find local, private security companies involved. You will not find Wackenhut involved in this. Prior to September 11, 2001, that might have been a bit of the flavour of the US. It may have made some inroads. I do not really think so, though, because the culture in the United States is that—whilst they are entirely capitalist and in some cases have untrammelled capitalism at its greatest, as we saw in the 1860s and the 1890s—they have a strong sense of government responsibility and a strong sense that the government is there to protect the people of the United States of America. That is its chief task, and it will not be assured that if it gives the job to other people it is really going to be done. I have been through the United States. I have been through the upgraded checking at their airports. Years before, I went through Los Angeles or Kennedy airport in the United States and I discovered that before there was any evident or extant problem with terrorism there was a really significant process for getting into the country. US citizens were in one line and whole queues of aliens were in another. That was the first time I found out that I was an alien but they still tend to treat people in that way—rather brusquely. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock —You are not an alien here, I hope? LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —I hope not, Philip. I may be considered an alien by some but I hope not. Sometimes I think I might be. The checking was so intense that the person who got through quickest was a nun who was about 40 or so. She got through in 15 minutes. I do not have a problem with that, and I do not have a problem with officials dealing with it in the way that we have Australian Customs officials dealing with it. I actually think it is really important. Here I would put to the Attorney-General that we should have a complete change of culture at our airports and ports. I am speaking about the changes with security cards, including the maritime security identification card and, as I have spoken of before, the aviation security identification card. The Attorney will have been apprised of the fact that our amendments go to the manner in which they were rolled out, although that did not occur during his time as Attorney. I will trust that the demerits in that roll-out will be fixed by Mr Ruddock as Attorney-General, because this is fundamentally important. Slow, careful, detailed work in this area is critical. Why?—because we have had plenty of examples, at Kingsford Smith airport in particular, where the process for the security identification cards has not been right. It has not been adequate or complete, and that has left us very vulnerable. It is difficult to understand this at the contracting-out level because people generally think of contracts in terms of cleaning contracts, where companies like Spotless, Totalcare or someone else take the head contract. They have employees and they have control of those employees, and you would pretty much be able to determine, if something went wrong, what was happening. It is in the nature of the security industry in Sydney in particular—I know this is Australia-wide but my experience is in Sydney—at Kingsford Smith airport and elsewhere, that you are not dealing just with a head contractor. The head contractor subcontracts, that subcontractor subcontracts and that subcontractor subcontracts. In a country where we have contractors for just about everything—there are no employees left in this area—you have people contracting right down at the bottom. The control over those people—a casualised workforce with people moving in and out—is not what it should be. It has not been envisaged by the Attorney-General or by the government—it has been envisaged by me previously, by the member for Banks now and more generally by Labor—that the whole lot should be cleared out. I would get rid of Wackenhut, SNP and all the rest of them. Clear them all out. Let us, in this instance, follow the lead of the United States government and put Australian government employees—as we have in Customs and APS—into the key roles where we check baggage and cargo, because it is vitally important. Our amendments are significant in terms of the security identification cards in the aviation and maritime areas because unless this system works adequately we will not have the kind of protections we have had. In his second reading speech on this bill the minister indicated that the government has moved in a series of areas where we have pressed hard—such as the hardening of cockpit doors—and circumstances have also pressed hard so that we have passenger screening for all regular passenger jet flights, upgraded closed circuit television and monitoring capability. As the member for Lowe has pointed out time and again, you have to make sure that it works. Although there is monitoring, it may be turned off, allowing terrible things to happen, and our security may be trammelled because processes are not undertaken properly because we have not got to the core of the problem. The government have taken a series of other measures that I have spoken on recently with regard to maritime security. This area really needs to be got to the bottom of. This system has to work, and it has to work well. That is why I support what is being fundamentally done in AusCheck—because bringing together the disparate elements of this into one approach under AusCheck, under the Attorney-General, is the right way to do it. Other members have indicated that there are some areas where it may be rolled out and extended later. The shadow minister and the member for Banks have underlined those areas. I will leave my comments with regard to that at that. There are areas that need to be answered in that regard, but in terms of the broader area—we have spoken about this in other circumstances, but it is fundamental—permitting foreign flag-of-convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes without appropriate security checks is a recipe for absolute disaster. And, where the crew and cargo details of ships are not available 48 hours before arrival, this is a significant area of danger for Australia—particularly with major ships carrying ammonium nitrate from one end of the planet to the other—unless you pin this down very finely. There is a danger to our ports and to a place like Sydney. When you have a load of ammonium nitrate in a boat you could blow the whole of the CBD up. That is fundamental and critical but the government have not taken those steps; we recommend they give serious consideration to it. We are committed to doing it because we think it is important. Likewise, we urge the government—and also give them a whack over the back of the hand—because they have failed to X-ray or inspect 90 per cent of containers. They promised to provide security in this area but they have been lax in this regard, and we do not think that they should be—it is too important. Something that the government will not do is provide for an Australian coastguard—to establish it and properly fund it. They have relied upon the Navy exclusively. Let us use the example of the United States and its coastguard. It has not destroyed that country to have an independent coastguard as an adjunct to its naval capacity and activities. I have been on the Fremantle class boats and I have also inspected the Armidale class boats as the deputy chair of the defence committee. These boats are being used to do splendid intervention work in Northern Australia and off the coasts of Western Australia and Queensland. They are doing fantastic work, and we need to support them as much as we can. Their job is so immense that we need to support them with an interleaved capacity. This can be achieved by having an adjunct whereby a group is dedicated to the work but other people assist them in doing it. The United States is not afraid of such a facility. It too is continental. It too has the kinds of challenges we have. We argue that that kind of facility should be brought to bear here and that we should establish a department of homeland security to better coordinate security in Australia. This is not something that the government wishes to take on but something that we have underlined. Attorney, we propose the establishment of a department of homeland security to better coordinate security in Australia—but, interestingly, what is AusCheck doing? It is better coordinating security checking in Australia under one aegis. That is the operative in this bill. It is the core of what it is about: to bring all the disparate elements together so that we can have a better view and better control of them. We think that is a smart thing and an intelligent thing to do. Where is a department of homeland security—I think I have heard of that before—operating? It operates in the United States. They understand the gravity of the situation. They understand that there is a particular utility in focusing on one area. Generally, the Australian government has been against that idea, because it is our idea and it is natural for governments not to appreciate the ideas of oppositions— 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock interjecting— LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —It is our idea to pick up ideas from elsewhere. Arch Bevis, the member for Brisbane, has strongly pushed this case time and time again. In the Australian context, it is our idea to utilise the coastguard model that has worked so successfully in the United States. There is another model, Attorney, which you might be more inclined to look at—but the outsourcing must go. This is not popular in the Australian context, but there is a benefit in having public servants dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of their fellow citizens. This is demonstrated at every port, airport and railway in the United States. To use the Public Service in this way, I think, provides us with exactly the kind of protection we need to ensure that criminality and, in particular, terrorism do not put us in a situation where, despite the checks done through AusCheck—however deep we can go, whoever we pin on this and whatever safety we provide here—we do not reach its ongoing core. We still have not fixed that area. That is why I support this bill. We are not at the point where I can be assured and where I can assure all of the constituents in my current electorate as well as my new electorate, the redistributed electorate—and that is the same for every member in New South Wales—that their safety while travelling is as secure as it can be. The model is for our own people to work for the federal government. They would be in charge of the security in cargo handling, in X-raying and in security checks. They would be directly responsible to their superiors in the Australian Public Service, to the secretary of the department and, ultimately, to the minister. I know it is unfashionable to have government involvement, but this is a critical area. Attorney, you have previously given clear thought, in a whole range of areas in which you have been involved, as to what the fundamental or core areas of need are. I urge you to look at this closely. A major attack at either our ports or our airports could be prevented if we take this major step and change the way that we are organising this. England and, more particularly, the United States are our best examples. A department of homeland security to better coordinate security in Australia mirrors the smaller step in this legislation of an AusCheck. It will look at security identification in a more coordinated, centralised and smarter way so that you get all of the elements, and not much is left out. With so many containers arriving at our major sea ports and containers going through our airports, security is vital. We have already seen—and we have been lucky to pick up—a series of different materials that could have caused great danger to our population. We need to go the whole way to ensure that there is proper screening at the major regional airports and that we have better security at places like Bankstown Airport. It is so close to KSA, and there could be an impingement. I support the bill. I urge the Attorney to give close consideration to what I have argued in relation to the bill. It has merit in its importance for securing the future for every travelling Australian. 8 12:05:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I thank all members who have participated in this debate on the AusCheck Bill 2006, starting with the member for Brisbane, the member for Banks, the member for Batman, the member for Denison and, latterly, the member for Blaxland, whose contributions I always enjoy and find thoughtful. I might deal with the part of his contribution that I think was least relevant to this debate, and that is the question, the canard, as to whether or not we should have a department of homeland security. I have not had an opportunity to talk about this recently, but I am interested that the idea is still being pushed. The assumption that we might not look at what happens abroad and see what could be learnt would be a flawed assumption. We always look at what is happening abroad. The question is whether it is appropriate for our jurisdiction. We came to the view that, essentially, having to revisit all of the administrative arrangements that need to be examined when you go through a major reorganisation of that type would effect a lessening of our efforts in relation to security while you had people focusing on looking at what their tasks might be and re-establishing appropriate linkages and relearning their relationships. You only have to look at what happened in the United States in the tragedy of Cyclone Katrina. It was quite clear that the Department of Homeland Security failed, and that had a great deal to do with the problems of linkages. There was another argument that I noticed was advanced. It was that I do not have enough time to devote myself to the security tasks because I happen to also have some responsibilities as Attorney-General. I thought that was a particularly interesting argument that I had to grapple with: that I have to handle a number of my colleagues on the other side of the chamber—the member for Brisbane, our colleague from Melbourne and, I suppose, if I am dealing with native title issues, probably somebody else—and I do not have enough time to give myself full focus. I thought this was an argument that the member for Brisbane would have been convinced of. Then I looked at the new responsibilities that were given to the members opposite. I asked for a copy of the shadow ministry list, and I note that the member for Brisbane is now the shadow minister for homeland security and territories. I do not know what linkage there is between national security and territories, but what I do notice is that his single focus on national security is no more; he has these responsibilities for territories in addition. But excuse my making a little fun of what has happened. I would like to deal with the substance of the AusCheck Bill, and I am glad you did not bring me into order, Mr Deputy Speaker, for speaking beyond the bill. I welcome the supporting principle for the measure, because the bill is necessary to provide legislative authority to enable a new organisation, AusCheck, to provide a centralised background-checking and coordination service for the Commonwealth. It does not set up any new background-checking regimes, but it provides a framework that will be conducted by AusCheck. The detail of what may or may not be required to meet the requirements of existing or new background-checking schemes is set out in the current legislation or will be provided under the new legislation and supported by regulations made under the act. AusCheck has the potential to deliver significant efficiencies to avoid delays and duplication for both business and individuals in sensitive sectors where community expectations require screening of employees. The commencement of AusCheck is expected to significantly reduce processing time and prevent the card-issuing delays that have been experienced in the past. In the case of the aviation security identification card and the maritime security identification card programs, the detail of background-checking elements is already in place and provided for in the relevant legislation. I note that the member for Brisbane and the member for Denison raised concerns that regulations may be made under this bill. The substance of any additional background-checking schemes that AusCheck coordinates will be set out in an act or regulation that deals with the relevant policy issues. For example, the aviation and maritime security background-checking requirements are contained in legislation administered within the transport portfolio. Another example is the new screening requirements for people employed in aged-care facilities, which are contained in legislation administered within the portfolio of the Minister for Ageing. AusCheck is not presently involved in coordination of those new checks but may in future offer attractive efficiencies to the administering department through the use of automated systems and special expertise. Whenever AusCheck provides checking or coordination services, its activities will need to be supported by regulations made under this bill. It is only through the regulation-making power that AusCheck will be able to take new checking coordination roles and, through this, enhance Australia’s security. This bill is designed to provide a flexible framework for a government agency to develop expertise in automated background checking against criteria set out in diverse pieces of legislation in response to a variety of concerns. It will permit AusCheck to offer its services to a wide range of government departments charged with the responsibility of responding to those concerns. With its automated system and focus on privacy protection, it will be a fast, fair and efficient way for individuals to have assessments relevant to their employment made. As a result, when background checks are made necessary by law, individuals and industry can be assured of a speedy and consistent outcome. AusCheck will not be responsible for issuing any cards. It will provide advice about whether a background check on a person indicates that they have met the specified requirements. Of course, these requirements are set out in the relevant scheme, not in the AusCheck Bill. Once operational, AusCheck will be able to manage background checking in other schemes and minimise duplication of effort. It will maintain a database of all aviation and maritime security identification card applicants and cardholders, and the bill provides that the database can only be used for a limited purpose. Its purpose will be responding to a national security incident. I note that the member for Newcastle placed emphasis on privacy, and I observe that the protection of privacy is a vital aspect of the process. AusCheck will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act and ensure that information on its database is properly protected. Since the tragic events of September 11, there has been heightened awareness of the potential threat to public safety in the aviation sector, and the government has already adopted substantial measures to strengthen aviation security, including hardening cockpit doors, requiring passenger screening through all regular passenger jets, upgraded closed circuit television and monitoring capability, and enhanced cargo security clearances and checked-baggage screening. The creation of AusCheck as a centralised background-checking service for the Commonwealth will help the aviation and maritime industries to identify high-risk individuals. This bill is obviously an important step forward in the government’s commitment to improving both aviation and maritime security. There were some further issues raised. The member for Brisbane drew upon instances of lost ASICs in his comments on the AusCheck Bill. In fact, the commencement of AusCheck and its centralisation of background checking should improve the ability to monitor cards. I make this observation: it is of concern when cards are unaccounted for, but the number of non-returned cards compares favourably with the non-return rate for other identity documents, such as drivers licences and Australian passports. For example, of the 1.2 million Australian passports issued each year, some 25,000 are reported lost or stolen, representing 2.1 per cent of all Australian passports issued each year. That compares with 1.5 per cent of ASICs that are reported lost or stolen. We are working with industry to implement best practice measures to manage issues relating to lost, stolen or expired cards, and industry members have advised the government that they have established practices to do so. They include confirming the identity of the holder with the photograph at manned access points, disabling any electronic access rights that may have been included on an ASIC as soon as it has been reported lost or stolen, reporting the loss of a card to police, routinely auditing irregular card use at points not authorised for the holder and routinely reviewing ASICs with unusual characteristics, such as those that have not been used for some time or those with an unusual expiry date. The member for Brisbane and the member for Denison expressed concern about the range of purposes for which background checking may be prescribed. Let me make it clear that AusCheck could be limited to national security matters, as initially it will coordinate background checks for the aviation and maritime industries. But the authority for AusCheck to maintain a database is restricted to keep it for limited purposes that have a national security focus. However, the creation of AusCheck to coordinate background checking does allow the government to build expertise in background checking for other systems and processes. That expertise has the potential to be applied in other sectors where there is a strong community interest in such checking. Examples are matters involving children and the elderly, where the subject matters are unrelated to national security but it is important that they are dealt with adequately. There is no current consideration of AusCheck being involved in either of these examples, but there is no reason that the expertise should be limited solely to background checking schemes that are related to national security. To cater for the range of possibilities, the scope and purpose for which the AusCheck background checking scheme may be established has been described by reference to Commonwealth fields of operation set out in the Constitution. I mention those matters in particular, and I note that the matter has now been referred for further examination. Obviously, if issues arise in relation to the legislation through that examination, we would be more than happy to deal with them. I note that there are matters that are going to be considered in detail here, but I might observe that we did offer the opposition the opportunity to be fully briefed on these matters before this debate commenced, particularly given that there was no indication that the proposed bill would be opposed in principle. I note that there is a second reading amendment, and I will deal with that briefly. In relation to aviation, the government is making significant progress in improving aviation security. The ASIC background checking criteria have been strengthened in three ways: first, by removing the grandfathering provisions that allowed certain criminal offences not to be taken into account in the assessment of ASIC applications; second, by adding a pattern of criminality test for ASIC applicants; and, third, by providing more frequent background checking if an ASIC applicant has a history of lower level criminal activities. ASIC holders who have failed new adverse criminal record criteria have had their cards cancelled. The government has enjoyed tremendous cooperation and assistance from the industry in this review. The advice from industry members is that background checking processes have been significantly improved. In relation to maritime security identification cards, the rollout of that scheme began on 1 January 2007 and commenced smoothly. From the end of December 2006, the first round of temporary cards were issued to those people who applied for them before 27 October 2006. These temporary cards expired on 31 January 2007. The government has been actively working with industry to urge those who had not applied to take action and do so at their earliest convenience. The government and the issuing bodies are continuing to process applications as promptly as possible; however, some delays may occur depending upon individual circumstances—particularly, for instance, if an applicant has a criminal history. Obviously, processing can take longer in those circumstances. In relation to foreign ship security, pre-entry reporting every ship seeking entry to Australia is subject to a comprehensive security assessment regardless of the flag it flies. This includes every ship carrying ammonium nitrate to an Australian port. The security risk assessment takes into account all relevant information about the ship, including the nature of the ship’s cargo and operations. This information is collected from mandatory ship and crew reports, which are required within certain time frames, depending upon the length of the voyage. Any ship failing to comply with pre-entry reporting requirements or identified as posing an unacceptable risk can be refused entry to Australia. Any ship so identified as posing a security risk, whether because of crew, cargo or other factors, would not be allowed entry. I make those points in relation to the second reading amendment. I commend the bill to the chamber, and I hope that the Senate examination will not unduly delay the passage of this bill through all stages in both houses. 10000 Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wilkie)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question negatived to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 8 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 8 12:20:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —I do not anticipate that we will be here long in the consideration in detail stage of the AusCheck Bill 2006. I appreciate the Attorney’s comments in relation to some of the matters that were raised during the second reading debate. There were concerns flagged in the second reading debate dealing with a couple of provisions in the bill that go to its future purposes beyond the ASIC and the MSIC. There is agreement on both sides of the chamber about the importance of having a centralised AusCheck function and certainly the development in respect of both ASIC and MSIC is something that we support and have advocated. The bill does make provision for these checks to be undertaken for purposes which are yet to be identified or defined. The Attorney made reference in his closing remarks to aged-care workers as an example. I will quickly refer to a couple of provisions in the bill that the Attorney may wish to expand on. Part 1(5) of the bill sets out the definition of a background check, including the things that would be anticipated; for example, criminal history, security assessment of the individual, the individual’s citizenship status, residency status and the like—all of which one can understand and readily endorse. But there is then the catch-all ‘such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations’. Whilst, in a sense, there is a safeguard there of regulations, it does beg the question: what other aspects of a person’s background is it intended to delve into? If they cannot be identified now, why not? Why can’t we legislate for these things? If, indeed, they cannot be identified now, why should the parliament extend by this bill a power for that to be expanded subsequently by regulation—which, whilst it is a disallowable instrument, does not involve the same degree of scrutiny by this parliament or by the public? We are talking here about quite intrusive, significant investigations. The Attorney made comment about the fact that there are hundreds of aviation security cards that have been lost, which I spoke about, and drew a comparison between that and driving licences. I have to say that there is a world of difference. A driving licence is not a document that you obtain to gain access to high-security places in airports. A driving licence is not a document for which you have to undergo quite detailed background security and criminal checks. A drivers licence does not involve the Federal Police and ASIO checking your background and visiting your employers and people you are known to to determine whether or not you are a fit and proper person to hold it. There is a world of difference between these documents that we are talking about. There is a world of difference between the inquiry that is made of you to get a driving licence and the sorts of security background checks that this bill facilitates. So I think it is fair for the people of Australia to know in advance what it is that needs that quite expansive catch-all at the end, which is anything else that may be attractive to the government at some point in the future. Regulations do not involve the same degree of scrutiny, and we should not just pass off the power of this parliament to legislate to executive regulation making. Similarly, in part 2, clause 8(2) of the bill sets out purposes prescribed by regulation to deal with a whole range of matters. Most of those matters are eminently sensible. They deal with things that you would expect a security clearance of this kind to deal with. But there are a couple that do raise questions—for example, paragraph (j), which talks about ‘purposes related to trade and commerce’. So we are talking here about a security check being done on somebody who is doing trade between Australia and overseas or amongst the states or within a territory. So, theoretically, you could be selling paperclips and, for some reason, the government could think that there needs to be one of these security checks done. I am just not sure why it is that some of those provisions have been included when we are not talking about transactions involving security or indeed even involving the government or any of its agencies. There are other examples like that in that particular clause. Indeed, it finishes with a catch-all of: ... purposes related to any other matter in respect of which the Parliament has the power to make laws. The Attorney touched on that. Effectively, it extends to anything for which the Constitution gives the parliament the power to make laws. That is the ultimate catch-all. We need to ask ourselves why we need to have those sorts of background checks done for those purposes. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House for the extension of time. There is only one other point that I will quickly allude to. Part 2, clause 10, of the bill reads: AusCheck scheme may require an individual to apply for a background check in relation to certain matters. I am not sure whether the provisions set out here are the sorts of things the Attorney was commenting on when he mentioned people who might work in aged-care facilities or employment like that. I would be interested in his comments about the application of that clause. That clause also contains a catch-all at the end, as do a number of provisions in this bill. The catch-all on this occasion reads: .. the individual being permitted to occupy a specified office or to engage in particular employment. That casts the net as wide as it possibly can be cast. In some circumstances you can understand why the government or the parliament would legislate to provide a broad catch-all like that, but we are not here dealing with a general administrative bill. We are dealing with the government, for good and proper reason, conducting very detailed, intrusive checks on the personal life and background of Australians. We should not be doing that lightly. There are cases where there is good reason to do it, and that is why we support the bill. But, in supporting that intrusive investigation of a person’s life and history, we should be mindful that there have to be some parameters in which it operates. It is not sufficient for the government and the Attorney to say that that is a framework to provide for contingencies that may arise. Let us define the contingencies now so that there is no ambiguity and so that people in Australia, the citizens who are going to be subject to these intrusive investigations, know what the scope of it is—and at the moment we do not know the scope of it. Its initial intention is clear. It is for good reason in the maritime and aviation industries. But, beyond that, it is for whatever the government may have a whim to pursue. As to regulations, I recall that when I was shadow minister for industrial relations we had the situation in industrial relations where the government used its power to introduce regulations during a period in which the parliament was in recess so that for a period of some months the government could act on a regulation which subsequently was overturned when the parliament resumed. I well recall Peter Reith, who was then the minister for industrial relations, forcing through changes that were clearly not the will of the parlament. You can unravel those things, but the truth is that, for a period of some months, those changes were operating in the day-to-day life of some businesses. That is the difference in practical terms between a regulation and a bill. Where we are dealing with sensitive matters, important matters, such as these detailed security checks, we should be clear about where we want them to apply and not just leave them to the view from time to time of the government, by regulation. I look forward to the Attorney’s further explanation as to why those three provisions, in particular, are necessary in this bill and why it is not possible to better define them at this time. 8 12:30:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I will briefly respond collectively to the argument. Firstly, there are no new background-checking schemes under consideration for AusCheck involvement at this time. But it is possible, and I adverted to this in my comments before, that AusCheck may be requested to utilise its expertise in background checking to create efficiencies in other areas authorised under Commonwealth law, and I mention the possibility in relation to employees who work with children. They are very sensitive issues, particularly in relation to people who may be involved in paedophilia. It may not be just a matter of criminal checking that you would want to undertake; there may well be information in other areas about matters relating to people dealing with children which you would want to take into account in such a checking regime. In that sense, without adverting to the fact that there is any idea to do that—and there is not—it is possible that you might need a wider range of matters that you would need to entertain for checking for other purposes. We do not think it is possible to predict in advance. I would rely on the fact that, if you were going to move into these areas, it is not something you could do by decree; it does involve the regulation-making power being utilised. I would have to say that, if you look at the handling of legislation these days, the numbers of matters that have to be addressed by bills are growing exponentially. The more you can do by sensibly utilising the regulation power so that you then come back and only have to debate matters that people think are of sufficient substance to require it—that seems to me to be not unreasonable. May I just pick up the second point the member was making about 8(2)(j) and the reference to trade and commerce. There are areas in which trade and commerce require some consideration of people’s backgrounds. If you are trading in particularly sensitive materials that might be on some restricted list for sale outside of Australia, you may well want to require people who are engaged in trade and commerce to undergo some further scrutiny. It would not be everybody. I simply advert to the fact that there are some areas of trade and commerce that do have a security related need for assessment, and I think that measure would be clearly an appropriate one. I hope my comments have assisted the member, but if he wants to use the Senate committee process to examine my officers further, he can do so. 8 12:33:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —We will certainly take advantage of the avenues available in the Senate to try to get to some further detail. Of course, I accept there are matters that would be the subject of trade, where it is necessary to have a background check. That is defined not in the existence of the transaction but in what is being transacted and what its purpose might be. I would have thought that is covered in other areas. For example, the same clause makes provision for the purposes of external affairs—for that to be a reason for a check—for purposes related to Australia’s national security or defence, or for a national emergency. They are the reasons we have good cause to have intrusive checks on people who are individuals living freely in Australia as citizens. They are the reasons we do it. It is not because they are trading but because the nature of their trading is such that it affects a question of national security, defence, a national emergency, international agreements or international aspects—obligations we may have. It is not the trading per se. Therein lies the concern we have in the way this bill is drafted. I think this bill could and should have been drafted to properly address matters of concern on which we all agree, without casting the net so widely. It is a convenient way to draft it. It makes it easy for the administration in the future, in a sense. It makes it easy for the government, in a sense, in the future, because they can pretty well use these powers to go wherever they want, but that is not, I think, what the parliament or the people of Australia would prefer. I think the example the Attorney gave in answer to my question highlights exactly the problem, and we will see whether there is a better and more complete answer or some other remedy that the Senate legislative committee is able to identify. Bill agreed to. 8 Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra —Attorney-General) 12:35:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8 Bills R2673 Cognate bills: 8 Bills R2674 8 Bills R2687 8 Bills R2682 8 Bills R2685 8 Bills R2683 8 Bills R2684 8 Debate resumed from 7 December 2006, on motion by Mr Abbott: That this bill be now read a second time. 8 12:37:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —The government is right in stating that this package of bills represents a significant change to the private health insurance policy and probably the most significant change since the introduction of its private health insurance rebate and Lifetime Health Cover scheme in 2000-01. The Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 will allow private health insurance to cover medical services provided outside hospital which either substitute for in-hospital services such as chemotherapy or dialysis provided in the home or in community settings, or services which are designed to prevent hospitalisation in the first place. Under broader health cover, private insurance funds will be able to provide cover for many medical services provided outside of hospital for the first time. Broader health cover will also provide insurance for services designed to prevent people needing to go to hospital, including chronic disease management programs and health promotion programs. How direct this prevention will need to be to come within the package is something that is unclear from the legislation as it stands. It is a significant change in the way that we think about health care—trying to find better ways to keep people out of hospital and manage chronic illness out of the acute sector—but it is telling that the government has only seen fit to go down this path for private insurance rather than for the entire health system. Clearly, the insurers can see that it suits their policyholders as consumers of health services to stay out of hospital if they possibly can, and it makes good economic sense for them too. Intriguingly, even though the Howard government seems to clearly recognise this for the private insurers, it does not seem to mind that the rationale that it is giving to these changes is the very rationale for Labor’s call to embark upon some wider reforms in health that it is ignoring, particularly through the state-Commonwealth divide—but more of that later. Labor support this package of legislation as we believe it could provide significant benefits for the 44 per cent of the Australian population who currently have private health insurance. The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate has meant that the percentage of policyholders in Australia in recent years has gone up significantly—and we know that families have factored the rebate into their budget, the very family budgets that are constantly being squeezed in many directions by this government. Labor have supported the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance at the last two elections and will support it again at the next election. Labor accept and understand that many Australians have come to rely on this support, and we will not take it away. Nevertheless, we are pleased that this passage offers a glimmer of hope that those who do have private health insurance might be able to get better value for their money. Longer term, if it means that we manage chronic illness better and keep people from multiple readmissions to hospital then that will be desirable for the health of the nation as a whole. However, Labor has a number of concerns about the package, which are encapsulated in the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name. I will read the terms of it because it sets out the concerns that Labor has. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes: that while the expansion of private health insurance to coverage of services provided outside of hospital will have benefits for the 44% of Australians who have private health insurance, it will not provide access to the same kinds of services to the majority of Australians who don’t have private health insurance; the expansion of private health insurance to cover a broader range of services will likely lead to further increases in private health insurance premiums; the bill pays scant attention to safety and quality issues for services provided under the rubric of Broader Health Cover; the bill does not include sufficient protections for the freedom of doctors to make clinical decisions about the treatment/s that will be in the best interests of their patients in relation to services provided under the rubric of Broader Health Cover; and the $50 million the Howard Government provided to the private health insurance industry in the last budget to advertise their products is a waste of taxpayers’ money and an appalling use of scarce health resources”. The House will note that Labor’s main concern is not primarily about the content of the package but about what happens to those who are not insured and therefore not covered at all by these changes. The expansion of private insurance to out-of-hospital services will mean a shift in the balance between services previously funded predominantly through hospitals or Medicare and those services able to be funded through private health insurance. The shift raises equity issues around access to services equivalent to those under the broader health cover changes but for people who do not have insurance. Undoubtedly, people who do not have insurance even after these changes will be able to continue to access services such as chemotherapy and dialysis through the public system in hospitals. But the privately insured will have options that may well not just become a choice, for example, of a more comfortable venue or a particular doctor but have significant health impacts, especially if they have better access to preventative and chronic disease management programs. The argument can then be made that they may have access to a better overall quality of health care than those who are not insured. The logical extreme, if we take it to the extreme of this argument, is that people who cannot afford private health insurance may be more likely to end up in hospital because, unlike those with private insurance, they might not be able to access programs which could prevent them from having to go to hospital in the first place. It is this element of the package which I think the House would be able to understand that Labor is most concerned about, for very obvious reasons. We believe it represents a departure from the current balance between public and privately financed services where the rationale for private health insurance and the government’s particularly publicly stated rationale is that it gives private health insurance consumers additional choice. Without attention to and change in other areas outside the health insurance area, universality as a core part of our system could be threatened. Of course, not surprisingly, the government rails against any suggestion that this package represents a shift towards a two-tiered system of health care. But if the broader health cover provisions give people with private health insurance access to services and treatment options which people without private health insurance may not have access to then the package will be doing exactly that. As I have mentioned already, we will support this package because we want those with insurance to get any improved benefits that they can. We support them getting value for money for their premiums, which are always going up. We expect that it will have significant benefits for private health consumers. In particular, we believe that it could lead to important innovations in care and services provided outside the hospital gate. However, having introduced these changes for people with private health insurance, we urge the Howard government to work towards addressing access to these kinds of services for the uninsured. There are other parts of this government package that Labor is critical of as well. As I said, we are absolutely appalled about the $50 million that was included in the last budget for the private health insurance industry to advertise its products. This is a disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ money and of scarce health resources. These are private businesses who can easily advertise their own products, and $50 million is not an insubstantial amount of money. For example, it could provide relief to struggling families under pressure of increased healthcare costs. We have seen today yet another example of costs that are constantly putting ordinary working families under pressure. The cost of living is going up in so many ways. We now see that the cost of medications is going up. Patients are now paying hundreds of dollars extra to get some very common medications. That burden could be eased by the $50 million. The $50 million could also pay for 1½ million GP consultations. The $50 million could help fund potentially life-saving research into any number of preventable diseases and it could fund a whole series of public awareness campaigns on important health problems such as obesity and diabetes. It should not be used just to line the pockets of private health insurance companies. Yet, while the government is happy for the money to go to the insurance companies for this advertising campaign, it seems a lot less concerned about the hip pockets of private health insurance consumers. For example, the government insists that this package will not have any impact on premiums. In fact, in his second reading speech, the health minister went as far as to argue that some of the changes in the bill will actually reduce pressure on premiums. The last time the government said that one of its policies would reduce pressure on private health insurance premiums was in 2000-01. Since then there has been over a 40 per cent increase. That is one hell of a broken promise on not affecting premiums. Between 1998 and 2006 the cost of private health insurance increased twice as fast as general inflation. The fact is that the government cannot be trusted on private health insurance premiums. Given this track record, why should we believe anything Minister Abbott says about what this package will do to private health insurance premiums? Is it not counterintuitive, even at a basic level, that expanding the services offered will, in the first instance, actually reduce premiums? If we really manage people’s care well and if the innovation that is promised does ultimately deliver in the future, there may well be decent long-term savings and they might be significant. The insurers no doubt have this in mind in wanting to go down this path. But in the short term it will not have this impact, and in the long term there are no guarantees—certainly none in this legislation—that any savings will be passed on to consumers. Labor does not believe Minister Abbott’s predictions at all and is concerned that this expansion of services will lead to further increases in private health insurance premiums. Further, the government says the private health insurers will benefit from the regulatory changes included in this package. This may be true, but, according to the government’s own explanatory memorandum, the cost to funds of complying with the current regulatory regime is only around one per cent of total benefits paid. So, even if this figure falls below the one per cent, as the explanatory memorandum notes it might as a result of the changes in this package, this is so small that it is hardly likely to lead to significant downward pressure on premiums. Further, despite the minister’s rhetoric about wanting to protect consumers by retaining his role in reviewing premium increases, this bill actually weakens the existing legislative framework in this regard. Under the National Health Act currently, one of the objectives of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council is to minimise premium levels. However, in the Private Health Insurance Bill that we are debating, this objective has been removed from PHIAC’s remit. One does have to question how serious the government is about keeping premiums down if it is not prepared to include these kinds of consumer protections in the bill. It is not as if we are suggesting a new protection here; this has actually been removed from the existing objectives that set out what it is that the Private Health Insurance Administration Council has some responsibility for. Labor will be moving to address this issue during the third reading debate. It is very clear to us that wherever possible we should do all that we can, and the government should do all that they can, to minimise the premiums that ordinary Australians need to pay. The government do not have a good track record on health costs. I have already mentioned today the issue of medication costs—what has got out of control on the PBS on the government’s watch, even though the government promised that their changes would keep these very sorts of increases under control. We have heard recently, for example, about how the Medicare levy surcharge, originally meant to apply to wealthy Australians who did not take out private health insurance, now hits many people below the average wage. Why is this? There is good news that the average wage has risen, but the government has refused to recognise this and has refused to index the threshold. So more than 280,000 taxpayers were slugged with this surcharge in 2003-04. Instead of it being something that is targeted at the wealthy, as the minister at the time promised, it is now the case that those who have less than average incomes are forced to pay this levy. Private health insurance premiums are also at risk of rising even further if Medibank Private is sold, which is precisely what will happen if the Howard government is re-elected later this year. I would like to turn now to a number of specific issues relating to the package and note that the inquiry by the Senate committee that is reviewing this package of bills is still under way and is not due to report until 26 February. Given the complexity of the package, Labor will reserve its options in the other place to move further amendments if other issues are flagged by the committee as needing attention. We have particular concern about the quality and standards issues. We are concerned that the bill pays scant attention to the standards and qualities of services which will be provided under the rubric of broader health cover and outside hospitals. It is easy for the public to understand that, if services are going to be provided outside hospitals, we need to ensure that consumers get the protection of strong and appropriate standards. The legislation does not provide for any quality assurance mechanisms for broader health cover products to take effect until July 2008. In other words, there will be a 15-month time lag between the implementation of the cover in April 2007 and the implementation of standards and quality provisions that will apply to those who are actually going to be providing the services to consumers. Obviously, we believe that this represents a completely unacceptable risk to consumers of private health insurance, and we will move an amendment during the consideration in detail stage to address this issue. Another issue is that of clinical autonomy for doctors. Labor shares the concern of interest groups such as the AMA about the lack of sufficient safeguards in this bill for doctors to expressly continue to make clinical decisions about the best interests of their patients. Various groups have raised concerns about this package. Some have said that it runs the risk of being a move towards managed care—in other words, a system whereby the private health insurer assumes responsibility for the health care of its members; for example, through direct contracting arrangements with doctors and other providers. To assure the public and the Labor Party that this is not the intention of this bill, it is important to specifically have a provision which protects the clinical freedom of doctors—whether it is from the health funds, any other groups or governments. It will always be a matter for doctors to determine the best course of treatment for their patients. The fact that doctors are able to determine the best course of treatment for their patients is a fundamental part of our health system, and we think it needs to be protected explicitly. Labor will move an amendment to strengthen the bill’s protections on doctors’ clinical freedoms. There are a number of other less significant but still important parts of the package that I want to mention briefly before concluding. In addition to the introduction of broader health cover, the bill contains two other policy changes of note. The first is an introduction of a requirement that private health insurance funds produce standard product information on their private health insurance products. This requirement is very sensible. It is designed to make it easier for consumers to compare different private health insurance products and understand what their entitlements would be. Labor strongly supports the introduction of these requirements as they will be of significant benefit—and, I might say, probably be of significant relief—to many consumers who have tried to find their way through the myriad packages on offer. The bill will also introduce a change to the Lifetime Health Cover scheme whereby people who have retained their private health insurance for over 10 years will no longer be subjected to the Lifetime Health Cover loadings on their premium even if they took out insurance after they turned 31. Obviously this will be welcomed by those who qualify for that, and Labor supports this change. There are also a number of regulatory changes in this package. The bill will streamline the private health insurance legislative framework by bringing the main components of the existing legislative framework for the new policy proposed by the package under one act. Labor supports these changes. The package will also introduce a change to the risk equalisation or reinsurance arrangements. Labor supports a change in this area as it will result in a better distribution of the overall insurance risk than the current formula and so it is an improvement on the current arrangements. But I have to say that we are somewhat surprised that the government has chosen to adopt this particular model in the legislation when it clearly was not the government’s preference. The explanatory memorandum itself—I think for the first time since I have been here—expressly says that the government would have preferred a different model, the capitation model, as it believes that this would have been, and I quote, ‘the best strategic option for the longer term’. Instead it has opted for a different model: the model that the industry says is the best one. There may well be good reasons for that. I am sure the government were convinced that there were good economic reasons for so doing, but it seems to me very strange that the government are prepared to say, ‘We actually prefer this. We think it is a better model. We think it will make our system sustainable,’ and then opt for something else. It might be a difficult decision for the minister or the government to make. But, if there is a clear option which the government are convinced is one that is actually going to make our health system more sustainable in the future, why haven’t they had the guts to pursue it here? I think some of the technical parts of this package will be scrutinised more closely in the Senate committee that is currently under way, and obviously we will keep an open mind about those issues if the committee makes recommendations in that area. As I said, I do think it is very strange to not have the government pursuing the option that they have identified as the best one. There has not really been an adequate explanation for that given by the government so far other than that the industry prefers something else. We are fairly confident that the industry generally is very supportive of this package, and the government has made it quite clear that it has worked very closely with them. However, we still have a responsibility to make sure that whatever we do is sustainable for the future, and this seems to be one area where maybe the government have just opted for an easier option. They have not put on the record that this is a transitional step to something else. Obviously we look forward to any comments that the minister might be able to make to enlighten us as to why this option has been pursued. Overall I think I have made our position clear. I will conclude here by saying that Labor support the package. We think it is important that a range of health decisions start being made that focus on prevention measures and keeping people out of hospital. We know that it is much more desirable, where decent services can be provided, not to have to have people in hospital. Of course there will still be many times where people do need to go into hospital. But Labor are concerned about the equity impact of this package. We want to make sure that those who are not insured still get the best quality services as well. Private health insurance should be able to provide people with choice and different options, but not a whole range of different health services that are not available to others. That is the great undone work of this package that we will be pursuing the government on, and we expect to see some action in this other area if they want to pursue these changes in the private health area. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Is the amendment seconded? 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr Laurie Ferguson —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 8 12:57:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today to support the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and to oppose the amendments moved by the member for Gellibrand. The best guarantee of health care for Australians is a healthy private health sector, because if people have private health insurance and are able to access private hospital facilities then it means that fewer people will be seeking to access public hospitals and there will be better health treatment opportunities for everyone. The situation which existed under the former government was that people were simply unable to afford health cover. People were dropping out of health cover at a record rate and the private health insurance system was close to collapse. If the private health insurance system is not healthy then you find that the demands on the public health system become completely overwhelming. Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, you would know from your own experience in the area of health in the parliament and in the community that Labor Party governments at the state level throughout Australia have failed dismally in providing the healthcare treatments that indeed they should to the Australian community. In my home state of Queensland we had a horrendous situation at Bundaberg Hospital. Wherever you go, you find that public hospital waiting lists are far too long. Despite the fact that the states have access to every last cent of the GST, the states are simply not meeting their healthcare obligations to the Australian community. It is particularly good to see that around 44 per cent of Australian residents now have private health cover. That is up from a very low figure which occurred in the dying days of the Keating Labor government. This means that some nine million Australians are able to access the private health system because they have private health insurance. This significant level of membership also helps to relieve the demands on Australia’s public hospitals. Membership of health funds enables members to have greater choice and flexibility. I have to say that history will record that one of the most effective areas of this government over the last 10 years has been in the ability to make it possible for more Australians to be able to take out private health insurance. The Australian government is well aware that health funds need to be as flexible as they can be to provide the most efficient services needed by their members. I think everyone would agree—in fact, it is a no-brainer—that it would be remiss of government to introduce stifling regulations that encumber the business efficiencies of health insurers. Equally, of course, it is important to make sure that the rights of members of health funds are properly safeguarded, including the right to quality service and value for money. This bill and related bills introduce changes that will help improve the flexibility of funds and services but they will also introduce some additional responsibilities of funds to their members. The most significant change outlined in these bills is the introduction into legislation of the concept of ‘broader health cover’. This is the concept of the provision of some health services and treatments outside the rooms of a hospital or medical centre. These sorts of treatments encompass a whole range of areas, including treatments that can be delivered in a home environment and treatments that are not necessarily required to be carried out within the environment of a hospital. Some examples—this is not an exclusive list—may include some cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy; dialysis; post-operative and post-discharge care; and nursing assistance. The bills currently before the chamber will mean that hospital cover, as a type of service provided by health insurers, will now also extend to treatments that can be delivered out of hospital. This development will greatly increase the flexibility and treatment options for health fund members. It is also cost-effective—if the hospital facilities do not have to be accessed and these treatments can be carried out at home it must therefore be cheaper and it means that the health dollar will go a lot further. The bills before the House are a very sensible range of amendments that will bring greater flexibility to the provision of health services and in doing so will reduce some treatment overheads. Most importantly, these bills will ensure that the quality of service to Australians is not reduced. These developments will enable health funds to supply services that will help to sustain their members’ health and reduce the possibilities of certain illnesses, through specific preventative services such as exercise programs, healthy diet programs and programs to help smokers to quit the habit. These changes result from the needs and demands of health patients in what is an ever-changing world. Such flexibility was never envisaged in years gone past, when health services were almost entirely delivered in the hospital. Many people these days go to day treatment centres—they are treated and then allowed to go home, whereas often in the past these procedures would require that people remain admitted to hospital for a considerable period of time. Today, it really is common for patients to desire greater flexibility in treatments and service delivery, and it is important that people have choice in this area. Many people prefer to go home, where they are in their own environment and surrounded by their family and friends. Often the environment of recuperating at home can be so much more conducive to a fast recovery than maybe the sterile surroundings of many hospitals. In addition, under these bills, members who maintain their membership of a health fund over a continuous 10-year period will have the added benefit of no longer being subject to the Lifetime Health Cover penalties. This change is designed to not only reward those people who have made the decision to remain members of health funds for the long term, which overall assists the provision of health services in Australia, but also encourage others to do the same. The prospect of health cover becoming better value for money after a certain period of time is an attractive thing. It is expected that removing Lifetime Health Cover penalties will encourage new members to consider long-term membership. The bills will also introduce requirements of health funds to supply improved and more-detailed information to potential customers and members. I think it really is important that, when a person makes the important decision to join a health fund, all of the terms and conditions and the facts are known to the prospective member. This will enable members to compare services and costs amongst the various private health insurance funds. That will assist individuals to make a choice as to which is the most appropriate fund offering the most appropriate fees and services to suit the individual’s needs. The documentation must include entitlements, policies and, as I have already mentioned, costs. This safeguard will offer significant protection to the consumer and ensure that customers are clearly advised of the services they can and cannot expect. This means that people will be in a much better position to make an informed choice. The second significant feature of these bills is the introduction of new regulatory protections. Those funds that breach the new guidelines face appropriate penalties. Whereas in the past the firms themselves were regulated, these bills bring in regulations instead for services. It is a sensible shift in that it will encourage newcomers to the industry, a move that will have the obvious service and cost benefits, but it will also reduce the problems associated with firms having to comply with compulsory regulations. In fact, there are some 48 regulations currently. If a health fund falls down on just one of these regulations then they fail full-stop. This is a difficult set up, and these bills will address that problem. Another significant purpose of the bills is that they introduce guidelines for the establishment of new funds, mergers, and the closing down and operation of funds. Included amongst the guidelines will be rules to cover the assets of health funds. These can only be used to meet liabilities that arise in the normal course of business. These bills are significant. They will bring about the most substantial improvement in some five decades in the health fund regime. The bills are very sensible legislation. It is necessary to note that the government has also said that the legislation will be reviewed in coming years to analyse whether further changes are needed to ensure the best possible continued outcomes for both consumers and industry. At a time when Australians are living much longer than they traditionally have, it is important that the new health services available are affordable to Australians. That is why it is important that private health insurance be alive and healthy, and I am particularly pleased to commend this brace of bills to the chamber. 8 13:08:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —This is a very significant combination of bills. As the previous speaker, Mr Slipper, and others have indicated, here we are dealing with a colloquium of bills, seven in all. Of course, the largest and most important bill, the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006, was introduced, I think, on the last day of sitting, 12 December 2006. It makes a significant number of changes. In particular, the extension of what is coverable by this legislation is the foundation of it. There is a broadening of the range of services which can be covered by private health insurance. They include out-of-hospital services that are a substitute for or prevent hospital care. This is fundamentally important. When Labor were in government we understood this type of approach in the aged care area. This is why Labor, year on year, extended its hostel program by 15 per cent. This is why we concentrated our funds, not where they had been previously—that is, in the nursing home area—but on the 96 per cent of people who were still in their own homes and who did not need to receive that level of care. Labor provided an interim step with hostels, but we also recognised that immense savings could be made not only to the Commonwealth but also in terms of people’s quality of life if we could deal with people in situ at home by taking services out to them. The modality of this first intent with respect to private health insurance is to do the same sort of thing: recognise the dynamic change within the community in terms of dealing with people. Australia wide, it is hard enough to get a bed in a hospital; it is very difficult to actually stay in a bed these days because they have you out on your feet and into the general community as quickly as possible. The fact that the length of stay in hospital has been shortened is also a reflection of the dramatic changes in medical technology and techniques—for example, a hip operation. The member for Dobell has just been through that process, and I am glad to see him back in the House well and recovered. If he had undergone that operation 10 years ago, he would have ended up with a very long scar of 20 or 30 centimetres. These days, leading exponents in surgery have a minimalist and less invasive approach. Because there is a smaller scar, there is less disturbance. They also use a computer in order to put a prosthesis in. A section of these bills actually deals with prostheses, and I will come to that later. The surgeons are able to site the area more accurately than in the past. This combination of a range of different technologies, new approaches and an attempt to use a keyhole method with regard to this quite difficult surgery means two critical things: (1) there is a pretty dramatic reduction in healthcare costs because the length of stay in hospital is shorter; and, (2) the length of the voluntary stay within a rehabilitation hospital can also be shorter because there is less impact on the major muscle groups. Of course, there is also a commensurate saving: getting over the operation is quicker, and that is important for the patient. This is a very good and a very sensible measure because it is reflective of the dynamism of those changes. We know that flexibility has to be at the core of so much of what we at the federal government level do, because we are dealing with a dynamic area. Anyone with experience, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, in the aged care area, would appreciate that a number of the elements of this bill are fundamentally critical. For me, as a baby boomer, they will continue to be fundamentally critical. Given that we are the most difficult cohort that this Commonwealth has had to deal with, we will double the size of the aged cohort from about 12½ per cent to 25 per cent of the population. That will no doubt be the case if we are, as we have been in the past, loud, demanding, insistent and without the reticence, the forbearance or the willingness our parents had to go without in order to give to us. If that is the case and there are greater demands and more expectations on our health care, a dynamic change also has to be taken account of within the parameters of these bills and Australian health generally—that is, the increased life expectation has dramatically changed the profile of our health system. We know that, so far, we have succeeded in keeping about 96 per cent of people at home and have been able to deal with them at home by providing intensive services and out-of-hospital services. This is directly affected by the bill and that is why I welcome it. There will be more of that in the future because of people’s increased longevity and the capacity of the health system to keep people alive who otherwise would not have survived, through a pharmacological approach and the availability of very sophisticated drugs, the combination of different drug therapies or an attack on the major causes of mortality in that age group. Or an effectively prophylactic approach could be taken, based on the notion that we should be concentrating a lot more on keeping people healthier and fitter, whatever their body size and shape; that we should be doing more to aid our own good health and assist the community generally; and that we should do good things such as giving up smoking, like I did about five years ago now. I wish I had never started in the first place. It is a great cost to the country and it is a great cost to the individual who is shackled to that dreadful addiction. One of the fundamental things we can do with an ageing population to cut mortality from lung cancer and from other associated cancer is (1) knock off the smoking and (2) increase the exercise. For people to do that they need mobility, as the member for Dobell found out. There are more people now, at a younger age, who are finding themselves up for something dealt with in one of the other bills that we have got here: prostheses. I have an interest in literature—I was an English history teacher—and about the most I knew about prostheses, I think, apart from the fact that it was an unusual word that you could use in spelling contests, was from My Brother Jack, when David and Jack’s father returned from the First World War. He had been injured, and he had a prosthesis. That was a dominant thing in their early childhood. I suppose the other one was very early: ‘Tin legs’ Bader, and his problems with learning to use his tin legs. They were a very primitive kind of prosthesis. What is most interesting about this is that as the population ages but also as the profiles change—as the capacities and technologies change—we can do what we could not do before, because of those different technical approaches. But we are also in a position to do it at different ages. That has a cost but also a benefit, or a series of costs and a series of benefits, to the community at large. An example of that is someone like Kenny Ticehurst, the member for Dobell, having his operation. I am about to get the needle to go a few months more before I will inevitably have a hip operation, at the very young age of 55. But at least it explains a series of problems I have had and have tried to address over a 10-year period or so. There is some certainty, at least. But it is also an indication that if you look not only at me and Ken but worldwide—Jimmy Connors has just had a double hip operation, I think, in two goes, and George Bush Sr has had it—people are having it at a relatively younger age. Some of that, of course, is because of direct injury. For the rest of it there are genetic factors and so on, affecting the breakdown of the cushioning material. But this brings me up against something as well, and it is one of those marvellous things in life. I never thought I would need to know anything about prostheses at all, but thankfully other people do. It is a case of how dependent we are on others in general, and also how dependent we are, directly within the health system, on the training, expertise and capacity of others. But it is also the fact that what we do at the government level—those things that we think we will never have to deal with at all—can come crashing very close to us. It is then that you realise the importance of the maintenance of the arrangements of things that you never thought would impinge on you or on others, and of ensuring that we have a proper, well-regulated and efficient approach to these things. Those elements are important. The other key purposes of the principle bill are: the removal of the Lifetime Health Cover loadings for members with 10 years continuous service, which is fine; the requirements on insurers to provide standard information statements for consumers about their private health insurance products; and a clarified and simplified legislation. All of those things are good. The fundamental problem for a lot of my constituents has been partly addressed in the rise of some of the larger organisations that have operated in the hospital system—for instance, within Mayne Health when it arose and took over a series of private hospitals and so on. There was a direct impact. Because of the understandings and agreements between the surgeons and the other people in the hospitals—the ancillary services, anaesthetists and so on—it was possible for the first time to get a package of charges and for that to be fundamentally covered under Medicare combined with some private health insurance to cover the other elements. People could walk into a hospital, have their elective surgery and walk out without having busted their pockets, because they had chosen to have elective surgery and chosen, because of their particular circumstances way back—or the prospect of the circumstances—to buy private health insurance. One of my constituents is now struggling with the effects of Parkinson’s disease, which is a very difficult thing to deal with. We have better control than we had in the past, but the ravages of that disease are evident in the greatest fighter the planet has ever seen, Cassius Clay, who changed his name to Muhammad Ali. A constituent of mine, Cec Moore, had a heart operation. He was privately covered. He went in and had the job done and, despite being on the highest level of private cover, came out with a $4,000 impost on himself. This was about 10 years ago or so. The deficiency in the system there was apparent. At that stage you had people who would not pay into any cover at all; they would just rely on the Commonwealth to do it through Medicare. Throughout long periods in their lives, people had put into private health cover and therefore should have had cover themselves and the community should have had cover. But at the end of that it was pretty tough to whack them with a bill that was very big for someone on the pension. There are so many pensioners who have maintained private health cover. The arrangements that have been put in place by the larger providers, such as Mayne when it was central to the whole show, are very welcome. It is the sort of thing we need to make the system more workable, make it fairer for people and make it fairer for those people who go the extra yard and lessen the burden on the general community by providing for themselves. I would like to come to the opposition’s amendments and, in doing so, commend the shadow minister for the comprehensive way in which she dealt with this bill today and the sensible argument that she put forward—a recognition of the breadth and importance of what is covered here. She reiterated Labor’s approach with regard to the 30 per cent rebate. Like it or not—we supported it at the last two elections and we will do so at the next—the world has changed. We need to manage the whole of this, but in dealing with the whole of it it is important that we look at what the deficiencies are, from our point of view in opposition, and what our intentions are so that they are known to people when we come to government. The first item in the amendment is: ... while the expansion of private health insurance to coverage of services provided outside of hospital will have benefits for the 44 % of Australians who have private health insurance, it will not provide access to the same kinds of services to the majority of Australians who don’t have private health insurance. You could reply and say: ‘That is gainsaying. If they do not have private health insurance then they are not in it—that 56 per cent are out.’ But, if you have a problem there, maybe you have a problem in the broader community. We need other mechanisms to operate there as well because there are the same kinds of problems for those people and there are imposts on people who generally do not have a great capacity to pay for them. That is what modern societies are about: spreading the risk and spreading health coverage to include everyone. The second item out of the five amendments is: ... the expansion of private health insurance to cover a broader range of services will likely lead to further increases in private health insurance premiums. That is a simple and straightforward statement. One could argue that if you could entirely trust the Minister for Health and Ageing with regard to his prognostications on health insurance premiums you could have absolute faith that this would not be a problem but—sad to say and, going from past experience, time and time again—that is the last thing one could say. This is a fundamental concern. We were promised previously that there would be reductions and that the increasing charges would be held back significantly. That has not happened, and with the impending sale of Medibank Private, the prospect of the 37 or so private organisations out there increasing their charges, and not being brought to book and reigned in on this, is great. We need more than assurances which prove hollow from the minister. The third item is: ... that the Bill pays scant attention to safety and quality issues for services provided under the rubric of Broader Health Cover. That amendment speaks for itself. The fourth is: ... that the Bill does not include sufficient protections for the freedom of doctors to make clinical decisions about the treatment/s that will be in the best interests of their patients in relation to services provided under the rubric of Broader Health Cover. This has been substantially dealt with in the shadow minister’s contribution. The last point goes to a criticism in relation to the wastage of money on advertising. It is: ... that the $50 million the Howard Government provided to the private health insurance industry in the last budget to advertise their products is a wastage of taxpayers’ money and an appalling use of scarce health resources. I could not but agree. The pockets of the private health insurance industry are very deep. They can provide for their own publications. They can provide for their own marketing and advertising. This is yet another example of a government that has an enormous amount of largesse. The government uses its own departments or outsourced organisations to spread propaganda messages. There is a fear about a third party or closely associated set of third parties where, effectively, they do the advertising on the part of the government in relation to the benefits they have gained from everyone at large. It is not right. It should not be condoned; it should be condemned, and I do so, along with all of my colleagues. I just want to make a passing observation. This is my fourth speech today. That is not bad at 1.30, before question time! I am struck, time and time again, when I am in the chair or at the speakers rostrum, by how few government members are willing to get up and defend what their government does. They are lax and lazy in government. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—I suggest the honourable member return to the subject of the bill. LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr HATTON —Madam Deputy Speaker, if you want me to I will return to why many government members are not speaking on the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and are not supporting the government’s substantial legislation in this regard. It is an observation that goes to whether or not this government and its members are committed to supporting the legislation. With regard to legislation after legislation that I have dealt with, it is the Labor Party people who keep the argument going and who do the debating in this chamber. We keep the parliament alive and we have demonstrated, on this bill and on others, that we are willing to take up the nitty-gritty of these subjects and to debate them—and to do it at length and do it well. The government is sitting on its hands. You cannot just rely on ministers, parliamentary secretaries and a couple of other people to front up and give it a tick. This has to be worked at. It is a demonstration that this government is out of puff. Despite the fact of some of the good work—like this—that has been done in this area by the people in the departments, this government is out of puff. (Time expired) 8 13:29:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and cognate legislation being debated today. I am pleased to speak in support of the principal bill and to oppose the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand. This bill is designed to make a strong private health insurance sector even stronger, relieving pressure on the public system and giving patients more choice. This government believes in choice. We know that members opposite do not believe in choice, particularly if that choice interferes with their rigid adherence to ideology. They certainly do not believe in choice when it comes to private health insurance and the government’s 30 per cent rebate policy. Recent Labor Party history is littered with examples of the hatred of the government’s approach to private health insurance—an approach that has seen the incidence of private health cover reach more than 43 per cent, after falling as low as 30 per cent under the previous Labor government. Successive Labor Party health spokesmen and spokeswomen have made all sorts of alarmist comments about the 30 per cent rebate, which is the cornerstone policy of making private health cover more affordable and achievable for Australian individuals and families. The Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 that we are debating today—and the cognate legislation contained in this suite of legislation on private health insurance—is a significant bill which will greatly improve the private health sector which, by the very nature of health care in this country, alleviates the many, continuing and increasing pressures on the public system. The minister has said that we have an ongoing obligation to revitalise the private health sector and adapt it to changing needs—namely, accepting changing realities in the healthcare sector that are not always primarily focused on hospital admissions. Apropos of this, when the existing regulatory regime was introduced through the National Health Act 1953, the health system was a very different system catering to very different requirements. Preventative care, extended aged care at home, home and community care, day procedures and other areas of health care that are entrenched in our current health system were more or less unheard of when the existing architecture of the regulatory regime was put in place. These measures for private health insurance were announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing on 26 April 2006. The bills are the product of significant consultation with the industry and amend much of the legislative architecture influencing the private health industry sector, which is generally regarded as requiring significant update and replacement. The Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 will: allow insurers to offer benefits for out-of-hospital services, which will make life easier for patients through avoiding hospital costs and most likely lowering out-of-pocket costs; amend Lifetime Health Cover, namely to allow the removal of the Lifetime Health Cover loading for those who have held private health cover continuously for 10 years; require insurers to provide standard information to consumers; introduce improved safety and quality standards for insured services; and change the focus of regulation from insurance providers to insurance products. Support for the private health insurance industry remains an article of faith for this government. We have seen private health cover increase. Even in my own electorate of Indi, some 46,000 people benefit from private health cover. So the government has the runs on the board when it comes to making our private health insurance system a success, whilst bolstering resources in the public sector and strengthening Medicare, whereby bulk-billing rates have increased significantly in recent years. The Labor Party hate private health cover. They want to penalise people who hold it. If they ever got their hands on the government benches they would slash the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. We just have to look at their past form on this. One former Leader of the Opposition stated that the private health insurance rebate ‘reinforced failure’. The Latham Diaries informed us that ‘the private health insurance rebate would be one of the first things abolished in any Beazley government’. The shadow health spokeswoman at the time, the member for Jagajaga, reportedly said that the Labor Party ‘despises the rebate and wants to poleaxe it’. Another former Leader of the Opposition, the former member for Werriwa, called the rebate ‘an appalling piece of public policy’ and ‘the maddest piece of public policy that one will ever see out of the Commonwealth parliament’. Then there was the member for Perth—another former health spokesman—who said that the private health insurance rebate was ‘a public policy crime’. The member for Lalor kept us guessing for over a year when she was shadow health spokesperson, but then she begrudgingly said that Labor would keep the rebate. But that was all she said. At the same time, she spruiked the benefits of Medicare Gold—the policy that Barry Jones described as ‘a turkey’ and that Peter Botsman eloquently described as ‘a policy that had the body of a wombat and the head of a donkey’. We have seen the new shadow minister, the member for Gellibrand, reiterate Labor’s approach to continue to adhere to Medicare Gold when she said in a recent interview about Medicare Gold: ... I think that there are some components of it that are really important for us to consider in any rethink about the health system. The member for Blaxland, who has just spoken on this bill, accused government members of not getting up to support government policy. I have not seen too many members of the opposition getting up and supporting the turkey that is Medicare Gold. Perhaps when they do support this absolutely pathetic excuse that passes for a policy he might then have the right to accuse members on this side of not supporting this government’s policy, which is totally false. Let us not forget that behind Medicare Gold was Labor’s rationale to cull the government’s 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, because the then Leader of the Opposition said in his diaries that Medicare Gold was ‘my plan for killing the private health insurance rebate’. That policy lives on in the veins and beats in the hearts of members of the opposition. The reality is that private health insurance does play a pivotal role in the Australian health system, a basic fact understood and lived on a day-to-day basis by so many Australians but so poorly appreciated by the opposition. When the Labor Party was last voted out of office, the number of Australians holding private health cover dropped to as low as 30 per cent. Labor Party icon, Graham Richardson, a former health minister, even stated that, for Medicare to survive, the number of Australians with private health cover had to remain above 40 per cent. We know that members opposite—on their past form and on their recent statements—cannot stand the private health insurance sector. But in this instance they should look at reality and at the interests of Australian families and the Australian health system. They should vote with government members in commending these bills to the House, as they are significant pieces of legislation designed to make a strong private health sector even stronger. The measures we debate today will come into force on 1 April 2007 and they will mean that we will have improved access and services for all Australian consumers and even greater choice and competition in the market. The changes will also translate to a simpler and more effective regulatory regime for the insurers and for the providers. For those reasons I commend the bills to the House. 8 13:38:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006. As has been stated before, federal Labor supports this package of private health insurance legislation and I certainly support the amendments moved by the member for Gellibrand. While some of these changes are sensible, if indeed long overdue, there are certainly some items of concern relating to the potential increases in private health insurance premiums and the impact they will have on families who have private health insurance cover. There are major concerns about the potential for this legislation to create a very distinct two-tiered health system. This certainly is a concern for many people in my electorate of Richmond who are already having difficulty accessing health services. There are also many concerns about this being a wasted opportunity, as this bill does nothing to address some very real issues that consumers have in relation to private health insurance. Arguably, the expansion of private health insurance to medical services provided outside hospital is the most significant policy change contained in the package. These changes should allow private health insurance funds to provide coverage for medical treatment in a way that reflects modern clinical practice. This is good news for private health insurance clients who may undertake dialysis or chemotherapy, as there are now provisions for these services to be covered when provided in more comfortable surroundings. It will also give private health insurance holders access to chronic illness management which is not available through Medicare. This makes good fiscal sense. As we all know, prevention is better and cheaper than cure. However, it begs the question: what about access for people without private health insurance, those who cannot afford it? What is the situation for them? This change, whilst being beneficial for holders of private health insurance, could see a direct and unfair disadvantage for people who do not have private health cover—the most disadvantaged members of our community. In other words, people with private health insurance will have access to a better overall quality of health care. In effect we will see a widening gap between the two tiers of health coverage. If the broader health cover provisions give people with private health insurance access to services and treatment options which people without private health insurance may not have access to then the package undoubtedly creates a two-tiered system. People who cannot afford private health insurance will be more likely to end up in hospital, because unlike people with private health insurance, they will not be able to access programs which will prevent them from having to go to hospital. Having private health insurance is indeed out of the reach of many hardworking Australian families—a result in no small part due to the policy of the Minister for Health and Ageing of never denying a request for an increase in premiums. Private health care should be an additional choice for Australian people. It should not be the only choice. If the cost of such insurance is out of the reach of ordinary Australians then it is no choice at all for them. Having introduced these changes for people with private health insurance, we urge the government to work towards addressing access to these kinds of services for the uninsured. There is a very real and present likelihood that the changes in this legislation will result in higher premiums. If funds are offering a broader range of products, it follows that they will be expecting to be paid more, and it is therefore likely there will be a spike in premiums as a result of these changes. The Australian Medical Association agree. In their submission to government, the AMA argue that because the private health insurance industry is primarily based on fee-for-service rather than macro-economic funding models, private health insurance funds will have great difficulty persuading anyone that they can expand the range of services covered by their products without any increase in premiums. This bill weakens the existing legislative framework with regard to government regulation of premiums. Under the National Health Act currently, one of the objectives of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council is to minimise premium levels. However, in the Private Health Insurance Bill, this objective has been removed. Nothing has been done to address the rising cost of private health insurance. This bill encourages further rises. The cost of private health insurance is sadly already out of reach for many residents in my electorate of Richmond. In particular it is out of reach for our seniors who are on a fixed income. The cost of health services continues to rise astronomically and this government has done nothing to address that. What about taking some real action to drive down premiums? All this government has been interested in is selling off Medibank Private, taking items off the PBS and reducing access to Medicare. On behalf of the people of Richmond I say: enough! Local residents deserve access to affordable health care, in particular seniors who have much greater demand for health care. Premiums have risen by almost 40 per cent in five years under this government, which has made an ideological decision not to regulate the cost of private health insurance. Prices will rise even further. In the future, how will our children and grandchildren ever be able to afford private health cover if we see the continued escalation of premiums? Couple these further changes with the sale of Medibank Private and consumers can expect a massive hike in fees in the very near future. This government has said previously that premiums will not rise as a result of the sale of Medibank Private. In 2001, this same government said that the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance would put downward pressure on private health insurance premiums. Since then we have seen a 40 per cent rise in private health insurance premiums. As we have said before in this House, federal Labor supports the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance—we have repeatedly said that. But we certainly do not support this government’s inaction on private health insurance increases. We have a situation now where the Minister for Health and Ageing approves every application from the private health insurance sector for increases in their premiums. This government can come out and say as many times as it likes that premiums will not rise as a result of this bill but we have heard it all before. The fact is that this government cannot be trusted on private health insurance premiums. This government’s determination to sell Medibank Private will have a huge impact on premiums and will also result in a reduction in services. Indeed, services are already being cut. In my electorate of Richmond we saw that, as a precursor to the sale of Medibank Private, the Medibank Private office at Centro Tweed shopping centre closed just before Christmas last year. This office was then relocated to Elanora on the Gold Coast in Queensland. The sudden closure of the Tweed Heads office caused a huge outcry from locals. This was particularly distressing for the many residents who use that local Medibank Private office. In particular, a gentleman I was speaking to last week, Mr Carl Reman from Cudgen, was telling me how distressed he was that he has to travel all that distance to the Gold Coast. They have four Medibank Private offices up the coast. It is a long way for him to travel, and it is a long way for many other residents—particularly elderly residents. There are many other health problems within Richmond that this government has failed to address, one in particular being the shortage of GPs. Just recently, I was speaking to the people at the Panorama Plaza Medical Centre in West Tweed, who have been trying desperately to recruit a new GP because their GP is 80 years old and very frail. They were hoping to employ an overseas trained doctor under the workforce shortage criteria, but have been denied that. I implore the minister for health to make an exemption in their case, because they desperately need a GP there to service the many people in that area and surrounding areas—particularly the elderly residents, who, as I have said, have much greater healthcare needs and are very distressed about the fact that they desperately need another GP at Panorama Plaza. This bill will introduce a requirement for private health insurance funds to produce standard product information on their private health insurance products. Labor supports this change as this requirement is designed to make it easier for consumers to compare different private health insurance products and to understand their entitlements. Under the current lifetime health cover scheme, private health insurance gets more expensive as you get older. What is supposed to be an incentive to take out private health insurance at a younger age actually turns into a disincentive and a penalty for older Australians. This has not changed with this bill. Currently, people pay a two per cent loading on top of their premium for every year they are aged over 30 when they first take out hospital cover. The only concession made is that the private health insurance bill will introduce a change to the lifetime health cover scheme whereby people who have retained private health insurance for over 10 years will no longer be subject to loadings on their private health insurance premium. There are further concerns in relation to this bill. Labor is concerned that this legislation allows for a 15-month lag between the implementation of broader health cover in April 2007 and the implementation of the standards and quality provisions in July next year. What assurances do holders of private health cover have in terms of standards and quality of service within that time? This represents a completely unacceptable risk to consumers of private health insurance. The government has also wasted an opportunity to address the issue of informed consent. This package should be doing more to address the issue of informed financial consent. Consumers deserve to be fully informed about the costs of treatment. Locals often tell me of the concerns that they have about not being fully informed about costs and then being whacked with huge bills. It is often a very distressing time for them and they are very concerned about all the information that they are not getting. They often end up with big bills because of not having had adequate information. That is an issue that should have been addressed in this bill. While Labor supports this bill and the positive changes that it will bring for holders of private health insurance, there is a real concern about the impact on those people who do not have private health insurance. Many locals tell me that they are worried about the Americanisation of our healthcare system. There is definitely a two-tiered system, and that is true no matter what level of health care a person wants to access. There is a difficulty in finding bulk-billing GPs. People may have difficulty in accessing dental care. Right across all areas of health, people are very concerned about the spiralling costs, particularly elderly people. Twenty per cent of people living in Richmond are aged over 65. As I have said before, that ratio is estimated to be the ratio for Australia’s population in 2040. We have already got that ratio in Richmond, and we see how extreme the health needs are. They are not being met by this government, which needs to be taking more action in that regard. There are some problems with this bill. There are problems with quality assurance and there is a risk of an increase in premiums. So many families out there are already doing it tough with the increases in the cost of living. They are telling me that they simply cannot afford an increase in premiums. It would make things very difficult. This bill is a wasted opportunity to make some very positive changes in respect of the sustainability of the industry and about informed financial consent. While there may be some positive changes for those who have private health insurance, it leaves many people behind who are not able to afford or access private health insurance. I urge the government to look at other areas to ensure that those people who do not have private health insurance have access to decent affordable health care. All Australians should be able to access those levels of health care, regardless of their financial situation. 8 13:51:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —One of the greatest risks we are facing in our health industry in Australia is that if the Leader of the Opposition becomes the Prime Minister, 43 per cent of Australians will lose private health insurance because Labor will get rid of the 30 per cent rebate. That has the potential to destroy the private health industry. This would be an absolute shame for Australia; it is something the government is not prepared to do. It would also place an additional load on our already overloaded public health system. I have had private health insurance since my first job after I left school. In those days, we had HCF for hospital and MBF for medical benefits only. I recently had a hip replacement operation and, because I had private health insurance, NIB paid almost $20,000 for that; it cost me $200. We hear all the cries from the opposition about how expensive health insurance is, but the reality is that, when you need to have time in a hospital, if you are insured you can go to a private hospital and it will cost you very little. I could have paid additional premiums and not even had to pay that $200, but I elected to pay that. The Australian government is committed to private health insurance and wants to make it available to all Australians. Australians should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want health insurance. As I have illustrated with my case, it is to everybody’s benefit to have that private health insurance. It is the government’s view that the private health sector makes a vital contribution to the national level of health services. The Howard government’s commitment to choice has eased the pressure on the public system. By encouraging more people to take out private health insurance, we are improving the capacity of public hospitals to service local communities. In fact, 56 per cent of all surgery is now performed in private hospitals. If you require emergency surgery, you are unlikely to get into a public hospital because of the extensive waiting lists. If you are privately insured, you can get into a private hospital very quickly indeed. In my electorate, public hospitals are stretched to capacity thanks to the New South Wales Labor government, which is entirely out of touch with the needs of our community. Hardworking staff regularly have to endure the frustration of not being able to admit patients and struggle with the chaos of choked emergency departments while treating anxious patients and trying to reassure their families. This is an everyday occurrence at both Wyong Hospital and Gosford Hospital. This is not acceptable by any standard, and I am sure that Central Coast residents will express their concerns with the state government in the upcoming state election. The Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and cognate bills will only help to ease the burden on public hospitals, as more and more people will opt for private health insurance. Commonsense and initiative, such as the increased rebate for older Australians and Lifetime Health Cover, have helped this government to reverse the trend of a decline in private health insurance while Labor was last in office. When Labor came to power in 1983, 65 per cent of Australians had private health cover. Over their 13 years in government, that figure almost halved, falling to less than 34 per cent. Now, thanks to the Howard government’s measures, that figure has jumped to over 43 per cent and is increasing. I know many senior residents in my electorate have welcomed the higher rebate, which is making private health insurance more affordable and providing peace of mind. Many older Australians have contributed to private health insurance for most of their adult lives. They contributed in their younger years while enjoying good health. Now, when they need private health insurance cover, it is important that premiums remain affordable. Similarly, Lifetime Health Cover has been well-received. It provides incentives, such as lower premiums, for all Australians who take out private health insurance cover and stick with it over the longer term. It helps to slow premium increases and helps to stop the hit-and-run syndrome of people joining a private health insurance scheme only to leave after a particular ailment has been overcome. Lifetime Health Cover is great news for the private health insurance system and for the wider health sector. This bill includes a major change to Lifetime Health Cover. People who have retained their private hospital insurance continuously for more than 10 years will no longer be subject to the Lifetime Health Cover penalties. This recognises and rewards the effort that people have made to maintain their cover over time, having first joined at the age of 30 years. They have made the effort and they deserve credit for their commitment and loyalty. Efficiently run health funds mean lower overheads and less pressure on premiums. This bill includes significant regulatory reforms. The aim of these changes is to make private health regulation clearer and simpler, to help health insurers to run their businesses more smoothly and to work with service providers to devise new products that better meet consumer needs. Of course, Labor continue to oppose private health insurance cover just for the sake of opposing things. They like to pretend private health insurance is a service that is only for the rich, but that is not true. Through policies like Lifetime Health Cover and the 30 per cent rebate for older Australians, 44 per cent of the population, some of whom are earning around $20,000 a year, now have private health insurance cover. The average earning Australian is now able to choose to take out private health insurance if they wish. A decade ago, we did not have the luxury of that choice. The private health insurance rebate saves a typical family something in the order of $800 a year, a benefit that I am sure families in my electorate who have private health insurance appreciate. The task of revitalising the private health sector is ongoing. These bills tailor health care to the realities of the 21st century. For instance, care does not always centre on being admitted to hospital. Day procedures, outpatient services, hospital in the home, condition management and wellness and prevention are all part of the healthcare equation in a way that simply was not envisaged when the current regulatory regime was devised over half a century ago. These things are inadequately covered by private health insurance as it is currently regulated. This needs changing. These bills provide for the operation of the government’s private health insurance measures, which were announced by Minister Abbott on 26 April 2006. These measures are designed to increase competition in the industry and improve services to insured persons by allowing insurers to provide policies that reflect contemporary clinical practice. These measures will also simplify the private health insurance regulatory regime, as existing legislation is regarded by the private health industry as outdated and difficult to interpret. These measures are the result of extensive consultation with the private health insurance industry. Since the announcement in April, there has been extensive consultation on the shape and direction of the legislation and further consultation on matters of detail. It is important to note that these measures will not diminish the government’s strong commitment to Medicare, despite what members opposite would like people to believe. It will not result in a two-tier system. The Private Health Insurance Bill will allow insurers to offer benefits for out-of-hospital services under broader health cover, require insurers to provide standard information to consumers, amend Lifetime Health Cover, introduce safety and quality standards for insured services and change the focus of regulation from insurance providers to insurance products. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 8 Ministerial Arrangements 8 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today and Monday and Tuesday of next week. We will all miss him. He is travelling to the United Kingdom, Germany and Turkey on government business. The Minister for Trade, with his customary style, flair and panache, will answer questions on his behalf. 8 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 8 8 14:00:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What will the minister do to guarantee that no Australian parent has to go without needed medication for their sick children because of expensive brand premiums being charged under the very system designed by the government? Given the cost of living pressures on working families, why does the minister only act when these problems hit the front page? 8 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I do thank her for the question because it is a fair one. I can confirm that about 20 per cent of PBS scripts are dispensed with a premium. I can also confirm that this premium averages about $3. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Let me tell her that the average is about $3. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I point out for the benefit of the rather inexperienced shadow minister for health that under the rules, which she should know, there is always a clinically appropriate drug available at the co-payment price. Finally, I point out to her that, under the PBS reforms that the government announced late last year, pharmacists will receive an additional and higher dispensing fee for dispensing drugs without a premium, and that should substantially address this issue. 8 8 14:02:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 Mr SECKER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of an allegation that there is a $900 million hole in the provision of funds for the government’s national initiative on water security? What is the Prime Minister’s response? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am aware of this allegation. It was contained in a document prepared by the management team of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and sent to partner governments in the current commission arrangement. After it appeared in the papers this morning, it was trumpeted by the member for Grayndler, the member for Lilley and the member for Melbourne. If that was the trumpeting, and that is the history, I can inform the House that the allegation is completely incorrect. I can also inform the House that this has been acknowledged by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, which, shortly before question time, issued a statement saying: This document contains— referring to the document issued last night— a statement that “the available budget for a new Commission will be decreased by approximately $900 million over 10 years”. I am now aware that this statement is incorrect. That has been issued under the name of Wendy Craik, the chief executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. This little incident illustrates the two faces of the Leader of the Opposition. When I announced my plan, the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘I want to take politics out of water.’ He said: ‘I want to end the blame game. I want to cooperate with the Prime Minister.’ YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Whose document was it? Only the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —He was saying that, and all the while he has his three amigos endeavouring at every turn to undermine the plan. It would have been quite easy—if the Leader of the Opposition or any of his frontbench had wanted to know whether the claim made in that document was correct, all they needed to do was ring up my office or ring up my department and they could have been told. But no, it is rather like what happened last week with Work Choices. There you had the Leader of the Opposition soft selling it to the business community, but the next morning the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brought him into line. The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition has played a double game on this water issue. He has pretended that he is bipartisan and that he is above politics, but at the first opportune moment he has got his colleagues out there saying there is a funding hole, that there is no bottom line, that the document lacks integrity. This visionary plan—which I believe is the greatest single attempt by any national government to solve the problem of the Murray-Darling Basin—will provide $10 billion of entirely new money over and above— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —the financial provision the Commonwealth now makes. I look forward to my meeting at four o’clock this afternoon with the premiers of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission states and also the premiers of Western Australia and Tasmania, who are likewise attending this meeting. This is an historic opportunity to do something of a lasting and permanent character to solve the problem of the Murray-Darling Basin, and all the opposition has been able to do is engage in cheap opportunism. I table the statement from Wendy Craik of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 8 8 14:07:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and follows on from his answer to the previous question about the importance of taking politics out of water. Given the national water crisis requires that we all work together, and given the premiers are about to arrive in Canberra, will the Prime Minister now agree to provide me with a full briefing from his officials on the details and costing of the national water plan, as I requested in this letter one week ago, particularly, Prime Minister, as those details have been challenged not by us but by officials from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The Leader of the Opposition did write to me. I wrote back to him, thanked him for his letter and drew his attention to the fact that we would be having a meeting this afternoon. I said that, following that meeting, I am willing to provide additional briefings on the outcomes of the meeting. I said that the essential information is already on the public record. I attached a copy of my speech, the detailed explanatory material and copies of my letters to the premiers and the chief ministers. Crucially, in the last paragraph I said, ‘In the meantime, should you seek additional information, please contact my office.’ I would have thought a prudent Leader of the Opposition or a prudent shadow Treasurer or finance spokesman or water spokesman, in picking up that Murray-Darling Basin Commission document this morning and seeing an allegation of a $900 million hole, might have said: ‘Hang on, this mightn’t be right. Maybe the sensible thing to do is to ring up Howard’s office.’ But, oh no! They fell over themselves. They raced to the doors and said: ‘Aha! We have a black hole.’ They know a lot about black holes. The reality is that the opposition has played politics on this issue, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition pretended when I first made my announcement. I conclude by making the observation that the reason the Commonwealth is able to offer $10 billion in an historic effort to resolve this issue is that we have run a strong economy. If our budget had been in deficit, if we had not got rid of Labor’s debt and if we had not run a strong economy, this nation would not be able to afford to fix the Murray-Darling Basin. So the starting point for all of these things is prudent economic management in the hands of experienced economic managers such as the Treasurer, my colleague and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. It is through the quality of his management, above all else, that we have been able to steer this country into a situation where we can afford to fix these issues. All the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts can do is play politics with the water crisis facing Australia. 8 8 14:10:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 Mr KEENAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, would you outline to the House the results of the January labour force survey? 8 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. I think all members of the House will be pleased to know that in January unemployment fell to 4.5 per cent on a national basis. That is the lowest unemployment rate in Australia in 31 years. It contrasts, for example, with the electorate of Stirling, which back in 1996, the member would recall, had an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent. That is around double the 4.5 per cent we are currently experiencing. Full-time employment went up, part-time employment went down and, overall, unemployment went down. It is important to note that the unemployment rate in Australia has now been below five per cent for nine months, and five per cent was once considered to be full employment in this country. Importantly, 300,000 new jobs were created in Australia in the last year. Of course, the bulk of that period was after the introduction of the government’s Work Choices industrial relations changes. We were told that changes to industrial relations would destroy people’s jobs and livelihoods. Yet, over the period of the year that the Work Choices legislation was introduced, we have seen 300,000 new jobs created in Australia. Since the government was elected in 1996, two million new jobs have been created in this country. Two million of our fellow Australians have been able to find work during the period of economic management by this government. I want to compare a 4.5 per cent unemployment rate with the unemployment rate in Queensland between 1991 and 1995. I think the House is going to hear a lot about the years between 1991 and 1995 in Queensland, because that is the period when there was a staffer in the Goss government who, we are told, ran everything. During the period 1991 to 1995, unemployment in the state of Queensland averaged 9.5 per cent. Undoubtedly we will hear during the course of debate: ‘What could one expect from somebody who was merely a staffer in the state government? We could not expect a staffer in the state government to be responsible for unemployment.’ But when it suits the Leader of the Opposition, and when he wants to establish his credentials on experience, he portrays his position as a staffer in the state government as one of enormous power, of significant influence—in fact, enough to qualify him for the prime ministership of the country. When it does not suit him to be held accountable for his record and he does not want to emphasise his experience, the position and its influence are demoted to being merely that of a staffer in a state government. You cannot have it both ways: either he has no experience and no record or he has experience and responsibility. It is up to him to choose which one of those two he is going to emphasise. If he claims to have experience he has a record, and his record is one of high unemployment. 8 14:15:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is also to the Treasurer. Treasurer, given that the Prime Minister has not made his officials available to brief us, how much of the $10 billion water plan is additional to what the Commonwealth and the states were already committed to spending in their budgets, prior to the water plan’s announcement? 8 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —The Commonwealth’s offer of $10 billion is new money—that is, it is additional to all of the money which the Commonwealth had previously committed in relation to the National Water Initiative and in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and it is in addition to the top-up which I announced in last year’s budget. If the states hand over management of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission—get a load of this—there will be a significant saving, a huge saving. If the Labor states hand over to the Commonwealth, they will save money. They will take money which they otherwise would have been required to put into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. They will save it because they will not be putting it in. There are the bona fides of the Commonwealth. If you talk about looking a gift-horse in the mouth: is any state premier seriously going to have us believe that you can manage an interstate waterway better by having four separate governments with competing aims and objectives, and would any state premier seriously say that they will reject an offer to get a significant new injection of $10 billion, which does not actually cost them and which will produce savings? If the states want to maintain their expenditures in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, in addition to the Commonwealth’s $10 billion, I am sure that we would accept that as well. From a party that is interested in water and climate change, maybe that offer will be made this afternoon by the state governments concerned. We will be watching very closely in relation to that. I come back to this point, which I made on radio this morning: is this investment something that has just become apparent now? No. This investment has been something that most people who have thought about it would have thought should have been done over the years—maybe even years ago. Why wasn’t it done at Federation? Why wasn’t it done at the time of the Second World War? Why was it not done in the sixties? E09 Owens, Julie, MP Ms Owens interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Parramatta is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Why wasn’t it done in the seventies? I will tell you why. The Commonwealth government never had the wherewithal to put $10 billion into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. When we were carrying $96 billion of federal debt, we were spending nearly $10 billion a year in interest payments. Now that we have got rid of that, we have the capacity to invest in this infrastructure. This would not have been possible without economic management. Let me say that, whatever your objectives in relation to climate change, in relation to water and in relation to social objectives, you will not have the wherewithal to pay for them without economic management in this country, and that is what this government stands for. 8 8 14:19:00 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 outline for the House the impact on regional economies of major new investment in water infrastructure, particularly in my electorate of Mallee? How will the coalition government’s water security plan generate more jobs? 8 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Mallee for his question. Obviously, as has been pointed out this week, the value of irrigated agriculture in Australia is significant—about $9 billion worth of production. That production feeds and clothes some 60 million people both in Australia and in export markets overseas. What has been identified—and the member for Mallee as a practising engineer would understand the technical detail of this—is that up to 30 per cent of the water that is diverted through irrigation out of Australia’s river systems is lost due to poor infrastructure, through absorption and through transpiration and the like. What we are proposing to do with the $10 billion package that has been put forward is address that very issue. The notion of being able to create more from the water we already have, without another drop of rain falling, is not necessarily a new or revolutionary idea. It has been around for a while. Some of the comments that have been made following the Prime Minister’s announcement of our water plan bear this out. One of those comments was made by Col Thomson from the New South Wales Irrigators Council. He said: This package is bold and breathtaking in its scope and intent. The core issues raised by the Prime Minister are not new to New South Wales Irrigators members, nor are the proposed solutions any different to what has been identified and in many areas already put into practice. The difference between the circumstances now and those in times gone by is exactly what the Treasurer pointed out: the ability of the Commonwealth to pay for what is needed to be done. We, as a government, have a record on this in recent years. In relation to the question asked by the member for Mallee, last year we invested $167 million in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline to save billions of litres of water in that area. Just for the stock and domestic circumstance, 103 billion litres will be saved in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline system by removing 85 per cent of the waste from seepage and evaporation. Earlier than that, back in about 1999, along with the South Australian state government and irrigators, we invested about $15 million in the Loxton irrigation system, where we secured that entire irrigation system into pipes. It addressed a drastic circumstance, and we saved almost 4.8 billion litres in that Loxton irrigation system in the member for Barker’s electorate. It was in 1999 that we invested that. Last year, we invested in the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline. This year, we have put on the table $10 billion to save 3,600 billion litres of water coming out of the system and to put it back into the system, with 50 per cent of that becoming available for industry, for irrigators. We have consistently identified the ability to save water through investment in infrastructure, and that is exactly what we are doing in this circumstance. The Prime Minister is going to meet with the premiers of the relevant states this afternoon. We urge them to come on board with this plan. This is a bold and breathtaking plan. As Col Thomson said, it is bold and breathtaking in its scope and its intent. Its intent is to fix up a problem that has been identified and that has existed for many, many years. Where we are able to look after the interests of both industry and the broader environment as far as the watering system in those rivers is concerned, it should be done. The last point I want to make and to continue to reinforce is that the reason we can do this is that we can do it without having to borrow any money. We can do it because of the good economic management that has been practised in this country over the last 10 or 11 years. That is why it has never been able to be done before, and that is why it can be done now. That should be clearly recognised. 8 8 14:24:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Did the minister agree with the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources when he said that there may be the need for farms to be acquired in what ‘may be regarded as in effect a compulsory acquisition’? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister is not required to answer a question asking whether he agrees with another minister. Nonetheless, I will call the minister. 8 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker; I relish the opportunity to answer this question, and I thank the honourable member. I would suggest that the extract that the honourable member has presented to the House is incomplete or, at worst, inaccurate. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources made it very clear that overallocation funding is largely and as entirely as possible for structural adjustment. That aspect of the package starts and finishes with assisting irrigators, whether it is with relocation or the like. There is an element, of course, in regard to the purchase of water allocations, but it will be done on the basis of structural adjustment. It allows me to say that it may very well be with regard to the configuration of irrigation systems. You might retire non-viable areas and the like with the support of farmers. And irrigators have welcomed this. The honourable member is trying to make a political point—unsuccessfully—when irrigators themselves have expressed support for the package. After all, the implications for irrigators are overwhelmingly positive, and that is how they have seen it. The cornerstone of the plan is a commitment of $6 billion to modernise irrigation infrastructure off farms, $3 billion on farms— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, under standing order 104. I asked a clear question. Does he support compulsory acquisition? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! The minister is in order. I call the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGAURAN —The member for Grayndler interrupted me when I was outlining the benefits of the package to irrigators, not political point-scoring. There is $6 billion for off-farm efficiency, $1½ billion for on-farm efficiency and $3 billion to tackle overallocation. And the irrigators deeply appreciate all aspects of the package, especially the fact that 50 per cent of the efficiency savings will be returned to them. 8 8 14:26:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 Mr VASTA —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House how business expectations have improved, and are there alternatives that could damage business prospects? 8 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Bonner for his question. I can inform the House that business prospects have picked up. The National Australia Bank’s last quarterly business survey for December shows that expectations for the March quarter rose, with the index rising two points to 21 points. Businesses also upgraded expectations for the year ahead, with the index up five points to 32 index points. We are going through a very difficult drought at the moment, and that is depressing some areas of the Australian economy. Notwithstanding that, the Australian economy is on a firm footing. In the year of our ninth surplus budget, we have repaid $96 billion of the Labor debt. We are funding future liabilities which were never funded by the Commonwealth before. We have a monetary policy which is locking in inflation of between two per cent and three per cent. We have unemployment at 4.5 per cent. We have had 300,000 new jobs in the last year and we have had two million new jobs over the last 10 years. The Leader of the Opposition says that all of this represents free market fundamentalism, and he describes this economy as ‘Howard’s Brutopia’. If he wants to sweep away Howard’s Brutopia, he obviously has some kind of different economic policy in mind. There has been some speculation as to what a brutopia is. I can now authoritatively inform the House that Brutopia is a fictional country which appears in several Donald Duck stories: Brutopia is a ... hostile country, aiming for world domination. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 104, I ask you to draw the Treasurer back to the question he was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have been listening closely to the Treasurer. I believe there were two parts to that question. I will continue to listen closely but the Treasurer is in order. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —This is the analysis that the Leader of the Opposition gives of the Australian economy—that it is a brutopia. Brutopia is a fictional country, in a Donald Duck magazine, aiming for world domination and trying to devastate the American economy. When you ask where he draws his inspiration for his quack economic policy, you find that it comes from a Donald Duck magazine. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This cannot possibly be relevant. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have been listening carefully to the Treasurer and I believe he is in order. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Labor is drawing inspiration for its economic analysis from a Donald Duck magazine. This is the evolutionary cycle of the Labor Party. We have moved from Mark Latham’s roosters to Kevin Rudd’s ducks. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business would be well aware that the Treasurer has only just started to continue after his point of order. Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a point of order? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Yes, Mr Speaker. I believe that farm animals are the responsibility of the member for Gippsland. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Chicken Man! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Chief Opposition Whip is warned! The Treasurer has the call. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Managing the Australian economy, which is a $1 trillion economy, takes experience and commitment—and you do not get your analysis from Donald Duck comics. It is much more serious than that. That is why only a coalition government can manage the Australian economy. 8 8 14:33:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question, which is not about chickens, is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Does the minister support the fact that, under the new management arrangements for the Murray-Darling Basin proposed by the Prime Minister, farmers will not be able to construct an on-farm dam unless it complies with the strategic plan for the basin, administered by the Department of the Environment and Water Resources here in Canberra? 8 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I would not have expected the Labor Party to give me an opportunity to speak about a $10 billion water package in this way. The benefits of the water package are well known. Irrigators are supporting it; they know what is in it for them. They know that this is a historic effort by the Commonwealth government to support their industries and to give them a more secure, sustainable future. We will be consulting with the rural industries. Irrigators in rural communities are the starting point of this package, as well as water efficiencies and returning water to the environment. 8 8 14:34:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 Mr WAKELIN —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of potential threats to the future economic growth of South Australia and to jobs for the people in this important part of Australia? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Grey for that question. I am sure that he, along with many other residents of South Australia, would have been alarmed to read the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser this morning, which was emblazoned with this headline: ‘Labor split over mine’. It referred to what has been labelled by the Premier of South Australia as the bedrock of that state’s economic future, namely the further development of the Olympic Dam uranium mine. The article in the Advertiser was referring to the comments of the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Kingsford Smith, who expressed his grave concern about the possible expansion of the mine. He went on to say a few other things about the environment policies of the Labor Party that I will come to. This represents the latest example of the great danger in this environment debate, and that is that ideology is going to be put ahead of jobs. In responding to the challenge of climate change, we need a measured, sensible approach. We need an approach that tackles the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, and that is why we need to keep the nuclear option on the table. As the Chief Scientist has said, it is part of the solution to the climate change problem. It is part of the way of tackling greenhouse gas emissions. In the process of dealing with climate change, we have got to do it in a way that does not threaten the job security of Australians. We do not want thousands of coalminers thrown out of work, and we do not want thousands of people denied an opportunity of employment in the development of the uranium mines of South Australia. That is one of the reasons why we have been aghast that it has taken the Labor Party so long to get around to considering a change in relation to the mining of uranium in this country. What we heard from the shadow minister for the environment was a classic example of how many on the front bench of the Labor Party will put ideology in front of jobs. This government will never put ideology in front of jobs. We will embrace all solutions that go to strengthen the capacity of the Australian economy to continue to expand. I say to the people of South Australia: if you want a guaranteed expansion of the Olympic Dam mine and you want to preserve that great industry in your state, for heaven’s sake, don’t vote Labor, because it would be at real risk. But that was only the half of it. In that same interview with the Adelaide Advertiser, the shadow minister called for a substantial increase in the mandatory renewable energy target. There is nothing new about that. The Labor Party have argued in favour of that for a long time. We do not necessarily share that view, but I acknowledge that it has been their policy for a long time. But it has also been their policy for a long time to have a national emissions trading system. You can argue for that, and many people in the community do argue that, but the shadow minister went out on his own on this occasion and apparently ignored the views of the member for Batman and the member for Hunter, both of whom have said that, if you have a national emissions trading system, you should close down renewable energy target programs. In other words, there is a real conflict. The shadow minister wants to expand MRET—and there will be people who will consider that that is a good idea and many people who will think it puts an unreasonable cost burden on industry—but he also wants to have a national emissions trading system and to move ahead of anything that might be developed internationally. But his two frontbench colleagues, the member for Batman and the member for Hunter, say that, if you have a national emissions trading system, that is incompatible with the maintenance of both state trading systems in emissions and a renewable energy target. All of this is very interesting, and I continue to look forward with great anticipation to further interviews being given by the member for Kingsford Smith. 8 8 14:39:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and is also on climate change. Given the Prime Minister’s reference to coalminers and their jobs as an excuse for his inaction on climate change, I ask the Prime Minister whether he has seen the comments made last night by the president of the coalminers union, Tony Maher, that: Coal miners have voted to support carbon trading and, frankly, it is a disgrace that the Howard Government has taken 10 years to even start talking about it. Does the Prime Minister support this statement from the coalminers union? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have seen that statement made by Mr Maher, and it has long been my view that leaders do not necessarily speak for workers. I find this fascinating—the automaticity! He was meant to be different. But the Labor Party instinctively thinks: ‘Workers equals unions, equals union bosses, and when union bosses speak, they speak for workers.’ I have news for the Leader of the Opposition: for the last 10 years a lot of coalminers have voted for us. 8 8 14:40:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 Mr HAASE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of full-time jobs growth since the introduction of Work Choices? What are the benefits of a flexible workplace relations system? Are there any threats to further jobs growth? 8 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 Kalgoorlie for his question and note that unemployment in his electorate is now 3.4 per cent. In Western Australia today the unemployment rate is three per cent. It can be no accident that there are 54,000 Australian workplace agreements signed under Work Choices in Western Australia. In fact, the take-up in Western Australia of AWAs has been three times the national average. A little earlier, the Prime Minister was saying that union leaders do not necessarily speak for the workers. I will tell you what speaks for the workers: jobs—job creation; meaningful jobs; well-paid jobs. There is no doubt that, since the introduction of Work Choices, we have seen a rapid surge in the creation of jobs in Australia. More than 240,000 new jobs have been created since Work Choices was introduced and over 83 per cent of those jobs are full-time. That makes a lie of the comments by Bill Shorten that Work Choices would be ‘a green light for mass sackings’. How wrong he was! In fact, it has been a green light for the creation of new jobs. The member for Brand said that it was going to be easier to sack people—when, in fact, it has actually been easier to employ people. That is because when you remove the unfair dismissal laws—the Labor Party’s job-destroying unfair dismissal laws—business creates jobs and small business, in particular, has the courage to go out and take the risk of employing someone and putting them in a meaningful and well-paid job. The Labor Party has continued to claim, even after Work Choices was introduced, that these are not real jobs. In a debate with me only a few months ago at the University of Sydney, Bill Shorten said, ‘They’re not the sorts of jobs which parents wish for their kids.’ That was Bill Shorten. He is coming in next parliament. We look forward to that! The fundamental point is that Work Choices is part of the equation that helps to create jobs that are meaningful and real to Australian workers. It is part of the equation of a strong economy. It is part of the equation of making sure the budget is in surplus. It is about having the courage to make tough decisions that help to make the Australian economy stronger. I know the Leader of the Opposition has his training wheels on, but he has to have the courage to face up to the unions and tell them that they will not dictate workplace relations in a Labor government. The Labor Party has said that it will rip up Work Choices and that the unions are going to be back in town. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party: focus on creating jobs—like the coalition creates jobs; focus on the wages of the workers; and focus not only on the jobs of today but also on the jobs of tomorrow. 8 8 14:44:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister and, again, on climate change. Prime Minister, why, after three days in parliament, do you still refuse to repudiate the statement by the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources that he is a sceptic on the connection between carbon emissions and climate change? Has the Prime Minister seen Rio Tinto’s statement that Rio Tinto believes that emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from human activities are contributing to climate change? If Rio Tinto now accepts that there is a connection between carbon emissions and climate change, isn’t it time that you and the industry minister got on board as well? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I think the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources is an outstanding representative of the interests of industry and the government. He is widely respected and admired within the resources sector because he understands the importance of that sector. I certainly do not intend to repudiate him; he is a wonderful colleague and he will continue to be a very active member of my government. 8 8 14:45:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 Mr BARTLETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House how the government’s support for private health insurance is taking the pressure off our public hospital system? Is the minister aware of claims that private health insurance costs might rise? What is the government’s response? 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand is warned! 8 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —If the member for Gellibrand had a policy, rather than shrieking across the table, she would certainly be doing better about establishing her credibility. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I know how important this is to the member for Macquarie, because 75,000 people in his electorate have private health insurance, and they are relying on the Howard government to keep it affordable for them. Thanks to the policies of the Howard government, some nine million Australians now have the security and choice that come with private health cover. This is nearly three million more than under the Keating government, and it includes one million people earning less than $20,000 a year. All of these people have the potential to avoid state Labor’s public hospital waiting list. Yesterday, the member for Gellibrand said that costs might rise under the government’s planned changes to health insurance legislation. Let me say that Labor are the past masters of premium increases. In 1987, premiums went up 19 per cent under Labor. In 1992, premiums went up 17 per cent under Labor. On average, under Labor, premiums increased by 11 per cent every year compared with just 5.6 per cent since 1996. Let us make it very clear: the member for Gellibrand is not trying to improve private health insurance; she is trying to sabotage it. She once told this parliament that the government should stop ‘pouring enormous amounts of money into private health insurance cover and instead put that money into public facilities’. We are in the mood, it seems, opposite, to repudiate statements, and I ask the member for Gellibrand: will she now repudiate that previous statement of hers? Indeed, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: on the subject of private health insurance, as on so many other topics, will the real Kevin Rudd please stand up? Does he still think, as he once told this parliament, that private health insurance is about the Americanisation of our health system? One day he was a mere staffer; the next day he is the de facto Premier of Queensland. One day he is the philosopher prince of Labor; the next minute, he reads comics for his inspiration. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor is warned! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to standing order 104. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have been listening carefully to the minister, and I am sure he will come back to the question. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to resolve where he really stands on private health insurance. One day he is not a socialist and he never ever has been and, the next day, he has been a Christian socialist since Keir Hardy’s time. When will this enigma— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the minister is now defying your ruling. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister is in order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —One minute he thinks that the coalition has tried to commandeer God; the next minute he thinks that Jesus is standing for a Labor Party seat. When will this enigma finally resolve itself? UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked whether he is aware of claims that private health insurance will rise. I ask you to draw him back to the question he was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the minister and ask him to come back to the question. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I certainly will, Mr Speaker. Let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition: trying to be all things to everyone will not work. On private health insurance, as on so many other topics, he needs to come clean and say what he really believes. If he does not have a clear position on private health insurance, he does not have any credibility in his bid to lead this nation. 8 8 14:51:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister, given the government’s attempt to overcome state borders as impediments to water reform, and assuming the states agree to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, and given your recent visit to Tamworth for the magnificent Tamworth Country Music Festival, you gave an undertaking to part fund an enlargement of Chaffey Dam, in the Northern Daily Leader in an article titled ‘Dam green light: support from Vaile, Iemma for Chaffey’. Deputy Prime Minister, seeing that that commitment was given prior to the Prime Minister’s announcement and prior to New South Wales agreeing to cede its powers in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, and since the Commonwealth will have total responsibility, could you outline the status of the government’s commitment to Chaffey Dam and the people of Tamworth? 8 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I wish to correct a couple of facts in the member for New England’s question: it was indeed on the Saturday of the country music festival—and it was a very good festival—which was after the Prime Minister’s speech, which was delivered on the day before Australia Day. I will reflect on the assertions that the member has made. My recollection of my comments is that some proposals had been put forward by a number of local community members—and the issue was raised with me by the Mayor of Tamworth—with regard to concerns about Chaffey Dam and how that could be improved in terms of securing water for not just the city of Tamworth but also downstream irrigators in the Peel River system, and, given that that system flows down into the Murray-Darling Basin, the ongoing effects of the basin. I made the comment that I thought at least local people were starting to exercise a bit of lateral thought about how they could deal with the crisis that is upon them at the moment—as is besetting many irrigators and communities right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system—as our government would exercise broad lateral thinking in our responses. I indicated that they should put forward these proposals to us so that we can have a look at them—as I am aware that the Premier of New South Wales did at the time that he was there—as we move forward in this process. Again, I remind the member for New England that for the first time in this nation’s history we have put down a proposal to do something constructive about a serious problem right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin system. 8 8 14:54:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question is addressed to the excellent Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister please advise the House if she has received reports on whether state governments are providing parents with sufficient information to be confident about educational standards in their schools and for their children? 8 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the member for Bass for his question and for arranging an opportunity to visit his electorate in December, where I met with a number of parents and teachers at schools. These parents reinforced the view that I am hearing across the country—that is, parents are not receiving enough information about what is going on in their schools. They want to know what is happening and how those schools are performing. State governments already collect a wealth of data about individual schools, yet they are keeping it secret not only from parents but from students, teachers and the public. Parents in particular are demanding the right to know how their schools are performing so they can judge whether this is the right school for their child. They want to know. Back in 2005, the Australian government had to force state governments to allow parents access to limited information. This year for the first time the state governments have to allow schools to tell parents this limited detail, this limited information about schools. It is like pulling teeth. The Australian government believes that all schools should have all information available to the public. Parents want to be able to make an informed choice. They want comparative data. They want to know the qualifications of teachers in schools. They want to know the turnover of staff in schools. They want to know the attendance and retention rates in their schools. They want to know the suspension and expulsion rates in schools, and they particularly want to know the academic scores in schools, the test results and how they have improved or not over time. They want the feedback data that is available on parent, student and teacher levels of satisfaction. This is important information. The state governments must also come clean on how each school is being funded. Some government schools are very clearly well resourced and funded, and some government schools in the same area, often right next door, are clearly underfunded and underresourced. The member for Bass and I saw this on our visit to Bass, where schools next door to each other had inexplicably different levels of funding. Parents need to know whether their school is getting a fair share of public funding. Labor are all over the shop on this. They are trying to have it both ways. They talk about reforms and revolutions, but every time they take one step forward they take three steps back, because the unions jump in and pull them into line. LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr Hatton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Blaxland is warned. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —And why are they doing this? LN6 Hatton, Michael, MP Mr Hatton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. Order! The member for Blaxland will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Blaxland then left the chamber. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The member for Perth knows that parents deserve this information, and he should join with us in calling on state governments to provide this information. But the unions will resist it every step of the way. Why is that? Because they know that once parents have this information, once the public knows, it will reveal that there are good teachers and good schools, and some teachers and some schools that need to improve. The Australian government is going to ensure that we lift standards in all our schools so all children in Australia have the opportunity to access a quality education. 8 8 14:58:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and is again on climate change. Does the Prime Minister accept the connection between climate change and the severity and length of droughts into the future? 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I think there is some connection. I think the degree of it is a matter of debate and the jury is out on the degree to which there is that connection. It is fair to say that most Australians believe that we have had drought for a very long time. Common sense tells you that the variability of rainfall across this country has been with us for a long time. Every drought eventually ends. The important thing is to tackle the great challenge this country has. Rather than having a theoretical debate, you actually need to tackle the practical aspects of drought. That is what we are doing. This afternoon is a historic opportunity. It is a moment in the history of this country: the coming together of federal and state governments to do something lasting about water security. The plan I have put forward contains two fundamental propositions. The first proposition is that we should conserve the water that is now lost through seepage and evaporation by lining the channels and piping the irrigation systems of this country. It is estimated that up to 30 per cent—or more in certain areas—is lost through seepage and evaporation. That is the first great element of the plan. The second great element of the plan is to deal with the problem of overallocation. This is not theoretical. This is not, to use a word beloved of the member for Kingsford Smith, ‘hypothetical’. When he was asked about the impact of his climate change policy on employment in Australia he said, ‘That’s hypothetical.’ I do not think I would get very far in answering a question like that by saying it was hypothetical. Losing your job is not hypothetical. Fixing the water problems of this country is not hypothetical. This afternoon it lies within the capacity of the Prime Minister of this country and the premiers of the Murray-Darling Basin states to strike a blow for the water security of this nation for generations ahead. This is a great opportunity, because what we have put forward is money made available courtesy of the strength of our national economy. It is over and above what has been offered before. I guarantee all the other programs, and this money is on top of those other programs. All we ask is for a governance arrangement that will end the absurd competition between the states of Australia that has bedevilled the Murray-Darling Basin governance over the last decade. This is an opportunity that must not be passed up. It must not fall victim to any kind of obfuscation and delay. I believe that the people I will talk to this afternoon will come in good faith. I have found on numerous occasions a capacity to deal across the political divide with the premiers, all of whom are Labor. They rise to the occasion. They have risen to the occasion on other issues; the nation wants them to do so on water. 8 8 15:02:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 Mr BROADBENT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on government initiatives to lower Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in ways that will protect jobs in Australia’s traditional industries, including in my electorate of McMillan? Opposition members interjecting— 8 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I thank the member for McMillan for his question and for his strong interest in preserving jobs in the coal and power industry in the regions around him and particularly those of the workers he represents in the seat of McMillan. I stand shoulder to shoulder with you to preserve their jobs. Those on this side of the House have long recognised that there is no one silver bullet solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we are investing in a portfolio of practical measures that respond directly to climate change challenges— DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cunningham is warned! WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —without sacrificing the competitive advantage on which our economy in Australia is built. These are measures like the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative, known as REDI; our $75 million Solar Cities initiative; and our $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which saw $50 million allocated to a power station in the minister for agriculture’s electorate, close to the member for McMillan’s electorate, to help the power industry in that region lower its emissions and maintain its electricity output. These programs were all defined in this white paper I am holding, which the Prime Minister released in June 2004. The Leader of the Opposition might like to read it. These are practical measures that bring a range of low-emission technologies into our energy mix, whether they be clean coal or renewable. The white paper does mention nuclear power. As we know, since that paper was released we have progressed to a point where we need to consider nuclear power. This is about not putting all our eggs in one technology basket. In response to the recent report of the Energy Supply Association, can I say that they have demonstrated in their report why this is so important. They say in their report that the narrower the range of energy technologies used the greater the cost will be to achieve emissions cuts. The report forecasts a 65 per cent increase in electricity demand by 2030. The report also says that meeting that demand while cutting emissions will cost billions. The report goes on to say that if nuclear energy is excluded from the mix it will cost billions more. It just goes to show how serious and credible climate change responses require all possible options to be considered, including nuclear. We know that the members for Hunter and Batman— A government member—And the member for Grayndler WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —have different views from those of the member for Kingsford Smith—and, yes, so does the member for Grayndler. They even have different views on uranium—and some of them do not mind if that costs jobs, as we heard from the Prime Minister. The Labor Party cannot face— HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr Jenkins interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Scullin will come to order. WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —the hard political decision because they are split on the issue. The Howard government has a record of making hard decisions— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —to ensure the future of Australia’s economy and Australia’s energy security. 8 8 15:07:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the statement he tabled earlier today from Wendy Craik of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission responding to this official report I am holding from the officials of the commission which comments extensively on the content of the government’s proposal. Given that Ms Craik’s statement responds only to section 3.1 of the officials’ nine-page critique, will the Prime Minister inform the House which of the other 12 sections of the report are also incorrect. 8 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I intend this afternoon to deal with a lot of the issues that are raised in that report with the premiers, and, given that they are the partners in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and given that they are your party colleagues, I think I owe them the courtesy of informing them first. 8 8 15:09:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education. Would the minister inform the House how new Australian technical colleges in cities like Gladstone and Townsville will boost skills and employment in regional Queensland. 8 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 Mr ROBB —I would like to thank the member for Hinkler for his question and at the same time warmly congratulate the community and the industry in his part of the world, in Northern Queensland, for the way they have so enthusiastically embraced the technical colleges in Gladstone and Townsville. The people in Northern Queensland have really got behind this initiative, because they understand very clearly the importance of these colleges to maintain the very high growth and the jobs that are so much a part of that region. Already this week we have seen some hundreds of students start at those two colleges, taking up building and construction, electrotechnology, commercial cooking, automotive metals and engineering. The reaction in Northern Queensland is mirrored across Australia. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I call the member for Gorton to order. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —I would like to give a couple of impressions from students who began this week in colleges in different parts of Australia. Louise Brown, who started this week at the Illawarra technical college, said in the Illawarra Mercury this week: ‘I think it’s a great opportunity for education and also a trade in electrical. I’ll have an advantage with the HSC and a trade. It will be difficult, but I’ll really try to do well and strive for high achievements.’ Aspiring electrician Nick Habibeh, who is attending the Western Sydney technical college, said this week in the Blacktown City Sun, ‘The college will give me more opportunities and will also shorten my apprenticeship.’ Cherie Martin, whose son Ryan is attending the northern Adelaide technical college—he hopes to become a sparky like his dad by studying electrotechnology—said this week in the Adelaide Advertiser, ‘It’s absolutely brilliant because all the subjects are relevant to the workplace.’ BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lyons is called to order. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —These 20 colleges—which have gone from an idea to reality in just under 15 months, a remarkable achievement—have struck a chord across Australia amongst the community, industry and students. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Holt is warned. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —They will deliver many thousands of highly qualified tradesmen and tradeswomen in the years ahead. Just as importantly, they will build on the hopes and self-esteem of many thousands of young Australians. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 8 Questions to the Speaker 8 8 15:12:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —I refer to page 527 of the House of Representatives Practice, which states that it is fundamental in the concept of responsible government that the executive government be accountable to the House. I refer to the answer from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition’s last question in which the Prime Minister’s answer amounted to him suggesting that he would not answer the question to this parliament because he would give the answer first to the executive representatives from other parliaments in this nation. Will the Speaker draw this act of constitutional arrogance to the Prime Minister’s attention? 8 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question. As he would be well aware, it is not for the Speaker to tell the Prime Minister how to answer the question. If the member wishes to take it further, there are other forms of the House. 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —But, Mr Speaker, House of Representatives Practice is very clear. It says on page 527 that the accountability of the government is demonstrated most clearly and publicly at question time when for a period on most sitting days questions without notice are put to ministers. If we have a situation whereby we ask questions and the response of the executive is to say, ‘We’re not going to tell you; we are going to tell someone else,’ that is against the whole basis of the House of Representatives Practice and standing orders, and the basis of question time where we gather every day. 8 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I again say to the Manager of Opposition Business that, as he would be well aware, standing order 104 says that the only standing order that applies to answers to questions is that an answer shall be relevant to the question. As I said before to the Manager of Opposition Business, if he wishes to pursue the points he is raising, there are other forms of the House. 8 Personal Explanations 8 15:14:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Yes, I do—by the Prime Minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —In question time the Prime Minister made some remarks about an article in the Adelaide Advertiser. I wish to put on record my answer to the question the journalist posed to me about my thoughts on the Olympic Dam expansion, when I said: Look, Paul, good question. But what I want to do is spend time visiting branches where I can. I’ll go through a process of consultation with colleagues and party members. If we do that, that process begins this year, we’ll start to bring forward what we think are things for comment and consideration. There is nothing exceptional in the views that I put in that particular article. Secondly, in relation to the Prime Minister’s comments about answering hypotheticals, a Sky News journalist put a question to me which was a hypothetical question. I responded, ‘I don’t expect to start answering hypothetical questions’—a practice that the Prime Minister quite often follows as well. 8 Miscellaneous 8 15:15:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —A number of questions concerning committee practice were raised in the House and in correspondence to me in December. The questions were raised in the context of the operation of the Family and Human Services Committee inquiry into work and family balance. As a result of those questions I asked the Deputy Speaker to consider issues of committee practice and procedure and advise me on whether action is required to clarify any aspects of committee practice. The Deputy Speaker has reported that most of the matters raised in the case were issues of administrative practice which are not closely prescribed and any attempt to do so might unduly inhibit the flexibility of committees to adapt their operations to suit the particular nature of each inquiry. The Deputy Speaker has proposed that some general principles be developed to guide committees in making decisions about how they conduct their business. I table the Deputy Speaker’s discussion paper, which canvasses issues of general principles of committee practice and avenues for committees to seek guidance when they are uncertain or if disagreements arise. A copy of the discussion paper will be sent to each member. I encourage members and staff to consider the proposals put forward in the discussion paper and send comments and suggestions to the Deputy Speaker or the Clerk Assistant. On the basis of comments received the Deputy Speaker intends to refine the proposals and put them to the liaison committee of chairs and deputy chairs for discussion. I also intend to ask the procedure committee to look at the quorum requirements specified in standing orders 233 and 234(c) and the operation of standing order 242 on publication of evidence. Finally, I would like to thank the Deputy Speaker for his assistance in this matter and I look forward to a positive and constructive response to the discussion paper. 8 Auditor-General's Reports 8 8 15:17:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit performance report No. 25 of 2006-07 entitled Management of airport leases—Follow-up audit: Department of Transport and Regional Services. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 8 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Minister for Health and Ageing) 15:18:00 —A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated earlier today. Details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 8 Matters of Public Importance 8 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to Australia’s future economic and social prosperity caused by more than ten years of complacency and neglect by the current Government towards the education of our nation’s people 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— 8 15:19:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I might be old-fashioned but it remains the case today that the single most important thing you can do for a young Australian is to give them a quality education. That maximises the potential in an individual and it also gives them the best chance to get ahead. That chance to get ahead particularly applies to the sons and daughters of working families. That chance for a quality education has to be a quality education at every level—early education, pre-primary, primary, secondary, vocational and technical education, and universities. The notion of opportunity that comes from a good education and a strong commitment to equity of access to education has been one of Labor’s longstanding, fundamental, passionate commitments. Labor’s historical mission has often been centred on the need to raise the educational standards and qualifications of Australia’s people and its workforce. Very many of my generation, very many of the sons and daughters of that immediate post World War II generation, have been the beneficiaries of that attitude and that commitment—that attitude that a good education is the chance the maximise potential and get ahead and Labor’s commitment to that cause. That immediate post World War II generation, that great generation of Australians, had a couple of things uppermost in their minds when they looked at their family life and their children: pay off the mortgage on the day that the last pay cheque came in to dad when he turned 65; and, secondly, round up every last red cent you can and try to make sure the kids get a better education than we did. If we went to grade 7, get the kids into secondary school. If we did junior, get the kids into leaving with matriculation. If we went to leaving with matriculation, get the kids into a technical college or a university. That great aspiration, giving your kids a better education than the one you had, was fundamental to that generation and fundamental to Labor’s approach. On this side we do not forget the great Chifley government’s creation of the Commonwealth scholarships scheme nor the benefit that very many of us personally had from Whitlam’s free tertiary education. That passion, that commitment, that attitude rings true today so far as Labor is concerned. There is another great reason today why, in modern Australia, it is absolutely essential that we invest in education at every level. These days, it is not just about an individual maximising his or her potential or about the chance to get ahead; it is also about our nation’s prosperity. It is also about the long-term, productive capacity of our nation to secure itself in the world and to ensure that as a nation our prosperity continues. These days, education is not just a social issue; it is an economic issue. It is fundamental to the ongoing capacity of our nation to remain internationally competitive and prosperous. Investing in education, skills and training of our people in the workforce is the single most important thing we can do to lift our productivity to the next level. In the past we have seen an industrial revolution, which transformed the nature of nation-states’ economies, including our own. We have seen an IT revolution, which has transformed the nature of national economies, including our own. And, now, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it, we need an education revolution to transform the productive capacity of the Australian economy. The last federal Labor government in office transformed the nature of our economy. It internationalised it, ensured that it was open and competitive. It dragged down tariff walls, floated the dollar, ensured that we could be internationally competitive and introduced a commitment to competition. As a consequence of that, as the Prime Minister, in a weak moment in 1996, said, he inherited an economy better than good in most parts. As a consequence of that, we have seen 16 years of continuous economic growth, set up largely by the structural reforms of the previous Labor government. Our nation has had the benefit of that in terms of prosperity, and the government has had the benefit of that in terms of political outcomes. When we have a strong economy, particularly the benefit of a minerals and petroleum resources boom to China, that is the time to make the next investment for our future. The great neglect, the great complacency, the great squandering of opportunity by this government over 10 long years has not been moving to the next level of productive capacity, as far as our economy is concerned. What we urgently need to do is invest in education at every level to maximise the quantity and quality of investment in education at every level, from pre-primary through to university and beyond to ensure that that productive capacity comes to the fore. When you look at our productivity growth, compared to that of the United States, under the 10 long years of John Howard, you will see that, from 1998 to 2005, our productivity fell from 85 per cent to 79 per cent. What do we know from significant OECD research? If the average level of the education of your working age population is increased by one year—in other words, if you get your working age population and you increase, on average, that education level from year 11 to year 12, or from year 12 to first year at university or a technical college, OECD research says that you can increase your economy by anywhere from three to six per cent and that you can have one per cent higher annual growth. That is the link between investing in education and productivity growth, and it is the link between the government’s complacency, neglect and squandering in this area and the falling of our productivity growth. Let us go through some of the damning indictments, damning analyses and damning statistics of this government over 10 long years in education at every level. Our overall investment in education in Australia is now 5.8 per cent of GDP. We are 18th in the OECD. Our public investment in tertiary education, in universities and in TAFE has declined by seven per cent over the government’s period in office, compared to an increase of 48 per cent by our OECD competitors. Between 1995 and 2003 our expenditure per university student was reduced by six per cent. We were one of only five OECD countries—we were in a group with Portugal, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Poland—whose expenditure per student was reduced over that period. Our economy is either 50 per cent or 30 per cent greater than those smaller economies. Our expenditure per student fell over that period, along with that of those four other OECD countries. We spend just 0.1 per cent of GDP on preschool education, compared with half a per cent, the OECD average of five times that. Recently, the World Economic Forum ranked our maths and science education levels as 29th in the world, behind France, India, the Czech Republic and Tunisia. When you look at the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 2002 International Maths and Science Study, which did a comparison of results for Australian students between 1994-95 and 2002, you will see that the performance of Australian children fell against our international competitors in the following ways: in year 4 maths, our ranking dropped from seventh to 14th; in year 4 science, our ranking dropped from third to eighth; in year 8 maths, our ranking dropped from ninth to 10th; and in year 8 science, our ranking dropped from fifth to ninth. Looking at some of the reasons for that, around 25 per cent of senior chemistry teachers do not have a major degree in chemistry, over 40 per cent of senior school physics teachers lack a physics major, 25 per cent of science teachers do not have a science qualification, 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths and one in 12 maths teachers studied no maths at university. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr Brough —It has nothing to do with us. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH — Compared to the year 2000, 40,000 fewer students were enrolled in tertiary accredited science subjects in 2005, and 17,000 students were enrolled in tertiary accredited maths subjects. What does the Howard government say when it is confronted with that? It says precisely what the two ministers at the table said just then: ‘It has nothing to do with us. We’re just the government of the nation. We’ve just been the government of the nation for 10 long years. It has nothing to do with us. There must be someone else that we can blame. There must be someone else who can take the responsibility.’ These are damning indictments. There is a lack of investment in education at every level: early childhood, primary and secondary schools, universities, and technical education. And their response? It is: ‘Nothing to do with us. We just happen to have been the government of the nation for the last 10 years.’ And what do we find now? We find that Labor stands up and says, ‘The most important thing we can do for the productive capacity of our economy and the most important thing we can do for the future prosperity of the Australian people is to invest in education.’ And what does the government do? BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The member for Lyons, as a member of the club, knows better. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The government had a chance yesterday, when the minister turned up to the Press Club. Did we find a concrete policy proposal? Did we find a fully costed Commonwealth commitment to invest in education? No, we found three wafted-out thought bubbles. And one of those thought bubbles was that we should invest principals with more capacity to determine the staff in schools. I just said to myself, ‘I wonder where I have seen that before?’ On 13 November 2003, the minister’s predecessor said: ... principals need more autonomy for the planning and administration of their schools ... Critically important is control over staffing. There is only one problem: what happened over the three years? There was a massive decline in maths and science teachers and students. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —You have done nothing. When Labor says education investment is the hallmark of our future prosperity, you turn up to the Press Club and you waft out three ideas. What you will not do is what Labor has done: in very short order, developed positive, concrete policy proposals funded to show an investment in early childhood education. The universal right to early learning for all four-year-olds will be enshrined under a new Commonwealth early childhood education act. They will be entitled to receive 15 hours of learning per week, for a minimum of 40 weeks per year. There will be 1,500 new, fully funded university places for early childhood education, 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need and no TAFE fees for childcare trainees. Why do we say that? It is because we know: all the modern evidence and research tell us that, particularly for those kids who come from disadvantaged families, an early intervention is the most important thing that you can do for their chances to get a decent education. The crisis in our maths and science—in the core disciplines that give us a productive capacity in physics, engineering, other science and research—was underlined by a seminar we saw yesterday at the ANU, with mathematicians, scientists and academics again drawing attention to this. And when Labor comes out with a positive policy proposal to encourage young Australians to study and teach maths and science with a HECS reduction upfront and a HECS remission later on if you work in a relevant occupation, particularly teaching, the minister says: ‘That won’t have any impact. That won’t have any effect.’ If that will not have any effect or impact and if that will not encourage young Australians to teach and study maths and science, I wonder why her predecessor said in August 2004, when he said that HECS increases would not apply to teaching and nursing: ... part of the Higher Education reform package is a measure which quarantines teaching from any HECS increases, but [allows] HECS to be lowered. The deliberate aim of this measure is to make teaching more attractive relative to other courses. We send a signal to Australians: teaching, learning and studying maths and science is important to the productive capacity of our nation; it should be done, and we encourage you to do it. Labor is absolutely committed to it at every level: investment in education for the future of our productive capacity and for the future of our prosperity. After 10 years of neglect, arrogance, complacency and squandering of opportunities, there is only one way that our future prosperity will be ensured: the election of a Labor government to invest in education, to uplift the lives of Australian families, to lift our productive capacity and to lift the spirit of our nation. (Time expired) 8 15:34:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Howard government believes that there must be choice, there must be values, there must be standards and there must be greater national consistency in education in this country. Education is the fundamental, essential and enduring building block upon which to build a prosperous economy and social cohesiveness. We must strive for higher standards in our schools. We must ensure that school students are given the best possible opportunities in life. We need to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality education from high-quality teachers in a high-quality environment. This requires a greater focus on higher standards in curriculum, greater national consistency, rewards and incentives for teachers and more autonomy for school principals. The Australian government will continue to show leadership in this regard. Australian parents do not want a revolution. They do not want all these rhetorical words that mean nothing. They want their children to have access to a quality education. Let me first talk about the funding facts, and focus on why increased funding has not necessarily meant that standards are increasing. This is where the difference between the coalition and Labor is so stark. Labor just throw money at problems; we find solutions. We know that increased taxpayer investment has led to higher standards and greater quality in our schools, in our universities and in vocational and technical education. We have provided record funding to state government schools every year since 1996. It has increased every year, and that is a fact. Australian government funding to state government schools has increased by almost 120 per cent since 1996. In the same period, state government school enrolments have increased at just over one per cent. We are investing a record $33 billion in school education over four years, between 2005 and 2008. It is a fact that Labor cannot ignore: state governments, of whatever persuasion, own, run and provide most of the funding for state government schools, and the Commonwealth provides supplementary funding. The opposition continue to ignore the fact that federal funding for state government schools is calculated as a percentage of the state’s investment, and it has been for decades. So if the state governments increase their investment, the federal investment increases automatically. I am going to come back to that. The Australian government is also providing record increases in funding in the area of higher education. In fact, this year there is over a 26 per cent real increase on 1995. We have increased taxpayer subsidised places to record levels and we have more Australian undergraduates at university than at any time in our history. Almost a million students are now at university. You want to quote OECD figures. Why don’t you quote the figure that 35 per cent of Australian 19-year-olds are engaged in tertiary education? That is seven per cent higher than the OECD average. Why don’t you quote the statistic that 31 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 64 have tertiary qualifications? Compare that with the OECD average of 25 per cent—seven or eight per cent more. Labor have been peddling a myth; they have been selectively quoting OECD data that tertiary education funding fell by seven per cent between 1995 and 2003. That is not true, and Labor know it. The member for Perth has form in quoting selectively, and he is doing it again. The OECD figures that Labor are quoting exclude three-quarters of our funding for vocational education and training, and ignore taxpayer subsidies for students. And, even if we use their own figures, Australia’s tertiary expenditure increased by 25 per cent in real terms between 1995 and 2003. But these are out-of-date figures; they only go to 2003. Labor is excluding the Backing Australia’s Future reforms in 2004, which will see the sector $11 billion better off over the decade. They are ignoring the $560 million in last year’s budget and the $837 million in the Skills for the Future package. Our universities, consequently, are in a strong financial position. In 2004-05 we saw our universities’ total revenue increasing by over eight per cent to almost $14 billion and their operating result increasing by 36 per cent to almost $838 million. Total federal government funding increased by over nine per cent and net assets increased by over seven per cent to over $25 billion. I am talking about our universities. Our universities’ cash and investments grew by almost 18 per cent to $7 billion. That is what our universities have, today, in cash and investments. Yet state Labor governments have ripped out more than $150 million in payroll tax—more than they provide in support to the universities. Has the member for Perth ever called on his mates in state Labor governments to abolish the payroll tax that they impose on universities and stop ripping off the universities to the tune of $150 million? They are taking out more from universities than they put in. I want to see the member for Perth stand up and take on state Labor governments and tell them to stop ripping off our universities. In the vocational and technical education area Australian government funding has increased by 88 per cent in real terms since 1996, and this year we are providing over $2.6 billion. There are more than 400,000 apprentices in training today. That is an almost 160 per cent increase since we came to government. Now, 400,000 Australians are getting the opportunity to get a trade so that they can get work and have a career. We have heard the Minister for Vocational and Further Education today say that we are setting up 25 Australian technical colleges with strong industry linkages. These colleges are going to have greater autonomy to drive up standards. We have practical solutions and we are working with business and industry, and parents, students and teachers to drive up standards. If the member for Perth wants to have a debate about funding, let us look at the funding that state Labor governments are providing for their schools. I ask the member for Perth to take these figures into account during his fireside chats when he sits around with his mates from state Labor governments. I think he will be interested to know that in 2006-07 the New South Wales state government increased funding for their schools by 3.9 per cent. The Australian government’s increase in funding for New South Wales schools was 10.7 per cent. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —What are the dollar figures? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Sydney! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —If the states had increased the funding at the rate of the Australian government there would be an extra $492 million in New South Wales government schools. Let us take the state of Victoria. If Victoria had increased funding at the same rate as the Australian government there would be an extra $403 million in Victorian government schools. Let us take Queensland. There was an increase in the 2006-07 Queensland government’s budget of six per cent for Queensland government schools. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —From what to what? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sydney has not got the floor. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Australian government increased the budget 10.9 per cent. That means $218 million more would have been invested in Queensland schools if the Queensland government increased funding at the same rate as the Australian government. It goes on—South Australia is a disgrace. The South Australian government increased funding for its schools—the schools it owns and operates—by 2.1 per cent. The Australian government’s increase in funding for South Australian government schools was 11.3 per cent. If the South Australian government had increased funding at the rate of the Australian government there would be an extra $167 million in South Australian government schools. That is the picture across the country. Overall, the state and territory government increased school funding by 4.9 per cent; the Australian government, in 2006, increased our schools funding by over 11 per cent. If the states had increased at the same rate as the Commonwealth there would be $1.4 billion more in state government schools. I have not heard a peep out of Labor over the state Labor governments’ failure to match the federal government increases in funding state government schools. I think that is a disgrace. We hear squeaks from the member for Perth over reforms and revolutions and then he is pulled back into line by the unions and the state Labor governments. Here is a chance for him to show his true colours. If he wants to talk about reforms and increased funding, let him take up with state Labor governments why they are failing to invest the $1.4 billion that would go into their schools if they were to match the funding increases that the Commonwealth provides for government schools. We have to drive higher standards through our education sector. We do not want to just throw money at issues. That is Labor’s only answer to anything. If they have an issue they throw money at it; they do not look at the root cause, expose the inefficiencies, look at the incompetencies, improve the fundamentals or raise standards by raising the bar. They just throw money. That is typical of Labor—spend, spend, spend! And the shadow minister has strong experience in this regard. He was part of the Labor government that racked up almost $100 billion in Australian government debt by the time the Australian people threw them out of office. That is a debt that has taken 10 years of hard work by the Howard government to pay off. That was Labor’s solution to every problem they had while they were in office. What was the legacy of Labor’s economic vandalism? Under Labor, interest rates peaked at 17 per cent and averaged 12 per cent for homeowners. Unemployment reached 11 per cent. That was almost a million Australians unemployed. When unemployment was almost a million people, we also had the highest number of eligible applicants for university missing out on a place. Under Labor, you could not get a job and you could not get a place at university. If you had a home, you had to pay 17 per cent in interest rates. Under Labor, real wages fell by 1.7 per cent. Now the member for Perth wants to return to his glory days as an economic adviser to Paul Keating and destroy the nation’s finances. This was a shameful period in the record of the Labor government over those 13 years. It hit average Australians hard. It damaged small business. It destroyed the confidence of the nation—and that is what Labor want to go back to. Our focus is on quality. Australia invests billions of dollars in education, yet higher standards will only be achieved through reforms that address the key issues. In schools, those issues are quality of curriculum, quality of teachers and national consistency. That is why we are continuing to press for issues such as greater autonomy for school principals. The member for Perth does not realise that a bill was passed in this House in 2005 in which we gave state governments the responsibility to consult with principals over the hiring of staff. We had to force them to do it. The member for Perth does not realise that this is in legislation. We are saying in this legislation: not only consult school principals over the hiring of staff but also give them autonomy, the power, to hire and fire. The member for Perth knows that this is what school principals want, what parents want, what teachers want and what students need. But he cannot deliver on it because federal Labor is captive to the unions and the unions are going to withhold campaign funding if he steps out of line. It is like bungee jumping for the member for Perth. Down he goes—we have reforms and revolutions—and then he is back up again as soon as the unions pull on the bungee rope. He will not be able to deliver. We have to focus on the quality of teachers. They are a precious national resource. After parents, teachers are the single most important factor in a child’s educational outcomes. Teachers should be recognised and rewarded on merit like other professionals. I am working with state governments to ensure that we can reward teachers through a performance element in their salary packages that focuses particularly on teachers in disadvantaged areas who are making a significant difference to their students’ achievements. Teachers also need greater support in professional development. As I said in question time today, there also has to be greater accountability to parents at the individual school level. The states have a wealth of data about individual schools, yet they are keeping it secret. They are not telling parents, they are not telling teachers and they are not telling schools. The reason they do it is that it would expose the truth that not all teachers are equal and not all schools are equal. There are vast variations in how state schools are being funded. This is not good enough. The community has a right to know how individual schools are performing and whether their school is receiving a fair share of funding. We are going to ensure that the reporting requirements that are already in legislation are expanded so that the parents, the public and the community get a real idea, a real picture, of what is going on in our schools. I am regularly approached by employers who complain about young people lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills. We are going to focus on that. We are going to ensure that young Australians reach the highest standards that they can in literacy and numeracy. Currently, they are being assessed only at a minimum standard, below which a child would fail. They are tested only at a minimum standard. We are going to undertake national assessments across the board to ensure that young people reach higher standards. We believe in choice for young people. We believe that they should have choice in the school they attend, but that choice is being denied to them by Labor. Australian families will not and cannot trust Labor to deliver on education, as they are beholden to the unions. (Time expired) 8 15:49:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —Day by day, the evidence of the Howard government’s neglect of Australia’s education and training system piles up. Yesterday, as the Minister for Education, Science and Training tossed out some more thought-bubbles at the National Press Club, down the road at the Australian National University mathematicians and scientists were meeting to consider the report entitled Mathematics and statistics: critical skills for Australia’s future. This report, released in December, analyses the crisis in maths and science teaching in our schools and universities and concludes that the number of mathematics and statistics students and lecturers at Australia’s universities is critically low. Further evidence of the crisis in maths and science appeared in the report by the Australian Academy of Science, also in December last year, which found that maths departments in Australia’s top eight universities had lost almost a third of their permanent academics. Perhaps that explains in part the reason for this government’s apparent difficulty with numbers. When you look at the Howard government’s performance, you would have to say that it does not have a good grasp of figures and what they mean. For example, here is a figure: 18. That is Australia’s ranking in the OECD’s measure of investment in education, published in the OECD Education Outlook 2006. Australia’s overall investment in education as a share of GDP is 5.8 per cent, which puts us behind 17 other OECD economies—in other words, behind 17 of the world’s leading economies, including many of our major competitors. Here is another scary figure from the OECD research: Australia is the one and only country since 1995 to cut its public investment in tertiary education. In that time, John Howard has presided over a seven per cent reduction in investment in tertiary education, starting with a cut of $1.8 billion in the government’s first budget in 1996. That cut of seven per cent compares with an average increase of 48 per cent in spending by other OECD countries. Minus seven compared with 48 adds up to monumental neglect by this government. At the other end of the spectrum is a huge number: 270,000. That is the estimate of the Australian Industry Group, among others, of the additional skilled workers this country will need over the next 10 years. In the meantime, as we know, 300,000 people have been turned away from TAFE colleges around the country since 1998, thanks to an early Howard government decision to reduce funding to this vital area. VET funding is lower in real terms now than it was in Labor’s last year in office in 1996. I have one more figure: 11 years. That is how long the Howard government has been in office. That is how long this government has been running our education system. Eleven years is a long time by anyone’s calculation, but apparently it is not for John Howard and his education minister, because even though they have had 11 years of running the education system, according to them, any failings or deficiencies are someone else’s fault. That is a hard argument to sustain after 11 years of running the show, and we think that 11 years is more than long enough for the Prime Minister to be judged on his record in education. On this side of the House, Labor are more than ready to be judged on what we have to offer in this area of policy that is so vital to our nation’s prosperity, its cohesion and the opportunities that it offers to each and every Australian. The coming battle over our competing ideas for education is about much more than the question of funding, as important as that is. It is also about the fundamental difference between the conservatives’ view of education as an individual commodity and Labor’s view of education as an essential pillar supporting the economy and building our society. The Howard government’s failure to invest in education betrays its lack of commitment to education as a key component of equity and cohesion in our society. It also demonstrates its failure to understand the role of education in driving the improvements in productivity that we need to maintain our global competitiveness and uphold our standard of living. The legacy of the Howard government in this area is absolutely damning. And all the more so when one considers that it inherited the dividends of the Hawke and Keating reforms. The Howard government has been able to coast along on the back of the hard work of those Labor governments in restructuring the Australian economy and, of course, the resources boom that has filled its coffers at regular intervals. This has been exactly the time when we should have been setting ourselves up for the future, locking in our prosperity and preparing for any challenges that might be around the corner. Resources booms do not last forever. Instead of riding the boom and squandering the dividends, as this government has done for the last 11 years, we should have been making the investments that need to be made to improve our skill base and our productivity. How do we do that? We do it by investing in people—in their education, in their training and in their skills. But, under John Howard, at the same time as investment in education and training has fallen, productivity in Australia has been going backwards. Labour productivity growth fell from an average annual 3.2 per cent to 2.2 per cent in the latest five-year period, compared with the previous five-year period. That is what you get when you take your eye off the ball. That is what you get when you fail to invest in education and training, and that is what you get when you fail to invest in people—in the human capital that is universally recognised as the key to economic prosperity and social cohesion. The Howard government has no excuse for its failure to invest in education. There is no excuse for its failures, but I can suggest a few of the reasons: incompetence, short-sightedness and, of course, blind adherence to ideology and political self-interest. For a Labor member—and I know that I speak for all of my colleagues here today—that is arguably the greatest crime of this Howard government: the fact that it never sees education as anything more than just another political plaything. At least for the Labor Party, education is seen as a crucial portfolio, one that brings with it an enormous responsibility to develop policies to ensure that our education system gives everyone the opportunity to reach their full potential. Education creates opportunities for individuals and secures our future as a nation. So the education portfolio can be seen and should be seen as an opportunity to change lives and to build the nation. But, sadly, like every other portfolio in this government, education is seen as nothing more than another opportunity for grandstanding and cheap political point-scoring. My colleagues and I all know the usual targets from this government. I am sure we could all recite them, because we hear them in question time every day. First, there are the states. They are usually to blame for just about anything the government finds inconvenient. Then there are the education unions and, the cheapest shot of them all, teachers—those professional and dedicated people who do no more to aggravate the government than just get out there in schools every day and teach our kids. The Minister for Education, Science and Training might capture the odd headline with her thought-bubbles and attacks on the states, but 11 long years of this blame shifting and grandstanding in the education sector has left Australia dangerously ill equipped to seize the opportunities and to meet the challenges of the future. As the Leader of the Opposition identified in the directions paper released a few weeks ago, those challenges demand a substantial and sustained increase in the quantity of our investment and the quality of our education. That is why a Labor government will deliver a revolution in education in this country. This revolution calls for increased investment throughout the education sector—from early childhood, through our schools and through to vocational education, universities and research institutions. We are prepared to make that investment, and we have already shown our preparedness to do that with our plan to give every four-year-old the opportunity to get the best possible start to their education through access to play based learning delivered by qualified early childhood teachers in those crucial years before they begin formal schooling. That is just the first step in achieving the education revolution that this country needs and that a Labor government will deliver. It will be an education revolution to achieve our goal of making Australia the most educated country, the most skilled economy and the best-trained workforce in the world. That is what we want for this country, and the Howard government is to be condemned for settling for anything less. It is to be condemned for 11 years of inaction and 11 years of playing politics with education. A Labor government will take the politics out of education and put the equity and the quality back in— (Time expired) 8 15:59:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —Before turning to the issue of education, I would like to address the other aspect of today’s MPI, and that is the issue of Australia’s economic and social prosperity—or threats to our prosperity. I have to say that Labor’s timing is impeccable. On the day that it is announced that we have the lowest unemployment in 31 years, we have a motion from the opposition about Australia’s prosperity. One of the key determinants of a country’s prosperity is the economy’s capacity to generate jobs and to provide employment opportunities for its workforce, particularly for its young people. Today we have an unemployment figure of 4.5 per cent. What was it when Labor left office? It was 8.2 per cent. And what was it throughout Labor’s 13 hard years? It was an average of more than eight per cent. Compared with an average of eight per cent for 13 years under Labor, we now have unemployment at 4.5 per cent—the lowest level in 31 years. As a reflection of this prosperity in my own electorate, unemployment in the Blue Mountains has fallen from 6.4 per cent to 3.7 per cent over the past 12 years. Indeed, in the new addition to my electorate under the recent redistribution, the Bathurst area, unemployment has fallen from 6.1 per cent to 3.9 per cent. As a mark of this country’s prosperity and the success of this government’s policies, we have seen over two million jobs created in the past 11 years, and nearly 60 per cent of those are full-time jobs. We are generating jobs and we are generating opportunities for young people to benefit and to participate in this country’s prosperity. The best chance of a share of this nation’s prosperity is the opportunity to have a job and to earn an income. Under this government, there are two million more people working than there were when Labor was thrown out of office, and these people are earning higher incomes. Over the past 11 years, we have seen an increase of 17.9 per cent in real wages compared with Labor’s miserable effort. Over the 13 years of the previous Labor government, wages barely managed to increase at all, with a rise in real wages of less than one per cent. Under the 13 years of Labor government—the so-called protectors of the low-income earners—minimum real wages actually fell. We now have not only more people working than we had under Labor; we also have higher wages—an average of 18 per cent higher—than we had under Labor. As well as the evidence of prosperity in the jobs market, I would make two other points. Not only do we have more people working and earning higher incomes, but people who are in business and people who are trying to buy their own homes are benefiting from the prosperity and from far lower interest rates. People are having to spend far less of their profits, far less of their companies’ revenues and far less of their incomes than in battling the 17 per cent interest rates that we had under Labor—or, indeed, the 12.75 per cent that we averaged throughout Labor’s 13 years. Before I turn to the issue of education, I make the point that the evidence is this: in 1995, Australia was placed No. 13 in the OECD in terms of living standards. We are now No. 8. We have moved up from No. 13 to No. 8 in the world’s league of living standards and prosperity because of the management of this government. The opposition’s motion talks about the threats to our economic prosperity. I can enunciate some threats to our prosperity. How about the threat of a return to Labor’s economic mismanagement? How about the threat of budget deficits, of higher government debt, of higher interest rates and of higher unemployment? How about what those things would do to our prosperity? How about the threat of the return to union domination and sectoral interests, which would sap and undermine motivation and incentive in this country? How about the threat of the return to Labor’s outdated system of workplace relations, which would reduce flexibility, productivity, job generation and wages growth? I am happy to compare this government’s record on prosperity and economic growth with the dismal performance of the other side any time, but I will now turn to the issue of education. Rather than the misleading assertions and empty rhetoric—and, sadly, at times, the sheer deceptive statements of the other side—this government’s record is clear. We have been committed to increased funding and higher standards, and we have been delivering on both: more funding and higher standards in education. We heard from the opposition that 5.8 per cent of this country’s GDP is spent on education. Yes, it is 5.8 per cent, but what the two speakers on the other side failed to mention is that, in the last year of the Labor government, it was only 5.5 per cent. So the fact is that this government is committing a higher percentage of GDP—and a higher percentage of a much higher GDP, because of the strong growth that we have had for the past 11 years—than we had under Labor. We have increased funding for education from 5.5 per cent of GDP to 5.8 per cent of GDP. Let us look at the three sectors. First of all, let us look at the schools sector—that fundamental sector where our young people get their start in life in terms of education. In this quadrennium, a record $33 billion in Australian government funding will go to our schools—a massive rise of 158 per cent, from $3.6 billion in 1996 to $9.3 billion this year. As the minister pointed out, the Australian government is increasing funding for state public schools at a much faster rate than the state governments, which have prime responsibility for state schools. Yes, there is a shortage of funding for state public schools and, yes, there is a lot that needs to be done in state public schools, but the governments that have the prime responsibility for those schools are failing to adequately fund those schools—despite the increased direct funding of the Australian government, despite the increased revenue to the state governments because of the GST bonanza, and despite the benefits of the booming economy we have had for the past 11 years. State Labor governments are failing to adequately fund their state schools. The federal government, as usual, is called upon to make up the difference, to carry the load, and that is exactly what we are doing. But there has not only been increased funding; there have been serious efforts by this government to raise standards, despite the determined opposition of teachers’ unions and state Labor governments and the acquiescence of the federal opposition. If federal Labor really cared, they would be putting pressure on the state Labor governments to do something about this. In 1996, the evidence showed that 27 per cent of our year 3 students and 29 per cent of our year 5 students failed to meet adequate standards on literacy and numeracy. This government has been determined to try to raise standards throughout our schools by introducing plain English report cards for parents so that there is greater transparency and so parents can see, devoid of all the educational jargon, exactly how their children are performing in schools; by our efforts to introduce national standards of testing for literacy, which we started in 1999 in years 3, 5 and 7 and this year intend to introduce in year 9; by our efforts to increase the availability of information to parents and the public so that they know what is going on; and by our efforts to raise teacher standards. The vast majority of the teachers throughout our country are committed, dedicated professionals, but they are not being adequately supported or encouraged by state governments. They are not being paid enough. If we had higher salaries for teachers, we would attract more people into teaching. And we ought to be rewarding those outstanding teachers who are making extra efforts. Instead of being hamstrung or handcuffed by the one-size-fits-all approach of the teachers’ unions, who refuse to acknowledge and reward excellence, those outstanding teachers, who are going the extra mile to do the extra work, ought to be rewarded. In terms of boys’ education, there are also the initiatives of this government to address the disadvantage of boys. There is so much I could speak on—I have pages full of notes—and that I would like to be able to speak on. This government is delivering in school education, in university education and in technical and vocational education. We are delivering in terms of increased funding and we are delivering in terms of higher standards. But we are being obstructed at every turn by the state Labor governments, by the acquiescence of the federal opposition and the determination of the state teachers’ unions to pull the strings of the state education authorities. We are delivering in education, we are delivering on economic growth and we are delivering on prosperity for the Australian community. The only threat to all that is a return to the mismanagement of the Labor opposition. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 8 Bills R2606 8 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 8 Dr STONE (Murray —Minister for Workforce Participation) 16:10:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8 Bills R2693 8 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 8 Dr STONE (Murray —Minister for Workforce Participation) 16:11:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8 Bills R2673 Cognate bills: 8 Bills R2674 8 Bills R2687 8 Bills R2682 8 Bills R2685 8 Bills R2683 8 Bills R2684 8 Debate resumed. 8 16:12:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I would, firstly, like to concentrate on a statement made by the member for Dobell, the previous speaker in the debate on the Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and related bills. I believe the member for Dobell was very loose with the truth when he said that the shadow minister for health does not support the 30 per cent rebate. I refer the House to the statement the shadow minister for health made in this debate, where she said: Labor has supported the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance at the last two elections and will support it again. Labor accepts and understands that many Australians have come to rely on this support and will not take it away. I think that the member for Dobell stands condemned for being so loose with the truth. I would also like to bring to the attention of the House that the same speaker, the member for Dobell, and the Minister for Health and Ageing in question time today really substantiated comments about this being a blame game and really showed that the government fail to take responsibility for any problems within the health system or any problems relating to private health and blame the state government or whoever it takes their fancy to blame for any problems that exist. During my contribution to this debate, I shall be referring to some of the issues that were raised. A considerable part of the legislation before us today was alluded to or committed to in the budget in the middle of last year. The broader care component of this legislation was outlined in the budget and the out-of-hospital care component of this legislation was part of the budget. During the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing inquiry, we took evidence from the Private Health Insurance Association. The Private Health Insurance Association highlighted the need for a change to the legislation that would allow them to provide services such as chemotherapy, dialysis and mental health treatment outside of hospitals—that is, out-of-hospital care. This legislation allows that to happen. They also argued strongly to be allowed to fund wellness programs such as the Quit program—quitting smoking—weight loss programs and other programs that they believe would contribute to the overall long-term improvement in health care of their members. I support the provision of these services. I support the provision of the broader care program that is highlighted in this legislation, but, in doing so, I have to raise some concerns. Firstly, the private health insurance industry has said that the price of private health insurance premiums will not increase. There has been only one way that private health insurance premiums have gone—that is, up. They have gone up at a faster rate than the CPI. When the lifetime private health coverage and other initiatives of this government—the 30 per cent rebate—were introduced, we were told that this would see that private health insurance premiums would go down, but that has not been the case, and I am concerned that, yet again, we will find ourselves in the same situation. Another issue is equity. A two-tiered system will develop because of this. People in private health will be able to enjoy this out-of-hospital care—and I think that is excellent—but when the government are negotiating Commonwealth healthcare agreements they should be very mindful of the fact that it should also benefit public patients, and the agreements should look at funding the same services for people who utilise the public system. Under this government, we have had a definite move to a two-tiered system. I argue strongly that this is the government’s chance to demonstrate to the Australian people that it is prepared to ensure that, no matter whether they have private health insurance or whether they are a public patient in a hospital, people are able to access the same level of care. They should not be treated as second-class citizens. That is the challenge for the government. It has to ensure that all Australians get the same care that will be available to people with private health insurance. The other issue that concerns me—and I note that the AMA has raised this concern—is that this could be a step towards managed care. I asked the private health insurance industry representatives when they gave evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing whether that was the case. I am not convinced that we will not end up with managed care. I really believe that decisions about the best treatment for a patient should not be made by a health insurance company but by the treating doctor. My word of caution is that, whatever happens, we should ensure that it is the doctor who makes the decision about the best kind of treatment for a person. The downside of this is that a very large amount of money—$55 million—has been allocated by the government to advertise these changes. I do not think that $55 million of health money being spent on advertising is an effective use of public funds, and I am sure that the people I represent in this parliament would like to see that money go towards the direct delivery of health services. I think the government really needs to revisit that. I would like to now move to the changes to Lifetime Health Cover. Currently, if a person takes out health insurance after they reach the age of 30, the amount of their premium increases by two per cent for every year they are over the age of 30. This legislation will allow a person who has been a member of a private health fund for 10 years to be no longer subject to that loading. I think that is a positive move and, I might add, I referred a submission from a constituent in the Shortland electorate to the health and ageing committee that recommended that that should be the case. The person had withdrawn from private health insurance when they lost their job, and they were now more financial. They would have liked to have rejoined but could see that they would get no reward for being a member over a long period of time. So that move is a positive initiative. The other initiative that I think is quite positive in this legislation is that private health insurance funds provide information on standard products. That will enable people to be aware of the health insurance product they are buying and be able to compare it with the products being offered by other funds. They are good changes. I want to spend the remainder of my contribution to this debate highlighting some of the issues relating to private health insurance and some of the aspects in this legislation that were raised in The blame game, the report on the committee’s inquiry into health funding in Australia. One of the concerns that was raised in relation to the broad cover that we are talking about—it is included in this legislation; I refer the House to paragraph 8.44—was the potential for the quality of care to be compromised if the care is moved outside the hospital. I do not think the quality of care that people will receive has been ensured in this legislation. I note that the shadow minister included it in her amendments but I think it is one issue that the government needs to address and look at very carefully. If patients are receiving substandard care outside hospital and proper controls are not in place then it is only those people who have health insurance that will be disadvantaged by the changes that are included in this legislation. There are two issues that I am very disappointed that the government has not addressed in this report. One of those is the issue of informed consent. That was one of the issues that was raised a number of times with the committee—I refer you to 8.62 in the report, which highlights a contribution from the Department of Health and Ageing. It said that 44 per cent of in-hospital episodes in private hospitals for patients covered by private health insurance involved a gap and 21 per cent of in-hospital episodes involved a gap and a lack of informed consent. I think that is very important. If a person knows they have to pay a gap they can budget for it, but if they pay a gap and they do not know they are going to incur a debt it can create extreme financial pressure for them. I have a submission that was given to the committee. It is from a constituent in the Shortland electorate, and this constituent, Duncan Brown—I know he will not mind me mentioning his name; he is in the Hansard and the records of the committee—raised his own particular case with the committee. He had a serious heart condition and chose to have private health insurance. He knew he would incur a gap. He was a patient in St Vincent’s Private Hospital in Sydney. He had state-of-the-art surgery and was very pleased with it. He thought he would incur a debt of around $5,000. When he received his account the debt was $6,420 but he withdrew the extra money from his pension savings. Some months later he received a further bill for $1,800—I think that was the amount—from the anaesthetist and he ended up with a gap all up of $8,264.35. So he incurred a much greater cost—$3,264 more than he had budgeted for. This was quite a problem for him. When the health ombudsman gave evidence to the committee he also highlighted the issue of informed financial consent. He referred to a case where a patient believed that they would have a gap of $250. They ended up with the $250 gap but received another bill from the anaesthetist that led to them incurring a significant gap payment that they had not been aware of. Recommendation 22 of the report The blame game is that private health insurance legislation be amended with a single coordinating doctor to get around the issue of informed financial consent. It is very important that people are aware of the debt they will incur when they have an episode in hospital. Whilst the government has addressed one issue that was supported by the committee, broader health cover, it has ignored the issue of informed financial consent—an issue, I might add, that members on both sides of this House are constantly contacted by their constituents about. I feel that it is very important that the government looks to that matter and deals with it. The other issue I quickly want to touch on was one raised by the ombudsman and highlighted in the report—the issue of fund transfer. There was some concern expressed to the committee that doctors recommend to patients that they transfer from one fund to another. The ombudsman points out that careful consideration needs to be given to the ethical and legal implications of endorsement by a doctor of a commercial product or services. The AMA advises against public endorsement and it also advises doctors against public endorsement of advertisements relating to health matters. Once again, there was a recommendation in the report that the government address that. It has not been included in this legislation. I think the legislation before us is much weaker because it has not been included. The government would have been much better putting its mind towards developing some changes and amendments to the legislation to deal with that. It would have been much more productive for the Australian population if they had legislation that was going to deliver them informed financial consent rather than the government investing $55 million of health care money on an advertising campaign. I do not think that is in the interests of the Australian people; I think Australians would benefit more by the government amending this legislation to include those matters that I have raised before the House today. I realise that the debate is about to end—it probably has ended. 8 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 8 8 16:30:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —This week the Prime Minister either forgot, misunderstood or did not hear correctly. But this is not a question of his memory, understanding or hearing. John Howard is a clever politician, but this week we saw him make mistakes that he would not have made two years ago. It is not his age; it is the age of his ideas. When it comes to the challenges of a new century, this is a Prime Minister who is simply not up to the task. His ideas have led to inaction on climate change over the last 11 years. What we saw this week was an attempt by the Prime Minister to define the debate as if you can have a solution to the water crisis without having a solution to climate change. You cannot. There is a direct link between our dwindling water supply and climate change. We need to address both if we are going to succeed. The Prime Minister also attempted to say this week that Labor were not being constructive in our approach to the discussion that is taking place between the Commonwealth and the states as we speak. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister conceded that he had refused to give the Leader of the Opposition or me a briefing on the details of the plan which he announced on 25 January. It is very clear that more effort went into the writing of a political speech than into the development of fully costed proposals with time lines and management plans. You do not only have to listen to the opposition on this. Today a nine-page document has been released by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission raising tens of problems with the issues. It raises not only the $900 million funding shortfall—a shortfall which I must say the statement from Wendy Craik, the chief executive, does not address—but a number of other issues. It raises the issue of land management and its relation to water. It raises the issue of assets and what will occur. It raises the ongoing issue of what will happen to the funding of existing programs, such as the Living Murray initiative. When the Leader of the Opposition asked about that today he was dismissed, and the Prime Minister arrogantly ignored his constitutional responsibilities and said that he would tell the premiers and would not be accountable to this parliament. That is not surprising, because it is quite clear, when you look at the time lines, that the detail simply is not there. We asked the Treasurer on Tuesday: could he confirm that the Department of the Environment and Water Resources and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry were advised on 8 January of the intention to spend $10 billion and whether that was 10 days before Treasury was advised of the proposal and 12 days before the Department of Finance and Administration was advised. The Treasurer effectively confirmed that with his answer. It was also confirmed by the fact that on the last sitting day of last year, on Thursday, 7 December, the government introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Amendment Bill 2006. There was quite clearly no intention to make a major change to the arrangements that were in place. Indeed, that bill was due for debate in this House today but was of course deferred, just as the Senate committee hearing which was scheduled to be held tomorrow has been deferred. So, as of December and early January, when those timetables were set, it was not envisaged that the Prime Minister’s speech of 25 January would occur. We have been positive and constructive about this, but we have not had answers from members such as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We asked him today about the issue of compulsory acquisition. He has a very different position from the Minister for Environment and Water Resources—a minister who I note was benched today. On the day of the big water announcement he did not get to say a word in parliament. The water minister who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing has been benched by his own government. Water is too important for there not to be a detailed plan. I urge the Prime Minister to engage with the opposition as well as with the premiers in the interests of solving our national water crisis. It does require national leadership. (Time expired) 8 8 16:35:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —As the member for Barker I represent all of the Murray River in South Australia, the lower lakes of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert and of course all of the world-renowned Coorong. The federal Labor Party has been absolutely silent on the state Labor Premier’s plan to put a weir at Wellington. What is the view of the member for Grayndler? What is the view of the Leader of the Opposition? What is the view of the opposition spokesman for the environment, the member for Kingsford Smith, on the proposed Wellington weir? In all my life I have never come across such an ill-conceived proposal. Millions of taxpayers’ dollars have already been wasted on investigating this stupid proposal. The idea came from a naive viewpoint that if we close Lake Alexandrina off from the Murray River we can save over 1,000 gigalitres of water from evaporation and it can stay in the Murray River instead. That is a very naive view. What we will end up with instead is a stagnant pool of water between the proposed weir and Lock 1. It is common knowledge that, if you block off a river, when the water meets that block or weir it will deposit its silt and salt, which gradually extend backwards up the river. Presently, salt and silt are moved around by the natural movement of water, mainly from the prevailing winds. Because Lake Alexandrina is a large, shallow lake, winds push the water back up the river for 50 kilometres and possibly further, thereby replenishing the lower lakes and the lower Murray River. For example, when the winds are blowing, the water level at Mannum, some 50 kilometres north of the lake, will rise up to a metre. That movement of water is essential for the life of the lakes and of course the fish and insect life therein. The doublespeak from the Premier of South Australia and Minister Maywald suggested that the weir would only be temporary. But at least 80 per cent of that 2.6 kilometre weir would be permanent. Once the weir material is in the lake, it will be virtually impossible to take it out again. I have actually visited the site of the proposed weir on both sides of the lake. If anyone here chose to take the time to go and visit it, they would see the complete insanity of the idea of putting a weir at Wellington. If Mike Rann wants to kill Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert then the Wellington weir will do it. If Mike Rann wants to kill the Coorong then the Wellington weir will do it. It seems to me that the Premier of South Australia just does not understand the Murray and those water issues. It has been interesting to see the Premier’s crazy opposition to national control of the Murray-Darling Basin become more fragile every day. That is set against the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in this parliament has actually given very strong support for national control. First of all, Mike Rann said that we should have an independent body free of politicians. In other words, he was suggesting that a further $10 billion of taxpayers’ money should be controlled by an unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats. If we had that sort of set-up, who would we go to with problems? We could not go to the Prime Minister because he would not have any power over an independent body. We could not go to the Premier of South Australia because the Premier would have no power over or accountability for the Murray-Darling Basin. The Premier’s plan was completely unworkable. I see today that he has back-pedalled and is now saying that this independent body would be answerable to a federal minister. What a backflip. But in the meantime he wants us fund his desalination plant. That plant is not for Adelaide’s water supply—something which he has rejected—but for Roxby Downs. My two messages are: firstly, that the sooner we take water management in the Murray-Darling Basin away from Mike Rann the better and, secondly, do not build a weir at Wellington. That weir will not only not achieve water for Adelaide but also kill the Murray, the lower lakes and the Coorong. (Time expired) 8 8 16:40:00 Quick, Harry, MP AV5 Franklin ALP 0 0 Mr QUICK —Today I want to raise the issue of Cerebral Palsy Tasmania and its contract to operate the tip shop at Margate. Of all the layers of administration which interact with constituents, local government is closer and more responsive than state or federal jurisdictions. Local government delivers services to residents within their immediate area, having regard to access, equity and need. Service delivery to all regardless of gender, ability, race or religion is the mandate. Sometimes it seems our local governments lose their focus and stray from their direction—and, in so doing, cause an immense disruption to segments of the community. In this tale Kingborough Council has, through a tender process that is overtly squeaky clean, diverted funds from a not-for-profit group, Cerebral Palsy Tasmania, to the private enterprise Mornington Park, operated by Wesley Hazell. Why would Kingborough Council choose to divert funds in this way—deciding through a tender process that does not include assessment of community benefit, a consideration of social and moral issues, and a consideration of what would happen to the people assisted by Cerebral Palsy Tasmania if their major source of funding were to disappear? We may never know. Kingborough Council may argue that the funding of Cerebral Palsy Tasmania is not their concern—and in strict terms it is not—but where would we be if councils nationwide took that attitude? Kingborough Council have been silent on their deliberations except to say that occupational health and safety issues were at the heart of their decision. I have also heard that levels of recycling have to increase and that the new contractor will be able to do it better. On that point, surely it rested with the council to work with Cerebral Palsy Tasmania to see how they could do it better. Council is well aware of the date in March 2007 when health and safety accreditation was to be awarded to Cerebral Palsy Tasmania. Cerebral Palsy Tasmania kept the council informed of their progression towards this quality assessment. Such assessment does not happen overnight. We are aware that Cerebral Palsy Tasmania has not been funded by taxpayers for quite some time. The organisation has stood on its own. It has employed a CEO, administration staff and 15 staff at the tip shop. Cerebral Palsy Tasmania has provided services to the cerebral palsy community without being a drain on the community. That is about to change. Cerebral Palsy Tasmania want their people with disabilities to continue doing what they have always done. They are now looking for premises near the tip in Margate to create a new recycling centre for Kingborough. They want all people who use the Kingborough tip to recycle their material at the cerebral palsy centre once it has been established. I want everyone to be exceedingly clear about the motive for this action: Cerebral Palsy Tasmania have been self-funding for years and they want to continue to be self-funding. Establishing an alternative recycling centre gives residents a choice: support cerebral palsy or Mornington park. I would say: support Cerebral Palsy Tasmania. They want your recyclables, and I say they deserve your support. Here was a partnership that benefited our society and contributed to the overall balance of our community by funding Cerebral Palsy Tasmania’s activities. Kingborough Council have rent that partnership asunder. We know there are many groups of disadvantaged people in our society, and we are always being asked to put our hand out and contribute to raffles, quiz nights and golf days, and so it goes on. Kingborough Council have chosen to redistribute the wealth of their recycling operation from the community to private enterprise. Cerebral Palsy Tasmania will now join the ranks of other organisations putting their hands out to the public and government. There is a lot of money at stake in this industry. Private enterprise have had their eyes on the Kingborough location for a few years. They are keenly interested because of the large amount of money generated. After all, it kept Cerebral Palsy Tasmania operating for many years. How will Cerebral Palsy Tasmania make up any shortfall in their funds? Will the state or federal governments be able to provide bridging funding, plots of land, vacant buildings and the like to keep them going? There is a real risk that Cerebral Palsy Tasmania may fold. If they do fold, it will be a direct result of the Kingborough Council’s decision. If Cerebral Palsy Tasmania do fold, who will be there to provide the services to those people with cerebral palsy that Cerebral Palsy Tasmania provide so remarkably well? 8 8 16:45:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —I am moved to rise today on behalf of the residents who live around the Princes Freeway in Berwick, Beaconsfield and Narre Warren North in my electorate of La Trobe. The Princes Freeway is an arterial that links Melbourne with one of the fastest growing growth corridors in Australia. The area’s key infrastructure, particularly its roads, are straining to bursting point under the burden of increased population. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Princes Freeway, which over the past decade has seen vast increases in traffic flows and is now effectively a rural highway operating as a suburban freeway. Since 2002 there has been a 40 per cent increase in traffic flow, which has brought with it greater and greater traffic noise. While ordinarily residents are insulated from freeways by either distance or noise barriers and protective mounding, residents in Berwick, Narre Warren North and Beaconsfield are separated from the Princes Freeway by a cyclone fence. Mr Speaker, you and I would be aware that a cyclone fence does not make a good sound barrier—but the Bracks government believes it does. Consequently, residents have to endure a 24-hour cacophony of motorbikes, cars, vans and trucks, and have to put up with vibrations so strong that their homes shake. Despite this dire state of affairs, the Bracks Labor government refuses to act. As long as six years ago, VicRoads acknowledged the need for noise barriers and the Princes Freeway was put on a waiting list. Residents, sadly, are still waiting. I received a letter from the former Victorian transport minister Peter Batchelor dated 7 October 2006, which said that noise barriers ‘will be considered by the government for possible future funding’. That is not good enough. This is the same meaningless drivel that the state government has been dishing out to residents for the past five years. This is not something the Victorian government can simply shirk and leave to the federal government. Funding for these noise barriers is the responsibility of the Victorian government. The federal government cannot maintain state roads any more than a state government can collect garbage for councils. Mr Bracks ought to spare a thought for the Ciavarella family, who live near the freeway in Berwick. On the stifling summer evenings, the Ciavarellas are not able to open their windows because the noise drowns out the television. When it is raining or when the freeway is wet the noise gets louder still. In the family’s backyard, yelling is the only means of communication. Mr Bracks ought to also spare a thought for the Flemings of Beaconsfield. The conditions there are so bad that they have prompted Ray Fleming to form the Beaconsfield in Casey Residents Action Group, BiCRAG. Over the past five years Ray has done a great job campaigning on behalf of Beaconsfield residents. I should also say that Ray was heavily involved in the Beaconsfield Progress Association and lobbied heavily for the Bryn Mawr Bridge. I again remind the residents of Beaconsfield that the Labor state government—and this was their responsibility—walked away from it and the Howard government picked up the tab. The bridge should be constructed shortly at a cost of $10 million. The Flemings tell me that the noise in Beaconsfield is so loud that residents have been forced to wear earplugs to bed; homes are becoming caked in pollution; and truck drivers can see right into backyards—some have taken to blowing their horns at people hanging out their washing. What type of privacy is that? What is also of great concern is that some residents, and especially students from the nearby schools, have taken to crossing the Princes Freeway on foot as a shortcut, climbing through holes cut in the fence and dodging the traffic. Incredibly, this ever-increasing level of noise has fallen on the deaf ears of the Bracks government. All the local state members have previously delivered is empty promises. We now have a new state member for Narre Warren South, Judith Graley. Judith assures me that she is working with her new minister, Tim Pallas, and I have no reason to doubt her. I am very keen to work with her to deliver this project for the residents. I call on the Bracks government to commit to the installation of noise barriers on the Princes Freeway once and for all and to restore the quality of life of residents who have been treated like second-class citizens for too long. Enough is enough. This week I also met with Jim Lloyd, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, and will be seeking a cooperative approach with the state government to get this project formed, get it moving and deliver the best outcome for local residents. (Time expired) 8 8 16:50:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —This year my office has been inundated by victims of the Howard government’s extreme changes to the Welfare to Work legislation. Changes by this government have been accompanied by a similar change in the level of compassion directed towards unemployed Australians, particularly those 55 years and over. This change has been from Job Network providers and Centrelink. I thought that, to explain and demonstrate this to the House, I would touch on the stories of some of my constituents who have been to see me. The first lady is 55 years of age. She works part time. She is trying very hard to find a job. She has experienced enormous problems with Centrelink, which have been sorted out, and she is quite happy now with her relationship with Centrelink. But, unfortunately, her real problems relate to the Job Network. She received a letter from her Job Network provider—Salvation Army Employment Plus, I think—on 11 December advising her that she had an appointment. She rang them and said, ‘Look, I can’t go on that day because I am actually working.’ They said, ‘That’s not a good enough reason for not attending an interview.’ They said that if she did not go to this interview her benefits could be affected—in other words: ‘Don’t go to work; come to the Job Network provider or else we are going to put a breach notice on you.’ This is a 55-year-old woman who is keen to work, is highly articulate, has a job, and has been told that she will be breached if she does not come in for an interview. After a bit of negotiation, she finally arranged to not attend that interview. Another interview was arranged for her. This time it was on 28 December and—guess what?—she was working again. She was very pleased to have shift work because the Christmas retail period is when shifts are available. She received a text message about an appointment on 28 December. But she had not even received a letter from the Job Network provider. She rang them and, once again, received the same sorts of threats. Eventually, she was told that all she had to do was come along for one appointment and then they would leave her alone. She was very upset about this. She finally negotiated the day when she would go along. She spoke to the manager of this particular Job Network provider. The Job Network provider said that she had been ringing her. This was not true because my constituent was able to check her phone and she had no phone calls from people of whom she was unaware. However, the date was arranged on which she was to go and talk to an employment officer there. When she went in, neither the manager, who had agreed to speak to her, nor the case manager, who had been harassing her, were available. Instead, they just sent a junior for her to register with this Job Network provider and then they were going to leave her alone. She believes it is all about money for the Job Network provider; it is not about money for her. She has been treated very harshly by a system that is supposed to help her find work. She is in the process of finding a job for herself. She is working part time, and she feels that this system is actually working against her interests. I think the government needs to revisit this matter and put in place a system that benefits those people it is trying to help. Another lady came to see me. She is 60 years of age and doing volunteer work for 15 hours a week. She is registered with Centrelink, receiving Newstart, registered with a Job Network provider and being harassed by both the Job Network provider and the requirement of Centrelink to go out there and find work. She is not that well. She has enormous obligations caring for an aged mother, and she is having the same sorts of pressures placed on her as the lady I previously spoke about. This is a bad system. It is a system that works against people who should be looking towards government for assistance. I implore the Howard government to revisit this legislation and make it workable. (Time expired) 8 8 16:55:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I would like to inform the House of some very positive developments in my electorate of Cook. I have previously spoken in this place about the On the Same Wave program, funded by the Australian government and in partnership with the Sutherland Shire Council and Surf Life Saving New South Wales. On the Same Wave has achieved great progress in building cultural harmony in the community and beach related activities, particularly in the Cronulla area. In the very early stages of On the Same Wave, focus groups were conducted to get a sense of how the Lebanese community and other culturally diverse communities in Sydney felt about surf-lifesaving following the events of December 2005 in Cronulla. Despite 98 per cent of people saying at the beginning of these focus groups that they would not consider being lifesavers, 60 per cent indicated that they would be interested to learn skills associated with lifesaving and 80 per cent indicated they would like to see ethnic lifesavers patrolling on our beaches. As a consequence, On the Same Wave was designed to focus on increasing membership in surf-lifesaving and, just as importantly, increasing awareness of water safety amongst people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Most of the activities involved giving young people a basic understanding of surf safety and a basic overview of surf-lifesaving. I would like to speak about a particular group of young people from Lakemba Sports and Recreation Club—and I am glad to see the member for Watson at the table. This group included 17 young people from the Lebanese community, who had no previous experience in surf-lifesaving but who were eager to learn the skills to volunteer to patrol our beaches. They began training in November last year and were awarded their bronze medallions in January. They had varying abilities. Some were already exceptional swimmers and some had very little swimming ability at all. One young lady who began with very limited swimming abilities managed to pass her bronze medallion through sheer determination and application to her training. This particular young lady wears a Burkini, a full-length lycra suit with a hijab head-covering. It was described by CNN as not too figure-hugging to embarrass but tight enough to allow its wearer to swim freely. I think it shows great progress that there is a place for swimwear that takes into account cultural sensitivities and is sufficiently modest to allow greater participation by Muslim women in our great Australian beach culture. The Burkini is soon to be manufactured in the iconic red and yellow colours of Surf Life Saving Australia. Thanks to On the Same Wave, there are now 17 new lifesavers patrolling the four beaches in the Cronulla area, all from Sydney’s Lebanese community. This group from Lakemba has shown tremendous courage. There has been constant media interest in their training, and many of them began with very limited swimming skills, yet have still overcome all of this to become patrolling surf-lifesavers. The surf clubs in my electorate which are welcoming these new members have watched them train very hard and have a great deal of respect for what they have achieved. I would like to thank the group’s trainer, Mr Tony Coffey. His patience and his commitment to these young people have been unswerving. He has obviously done a great job. As we are all aware, there are great people in the surf-lifesaving movement. This year they celebrate their 100th anniversary, and they are capable of great things, as Mr Coffey has shown us all in this case. I would like to thank Mr Robb, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, whose support of this program has been invaluable. His commitment to making real progress in community harmony, following the disturbances in Cronulla, has been significant. I welcome the new parliamentary secretary, Teresa Gambaro, to her new role and look forward to working with her in this very important area. It is an area that has great significance for the people of my electorate and, more widely, the people of greater Sydney. I am very proud of the forward steps that have been made by the community since December 2005. I commend to the House the courage and determination shown by these new lifesavers, and I thank the surf-lifesaving community for their ongoing support in helping encourage diversity and tolerance on our beaches. We, together with the member for Watson, look forward to working on a combined initiative to send young people—both young lifesavers and young Lebanese, male and female—to Lebanon for 10 days to further develop this cultural link between our two communities and to strengthen Australia’s multicultural society. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 8 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 8 Notices The following notices were given: EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move—That, unless otherwise ordered, standing orders Nos. 2, 43, 98, 99 and 193 be as follows: 2 Definitions Assistant Minister see Minister. Minister includes Parliamentary Secretary*, except in standing order 98 (questions seeking information), and standing order 193 (Members’ three minute statements in the Main Committee). *Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries 43 Members’ statements on Mondays At 1.45 pm on Mondays the Speaker shall interrupt business and call on statements by Members. The Speaker may call a Member, but not a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary*), to make a statement for no longer than 90 seconds. The period allowed for these statements shall extend until 2 pm. *Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries 98 Questions to Ministers A Member may ask a question in writing of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary*), to be placed on the Notice Paper for written reply. During Question Time, a Member may orally ask a question of a Minister (but not a Parliamentary Secretary*), without notice and for immediate response. *Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries 99 Questions to other Members During Question Time, a Member may ask a question orally of another Member who is not a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary*). Questions must relate to a bill, motion, or other business of the House or of a committee, for which the Member asked is responsible. *Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries 193 Members’ three minute statements If the Main Committee meets before 10 am the first item of business shall be statements by Members. The Deputy Speaker may call a Member, including a Parliamentary Secretary* but not another Minister, to make a statement for no longer than three minutes. The period for Members’ statements may continue for 30 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House. *Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to move: That, unless otherwise ordered, standing order 1 (Maximum speaking times) matter of public importance times be as follows and be adopted for the remainder of this session: time (max) Matter of public importance   Whole discussion 1 hour Proposer 15 mins Member next speaking 15 mins Next 2 Members speaking 10 mins each Any other Member 5 mins 2007-02-08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. 8 Statements by Members 8 8 09:30:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —When I spoke to my wife on Tuesday evening she was quite emotional. She had just witnessed on television the lawyer for David Hicks accounting his most recent visit to Guantanamo Bay. As he departed after a four-day visit he commented on the look of total frustration in Hicks’s eyes and his own inability to help defend him. Also we know that the US, in typical fashion, gave him the long awaited charges the next day, when the lawyer had departed. My wife is not alone. The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney recently wrote: Synod expresses its concern over the continued indefinite detention of Australian citizen, David Hicks, in Guantanamo Bay and the lengthy delays in bringing him to trial. It calls upon the Federal Government to make representations to the Government of the United States to have Mr Hicks brought promptly before a properly constituted civil court. Similarly, Bishop Christopher Saunders of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council commented: The manner in which Mr Hicks has been treated and the torture he has endured is a level of treatment that is completely unacceptable to anybody who holds in high regard due processes of law and the rights in any real democracy. The US Supreme Court in June last year determined the illegality of the then US practices. That was with the background of warnings from early 2003 by the Red Cross as to conditions there. By October 2003 one-fifth of inmates/detainees were on Prozac. The government of this country has failed palpably in regard to these matters. The Attorney-General of this country argues that the retrospective legislation which is improper apparently to try Hicks in Australia is not too bad in the United States, because of its alleged codification. We have a situation where evidence obtained under torture is admissible and where the balance of admission of evidence is reversed. For five years this person has not been charged. The UK Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith commented: Fair trial is one of those [principles]—which is the reason that we in the UK were unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Unfortunately, the government of this country has failed to stand up for its citizens. If we are in an international battle with regard to the minds of the Islamic world, if we are trying to persuade them that the Western practices of democracy and fair trial are preferable, then obviously we have been derelict in standing up for this citizen. He, like most others, has as a maximum only two 30-minute breaks from his cell each week. He is being strapped to the floor for endless periods and he has not had free independent access to medical professionals. (Time expired) 8 8 09:33:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —There is an interesting campaign at the moment involving one of the world’s best known board games—Monopoly. Hasbro, the company that will make the Australian Monopoly, will launch an updated version of the board game in June. The new board design will see the coveted blue-ribbon sites of Mayfair and Park Lane replaced by some of Australia’s most popular locations. I think the traditional Monopoly is a wonderful game and I hope that it continues to be available, but it is also a tremendous idea to invite Australians to vote for the locations that they want to be placed on the Monopoly board. Everyone is allowed to vote once a day. I must confess that I have been regularly voting for the Sunshine Coast and Australia Zoo. For a while, as far as Queensland was concerned, the Great Barrier Reef and the Sunshine Coast were vying for top position and then the Sunshine Coast pipped the Great Barrier Reef. It is interesting that the Gold Coast was a very poor third, right down the bottom of the list. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —The Gold Coast is a wonderful place to go for a weekend, but I have to say that the Sunshine Coast is a tremendous place in which to live and bring up families. The Sunshine Coast, led by the iconic tourist attraction Australia Zoo, is battling certain other locations for prime spots on the board. I want to encourage all Sunshine Coast residents, and indeed all other residents, to vote for the Sunshine Coast and for Australia Zoo. This is a truly democratic process. Australians have the chance to cast their vote on the internet as to which regional cities get the best spots on the board. They can vote at the website www.monopoly.com.au. It is no secret to people that the Sunshine Coast is the best part of Australia to live in and it is only fitting that we should have the best position on the Monopoly board. We now have the opportunity to eject some has-beens from supplanting us on the new Australian board and make sure that we receive the recognition that the Sunshine Coast is certainly entitled to. Other areas that have been nominated include the Great Barrier Reef, Byron Bay, Broken Hill, the Snowy Mountains, the Great Ocean Road, Phillip Island, Melbourne, the Barossa Valley, Flinders Ranges, Kalgoorlie, Broome, Alice Springs, Uluru, the Devil’s Marbles and more. While at least three locations from each state will be included on the new board, the numbers of votes will help to determine their position. I am pleased that, as of Monday this week, the Sunshine Coast was well ahead in the Queensland division of the campaign, with 30.5 per cent of votes. The Great Barrier Reef was second, with 21.1 per cent of votes. Longreach was third, with 18.6 per cent of votes. I am not quite sure where the Gold Coast was but it was somewhere further down the list. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Sunnybank is going to have a late surge. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —Sunnybank certainly ought to be entitled to a place, particularly while you are the member. The member for Moreton has done a wonderful job since 1996 as the representative for that area, but I do want everyone to vote for the Sunshine Coast so that we get the best spot on the new Australian Monopoly board. I thank the House. (Time expired) 8 8 09:36:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I recently received the latest Adelaide Airport curfew dispensation report from DOTARS covering the period 1 October to 31 December 2006. There have been a few teething problems with the administration of the curfew over time, not least of which was actually finding out whether it was being observed, breached with permission or even breached without permission or, as it is called, dispensation. A number of ministers have reinforced the legislative argument for observing airport curfews through the issuing of strongly-worded press releases and increasing the fine for curfew breaches without dispensation. It has been argued that, as airline companies came to understand the curfew at Adelaide and Sydney and appreciated that it was no trifling matter, their compliance with the curfew improved. What this probably means is that their ability to work within the system and thus conduct their business without financial penalty has improved as well, but I question the extent to which the dispensation mechanism is currently seen as a rubber stamp for airlines which miss the 11 pm deadline. I question whether any airline planning their activities in preparation and support for a scheduled flight might factor dispensations into consideration, taking the easier option of blurring the time lines and taking off unnecessarily late. DOTARS have designated curfew officers on call 24 hours a day to accept and decide on applications for curfew dispensations. In the most recent quarter, each of the five requests for dispensations was approved. The reason given in the dispensation report was that the delegate was satisfied that the circumstances met the dispensation guidelines criteria. The guidelines say, by and large: ‘Don’t worry about the 11 pm curfew commencement. Read it as 11.30.’ Worse than that, further down, they actually identify the commencement of the real curfew. They say, ‘Any application for operations after midnight, unless able to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, would expect to be refused.’ So, in effect, they are saying: ‘Before midnight, expect to be granted dispensation. After midnight, tell them we have a curfew in place.’ How much emphasis do DOTARS place on confirming the curfew’s purpose with the airlines—the 11 pm curfew? Do they actually impress upon airlines the need to observe the curfew? Rejecting a few dispensations would certainly do that. Of course, weather and safety concerns need to be taken into serious consideration; no-one is arguing about that. I call on the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to emphatically confirm the expectation that the 11 o’clock curfew means no incoming or outgoing aircraft covered by the curfew between 11 pm and 6 am. To not do so, allowing airline compliance with only approximate curfew commencement and end times, seriously undermines the effectiveness of a very good measure which is generally appreciated by the local population. 8 8 09:39:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I rise this morning to side very strongly with the ordinary men and women of the thin blue line of Queensland, who are represented by the Queensland Police Union in their efforts to get some proper support from the Queensland state government. In Metro South region, which covers the electorate of Moreton and other areas, according to the 2005-06 Queensland Police Service crime figures, 8,857 people were victims of break-ins, 5,486 people were targeted by fraud and stolen goods, and 451 people were the victims of robbery and armed robbery. Yet the Queensland Minister for Police and Corrective Services, Judy Spence, says that this is not a high crime area. I recently mailed out 4,000 letters to people in the suburb of Moorooka—a great part of the inner south of Brisbane with high hills, great city views and increasing property prices; an enormously culturally diverse area. About 1,100 residents wrote back to me, which I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would agree, is an enormous return rate. They had to pay to send the letter as well, which underlines my point. Those people agreed with me that Moorooka needs a 24-hour police presence. Minister Spence, on 31 October in the Queensland parliament, as recorded in the Hansard, had a go at me and said that I was overstating the importance of this issue. She said that Moorooka already had a 24-hour police station because, after three o’clock in the afternoon, if you go to Hamilton road in Moorooka and pick up the blue phone you can talk to a police officer. They are miles away, in town. I went to the Moorooka police station the other week and the only movement I saw at the police station at 3.30 in the afternoon was the flickering of a blue alarm light. In other words, there had probably been a break-in at the police station. The people of Moorooka deserve much better. My call is for a shopfront, a police beat, to be located at the Moorvale shops. In that area we have lots of people new to Australia, new to the area—refugees who have come from African backgrounds. They do not understand some of the skills that are needed to work well in Australia. They sit at the bus stops and a lot of elderly people are saying to me that they feel concerned when, as they come out of the Woolworths door, they are confronted by large groups of these kids. These kids are decent, law-abiding people—as indeed all of these folks are—but they are new to Australia. If we had a police beat located at Moorooka, we could base one of the excellent Queensland Police Service community liaison officers there. The Queensland Police Service have the best practice anywhere in Australia when it comes to community relations work, but there are only two African faces in the ranks. We urgently need the Queensland government to realise that backing local communities and putting faces in the ranks that will bring together people of different backgrounds in communities such as Moorooka will make a difference. They need to listen to the Queensland Police Union and back the local community and the Queensland Police Service. (Time expired). 8 8 09:42:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —The Port of Newcastle sits at the end of the Hunter Valley coal chain. In the past two years over 84 million tonnes per annum of coal has been shipped out to our Asian buyers—Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China—but whenever the queue of coal ships builds up off the coast, some interesting but often uninformed assertions are made: the port is inefficient—it must be industrial problems; infrastructure has been neglected; demurrage costs are bringing coal company dividends down. And so the blame game begins. But let us look at the facts. Thirty different coal producers send their coal on the coal chain to the Port Waratah Coal Services loading facility. No other port in Australia has such a big producer base. The coal is stacked in 80 blends to suit customers. The entire stockpile turns over every three days. Managing the movement of coal from mines to the loading facility is done by the industry cooperative, the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Logistics Team. Four vessels a day are loaded for export, with the Newcastle Port Corporation constantly meeting its plus or minus five-minute target. The only day that workers were unavailable recently was Christmas Day. So why has the queue built up to around 50 ships? Many factors can contribute to not reaching 100 per cent of declared capacity and, with so many contributors to the coal chain, these factors can compound very quickly so that unanticipated events can occur. I am sure that most of the serious players in our coal chain think every day: what can’t go wrong? It is a major cooperative industrial task. Equipment failure can occur anywhere along the chain—mines, mine heads, locomotives, loaders, rolling stock. Meeting workforce targets in the skills crisis can add to the problem. Infrastructure improvements can necessitate disruption. Maintenance work can exceed the anticipated down time. But the major reason for these lengthening queues is simple: the number of vessels arriving at the Port of Newcastle has exceeded coal chain capacity. This has been the case since late 2006. It began in the second half of the year, when many of the factors outlined came into play. It was compounded, as reported last year, ‘when a quirk in the controversial quota system at the port exacerbated the problem by encouraging a late rush by miners in December to order ships in a bid to fill allocations they were not ready to fill’. Those orders keep on being written every day, even though the coal companies know there will be delays in filling those orders and they know that demurrage costs will keep eating into their profits. But when you operate in a historic industrial revolution, that demand will just keep coming. Solutions are already being found by the industry. They know the Hunter Valley chain is an efficient one, they know the port is efficient, they know all the players have made or are making major infrastructure improvements. Some of the delay lies squarely with the federal government, which continued to meet its benchmark of doing too little too late about infrastructure. It has to be said that the solutions lie within the market itself. Market forces need to work this out. Covering those demurrage costs is up to the coal producers, and certainly the demand will keep coming. If demurrage costs are too great then ships will divert to other ports or coal companies will find another way to offset these accelerating costs. But the demand will keep coming and the coal will keep flowing along the HVCC. (Time expired) 8 8 09:45:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —Last month I was privileged to travel with the Deputy Prime Minister to visit the hinterland areas of my electorate to announce two strategic Roads to Recovery programs; they are very important and I will talk about those on another day. Our last stop of the day was in Monto, the most northerly town in my electorate, and we stopped at Ridgehaven Retirement Complex, which is a pleasant aged-care facility serving the North Burnett area. Ridgehaven could become a new benchmark for rural centre based care. It is noted for its lovely gardens, its old colonial buildings with wide verandas and of course the marvellously dedicated staff. Currently, Ridgehaven provides 15 low-care places, 10 high-care places and five new places in a high-care secured area. Each individual room has an ensuite bathroom. The facilities of common areas allow residents and visitors to take part in singalongs and other forms of entertainment. But good and all as this facility is, the local community is always looking for more improvements, as my Monto friend, Hec Kilah, the deputy chair of the board of that establishment, frequently reminds me. That is why I was very pleased when Ridgehaven received a $1.1 million capital grant under the latest aged-care approval round. Around $865,000 of that will cover the cost of building six new single rooms and ensuites; a further $120,000 will be used to upgrade the nurse call system; and $80,000 will be spent in a fire panel and censor upgrade, which is very important of course when you have wooden buildings. The remaining $45,000 will install a sprinkler system. During our visit, the Deputy Prime Minister and I, along with Ridgehaven’s care manager, Annette Painter, the board’s chair, Paul Lobegeier, and Mayor of Monto, Warren McLachlan, had the honour of turning the first sod of the project, which received a $1.7 million capital grant from the Commonwealth in the 2005 round. When completed, Ridgehaven will have upgraded kitchen and laundry facilities and a brand-new lounge and dining area. I well remember going to the old hospital, where the then director of nursing, Dulcie Williams, was struggling with up to 20 aged-care patients under her care. On one occasion I went into the hospital to find the whole maternity ward full of old people. So Ridgehaven has played a very important part in the life of that town. It is heartening to see this vital community asset, Ridgehaven, being given the opportunity to expand to meet the demands of the local area, because all these capital works mean that more local people will be able to stay in their home town and receive care into their old age. It is something that should be available to country people as well as city people. (Time expired) 8 8 09:48:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are Qantas workers expressing deep concern about the future of our iconic national carrier. Qantas is a critical economic asset as well as a national icon. I share their concern that the proposed takeover of Qantas by the private equity consortium, Airline Partners Australia, is not in our national interest. Qantas is a strategic national asset which provides essential services. I believe that the national interest issues surrounding the Qantas sale need to be thoroughly examined by a parliamentary inquiry, together with the details of the proposed sale. Many people believe the Howard government is not doing enough to stop Australian businesses being sold overseas and to stop jobs being moved offshore. They worry about the loss of a national icon and the impacts of the proposed sale of Qantas on jobs, rural and regional airline services and safety standards. Recent polling of marginal seats by the ACTU on behalf of the unions representing Qantas’s 37,000 Australian employees confirms this view. Seventy-nine per cent of those surveyed in the marginal seats say they oppose the sale of Qantas, with 66 per cent saying that they do not think that the Qantas sale is in Australia’s national interest. Seventy-five per cent of voters believe that the takeover of Qantas will mean services to regional areas will suffer and 70 per cent agree that jobs and conditions of employees would be cut. Sixty-four per cent of those surveyed agreed that there is a greater chance that safety will be compromised in the pursuit of profit. The government should stop the proposed sale. If not, at the very minimum they should impose strict and enforceable conditions on the takeover. Vague assurances and promises are not enough. There is a high level of corporate debt in this transaction and all taxpayers should be rightly concerned about the potential risks of highly leveraged buyout deals such as this one. The government needs to act to prevent aircraft maintenance service jobs going offshore. It needs to protect Qantas’s consumer service jobs and to protect airline routes and services to regional Australia. It is time that the government heard the message from Australians across the nation. 8 8 09:51:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —On Monday morning I was privileged to attend the opening of the new Australian Technical College North Queensland in Townsville. We have probably delivered in Townsville the best ATC in the nation. The quality of the new facility and the quality of the training that it will deliver is quite extraordinary. From go to whoa, it took 12 months to set up the college on a greenfield site—to get it designed, to get it built and to get the students enrolled. On Monday, 149 students attended the opening of the college. The infrastructure and facilities provided are second to none. Because industry has been very much hands-on in the development of the curriculum and training, we have been able to place in the college all of the equipment that industry thinks desirable. It is state of the art. It is absolutely up to date; it is modern. But more than that, the teaching methods will also follow; what we do currently is best practice. In fact, a lot of it will be e-learning. It will be done off memory sticks rather than books in the college classrooms. You can actually drive cars into the classrooms so that the students can be there with the teacher working on the cars in the classroom. It is an absolutely outstanding thing that we have been able to deliver. Industry is very happy because we are delivering exactly the skill sets that they want. I am disappointed that the Labor Party has basically announced that if they get into power they will give the Australian technical colleges back to the TAFE system and we will go back 30 years. That is just extraordinarily backward. In this nation, you have to think forward. You have to think about what is needed and what the best methods of training are. I invite any member of the Labor Party to come to Townsville and have a look at this new model to see how well it works, why it works well and why it is head and shoulders above the TAFE system. I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the ATCs deliver on the model that they are contracted to deliver on. Indeed, our technical college in Townsville will expand. It is probably going to double in size, and that will be a fantastic result. 8 8 09:54:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP 0 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I rise today to speak about an anniversary that takes place this Saturday: the 43rd anniversary of Australia’s greatest peacetime military training accident. On 10 February, 1964, 82 naval officers and sailors lost their lives when HMAS Melbourne, an aircraft carrier, collided with HMAS Voyager, a destroyer, off the south-east coast of Sydney. The Sea Power Centre outlines the events that took place that night in their ship history of the HMAS Voyager. It states: On the night of Monday, 10th February 1964, HMAS MELBOURNE was engaged in night flying exercises off the New South Wales coast. VOYAGER’s role was that of plane guard, involving the rescue, if necessary, of aircrew personnel from the sea. Since both ships had just completed refits, this was the first time they had been involved in close quarters maneouvring for almost six months. Both the carrier and destroyer were ‘darkened’ with only navigational/operational lighting in use. At approximately 2056, some twenty miles south east of Jervis Bay, the two ships were in collision. MELBOURNE struck VOYAGER at the after end of her bridge, heeling her over to an angle of about 50 degrees. A flash appeared to come from VOYAGER’s ‘A’ Boiler, and she emitted high-pressure steam and black smoke. Debris, including the revolution table from VOYAGER’s bridge, and a pair of binoculars, was thrown onto MELBOURNE’s flight deck. The impact pushed VOYAGER bodily through the water for a few seconds, and then she broke in two. Her forward section passed down MELBOURNE’s port side, and the stern section down the starboard side. The forward section sank soon afterwards and the after section about three hours later. The disaster resulted in the loss of 82 lives (14 officers, including the commanding officer, 67 sailors and one civilian dockyard employee). There were 232 survivors. MELBOURNE was damaged but sustained no casualties. The wreck of HMAS VOYAGER lies some 600 fathoms deep, twenty nautical miles off Cape Perpendicular on a bearing of 120 degrees. Quite rightly, Australia commemorates and mourns those we have lost during wartime each year, obviously with the biggest commemorations taking place on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. There are also a number of other commemorative days throughout the year on which we remember those fallen in specific conflicts. However, often little attention is paid to those whom we have lost during peacetime service or training accidents. The collision between HMAS Voyager and Melbourne, whilst it is our greatest peacetime tragedy, has unfortunately not been a unique event. On 19 February 1948, at RAAF Base Amberley, a Lincoln crashed during landing, killing 16 young men. On 25 January 1950, a fuel explosion aboard HMAS Tarakan saw the deaths of eight young sailors. On 7 April 1955, in particularly tragic circumstances, four young men died when their Lincoln crashed into a mountain during a mercy flight for a sick child from Townsville to Brisbane. On 11 January 1974, five airmen died when their Iroquois crashed near Stanthorpe in Queensland. More recent tragedies include the 1996 Black Hawk collision near Townsville that killed 18; the 2005 Sea King disaster in Nias, Indonesia, that killed nine during a humanitarian assistance mission; and the Black Hawk chopper crash just last November near Fiji that claimed two lives. Those are just a few examples of the tragedies that have befallen our serving men and women while they were on duty engaged in peacetime activities, humanitarian assistance or training. There have been over 500 deaths during peacetime, some involving multiple personnel and others involving individuals, such as the tragic passing of Trooper Lawrence during a training exercise in 2004. (Time expired) 8 8 09:57:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —One of the region’s most tragic road black spots in my electorate of Gilmore is to be eliminated thanks to the $457,000 black spot funding announced by the Australian government. These funds will now be directed in the new financial year to creating a left-hand turn deceleration lane at the intersection of Princes Highway and Island Point Road at Tomerong, south of Nowra, in my electorate of Gilmore. This is news that people who travel on that section of road of the Princes Highway have been waiting to hear for quite some time. It is a horrible intersection and these funds will put a lot of minds at ease. A lot of credit must go to the member for the South Coast, Shelley Hancock, who has constantly lobbied to have this intersection repaired, and the local community for their unyielding campaign to draw attention to and maintain attention on the Island Point Road intersection. I have to say here that the parliamentary secretary for roads in the state Labor government has completely ignored the pleas of these people about this particular intersection. I also have to say that the $457,000 is part of the Australian government’s $44.5 million AusLink black spot program. This is doing more to reduce the number of lives lost in the Princes Highway. There is a well publicised campaign by the NRMA calling on governments to ‘fix our bloody roads’. Well, this is designed to do exactly that. As I have always said, the Princes Highway remains a state road, but we will continue to lobby for Australian government funds under the National Road Safety Black Spot Program to pick up the slack that has been created by the state Labor government, which simply refuses to acknowledge its responsibility for the Princes Highway. I could not be happier than to see more Australian government funding directed to the Princes Highway. It is great news for the people of Gilmore and, in particular, for the people who use that dangerous section of road. May I repeat what I have always said: we understand it is a state road. The state government has not contributed enough funds to the Princes Highway. But, as part of the federal government and as the local member for Gilmore, I will continue to fight for funds for the Princes Highway. A lot has been said about nuclear debate and nuclear power. On the record, I have said that if there is going to be a nuclear plant built in Jervis Bay I will certainly resign. I cannot be stronger than that. Jervis Bay is a natural Australian icon and it is certainly not suitable for that reason. I have to mention here that the Australia Institute report deals with hypotheticals. I do not deal in hypotheticals. The debate over whether we should use nuclear energy is still raging. This is a debate about future power sources. People wanting the Australian government to address climate change cannot, in all seriousness, enter that debate without debating the pros and cons of nuclear energy. To deliver base load power, that is not enough power to keep the industry running in our towns and keep our cities operational. We have the two options. We need the debate and we need to debate it further. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10.00 am to 10.13 am 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 8 Bills S517 Debate resumed from 27 November 2006. 8 8 10:13:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr TRUSS —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 by making changes to the governance arrangements of EFIC. These changes will result in its current board management structure reflecting more closely the broad corporate governance model set out in the Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, conducted by Mr John Uhrig. EFIC is Australia’s export credit agency. EFIC’s mandate is to profitably support the growth of Australian business internationally, particularly in the market gap where private sector capacity is insufficient or unavailable. This bill forms part of the implementation of the government’s response to John Uhrig’s review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and officeholders. The government has been reviewing all statutory agencies in the context of Mr Uhrig’s recommendations to ensure that we have the most effective accountability and governance structures across the whole of government. The government has assessed EFIC’s existing governance structure against the recommendations and principles of the Uhrig review and identified that the board template is suitable on the basis that EFIC operates primarily as a commercial organisation and (except in relation to national interest transactions) its board has a high degree of power to act. The changes are of an operational and enabling nature. The amendments do not impact EFIC’s functions, nor EFIC’s delivery of export facilitation services to Australian businesses. EFIC will continue to be focused on assisting Australian businesses to enter and develop export markets. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the current and previous EFIC boards. I am grateful for their extensive expertise and commitment in supporting the growth of Australian businesses internationally and I am confident that the board will continue their good work. 8 10:15:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —I rise today to speak in support of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. It impacts on one of the key challenges that face this nation—that is, the issue of improving our export performance. EFIC actually undertakes a number of key functions. It facilitates Australia’s trade by providing insurance and finance to Australian companies and individuals who are involved in exporting, it encourages banks and financial institutions to provide financial assistance to exporters and it provides information and advice to Australian exporters regarding insurance and risk. EFIC provides these services on a commercial basis where the private sector will not. It is a very good example of where government must become involved to correct market failure and to provide a service which assists our economic growth, a service which, if left to the market, simply would not exist. The provision of these services has become all the more important over the past decade. A growing share of opportunities for export growth in fact goes beyond our traditional developed economy markets, with some of the greatest gains to be found in developing economies and the large number of newly created states. At the same time as presenting new opportunities for export growth, these emerging market economies also present much greater risk, risk which the private sector would probably not be willing to bear. In the circumstances, EFIC can step in and provide the insurance, finance and information for these markets that would not otherwise be available. We support the bill because it does, as the minister has indicated, really implement a number of the recommendations that were made by the Uhrig review. Essentially, Uhrig came to the view that EFIC should be managed by a board. The bill will result in a managing director being appointed by the board after the board has consulted with the minister. It will also see a reduction in the size of the board. I, too, join with the minister in giving our thanks to those who have served in this capacity in the past. The bill itself will have no regulatory and financial impact on the Commonwealth and EFIC’s mandate and functions; they will not be affected. Along with interest groups and EFIC itself, we support the bill. I note that the webpage of EFIC states that it will be self-sustaining in its operations. We will continue to monitor that as an outcome. Important as these changes are, they will not arrest Australia’s woeful trade performance. That woeful performance is even more apparent when one considers the appalling trade performance over the past 10 years, particularly the past five years. We had a timely reminder of it on Friday of last week, with Australia recording yet another trade deficit. The deficit, for December 2006, was not only a massive monthly deficit of $1.3 billion but also the 57th in a row. Australia reached a new milestone in 2006 when foreign debt passed the half a trillion dollar mark. I can remember when this government came to office and was making great play of the debt trap. Foreign debt at that stage was around the $180 billion or $190 billion mark. It is now $522 billion, up 170 per cent. That means Australians spent almost $30 billion over the past 12 months on foreign interest payments. That is $30 billion that we had to send overseas just to pay the interest on loans borrowed to buy more goods and services from foreign countries. Interest payments on foreign debt have more than doubled under this government’s watch, yet they want to lecture the opposition about debt and financial pressures. Australia’s higher debt places upward pressure on interest rates as the risk of lending to Australia increases. That is why Australia has the second highest interest rates of the OECD countries. Australia’s standard household mortgage rate is 7.05 per cent. Compare that with housing interest rates in Canada at 6.3 per cent, the United States at 6.14 per cent and Germany at 5.27 per cent—just to name a few. This is a government that likes to compare what it has achieved in interest rates against the past; it never wants to compare it with the present—the present, as we have indicated, shows that we are well ahead in interest rate payments as a consequence of the massive foreign debt that this country is experiencing. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—I understand that the member for Hotham wants to move an amendment. At present, he is not speaking to the bill. If he wants to move his amendment, he should put himself in order. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —I appreciate the point that you are making, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point I am making is that this bill is being introduced to assist the country’s trade performance. That is what it is being introduced for. That is what the explanatory memorandum says. Whilst we support the bill, I am highlighting what that trade performance is. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the member for Hotham could just simply move his amendment, that would facilitate it. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —I formally move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: notes that the bill will do little to correct Australia’s trade balance which: has been in deficit for a record 57 consecutive months; recorded a trade deficit of $11.7 billion in 2006; is contributing to a current account deficit of $54 billion; and is contributing to a record $0.5 trillion foreign debt; and calls on the Government to take all necessary measures to address these failures”. The point I was making before I moved the amendment was that we are paying more in interest rate payments than the rest of the world, and our massive foreign debt is a contributing factor. Australia’s high foreign debt also puts it at risk of a sudden loss of confidence in Australia as an investment destination. Such a sudden loss of confidence would cause depreciation in the dollar and an increase in the cost of imported goods, leading to inflation and leaving the Reserve Bank with no choice but to raise interest rates even further. The fact is that this is a government that has racked up the worst trade performance in Australia’s history. I have mentioned the deficit figure from last week of $1.3 billion; that is for the 57th consecutive month. This is the longest uninterrupted period of trade deficit in the nation’s history. Each trade deficit adds to our current account deficit. In 2004-05, Australia recorded its worst current account deficit on record—$55.2 billion—with only a marginal improvement last year. What is more, this has happened at a time when Australia has been experiencing the best terms of trade in 50 years. At other times in Australia’s history when we have experienced a resources boom, Australia’s trade balance has in fact gone into surplus, with the value of our exports exceeding the value of our imports. This is not the case with the current boom. As Access Economics points out: Superheated commodity prices were meant to send our trade accounts whirring back towards surplus. Instead, the current account deficit is lingeringly large. Instead of the surplus that should have been the story out of the resources boom, we have had an endless string of trade deficits. It did not have to be this way. What we have really had in this country, in my view, is a squandering of the nation’s prosperity. That has been contributed to by our poor trade performance. I remind the parliament that Australia’s exports averaged annual growth of eight per cent a year in all of the years when Labor was in office. From 1983 to 1996 there was average growth of eight per cent per annum. How does it compare with the figure during this government’s 10 years in office? There has been average yearly growth of just four per cent per annum over the past 10 years and, over the last five years, just one per cent. The point I make is that, had Australia maintained the rate of growth in exports achieved in the eighties and early nineties, Australia would now have an annual trade surplus of $14 billion rather than the actual outcome, which is a trade deficit of $12 billion. Not only would that have taken pressure off interest rates at home; it would have seen an improvement in the quality of job prospects in this country, an increase in the nation’s prosperity, stronger growth and, importantly, a rebalancing of the components of growth being driven and contributed to strongly by exports. They were the overall figures—eight per cent being halved and then going down to one per cent. But let us look at manufactures. Elaborate manufactures exports have slowed to a crawl over the past five years. Between 1982-83 and 1995-96—again, under a Labor government—elaborate manufactures exports averaged 13 per cent per annum. Under this government, the figure is just three per cent per year. Is it any wonder that our manufacturing sector has lost 145,000 jobs—60,000 of them since the last election? It is a similar story when you talk about services. Export volumes in services averaged growth of 10½ per cent under Labor, but during the last five calendar years under this government they have averaged a decline of 0.3 per cent a year. I am talking about volumes. I notice that the minister, in response to a piece that I had done in the Age last Wednesday, accused me of choosing selectively from history in making these comparisons and then went on, in the same breath, simply to talk about the last five months performance of his own government. Talk about selectivity, Minister! The real question that you need to respond to, it seems to me, is: why has Australia failed to take advantage of the current resources boom and why can’t we get our trade balance into surplus? If we take an even closer look, disaggregating it by price and volume, we find some further interesting conclusions. It is not just manufacturing and services that have suffered; it is also the resources sector. I quote CommSec economist Craig James, who had this to say last week: Australia is in danger of squandering the benefits of one of the biggest commodity booms ever seen. China and India can’t get enough of our iron ore, coal and metals, but Australia’s production and infrastructure aren’t able to keep up. Frankly, it must be regarded as a national embarrassment that Australia is still recording trade deficits of about $1 billion each month in a period of stellar global economic growth and soaring demand for mining and energy resources. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Fifty ships lined up at the ports. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —Where is the failure of this government in terms of the infrastructure and the skill base, Minister? You have been in charge for over 10 years and you want to blame someone else. Why do you not accept responsibility and recognise what is capable of being done if you have a comprehensive strategy for dealing with it? It is important to distinguish between the growth in the price of exports and the growth in the volume of exports. That is value versus volume. The value of resource exports has grown by 9.2 per cent over the past five years. That is because of the resources boom. But the ABS measure of export volumes—the growth in value is 9.2 per cent but this is the growth in volumes, which strips out the impact of prices—shows that the volume of resource exports has grown by just 1.1 per cent per annum. I note that in his piece in the Age last Thursday the minister made no mention of the growth in volumes of exports—and why would you, with such an appalling achievement in the biggest and longest resources boom that we have experienced in a long time? Despite the resources boom, the volume of our resource exports has failed to fire. Our failure to respond adequately to the resources boom by increasing the volume in exports is due in part to that infrastructure bottleneck and the failure of the government to take appropriate action to deal with it. It is due to the failure of the government to deal effectively with skill shortages and its failure to keep the momentum going in research and development in this country. Under its policies we have seen research and development grow at half the rate of that of our competitors. That is why this country is currently wasting its opportunities. There is no guarantee that the boom in resources will continue forever. Every other resources boom in Australia’s history has come to an abrupt end. The simple economics of a boom in resource prices are that every resource-rich country is attempting to increase its output. While Australia has so far been unsuccessful—and I have just highlighted that problem—other countries have not. You only have to look at the huge growth in China’s volume, also that of India. There are already signs that resource prices have peaked. Access Economics, the IMF and ABARE have all indicated that the prices for Australia’s resource exports are likely to fall. While we hope that Australia does not experience the kinds of commodities busts it has seen in the past, we have to remain aware of numerous forecasts that commodity prices will not maintain the heights we saw at the beginning of this year. The fact is we have been lucky to experience the boom in resource prices over the past three years. The boom in prices has cushioned the impact of poor export performances in manufacturing, services and resources. But Australia has to be more than just the lucky country; we need to be a productive country, a country that does not rely on resource exports alone but has a broad export base that includes manufactures and services. Australia simply must produce more goods and services that the world wants to buy. Australia’s manufacturing and services industries must have a future; they must become competitive and productive again. That will underpin, if we achieve it, sustained export growth, as was experienced in the eighties and the early nineties. Consider this, Mr Deputy Speaker: between 1990 and 1998, Australia’s productivity level, benchmarked against the United States, climbed from 78 per cent to 85 per cent, but by 2005 it had slumped back to 79 per cent. Those productivity gains that we drove have now been dissipated. Productivity has effectively flatlined in the past two years. The most recent national accounts, released in December, showed that productivity actually fell 1½ per cent in the December quarter. So getting productivity growth back on track is the key to making Australia competitive again and putting our trade accounts back in the black. Australia’s trade policies are making the situation worse rather than better. The government’s preoccupation with free trade agreements was because they were supposed to build trade. Labor supports the notion of free trade agreements but at the end of the chain and on the basis of strengthening the multilateral round—the WTO—through regional arrangements and then using the free trade agreements to build again. That is what we did to get a successful outcome in the Uruguay Round. Labor took the issue to APEC, secured the Bogor Declaration and then sought to build on that through free trade agreements. The problem with this government is that it has reversed the order. It has really made the lead come from the free trade agreements. We have seen the consequences of those free trade agreements. All of the bilateral free trade agreements the government has signed on behalf of Australia over the past three years have seen our trade balance with those countries worsen. It is now two years since Australia’s bilateral free trade agreements with Thailand and the United States came into effect. Over those two years, Australia’s exports to the United States have averaged an annual growth of just three per cent, while imports have averaged nine per cent. As a result of the first two years of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, Australia’s merchandise trade deficit with the US increased by 30 per cent, from $11 billion to $14 billion. Australia’s exports to the US have grown just $500 million over the two full years of the operation of this free trade agreement. It is a long way short of the $3 billion per annum that this government was asserting would be the benefit to the nation. Through a study the government commissioned, it argued that we would also get large gains from increased investment flows between the two countries; however, the figures show that US investment in Australia has fallen since the agreement came into effect. In 2005, US investment in Australia fell by $32 billion. A number of key sectors in the economy were left out of that agreement. Sugar is the classic example. There was a dud deal in respect of the yarn forward proposal and also the agreement to allow the US to extend their copyright. There was no consistency in what the government sought from that trade agreement. I do not doubt that some very good work was put into looking at what we should have achieved but, in the end, the government wanted a political trophy rather than a strategic outcome that secured the basis of our trade with the United States. In respect of the services sector, there was no mutual recognition of Australian financial market qualifications. US qualified licence brokers are automatically recognised by Australia and are able to trade in Australia. However, Australian brokers must go through an onerous process with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to be allowed to operate in the United States. What sort of reciprocity is that? The government hails the agreement as its great step forward, but the agreements have worsened the trade perspective between the two countries. Bilateral trade deals are a very poor second cousin to multilateral or regional agreements. Bilateral agreements can lead to trade diversion rather than trade creation—that is, we merely end up trading with the bilateral free trade partner because they offer us preferential tariffs, when the cheaper and more efficient product could be sourced from a third country which cannot compete with those preferential tariffs. It is also not possible to negotiate the removal of domestic industry-wide subsidies or export subsidies in bilateral agreements. That is why we have to ensure that we get the outcome out of Doha. Bilateral agreements also divert attention and resources for multilateral and regional negotiations. Australia is essentially participating in a trade arms race in the region, with each country rushing into bilateral agreements lest they be undercut by the other. No wonder David Spencer, our ambassador to APEC, stated last month that countries in the regions do not have the resources to devote to multilateral agreements while there are a burgeoning number of bilateral agreements. We must pursue as a guiding force a trade policy that gives our exporters access to all markets—not just to individual markets. At the same time as reducing protection on imports, we have to support programs that encourage exports. Exports are our future, but naturally they have not been Australia’s culture beyond the commodities groups. We believe in multilateral agreements first, regional free trade agreements second and bilateral agreements third. We also believe that there is another side to free trade, and that is having integrated trade industry and trade promotion policies. We do not believe in negotiating the opening of markets only to leave our exporters to hang in the breeze. Instead, we believe in supporting industry to take advantage of greater access to opportunities through import and export programs. EFIC is one of them. There is also the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and two other programs that existed when we were in office: the International Trade Enhancement Scheme, which I introduced in 1990, when I was Minister for Science and Technology, and the Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program, which I was responsible for when I was Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. These programs generated support for projects which had the potential to generate export earnings. They financed export market entry and expansion and the development of significant new markets. They were implemented as a result of the Hughes review, which the Hawke government commissioned. Our economy, which had for so long been protected and insular, was recognising the real opportunities resulting from globalisation, but we needed assistance to move in that direction. ITES financed up to 50 per cent of project expenditure, up to $2.25 million. An evaluation in 1994 of that program found that it was a significant factor in encouraging firms to expand their exports. Every ITES dollar spent up to that date had produced $18 in net exports in return, yet both of these programs—ITES and the Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program, which was more modest but terribly important in getting our food industry into those markets—were abolished by the government when it came to office. I believe that these programs need to be considered again. We need to understand that these programs were important drivers of export growth. As part of Labor’s comprehensive approach, it will reassess those programs, including the underspend this government has overseen in the Export Market Development Grants Scheme. In terms of where we go from here, a golden opportunity presents itself to this government this year, as we are hosting APEC. This gives us an enormous opportunity in terms of input to the agenda as well as the type of meetings we have. About a year and a half ago I foreshadowed what I saw as Australia’s role in APEC this year in a report I presented to the parliament as part of a study trip I undertook. A couple of recommendations that were made were, firstly, that we need to look at how APEC can drive a successful outcome from the Doha Round in the same way as the Bogor Declaration complemented the Uruguay Round. I do not believe this will be a wasted effort because, if Doha falls over, APEC becomes the next-best multilateral option for this country. It has countries in it with which we can talk. We should be using APEC to drive Doha and, in the event that it falls over, to be the fallback. On the back of that, we also need to pay a lot of attention to strengthening the guidelines that were established at the Santiago meeting to give consistency to free trade agreements and to make them consistent with the multilateral framework. The second important thing that I think we need to do as a matter of urgency is to see it as not just trade liberalisation but capital flow enhancement. We need to learn the lessons of the Asian economic crisis, argue for better governance provisions and better openness for capital flows. For this reason, I believe the economic ministers have to play a stronger role in APEC. I would like to see Australia insisting on the economic ministers, not just the foreign and trade ministers, playing an important part in the lead-up to important APEC meetings. This is a golden opportunity. It should not be passed up. The government’s woeful trade performance is a sorry indictment on their record. We believe that it can be done better and when we win office we will do those things. (Time expired) 8 10:46:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —I second the amendment. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 implements the recommendations of the Uhrig report, which improved the management and corporate governance of EFIC. On that basis and on the basis of broader community support for this legislation, Labor is happy to endorse and vote in favour of the bill. Our overriding concern is that this legislation, as important as it is, will not in fact go very far in improving Australia’s trade performance. It is for that reason that the member for Hotham has moved a second reading amendment which does not decline to give the bill a second reading but at the same time asks the House to note that the bill will do little to correct Australia’s trade balance, which has been in deficit for a record 57 consecutive months. A trade deficit of $11.7 billion was recorded in 2006, which is contributing to a current account deficit of $54 billion and to a record $0.5 trillion foreign debt. The amendment calls on the government to take all necessary measures to address these failures. These are very big numbers. Fifty-seven consecutive trade deficits is a record, and a very undistinguished record, on Australia’s part. That we have had such a succession of trade deficits, most of which have occurred during the best mineral prices and terms of trade in 30 years, is no mean feat. It is hard to imagine. If you look around at other countries of the world which are major exporters of mineral commodities, most, if not all of those, are in surplus, but here we are in deficit and there are very few signs of things improving. You could imagine that the recovery was truly just around the corner and say, ‘Well, it has been bad, but things are getting better.’ Indeed, Treasury documents, if you care to peruse them, over the past five years have consistently said that the recovery in export volumes is just around the corner and that literally next financial year the volumes will recover in response to the high prices—the best prices in 30 years. But it is just not happening and we must ask why. The Minister for Trade said that it is because of ships being lined up in ports like Newcastle—my goodness! For a start, not a lot of iron ore comes out of Newcastle. Most of that comes out of Western Australia. But I am sure that the minister would have an excuse, no doubt laid at the feet of the Western Australian government, of a local council or of a regulatory authority, but which has nothing to do with the government. It is never the government’s fault. If you look at the litany of explanations, which are really excuses for our appalling trade performance, you see that they started with claims that there was this world economic slowdown. There was a slowdown for a while, but then the world economy took off. It was zooming ahead, but it did not stop the government saying that our export performance had slumped because of the world economic slowdown. Then along came SARS—in many ways for the government a blessing in terms of another excuse: ‘It’s SARS, that is why our trade deficit is so bad.’ Then it was bird flu. Then of course it was international terrorism—but it is never the government’s fault! The opposition leader talks about the blame game. This government is expert at the blame game because when things are going badly it blames everyone and everything but itself, and when things are going better it claims all credit. It claims all the credit for the strong economic growth that has occurred in Australia over the last 15 years, even though the government has actually been in place for 10½ years. It has claimed all of that credit, despite the fact that it was a consequence of a productivity boom created by the economic reform program of the Hawke and Keating governments which unleashed a decade of record productivity growth in Australia. But what has happened since the year 2000? This reform-lazy government has allowed productivity growth to slump and in the last three months for which data is available—that is, the three months to September of last year—productivity growth was not zero; it was minus 1.5 per cent in one three-month period, and that came on the heels of minus 0.2 per cent in the previous three months. Yet we had the Treasurer in the parliament on 1 November crowing about productivity growth being at or marginally ahead of the previous productivity cycle. So the only person in the country who is happy with Australia’s productivity performance is the Treasurer of the country—which is a pretty bad situation, because he is the one who should be doing something about it. But he does not even acknowledge that a problem exists. It is because of that poor productivity growth that our competitiveness in international markets has deteriorated so dramatically, and that has been reflected in the performance of our manufacturing and services and indeed our resources exports. In volume terms, under the previous Labor government, over the period 1983-96, manufactured exports grew by nearly 13 per cent, but in the period of this government up to 2005 they grew by just over five per cent per annum. So there was a drop from almost 13 per cent to just over five per cent per annum. If you look at services exports, you see that the story is similar. Under the previous Labor government, service export volumes increased by more than nine per cent, but under this government they increased by only around 2½ per cent. If we now go to resources—the area where we should be doing really well on export volumes in response to the best prices in 30 years—we see that export volumes of resources under the previous Labor government grew by 6½ per cent and under this government they grew by less than four per cent. So what is going on; what is going wrong? A lot is going wrong, and it is not helped by the Treasurer believing that there is no problem with productivity growth in this country and the trade minister getting up in parliament chortling about our wonderful trade performance. If they both believe everything is going magnificently then we will never get the policies put in place under this government to remedy these structural weaknesses in the Australian economy. That is why it will require the election of a Rudd Labor government in order to deal with the structural weaknesses in the Australian economy. We do rely substantially on the export of resources from this country, not only agricultural resources but mineral resources. I was very disturbed last night when watching Lateline to see the Australian of the Year say that we should already have ceased exporting coal from this country. He said that we should already have ceased exporting coal—not that we should phase it out over time but that it should have ceased already because it is wrong to export coal from Australia. In responding to the greenhouse challenge we need a mix of policy responses, but at the heart of those responses has to be a clean coal future for this country. We cannot simply rely on generating power in Australia by solar and other renewable sources. Nor should we be saying to the rest of the world that it is wrong to generate electricity from coal. We should be investing in and supporting the development of clean coal technologies. We are sitting on a coal seam that extends from the Bowen Basin in Queensland through to the Latrobe Valley in Victoria, and the Australian of the Year is saying that we should not be developing those resources, exporting them and giving developing countries an opportunity to go along the economic development path that wealthier countries have followed. I hope the Prime Minister does not associate himself with the remarks of Professor Tim Flannery, as the Australian of the Year, as he associated himself with Professor Flannery when he was made Australian of the Year, because these remarks are irresponsible. They are a recipe for massive job losses in Australia and a recipe for economic dislocation in this country and around the world. That is the truth of the matter whether people like it or not. I have been talking about resource exports, but let us look at services exports. I compared the figures from 1983 through to 1996 with figures from 1996 through to 2005. If we update those a little all the way to September 2006—that is, the period of the Howard government up to September of last year—we will see that the growth in the volume of services exports was 3½ per cent per annum and for the same period of the previous Labor government it was more than 10 per cent per annum. Everywhere we look, the volume of our exports has deteriorated under this government. I need to acknowledge that there is one exception: rural exports. I need to correct myself there; they too have declined. I thought I was going to be able to say something good about the government’s export performance, but I have disappointed myself. I was trying to give credit where credit was due, but no credit is due. Rural export volumes increased by four per cent under the previous Labor government but by 1.2 per cent under this government. Of course, the government will claim that that is all due to the drought, but there are other problems as well. What has the government sought to do in relation to our international competitiveness and access for our rural producers, service exporters and manufactured exporters to international markets? It has essentially given up on multilateral trade liberalisation. You have to doubt whether the government has ever been committed to multilateral trade liberalisation, because again it took the previous Labor government to kick-start the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which produced real outcomes, including for agriculture. Were they ideal outcomes? No, but they were real outcomes and there was meaningful progress. What have we had since the completion of the Uruguay Round in terms of multilateral trade negotiation? Nothing. What outcomes have we had? None. One of the reasons, as Jagdish Bhagwati has pointed out, has been this spaghetti bowl of preferential trade deals which have proliferated in the last few years. Australia, once a proud contributor to multilateral trade negotiations, now is very much in there with these preferential, discriminatory trade deals. We were told that these trade deals were going to unleash wonderful benefits for Australia and that is why the government was going down the preferential bilateral trade deals path. By ‘preferential’ I mean giving preference to one country while discriminating against all other countries. That is what a preferential trade deal is and that is the sort of deal this government likes to strike. There was a very long and controversial debate about the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and whether that would have merit. We were told, on the basis of consulting reports, that it would unleash enormous benefits for Australia. Let us have a look at what the outcome has been so far. In the first two years of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, Australia’s merchandise trade deficit with the United States has actually increased by 30 per cent—a great deal. ‘Come here—strike a deal,’ says Mr Howard to the President of the United States, and they agree to negotiate and fast-track an Australia-US Free Trade Agreement that so far has led to an increase in Australia’s trade deficit with the United States of 30 per cent. The consultant’s report that the government paraded all around the country and all around the world said that in fact the main benefit would occur by liberalising the Foreign Investment Review Board processes so that there would be a lot more American foreign investment in Australia. The report said this was worth billions and billions of dollars to Australia and this is what was really going to drive the economic benefits of that trade deal. What has happened? In the time since that trade agreement came into force, what has US investment in Australia risen by? Nothing. US investment has fallen. This big liberalisation program was going to lead to all of this American foreign investment coming into Australia, and in the first two years it has fallen. I will not be churlish and say that that therefore proves that there will never be any benefits from such deals for Australia. But you would have to say that the early days are not encouraging. We will look now at the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It came into effect in mid-2003. Our trade balance with Singapore has gone from a surplus of $165 million to a deficit of more than $7½ billion. So the early days are not very happy days there either. Now let us have a look at the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Since that deal came into effect in early 2004, Australia’s merchandise trade deficit has increased from $700 million to $2 billion. These are very discouraging figures. It shows the folly of putting all of your eggs into the basket of bilateral trade deal negotiations, especially those preferential deals. It is true that the previous Labor government, while it was negotiating and pushing for multilateral trade liberalisation, was also negotiating bilateral trade deals, obviously, with individual countries. But it did so with countries like Japan, Korea and China, not on the basis of seeking preferential access to those markets but simply wanting an opportunity to compete—that is, the then Australian Labor government asked those countries in the negotiations not to provide a special deal for Australia but to open up the market to competition from exporters around the world, one of which would be Australia. That is what we asked for and that is what we got. So there is merit in having a dual process of multilateral trade negotiations and bilateral trade negotiations where the bilateral trade negotiations are not preferential and are non-discriminatory. But that has not been the approach of this government. That is why our export performance has been so disappointing. Services export is a completely forgotten area for this government. There has been no strategy put in place to boost Australia’s services exports. Some of our service exporters, such as in the financial services area, are starting to make real gains, sometimes with the help of some trade officials—I acknowledge that. But as to strategy, services contribute 80 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product and yet contribute such a small proportion of our exports. Increasingly with globalisation, more and more services are traded services, so it is not good enough to say services are overwhelmingly non-traded goods and therefore there is no point in trying to encourage and support the export of services. Increasingly they are traded goods and other services such as shipping and insurance, which, by definition, are traded goods. But where is the strategy? Where is the government sitting down with service exporters and saying to them, ‘We want to help open up access to service markets in other countries?’ Services exports must be an integral part of any trade strategy, but they have not been because this government has been slothful on economic reform. It has been slothful in terms of our trade performance, and as a consequence we now have a very big foreign debt of half a trillion dollars, which is to this government’s eternal shame. 8 11:06:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I am very glad to follow the opposition members in this debate on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 2006. All we have had from the government on this very simple, non-controversial bill is a bit of a second reading speech in here, a bit of a touch-up on the way through from Senator Sandy Macdonald in the Senate and at least a considered speech from Senator Grant Chapman, where he actually tried to make more out of this bill in a positive sense than one otherwise might do. Senator Chapman made a considered speech based on his experience, arguing the case of the central tenet of what is proposed here by a fellow South Australian, Mr Uhrig, who was given the task in 2005 to look at corporate governance across Australia’s statutory bodies. Finally, the Uhrig report is to be put into play in this bill after consideration by a Senate committee which Senator Chapman was involved in. This bill is wonderfully indicative of what this government are about. When they were elected to office, they put in the National Commission of Audit. They told the National Commission of Audit what they wanted to be found in that audit, they told them what they wanted the outcomes to be and then they produced a tome, canary yellow in colour, that was probably about an inch or so thick. But the foundation stone of that report was the protestation that the Commonwealth government of Australia should not deliver one single service to anyone in Australia. The recommendation was that the sole work of the federal government of Australia was to benchmark and audit. Well, what have we got in this bill? Yet another demonstration that the horizon of the coalition is an auditor’s horizon, a benchmarking horizon. When they look at export finance and insurance, they do not look at the key thing that they should be fundamentally concerned with, and that is Australian exports and ensuring that we have a vibrant export culture and that everything we do should be bent towards ensuring that, in good times and in bad, that culture is supported and extended. What is most important here? Running government departments and agencies as if they were just normal businesses in the corporate area. It is very instructive to closely listen to what EFIC are supposed to do under this bill. The act charges EFIC with undertaking four key functions. The first function is to facilitate and encourage Australian export trade by providing insurance and financial services and products to persons involved directly or indirectly in such trade—hardly earth-shattering. It is something that has been done throughout and something that is important to India and China and to some of our other markets. What else should this organisation do? The second function is to encourage banks and other financial institutions in Australia to finance or assist in financing exports. I would like a report card on that over the past 10 years. Have we seen this corporation or a government minister or any government spokesman in the past 10 years cajoling Australia’s banks to get in and export Australian goods? There has not been the mentality, on the part of this lazy government, to convince, cajole and actively go out and sell Australia’s exports. Instead, what do we have? Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, as you well know, from your experience as a committee member, we have got bilateral treaties and agreements. That is the big go. What did this mob do in opposition? They spent ages talking about the fact that they needed a committee to look at the treaties we were signing up to because they were fearful of the broad, wide world and what might happen to Australia if we signed up to multilateral pacts. This is a government that thinks of export and trade only as two-sided bilateral agreements. You can make one with Singapore. They are not a bad bunch of people. They actually know how to trade in Singapore, I can tell you that. They know how to export in Singapore. They know how to be an entrepreneur. They know how to actively put together government enterprises. They know how to do public-private partnerships for the good of the Singaporean people. They are outstandingly good at making themselves an integral part of the growth in China. If you go to Guangdong province you can see what Singapore is doing and what it is exporting into China, with its explosive growth. They are at the very core, the very bed, of what China is doing. Are Australian corporations involved in developing Chinese assets from the ground up—building them, designing them, providing the fundamental infrastructure, providing the photonics and the communications? Singapore has got all of that wrapped up. They not only speak the language but they actually understand that they can build wealth for their country by exporting their expertise and putting their money where their mouth is. These are people who deserve to succeed. We should follow their example closely. What do we do instead? Encourage the banks, do a bit here, do a bit there, and say, ‘Won’t you help these people?’ This is a government that is afraid of multilateral pacts. This is a government that has tut-tutted about the problems in the Doha Round. The Europeans have put the Americans up against the wall and said: ‘We’re going to do 20 per cent of renewables. If you people would come in to the show we’d up that to 30. We’re actively trying to fix the problems that we’re causing in regard to climate change. What about you clowns?’ The Americans finally are being forced to make some response. There will be greater problems now, having regard to the impact of the election of a Democratic-controlled congress. I refer to the reservations of the Democrats and the US government, and of the President, Republican or Democrat, who will be elected. Those reservations will be very deep. They will make multilateral pacts, agreements and an understanding more difficult. They will make it harder for the Cairns Group to drive home the lesson that those countries that have things to export should get a decent price for what they export to the richer world. You will not win against the United States and Europe by being their little friends and buddies. The United States are the best marketeers in the world. They are also privateers. They will cut you to pieces in any export market that you can find. They are renowned for being savage and difficult. A one-on-one deal with them, as we did in the bilateral treaty, will get you somewhere. Australia, as a primary producer, is still a commodity dependent nation, despite the vast reforms introduced during the Hawke-Keating period which provided a foundation stone for a new kind of productivity—a greater productivity. We have seen a fall in the export area, as indicated by the member for Hotham, from the 85 per cent figure that we took it to down to 79 per cent. It is a flatlining performance from a lazy government that does not really understand activism. I do not like the word ‘proactive’ but certainly you could never apply it to this government. Reactive, yes, but activist in these areas? These are the auditors, the benchmarkers, the onlookers, the journalistic government that want to comment on what everyone else does and float along on the back of the fundamental work that we did while we were in government, and on the backs of Australian exporters who are doing it much harder than they should be because this finance corporation is not being driven in the way it was driven under Labor. The third function of EFIC is to manage the Australian government’s aid-supported mixed credit program—they will not be managing it for all that long, will they, because it has been given the flick; it has been destroyed—a facility which is now discontinued, although loans are still outstanding under it. This government does not believe that you can continue to drive our programs by providing such things as a mixed credit program. This mob does not understand the conjunction between aid and trade. It does not understand that we should be exporting not only goods—it has always been easy to flog minerals, wool and coal—but also services. We should be exporting Australian trade services and Australian building services in the region. Instead, the government says, ‘We’ll facilitate that, we’ll encourage that, we’ll manage this and we’ll provide information and advice regarding insurance and financial arrangements to support Australian exports.’ Whacko. This is emblematic of a government that has a narrow, flattened horizon. That is why this bill sits with and fits this government extremely well—because the government does not see the necessity beyond it. Why is it important for me and others on our side to support the amendment moved by the member for Hotham? It is because the world is bigger, tougher and more difficult than this government could ever envisage. When you look at the last 10-year period, you find that the fundamental failing in any organisation has been in projecting the circumstances of the time into the future. It is a common human failing. It is a failing in statutory bodies, in countries, in companies, in governments and in the broad populace. During a period of low interest rates or high interest rates, or whatever, people tend to take those factors and project them. That has certainly been the case during the mineral boom. I do not know how long this mineral boom is going to continue or how long these prices can be sustained. It is witchery or necromancy to try to forecast what will happen. You can take a few good runs at it. My experience on the Standing Committee on Industry and Resources has given me a bit of background on it. My interest in this area tells me that there are a couple of fundamentals involved here. When you look at our export performance you find that, again, we have been the recipients of dumb luck in this area. I know that the government did not take up the recommendations of the industry and resources group. Despite the fact that we made recommendations in the last parliament and have made further recommendations now in relation to uranium, they still have not looked at flowthrough shares. They have not looked at the impact of this on the Canadian mineral sector. They have not looked at the hard things we really need to pursue in minerals exploration and minerals export. It has just been easy because the demand has gone up. Why has the demand gone up? It is because our governments have not adequately explored our resources. They have not encouraged them in the manner they should have. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you will remember that when you were Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources we produced a report on Australia’s fundamental problems in exploration. The much lower mineral prices we were getting had left us in a situation where there was a fundamental change in Australia’s mineral sector. That change was simply this: Australian ownership went out and largely British and South African ownership came in. They were only interested in brownfields development—taking the existing resources, getting as much out of them as possible, and as effectively as possible, and pouring the money back into London, Cape Town and Pretoria, and not putting the money where we really needed it in Australia—that is, into the exploration of new resources. When was the last time we opened a zinc mine in Australia? Why are zinc and other minerals in such demand worldwide? We know that China is expanding dramatically. We know how much demand there is. We saw last night’s report that Hu Jintao is spending $10-plus billion in Africa doling out money in order to secure resources. Because this government overplayed its hand trying to be deputy sheriff to the United States, it then had to pay obeisance to China and run to them cap in hand and take a 30 per cent cut on our gas exports to Guangdong province. This government does not understand that China is imperial and hegemonic, and it always acts in the way it has historically acted. It will protect not only its markets but also itself by ensuring that it has the widest spread of provision of raw materials that it can have. It will make you bend at the knee in order to get them, but it will sew up those resources in the whole of Africa. It will sew up whatever resources it can in South America. It will sew them up from Canada and elsewhere, and the privileged position we have been in so far will not exist in the future. That is part of the reason why prices will be driven down. The recrudescence of India—a very strong country which is moving forward in population terms; they have 200 million to 300 million people in their middle class—poses fundamental problems for us. Our area of safety in export was going to be—in the eighties we knew what it was, but how long has it been since any member in this House heard of this?—elaborately transformed manufactures. It has been a while, hasn’t it? I can remember PJ Keating, the former member for Blaxland, talking about elaborately transformed manufactures. Do you know why he did that? Because Australia’s manufacturing capacity in clever products that people wanted to buy rocketed under the Labor government. The reason it rocketed was that there was a Labor government determined to export and help our people here. After the cataclysm of 1985-86, in a few single months we had a half a per cent to one per cent reduction in our terms of trade. We lost 25 per cent straight off the top of the terms of trade. You will remember the banana republic bit, but the fundamental reason for that was the crash in the terms of trade. The response to that has shaped the growth of the Australian economy ever since. We are no longer just dependent on those commodities. Thank heavens for that, because, when you go out of a commodity boom, you need a much broader, wider and deeper economy. Circumstances forced us into that. The lucky country under Menzies—that dumb luck that Australia had; they would not put in the work and the thought and would not be clever about what they did and just flogged whatever they could for whatever price they got—still persists under this government. Where are the efforts to support the export of smarter products—products that will return much more to Australia? There are some, of course. There is a new sports utility vehicle that has just come into Australia called Captiva. It has a six-cylinder Australian engine produced by Holden, but most of it is made in Korea. There is one version, the MaXX—the top of the range—which is produced in Europe. That is part of the global economy. We drove part of that and played our part to ensure the survival of Australia’s motor industry. In my electorate of Blaxland in particular, the components industry is such an important part of that, but you have to drive out into the world in order to secure that. The car component industry is part of the elaborately transformed manufactures, but unless you support it and drive it, it will not be successful. We are just having a look at doing deals with Mexico. Mexico is part of NAFTA and has done extremely well there. It is an integral part of the car manufacturing industry of North America, along with Canada and the United States. The only thing the Mexicans would get out of doing that would be exporting their products into Australia. We would have some access to theirs. It is likely at this time they would say they would not want to be part of it, but there are vibrant parts of other countries where they are renovating what they have and are driving it forward. They are signing up to broader pacts. It was an initiative of Mr Clinton, a Democrat, to form NAFTA. We saw that as a significant problem for us, but we responded. What was the response of the Australian Labor Party and of Treasurer and then Prime Minister Keating? The response was to boost along and radically transform APEC. As my colleagues have indicated, we have a massive chance this year. In large part it will no doubt be squandered, but it should not be if this government really was an activist in the export area. The very first meetings in relation to APEC are currently taking place, and the Commonwealth drivers are taking off for Perth tomorrow because the first exploratory stuff is being done. The government do not fundamentally believe in activism on a multilateral front, and that is why they have not driven this process for 10 years. That is why they have only lately become converts: because it suits them. They have no real belief in the fundamentals of multilateral activity. They are the ideologues of the bilateral path, which is a short, narrow path that leads only one way. It is not the fundamental that the future of a commodity-dependent country, as Australia still is, is determined by. I fully support our second reading amendment. It goes to the substance of what the problem is, and this bill indicates the narrowness of the view of this government. (Time expired) 8 11:26:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr TRUSS —May I at the outset thank members for their contributions. Some of the contributions were a little on the colourful side, and few were actually relevant to the nature of the bill and instead were a general discussion in relation to trade and trade performance, as reflected in the opposition’s amendment which, needless to say, the government will strongly resist. It does so because the amendment is fundamentally flawed and is not relevant to the legislation. The honourable member for Hotham, in his response, said a number of things with which I agree and much with which I do not agree. His speech contained numerous factual errors and misrepresentations of the government’s position and was mainly devoted to criticising Australia’s trade performance. In particular, he referred to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement in less than complimentary terms. I think he has misrepresented substantially the performance of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. The figures for the financial year 2005-06 show that Australian exports of both goods and services to the United States have increased. You would not get that impression from the comments of the honourable member for Hotham. Services exports, which comprise about a third of all of our exports to the United States, increased by 5.7 per cent, to almost $5.4 billion. There were significant increases in a range of contracts, particularly new government procurement contracts. We have seen over $95 million worth of government procurement contracts which simply would not have been possible without the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement because Australian companies were precluded from those contracts prior to the agreement. There have been some increases in significant agricultural products, in dairy in particular and in lamb and mutton, as a direct result of the benefits of the free trade agreement. But it must be said that, historically, Australia has had a trade deficit with the United States which has been going on for generations. I wish we could turn that around, but the reality is that the US is the source of a lot of the technology that is essential for the growth and development of Australian industry. A couple of other things have happened which have made an enormous impact on the Australia-US trade balance. The first is that, when the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement was negotiated, the value of the Australian dollar was significantly different from what it is today. In 2001, for instance, the average exchange rate for the US dollar was A52c. In 2005, it was A76c. That clearly makes a difference to every figure in the trade balance, but it also alters the competitiveness of Australian products in that particular market. Another major factor has been the diversion of Australian crude oil to Asia for refining, which has significantly altered the impact on our trade balance. I will also refer to the impact of the decline in beef exports to the United States. There has been a reduction of around $500 million worth of beef exports to the United States since the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement was put in place. Essentially that is because markets in Japan and Korea became very much more attractive following the BSE outbreak. We now have as much as 90 per cent of some of those markets; hence, that product has been diverted away from the US and into those markets, though probably only for the short to medium term. The member for Hotham also referred to the decline in US investment in Australia without acknowledging that most of that can be attributed to the changed arrangements resulting from the restructure of News Corporation. That has had a significant effect on that statistic, but Australian investment in the US has grown substantially. I am sure that the US’s interest in Australia has also benefited from this free trade agreement. Everyone can selectively quote statistics. The honourable member for Hotham made a quite extraordinary statement in the Age a few weeks ago that, if you projected the figures on trade under Labor today, we would have billions of dollars of trade surpluses. I responded that, if you use that same methodology, we would also have government debt running into trillions and budget deficits would be in the hundreds of billions. The reality is that the methodology is unsound; things change in time. I am not suggesting that Labor would be running deficits of hundreds of billions—probably many billions, but not hundreds of billions—therefore the arguments that the honourable member for Hotham put were simply mathematically unsound. I would obviously like Australia’s trade to always be in surplus, and that must be an objective that we all work to, but I was surprised at the statements by the honourable member for Blaxland and the honourable member for Rankin. The member for Hotham also made a complaint about the fact that Australia has not been able to take maximum advantage of the resources boom that is occurring at the present time. I have some sympathy with that view—I think it is a pity that Australia has not been able to sell more to the markets that want our products—but then they avoided the reason for the problem: that is, 50 ships lined up at Newcastle and Dalrymple Bay because the state governments did not have the initiative to provide the port facilities that were required. The infrastructure—railway lines and so forth—is inadequate, but it is all controlled by Labor state governments. They should not point the finger of blame at this government; they should look at the reason for the failure to get a lot of those minerals out of the country in a timely way. Labor also suggests that there have not been any new mines. I agree there have not been enough new mines, but who stopped the mines? The problem is at the state level, with the red, green and black tape that has been put in the way and that encouraged Australian mining companies to look to other parts of the world. I think the states also need to look very seriously at how on earth we can take advantage of the available commodities boom when so much red tape has been put in the way. I would remind members opposite also, when they are lamenting the fact that we have not sold enough coal, that there are some amongst Labor who want to stop coal exports altogether. Some want to close down coalmines in the Hunter Valley. That kind of woolly thinking needs to be stamped out if the Labor Party want us to believe that, somehow or other, they would achieve higher commodity exports if they were in government. The Australian trade performance has some quite pleasing elements. It is clear that exports are growing substantially. Even last month, when we had a disappointing trade balance, it was actually the fifth-highest month for exports on record. Indeed, we have had most of the highest months on record in the last 12 months. Our exports are growing substantially, but they have been offset by a growth in imports, mainly in consumer goods but in some instances in the equipment we need to upgrade our mining industry and to improve our manufacturing sector so that it can be more competitive into the future. Another factor which will have an impact on the Australian trade figures over the months and years ahead, and which was reflected last month, is the importation of aircraft. Last month imports for the defence forces were significant, with the importation of the large new C17 aircraft making an impact on our trade balance. We also imported a lot of munitions in that month. Qantas have orders on the books for something like $50 billion worth of aircraft. When those aircraft come into the country it will have a big impact on our trade balance. On the other hand, we are exporting parts for those aircraft, and that provides a useful boost for Australian industry. There will be some improvements also on the export side. We still have a long way to go in improving the world trade environment so that trade is freer and fairer. We all need to work constructively towards ensuring a better outcome from the Doha Round and any multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements we are able to achieve. Many countries want to do free trade agreements with Australia and we need to encourage that process. On the other hand, Australia sets high objectives for these free trade agreements. We want high-quality, comprehensive agreements. We do not believe there is a benefit in just putting marks on the wall for all the agreements we have; it is the quality of those agreements that counts. A lot of effort needs to go into negotiating the best quality agreements. Doha remains the Australian government’s highest priority, and maximum effort will be put into ensuring a good outcome. I assure the honourable member for Hotham and others who are interested that that multilateral arrangement remains our highest priority. We will not compromise the resources available to those negotiations to pursue other free trade agreements with countries like China and Japan. They are high priorities and we will put the necessary resources into them as well, but it will not be at the expense of our multilateral work. The next six months or so will be critical in knowing where we are heading in relation to multilateral trade outcomes and Australia will be putting the maximum effort into achieving a good result. But we are interested in other multilateral trade agreements and bilateral agreements that can benefit Australia. We will certainly also focus our attention on that work. Turning to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 2006 and the reason for the discussion, I note that the opposition has indicated its willingness to support the bill and the proposed changes. This bill is a response to the Uhrig recommendations under which the government is reviewing corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. The response in this bill reflects the Uhrig recommendations and as a result will deliver an EFIC arrangement that is the most effective and that delivers good accountability and governance structures for the organisation. In the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio six statutory authorities, including EFIC, have been reviewed under the Uhrig arrangements. The Australian Trade Commission recently implemented changes to its governance structure as a result of this process. The bill provides for the EFIC board to have the power to appoint the managing director and deputy managing director after consultation with the minister. It provides for the removal of the managing director of Austrade from the EFIC board. The size of the EFIC board is to be limited to between six and nine members and the quorum of a meeting of the EFIC board is to be reduced to three. Appointments to the EFIC board other than in respect of the government member will be limited to three years, with the introduction of a limit of two terms, or three terms for the EFIC board members who serve as chairperson. These changes are also consistent with the recommendations of the Uhrig report. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade examined the bill in September 2006 and has recommended that the bill be passed. It is relatively uncontroversial and will have no financial impact. EFIC’s mandate and function will not be affected in any material way by this bill. I thank honourable members for the debate on trade issues. It is important that there be opportunities to discuss those issues about which there is a reasonable degree of bipartisanship in what our objectives are. Some may disagree about what the right route to get to those outcomes is, but all Australians want our country to sell more goods. Everybody says that we want fewer imports, but it is in their hands to guarantee that we have fewer imports: buy Australian goods and do not buy imported goods. But the reality is that they do not do what they say. When it comes to the supermarket, they buy what is cheapest or what they think is best for them. When they go to the electrical goods store or wherever it might be, they tend to buy increasing amounts of imported goods. So this is a classic case where ordinary Australians can actually do something about our exports and our trade balance. They can buy more Australian goods and encourage Australian industry, and those who adopt those sorts of practices deserve encouragement and support. Thank you to those who have made a contribution. I commend the bill to the committee. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —I would like to pose a question to the minister. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Do you want to speak on indulgence? LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Yes, please. I seek the views of the Minister for Trade as to the very strong view expressed by the 2007 Australian of the Year, Mr Flannery, on Lateline last night, that we should now very seriously start to reduce as a matter of urgency our coal exports. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Reduce our coal exports? In response to the honourable member’s question, I have to say that I found the remark quite extraordinary. It is not a policy that the government intends to pursue. The government does, however, recognise that we need to do what we can to improve the technology associated with the burning of coal in power stations and in industry. We support the introduction of clean coal technology. We have done that through research and development, direct financial support and encouragement to the sector. It is very important for a country like Australia, which is a major supplier of energy, to be responsible in playing our role in reducing global greenhouse emissions. But to stop exporting coal from Australia would in my view probably not reduce emissions, because the coal would simply come from other parts of the world that do not have such high standards. His call was not well founded and does not reflect government policy. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 8 Bills R2693 8 Debate resumed from 6 December 2006, on motion by Mrs De-Anne Kelly: That this bill be now read a second time. 8 11:44:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise to support the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. In doing so, can I say that I thoroughly agree with the answer given by the Minister for Trade in the context of the navigation bill. I know that is also important to employment in the navigation industry with respect to coal exports. This bill is about amending the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 with regard to implementing annex VI of MARPOL, which came into force internationally on 19 May 2005. I note that it is nearly two years since this amendment came into force and nearly 10 years since it was adopted by the IMO. I suggest this is, unfortunately, more than ever, typical of this government’s laziness and arrogance with respect to its legislative requirements. It is a disgrace that it has taken so long to bring implementation of this legislation before the House. The bill also makes some other interesting minor amendments unrelated to annex VI, including a change in the description of ‘pilot’ to ‘licensed pilot’; amendments to better implement the revised annex I of MARPOL; and the removal of the limit on the amount of penalty for regulatory breaches. Even so, this was not a controversial or difficult bill to bring into the House. I simply say that I believe the minister owes the Australian parliament and Australian people an explanation as to why the government is more than ever becoming so tardy with its legislative program. I have just come from the House, where I also spoke on the AusCheck Bill, which is important in terms of maritime and aviation security. This legislative requirement, which is about tightening the provisions going to the security of people working in the aviation and maritime industry, was promised two years ago. Yet, again, it took the government two years to get this simple proposition, which is so important in our fight against terrorism, before the House. Nevertheless, the opposition believes that the bill is a welcome step. We are finally here. This bill is about meeting Australia’s obligations as a party to the important MARPOL convention of the IMO to reduce pollution from ships. Australia has always closely aligned its legislation with the international conventions of the IMO. Australian shipping is a leader in the field when it comes to maritime security, safety, pollution prevention and contingency planning. This bill will set limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and will prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances. There is also a cap of 4.5 per cent on the sulfur content of fuel oil. The opposition believes these are the kinds of emission regulations that the land transport sector has faced for many years—because this is about preventing air pollution—and it is time that they were extended to the maritime sector as well. However, it appears to me that the focus of the bill is on oil-fired shipping. Perhaps we may have more to do to address emissions from coal-fired and gas-fired shipping when it comes to air pollution prevention in the future. It will also be important that floating production storage and off-take facilities which are covered under the Navigation Act only when they are disconnected from the riser maintain the currency of their air pollution prevention certificates. I also note that the bill applies to vessels greater than 400 tonnes, whereas most other IMO conventions apply to vessels greater than 500 tonnes. Therefore, I point out to the House that some ships which have not been used to operating under IMO conventions will now be brought under the act and into this net, at least for this convention. There is one other anomaly I noted, in relation to two definitions of ‘Australian ship’, which I seek clarification on. In one case an ‘Australian ship’ is defined as a registered Australian vessel while in another it is defined as a vessel having Australian nationality. I believe that the legal framework is complex enough without introducing ambiguities in these definitions. I for one am unclear as to what the definition actually means. I therefore seek clarification from the minister with respect to those issues. As I said earlier, Australia has always and appropriately closely aligned its legislation with IMO conventions and therefore sought consistent and high international standards when it comes to maritime safety, security and protection of the environment. The environmental protection measures in this bill are welcome, but much more needs to be done when it comes to maritime security, which is a huge concern to the opposition and to the Australian public generally. I refer to the fact that some changes were made last year, which the opposition supported, including simplified procedures to make changes to security plans and shorter statutory time frames for approval of security plans that are so vital in the fight against terrorism. But I remain to be convinced that the government can actually manage to implement these changes. Let us take the issue of maritime security, for example. In doing so I refer to the failure of the government to ensure that, as required by law, all ships advise of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. I would have thought that that would be fairly fundamental if we are serious about maritime security in the fight against terrorism. I refer to this because last year information was given to the Senate which told us that just 67 per cent of ships coming into Australian ports actually comply with this requirement. A third of ships do not comply with the law. I wonder why this government has failed to be more rigorous with respect to the application of this law. Of those ships, half do not inform authorities about their cargo and crew until they have actually entered the port. I simply say that it is all too late to be doing it after they are in the port. There are rules and regulations and it is about time they were adhered to by ships coming into Australian ports, because they are potentially a time bomb for the Australian community. Another area of concern and, in my view, a dereliction of duty on the part of the government, relates to its failure to carry out comprehensive security checks on foreign crews. This is an issue that I have been raising throughout the great majority of my years in parliament, having first raised it when I was shadow minister for immigration and employment prior to the 1988 election. It has been an ongoing problem. There have been some changes by government, but I simply suggest that the checking of foreign crews is totally inadequate. This is an important matter that will consistently be raised by opposition members and senators, both publicly and in the parliament, so as to try to press the government to get serious about this issue. For example, when it comes to foreign crews, the names on the manifesto are checked against existing databases, usually after the ship is berthed. That is about seeing if any of these persons are not wanted in Australia. Surely we should be making sure those checks are done before ships with foreign crews enter Australian shores. The fact is that there is no way of knowing whether the people on the ship are who they are, and no security checks are done on any of them anyhow. This is inadequate and, frankly, a dereliction of duty by the Howard government, specifically by the minister for transport in association with the minister for immigration and the Attorney-General. Conversely, let us have a look at our own seafarers. They are correctly and appropriately required to undergo the most rigorous and thorough security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO. This matter is currently the subject of debate in the House with respect to the Attorney-General’s AusCheck legislation, which the opposition is supporting. These people have to have a maritime security identification card similar to those used to clear workers in our airports—requirements that the opposition has always supported. Aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards certify that the holders of the cards are people of good character and good background who can work in security-sensitive areas for the betterment of the Australian community. Why is it different for foreign crews? We believe that this is a very important security measure. It is a measure that the Australian public appropriately expects, because they want to be assured that they are in safe hands when it comes to our airports and our ports. The same just cannot be said with respect to maritime security. As my colleague the member for Brisbane put very well recently, the Howard government hands out permits for flag of convenience crews like it was a Friday night chook raffle at the local pub in the port of Brisbane. None of the checks that are carried out to give us confidence in Australian seafarers are carried out on any of these flag of convenience vessels. The use of ships of convenience was a measure originally introduced to handle peak periods of demand, but since 1996 the Howard government, in its extreme campaign against the rights of Australian workers and maritime unions, has used these measures to replace Australian ships and Australian crews on a regular basis. We believe that they are not only causing unemployment for Australian seafarers and the destruction of our own maritime seagoing industry but also potentially sacrificing the safety of Australian sea lanes, our environment and our ports. They are exposing our maritime points of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods, like explosive-grade ammonium nitrate, to the potential for tourists to smuggle explosives and weapons into this country and to the potential for other criminal activities to run riot. I am also very concerned about the lack of commitment by the government to working with industry, including the maritime unions and the workers in the industry and their families, to ensure that well-trained, highly skilled Australian seafarers maintain their pre-eminent role in the LNG shipping trade, which is going to become more important to Australia with the growth of our exports to China. I point out that for over 25 years we have had in place a highly successful continuity of operations agreement between the North West Shelf venturers and the maritime unions which has ensured the safe, reliable, on time delivery of LNG cargoes to customers around the world and notably to Japan. This agreement has served Australia well. The agreement has served us well not only because it is about making sure that we guarantee security of supply to receiving nations but also because we can rest easy in the knowledge that LNG tankers will operate safely in the sea lanes and ports under the control of highly skilled, security-cleared Australian seafarers. The Japanese, Chinese and Korean LNG receiving terminals also regard this as being important because it means they have a high degree of assurance that their cargo vessel and onshore terminal facility will be secure when an Australian crewed LNG carrier is in port. They expect it to be secure. But, alternatively, when it comes to foreign crews and foreign vessels coming to Australia, we do not apply the same high security standards in our own ports, many of which are in key capital cities and provincial cities. We can be sure that pollution prevention measures, like those addressed in this bill, will be properly carried out as well. It is about making sure that, with respect to the important debate about emissions, we are doing everything possible to pull our weight both domestically and internationally. I refer in passing to a report produced by Sandia National Laboratories, under contract to the US Department of Energy, entitled Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water, which made mention of the fact that Australian LNG risk management strategies are world’s best practice—and so they ought to be. I raise this because I believe this is one of the strengths of the Australian LNG industry and its reputation, which is important to the issue of trade and export earnings, as a reliable, safe and environmentally responsible supplier in the global marketplace. One of the principal reasons Australia has been able to maintain this important position in a very tough global community is that we are a reliable shipper of LNG. It also goes to the fact—I raise this today because the Labor Party, as the opposition, have some fears—that currently the system is that shipping contracts have been written on a delivery ex-ship basis, meaning that the seller controls the shipping. The opposition would be concerned if there were any move away from ex-ship contract terms to free-on-board shipping contracts, where the seller generally controls the shipping. In our view, a move to free-on-board shipping contracts weakens Australian involvement in the LNG transportation task, introduces more flag of convenience shipping into the LNG trade, risks Australia’s reputation as a reliable LNG supplier and creates potential and serious new security risks here and in the ports of our customers. They do not want it; nor do we want it in Australia. I firmly believe the same level of commitment to risk assessment and high-quality risk management strategies cannot be guaranteed if ships contracted to carry Australian LNG are drawn from second-rate flag of convenience registries with crews whose identity and security checks are unknown to the Australian authorities. As I said earlier, we are already exposing our maritime points of entry to the safety, security and environmental hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods like explosives grade ammonium nitrate. I obviously do not want this extended to the LNG trade because this trade is so important to the future economic prosperity of Australia and it is of exceptional importance to key regional economies—for example, the state of Western Australia. This aside, on behalf of the opposition I indicate that we support the step forward embodied in this bill, which is correctly about improving the prevention of pollution from ships, but I also ask that the minister and the department do more than is currently being done to tackle equally important issues like maritime security. In conclusion, in the opposition’s opinion, Australia deserves better when it comes to our national security and the protection of our maritime borders and entry points. I commend the bill to the House but also remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services that I have raised a couple of issues of clarification with respect to definitions, which I will seek assistance on. Thank you for the opportunity to address the House. 8 12:01:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I rise to support statements made by the shadow minister in his contribution to this debate. The Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006 implements Australia’s obligation to reduce pollution from ships as a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 1973 to 1978. In particular, it implements annex VI, which was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation in September 1997 and came into force internationally on 19 May 2005. The amendments set limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts, prohibit the deliberate emission of ozone-depleted substances and set a global cap of 4.5 per cent on the sulfur content of fuel oil. There are some minor amendments unrelated to annex VI, including a change in the description of ‘pilot’ to ‘licensed pilot’, amendments to better implement the revised annex I of MARPOL and the removal of the limit on the amount of penalty for regulatory breaches. The bill amends the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. I would firstly like to raise the issue of the continuing voyage permit and the single voyage permit ships that operate around the coast of Australia and how these ships impact on the ability to ensure that Australia meets its obligations in relation to the amendments to the act. I would argue strongly that the amount of control we as a nation have over those ships is severely limited because these ships tend to be outside the jurisdiction of this nation. I would like to share with the House an example of one of these ships and how our knowledge and ability to influence what happens on them is limited. I have visited ships issued with continuous voyage permits and single voyage permits. The flag of convenience ship I have visited, which I have mentioned many times in the House, is the Angel III. This ship sails under a Maltese flag, with a Greek captain and Burmese crew. The crew of this ship were very nervous and very subservient, and their inability to speak English and the fact that all the signs on the ship were either in English or in Greek created questions about how safe the ship was in their hands. There have been many stories about flag of convenience ships, which are often flagged under one country, have a crew from another country and a captain from a different country again. Many of these ships have been identified as rust buckets floating on the seas around our coastlines, and they have the potential to impact on the environment. The Australian government’s inability to ensure that these ships will observe the amendments in this proposed legislation really raises some serious concerns. I would argue that the government’s decisions and actions in the maritime area have been driven more by its ideological hatred of the MUA and more by its workplace relations legislation than by what is actually best for the shipping industry of this country and for the protection of our environment and the global environment. On another note, coal was previously shipped from Catherine Hill Bay, within the electorate of Shortland, to the port of Newcastle on a wholly Australian owned vessel, an Australian crewed vessel, captained by an Australian captain. That was the MV Wallarah. You could look out to the ocean and see the Wallarah off the coastline and be secure in the knowledge that there would be no pollution on our beaches. Unfortunately, that vessel has been sold. It is now a flag of convenience ship sailing around the coastline of Australia. The potential for environmental damage to our shores by these flag of convenience ships is quite enormous. I implore the government to look at the national interest and revisit this issue of single voyage and continuous voyage permits, which, as the shadow minister informed the House, were initially introduced to meet peak workloads. They are not the exception now; they are the norm. That is the way that shipping is conducted around Australia in the overwhelming majority of cases. As well as the potential for an environmental catastrophe, there are other impacts. There is the impact on our shipping industry as a whole, because the shipping industry is an employer not only on ships but on shore. There are a number of shore related businesses associated with Australian shipping. These have all been affected by this government’s ideological opposition to the MUA. We are an island nation. We should have one of the strongest shipping industries in the world. Potentially we have the expertise here, which we are fast losing because of the approach to shipping by this government. But instead of following down the track of developing, nurturing and improving the country’s shipping industry, we have gone down the track of selling out on it. The shadow minister mentioned a very important issue, and that is the security issue and the fact that foreign crews are not subject to the same scrutiny as our Australian crews. They do not have to have the maritime security card that Australian crews do and they do not have to have the same level of identification and security checks that Australian crews and Australian maritime workers have to have. The government cannot really be serious about security if they allow these foreign crews to come in without proper security checks and to not have to notify the port until 24 hours before; as the shadow minister said, half do not advise until they are in port, and the security checks on these foreign crews are non-existent. If they are not checked properly, how can you ensure that the person that they claim is on the ship is actually on the ship? There are enormous issues surrounding the maritime industry. We in the opposition support these changes, but we implore the government to revisit all the issues surrounding the Australian shipping industry, and to commit to building a strong shipping industry for our island nation, put aside their hatred of the MUA and join with the opposition in ensuring that we have a shipping industry that will set us up for the future and place us in a very good place in the world and use the expertise that exists in this country. 8 12:12:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —At the outset I have to thank the member for Shortland who, with a very short period of notice, has filled in and spoken for me. Because I was speaking in the chamber on another bill, the AusCheck Bill 2006, I would not have been able to participate in this debate if it had not been for her good graces in speaking off the cuff. So I thank her very much and now I will get on with it. There is a conjunction here in terms of the bill I have just been speaking about in the House—and the Attorney is now summing up in relation to that bill, the AusCheck bill, that seeks a better coordination of identity checks in the aviation and maritime area—and this bill, the Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006. The second reading was given by the parliamentary secretary, the Hon. De-Anne Kelly. There is a direct connection with a series of other bills. At the end of last year we were dealing with pollution of the seas directly from a number of different agents and materials carried on ships. These matters have now been dealt with. I imagine—and the parliamentary secretary may be able to elucidate—that we are, if not at the end, close to the end of the series of bills dealing with this particular area, because most of the schedules should now have been covered. What we are looking at is a worldwide attempt to come to grips with problems of pollution from major ocean-going vessels and particularly cargo vessels. It relates to the problems we have seen with the lack of double-hulled ships and those terrible experiences, from one end of the earth to the other, of ocean-going tankers full of petrol foundering and spreading their contents across the ocean. Last year we dealt with a bill concerning the manner in which chemicals should be carried. What is required is not just a set of regulations but very practical work in this area to come to a new set of standards to obviate the most significant problems by ensuring that future ships will be double-hulled and that, as we go forward, the problems with material spilling out of ships will be significantly lessened, because there is a tremendous cost to what has happened. When you look at the provisions in the last few bills we have dealt with and this one, you see that you do not do this sort of stuff on your own. This is an example of the Australian government cooperating with other governments overseas, shipowners, operators and the people who regulate this worldwide to ensure that we sign up to making our oceans safer and cleaner places. It is part of a broader thing. We live in a modern, industrialised world. I go back to the early sixties, when I was finishing school, and the late sixties, when I started university. One of the most seminal books written at that time in the economic area was called The stages of economic growth by Walt Rostow. What Rostow laid out was really the story of developing countries from then until now. He argued that it was possible to go through a series of stages of economic growth; that those stages could be relatively well predicted, enhanced and pushed forward; and that the worst of countries—the ones with the least amount of capacity—would be able to get their acts together and build towards a more prosperous future. What Rostow was predicting we have really dramatically seen in action in China and now, increasingly, in India. As Deputy Speaker Somlyay would well know, we have already seen a range of European countries have their own economic revolutions. Hungary, of course, was one of the great leaders, even when it was still under domination in the Soviet bloc. That demonstrated that the native capacity of the people could be harnessed to really dramatically change the nature of their economy and the way in which their society was run. Linked into the stages of dramatic growth we have had has been a dramatic increase in the amount of industrial output. So much pollution has been poured into our air and so much damage has been done to not only the atmosphere but also our seas and rivers. The story of the last 20 years or so—in the eastern bloc in particular since the fall of the Russians and the opening up of the dreadful consequences of pollution in that Soviet bloc—is of a new awakening to the dangers of pollution in an industrialised world. Latterly, we are finally on a road not to Damascus but to somewhere else. I am not sure where it is. Maybe it is a road to Kyoto or somewhere. The Prime Minister has had a latter-day pastoral conversion and now recognises, as President Bush finally concedes, that we actually do have climate change. There is a worldwide scientific consensus. In the past six years there has been a deliberate campaign on the part of the Bush administration in the United States to deny the reality of climate change—to lessen it, run sceptical arguments to try to derail that acknowledgement and boost up any of the antis over that period of time. That has been a considerable blockage in terms of dealing with the fundamental problems we have. We have to deal with air pollution. We have seen state governments grapple with this over many years. If you live in the Sydney basin—if you are privileged to do so—you will know that that basin, because of its very nature, years ago was pretty bad in terms of the way pollution was building up. There was an understanding of just how significant the actions needed to be if you were going to fix up the problems with CFCs. That is the best example we have so far of cooperative activity worldwide to address major environmental problems. The government is doing the right thing here, as it did in the previous bill, to moderate the deleterious effects of air pollution from ships. If we look at the particulars of this, we are dealing here with annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973-78, the MARPOL agreement. In September 1997, that was adopted and it was fully brought into play on 19 May 2005. If you connect annex VI of this with the other things that have been dealt with, we are looking at a significant attempt to moderate the environmental effects of shipping. There is a lot of shipping worldwide; there is a lot of shipping that needs to be controlled. There is a lot of shipping of the nature of ‘ships of shame’. Much of that has been cleaned up through this kind of mechanism or will be, but it is absolutely important that it is. The amendments set limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and they prohibit the deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances and include a global cap of 4½ per cent on the sulfur content of fuel oil. That is a good step and an important one. You should not be afraid of regulating and you should not be afraid of operating in a multilateral environment. You should move to fix things as necessary. If only we had the same kind of commitment from the government in broader areas. This is where you need to not only recognise the problem but realise that you have to actively move in order to fix it. There are a number of things that we have moved that the government has so far not taken note of adequately enough. But we have to in the maritime area ensure that everything we can possibly do in order to address not just pollution but safety and security is done. There are many ships travelling to Australia with foreign crews that are not listed. We do not know what cargo those ships carry and we do not know their crews. We need to address that adequately and properly if we are to have not only a clean but also a secure maritime environment. That is particularly the case where we have cargo vessels coming to Australia loaded up with ammonium nitrate and other noxious substances that could be released. This has a security dimension. We need to ensure that a continental Australia, a maritime Australia, is secured and secured efficiently and effectively by deliberate government action. We have run through a whole series of measures that could be directed towards that. I would encourage the government generally, as I have just encouraged the Attorney, to look very closely at these areas and to step up moves with regard to securing the containers running through Australian ports. The government has actively been part of a multilateral compact here to put into place annexure VI and a series of other measures that the parliamentary secretary was involved with last year. They should move expeditiously to do the rest of the job to ensure that the broader area is fixed. I will leave my comments at that. 8 12:23:00 Kelly, De-Anne, MP FK6 Dawson NATS Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 0 Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY —I would like firstly to acknowledge all of those who have spoken on the bill and thank them for their contribution. In summing up, annex VI, prevention of air pollution from ships, of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973-78, the MARPOL agreement, came into force internationally on 19 May 2005. Australia’s accession to annex VI relies on domestic legislation being in place. The bill will allow Australia to enforce more stringent requirements on emissions from ships, thus demonstrating the government’s continuing efforts to further enhance Australia’s marine pollution prevention regime. Industry supports the amendments. I would like to go, however, to some of the questions raised. The member for Batman had a concern about definitions of Australian vessels. The provision in the bill ensures that all ships with Australian nationality are covered by the act. Furthermore, the Shipping Registration Act allows unregistered ships to have Australian nationality. In other words, the definitions comprehensively cover all vessels. There have been a range of questions going to maritime security raised by the member for Batman and other speakers. This bill does not relate to maritime security; it relates to air pollution. Nonetheless, the questions were asked in good faith and I will ensure that a response in writing is prepared for the member for Batman and others who have raised those questions. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. Adjournment Mr RANDALL (Canning) 12:26:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 8 8 12:26:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —Lord Howe Island is a unique community and part of the federal electorate of Sydney. Lord Howe Island is north-east of Sydney and is World Heritage listed for its unique flora, fauna and marine environment. On a recent trip to Lord Howe Island I held a morning tea for my constituents. They wanted to talk about the fact that, despite its beautiful natural environment and rich history, Lord Howe Island faces many of the same problems as other isolated communities. In particular, an issue raised with me by a number of people was the ageing of the island population. What could be done to help people who wanted to stay in their own homes? Could their accommodation be extended for carers? Will the respite care available through the wonderful Gower Wilson Memorial Hospital be adequate into the future? They face the same sorts of issues that people around Australia face. The Gower Wilson Memorial Hospital, with its excellent staff, including Dr Frank Reed, provides a marvellous service for islanders and visitors. It has had its battles with health bureaucrats who do not understand that an island 700 kilometres from the mainland, an island that can be cut off for days from the outside world, needs a bit of extra attention at times. There is a very sensible proposal from islanders to buy a second-hand ultrasound machine, for example. Having worked with the islanders and staff of the hospital on previous issues, like the distribution of pharmaceuticals on the island, I look forward to taking on other challenges which will improve the lives of the people I represent. I also met with the staff and elected members of the Lord Howe Island Board, which does a fantastic job of maintaining the island and protecting its natural and cultural heritage. The board does a lot more than your average council. It maintains the airstrip, roads and national park on the island. It faces costs that many other councils do not have and it does all of this in an environment where most of the supplies have to be shipped in by boat or flown in at great expense. We had an excellent discussion with members of the board about the draft threatened species recovery plan that is being proposed by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation. I am very much looking forward to the possible reintroduction of the phasmid. Members might know that this is an insect that became extinct on Lord Howe Island but was rediscovered a few years ago on Ball’s Pyramid. I have also been very impressed by the very successful reintroduction of the critically endangered Lord Howe woodhen into the natural environment and the successful breeding of the woodhen in its natural environment. But I want to point out to the Department of Environment and Conservation that any plan for threatened species has to also take into account the culture and heritage of Lord Howe Island. Islanders have lived there for many generations—in many cases, six generations—and they love and respect the environment that they live in. Their involvement in a threatened species plan will be critical to its success. I visited the teachers and children of the marvellous Lord Howe Island Central School and was able to congratulate them on their excellent achievements in the Schools Spectacular. Lord Howe Island was one of three featured schools from New South Wales. Darlington, another school in my electorate, also featured. Lord Howe Island is home to the world famous Kentia palm. Larry, the manager, showed me the nurseries where these plants are germinated and packed for shipping overseas. They ship between 1½ and 3 million seedlings overseas in a year. Kentia palms from Lord Howe Island were one of Queen Victoria’s favourite plants and on her instructions were placed by her coffin as she was lying in state. Along with tourism, they are one of the main sources of income for the island and a world-beating example of sustainable industry. There is no better place in the world for a family holiday than Lord Howe Island, but Lord Howe Island is a unique community whose permanent residents face serious issues—the high cost of living, particularly the high cost of fuel, limited accommodation, a restricted range of health, education and other welfare services, and reliance on a mail system which, with a lot of pressure, has greatly improved but which will never be 100 per cent certain, limited internet access and so on. Some restrictions go with the territory—I am sure no-one really misses having mobile phone coverage. Whenever I can, I will look for ways of working with islanders to improve their quality of life and support them in caring for the most beautiful place on earth. 8 8 12:31:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise today to talk about families in the electorate of Wakefield and their future security. I am particularly glad today to be able to talk about an announcement that was made by General Motors Holden about the export of a car to America. The Pontiac G8, which is based on the SS Commodore and which is manufactured at the Elizabeth plant in Wakefield, will be sent to the United States. Those exports are expected to start later this year. So, whilst this is an announcement about exports, for the families who depend on GMH in Elizabeth and the parts and components suppliers this means that GMH will be able to use far more of the capacity it has at that plant. The plant has had a sizeable investment by GMH. That investment in the infrastructure is a long-term commitment to South Australia. This commitment to export vehicles to the United States provides certainty for those workers. They can now plan for their families’ future. This export opportunity has not come about just by luck but because of the dedication and hard work of the workers at GMH, the people who assemble the cars. It has come about because of the innovative designs of the design teams at Holden, both in Elizabeth and in Melbourne, where the engines are made. It has also come about because this government has made a significant investment in research, development and innovation. This investment has meant that Australian automotive products are world-beaters—they are competitive on the global scene. Automotive sector exports increased from only seven per cent in the 1990s to 38 per cent in 2006. That is fantastic news. Compared to our domestic market, the world market is huge. Some 65 million vehicles a year are purchased overseas. So the more competitive we can make our product, the more export opportunities there will be and the more certainty there will be for those who depend upon the automotive sector. This government, through its various commitments to the automotive sector, is spending some $7.3 billion to make sure that our auto sector is competitive and can get into the overseas market. That is why we are now exporting some 30,000 vehicles to the Middle East. This Pontiac order from America is expected to grow larger during the life of this vehicle. Because of improved technology and fuel efficiency, engines manufactured by GM here are being exported around the world. Whilst there is fear, for example, about imports from China, a lot of people do not realise that we are exporting things like engines to China. GMH at the moment is exporting vehicles to Asia, Korea, the Middle East, US, Brazil and South Africa. Overall, GM has exported some 770,000 vehicles. This export order for this Commodore model, the G8 Pontiac, is a fantastic story for GM workers and their families. It means that the product they are producing is competitive overseas. The world market is huge, so this will provide certainty to them and their families. I welcome the announcement today by GMH and I congratulate the Australian government on its ongoing commitment to and serious support for—to the tune of $7.3 billion—the automotive industry in Australia. 8 8 12:35:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —As the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation pointed out in the state parliament this week, this is a year of very significant anniversaries when it comes to Aboriginal affairs in this nation. This year marks the 40th anniversary of our referendum of 27 May 1967. As we know, on this date Australians voted overwhelmingly to change our Constitution to exclude discriminatory references to our Indigenous community, including the line that ‘Aboriginal natives shall not be counted’. It is this referendum result which has been said to give the federal government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aboriginal Australia. This year also marks the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report, an important report on the devastating consequences of government sanctioned policies of removal of Aboriginal children from their parents. In light of these significant anniversaries, I think that this is a very appropriate time for us to reflect on the reconciliation process, the progress that has been made to date and the next steps which must be taken. On Sunday I had the opportunity to speak at the book launch of a local South Australian author’s first novel. Dr Nicholas Fourikis’s Hollywood Amarroo is an interesting story of life in a 1968 Australian country town. The majority of the book is set in Amarroo, an outback country town, and Hollywood, the Aboriginal reserve which lies on its outskirts. The story deals with prejudice and Australian community attitudes and with our justice system. This book was set almost a decade before I was born. When I set about reading it, I expected to be shocked and shamed by the attitudes of white Australia towards Indigenous Australians and the living standards of the Aboriginal community. Sadly, what caused my shame was instead the realisation that there were so many parts of this book that could have just as easily been set in today’s Australia. You may recall the media coverage last year when elder in residence at Griffith University, Ms Delmore Barton, collapsed on the footpath outside the university, and for hours and hours she lay in her own vomit as passers-by just looked at her and walked on. It was not until some Japanese tourists stopped to help that she was eventually taken to hospital. This was not in a country town in 1968, as in the book I have just mentioned—it was in a capital city university in 2006. So it is very clear that we still have a very long road to travel. A look at some quick facts reinforces this. Indigenous infants today are almost three times more likely to die than non-Indigenous infants. Indigenous Australians have an average life expectancy 17 years less than that of non-Indigenous Australians. Rates of chlamydia and syphilis infection among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are up to 93 times the rate among other Australians. Aboriginal women and children continue to suffer completely unacceptable levels of violence in both their communities and their homes. So it is very clear that all of us in this place have much more to do. It is easy to grow despondent over these issues. It is easy to look at these statistics and throw our hands up and think that it is all too hard, but the truth is that we cannot afford to do this. We must all work to ensure that the plight of Aboriginal Australia does not again become a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. We must recognise that not urgently and aggressively tackling these issues is a shameful reflection upon all of us, particularly upon all of us in this parliament. We have absolutely made some progress. Practical measures have been trialled and rolled out and the hundreds and thousands of Australians who marched for reconciliation in 2000 show us that community attitudes have significantly changed, but we have not done enough. I place on the record today my enormous disappointment at the way this government have allowed true and meaningful reconciliation to drop off the mainstream public agenda. When just a few years ago this was an issue of major public discussion and concern, when people were becoming part of enormous public demonstrations and loudly calling for a formal apology, this government and this Prime Minister have tried to scale back this issue to make it one just of law and order. It is so much more than that. We must all realise that to achieve true healing and reconciliation we must first give recognition and an apology for the wrongs that have been committed. I know that it is my intention to work until we have a government that is prepared to prioritise this issue and tackle it head-on for real results and reconciliation. There is a role here for all of us to do more. (Time expired) 8 8 12:40:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —Today in this adjournment debate I would like to thank some community groups in my electorate of Casey and particularly make mention of some community leaders and some of the Australia Day activities. Like all of us, I attended a range of events on Australia Day. I started at the Wandin Town Hall for breakfast, which has become an annual event in the country town of Wandin in the Yarra Valley. They fill the town hall every year to celebrate Australia Day, to reflect on our values and on our good fortune to be Australians and also to continue to raise money for the very good causes that Wandin Rotary is so committed to. I also attended some citizenship ceremonies—in Ringwood and in Lilydale. It is a wonderful thing at any time to see people taking the oath to become an Australian citizen, but it is particularly important for them on Australia Day. To see those new citizens there on Australia Day with their families is indeed a privilege and an honour. What was also good to see was the recognition by the local councils and the local community of community leaders and volunteers, which has become a fixture of Australia Day. At both the Maroondah City Council and at the Shire of Yarra Ranges, community leaders in all categories were honoured for the work that they do. It brings home to you the number of people who will put in hours and hours for a community cause—be it with the environment or with homeless people. Whatever the cause, there are people who are prepared to devote time to help others, and to recognise them on Australia Day is a particularly good thing. I just want to make mention of some of the recipients of awards whom I have come to know and whose work I have come to see first hand. Firstly, in the Shire of Yarra Ranges, Christine Morgan was recognised as environmental achiever of the year. Christine and a dedicated group have worked very hard with practical environmental initiatives in their local street and local community in the Dandenong Ranges, where they have worked together in partnership to remove weeds and deal with some of the environmental problems. They have been the recipients of an Envirofund grant that has helped them. But, without the work of Christine in pulling everybody together and inspiring that community, little would have been achieved. I would also like to make mention of Mr Ray Yates. He is Principal of Monbulk Primary School, and he won the award for citizen of the year. His work has extended over 20 years, where he has served as a councillor and helped in a variety of causes. I thought it was just wonderful for him to be recognised. He particularly plays a big role now in the Monbulk community, with the primary school working with the RSL on Anzac Day and on Remembrance Day. I would like to also mention two cricket clubs that played a charity match for two of the RSLs on the weekend after Australia Day—the Croydon North Cricket Club and the Kilsyth Cricket Club. I mentioned these two clubs last year, when they had their first match. Again, they had a wonderful 20/20 match where they got representatives from clubs in the region to play to raise money for the Lilydale RSL and for the Croydon RSL. It was a fantastic match—as I said, a 20/20 game. Croydon scored 212 runs, but the Lilydale RSL won in the last over with 214 runs. The man of the match was Chris Springett. He combined with Brendan Adams for a partnership of over 100 runs, representing the Lilydale RSL. So I pass on that to the House and commend those two clubs for putting in such a great effort for the RSLs. 8 8 12:45:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —Who rules in Beijing? It took China 12 days to admit that on 11 January it used a ballistic missile to destroy one of its own satellites. This is the first destruction of a satellite in space for more than 20 years and the first time any state has used a missile to kill a satellite. As the top Australian analyst Robyn Lim said: We can only speculate about China’s motives and about whether the military informed the political leadership in advance. China seems to want to demonstrate to the United States that the cost of defending satellites will be much higher than the cost of shooting them down. The US has not pursued antisatellite capabilities since the end of the Cold War. China’s capability puts at risk the world’s satellites, both military and commercial, and this disgraceful, aggressive missile adventure in space triggered a dangerous amount of space debris that can endanger other countries’ satellites, particularly commercial satellites. This also has the effect of increasing nervousness in Japan—something Australia should be very concerned about. As Robyn Lim has argued: How long will Japan remain willing to remain content to rely on the US missile defence and ‘nuclear umbrella’? … Japan is already rattled by the dangerous nuclear and missile brinkmanship of North Korea, the quasi-ally that Beijing refuses to rein in. With China now challenging the US in high-tech areas … Japan will grow even more afraid. And if Japan starts to think it cannot afford to rely on the US nuclear umbrella and missile defence (which is defensive and non-nuclear), it might well conclude that it needs nuclear weapons for its security. That would set off a round of nuclear proliferation in North Asia as others (for example South Korea) followed suit. This is a very dangerous test in space, but I want to focus on two points. Hitherto, China—at least its political leadership—has pursued a responsible relationship with the United States. There was a confidential agreement between the United States and China for joint space programs, including moon missions. They were agreed at the April 2006 summit between President Bush and the Chinese President, Hu Jintao. Successful Chinese destruction on 11 January of an old weather satellite, 530 miles above the earth, has undermined not just these agreements between the two political leaders but also the proposal of the Chinese National Space Administration Agency deputy head, Luo Ge, that China join the International Space Station. Australia should be very much in favour of this kind of peaceful cooperation between China and the United States. I was very interested in the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade yesterday when he agreed that there is strong reason for concern that there was apparently no knowledge in the Chinese foreign ministry about these kinds of missile tests and that perhaps people could make the interpretation that therefore the Chinese military is behind these aggressive military initiatives. The satellite shoot-down is also a dangerous time because it comes at a time that is also the last year of the rule of Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan. Taiwan’s presidential election is due in 2008. At the same time there has also been a power shift in the American congress to the Democrats, who are much more critical of China than were the previous Republican majority. Our friends in Taiwan—and I count myself amongst them—should not see China’s desire to maintain its image during the Olympics as an opportunity to move towards increased progress and constitutional change by clarifying its boundaries. That would be very dangerous for international peace and security, particularly in North-East Asia. I particularly want to caution our friends in Taiwan not to use that opportunity, despite these consistent Chinese provocations. I think China, by knocking out the satellite, moving J10 fighters to the Taiwan Strait and tailing a US carrier group with a Chinese submarine last year, is sending a message to the United States that intervention in Taiwan might not be as easy or as painless as it was in 1996. This is supposed to convince Washington that it needs to keep a tighter leash on Chen. Taiwan is an independent, democratic country. I believe that, if push came to shove, the majority of Australian people would always side with a democracy. But our friends in Taiwan need to be careful not to use the occasion of the Olympics to push constitutional rhetoric too far at the expense of their de facto independence. (Time expired) 8 8 12:50:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —We all appreciate the importance of good road networks in regional Australia and I commend the government for its fresh approach in the funding of key road projects under the AusLink Strategic Regional Program. In recent months three rural shires in my electorate of Hinkler received total funding of $2.3 million under the program to help remedy specific problems with arterial roads through shires. One recipient was a consortium of four councils—Isis, Burnett, Kolan and Bundaberg, which successfully applied for $1 million to upgrade road networks in their areas. The Bundaberg District Cane Deregulation Roads Program will cost $2 million. It will take that $2 million to achieve but will be worth every penny. Under the deregulation of the sugar industry, heavier vehicles are now using local roads. They are roads, I might add, which also take school buses. It is inevitable that there will be a great deterioration. This was really triggered by the moving of cane supplies from the cane rail system to roads as different farmers access different mills. The project will see councils contribute matching funds, and that will help improve road safety and cut maintenance costs by widening, strengthening and improving haulage routes to the mills in substitution for the cane rail lines. I commend these four councils for working together to tackle what is a major issue in the Bundaberg and Childers districts. The second project saw us go to Cracow. Cracow is a small mining town whose mine has revived. The Deputy Prime Minister was there, in the presence of the Mayor of Eidsvold Shire, Pat Connolly, and the Mayor of the Banana Shire, Glen Churchill—who, I might add, is the new National Party candidate for the seat of Flynn. We went there to hear the announcement of the Eidsvold-Theodore Road upgrade. This will take a sealed road right to the boundary of the Eidsvold Shire and almost to Cracow, which is in the adjoining shire. The council now has the ability to seal almost 17 kilometres of the road which is in constant need of formation, grading and regravelling because of the constant rural and heavy traffic caused by the goldmine. We heard first-hand from local residents about the massive problems that dust was causing. I did not realise at that time what damage dust can do as far as a kilometre inland from the roads. The constant waves of dust actually have a financial impact on farmers, and in these drought conditions even more so. I would like to pay tribute at this point to the former mayor of Eidsvold, Peter Webster. Peter told me once that he would see the road sealed from Mount Perry to Eidsvold and from Eidsvold to Cracow. Peter, through ill-health, had to retire recently, but he almost got his dream. It is great to see that this dream has now been achieved. As I said, I pay great tribute to him. He was a visionary when it came to these road funding programs. The third important project in this AusLink strategic funding is a $1.4 million upgrade of the Monto to Kalpowar road. Kalpowar is a timber area between Monto and Gladstone. The Commonwealth contributed $700,000 and the shire will contribute another $700,000. That will seal 5.6 kilometres of a road which has been a constant thorn in the side of successive Monto shire councils—particularly the current council, led by Warren McLachlan. It will be of great benefit to the people of Monto and North Burnett because there are new mining ventures coming out of that area that will have regional impacts. The AusLink Strategic Regional Program is a real and valuable tool in getting better roads into regional Australia. Already $96.9 million has been pledged to 29 projects. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his recent statement that he will be looking for more AusLink funding, perhaps in the range of $15 billion to $19 billion, and I hope the strategic fund will be part of that. 8 8 12:55:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —Pauline Hanson’s contribution to Australian politics has caused much pain to many of her fellow Australians. I abhor her views. However, she is as entitled to make use of the electoral processes of this country and the electoral funding proposals as any other citizen. What lies behind her announcement that she is to run in the 2007 election for a Queensland Senate position? At the 2004 election she stood and gained more than the minimum quota of four per cent of votes for election as a senator for Queensland. That meant she was entitled to matching government funding of more than $1.90 per vote. That secured her over $200,000 of public funding. That $200,000 was not matched by her expenditure: her receipts to the Australian Electoral Commission were a mere $35,000—a profit of $165,000. When she participated in Dancing with the Stars, I do not think people thought that she could spin out this celebrity status into another profit of $165,000. I recently wrote in the Courier-Mail that this reminded me of the plot of Mel Brooks’s famous movie The Producers, where the shonky Broadway firm of Bialystock and Bloom invented a swindle, a Broadway play that had to close on the first night by employing the worst actors, the worst script, the worst director and by closing and selling 10,000 per cent would make a profit—in other words, a scam that rewards a lack of success. In Ms Hanson’s case, being unsuccessful in getting elected in 2007 nonetheless means, within terms of the matching funding legislation in Queensland, that she—or anyone who has similar celebrity status—could make an enormous financial boon, a financial advantage, out of the process of public funding at elections that was designed to encourage the equalisation of democratic opportunity. It is a disgrace that the government has allowed this scam to continue. I have raised this previously at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters but government members have chosen to do nothing about it and the government has chosen to do nothing about it. It is a great shame and what it means is that anyone can spin out celebrity status into a private monetary benefit if they get above a minimum quota and their receipts show they spend less than they receive from the taxpayers. I do not just raise this issue, I do not make a negative criticism of the government without making what are constructive suggestions myself. The government could do either of two things. Firstly, they could increase the quota in the Senate so that you could not get a mere four per cent and then get all of this public cash at your disposal. They could increase the quota to half of a quota for the Senate before candidates were entitled to public funds, which would be around eight per cent of the Queensland vote. I do not believe Pauline Hanson or any other celebrity candidate would be able to attract that number of votes unless they were seriously running. That would therefore make impossible this financial scam of public funding an election, which refunds them far above their expenditure. Secondly, the government could do what Labor has pressed them to do a number of times at the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and that is to make all political parties put in receipts to match their expenditures. That would seem to be an obvious thing that the Australian people would support—an obviously fair thing, an obviously rational thing, an obviously transparent thing and, I believe, a responsible attitude to the expenditure of public money. The government does not want to do that because it is much easier to get all of this public funding cash without accounting for it. We know the Liberal Party spends a lot of money, as does the opposition, at election time on TV and other advertising. No-one doubts that the government or the opposition spend the money that they receive from matching funding from the taxpayer. Indeed, they still have to raise more. But we do not want to encourage people to be involved in financial scams by using the matching funding provision, as appears to be the situation in the case of Ms Hanson. This is part of a whole series of government irresponsibilities in electoral matters for which they should really be hammered before the next election. The principal one is their proposal to close the electoral roll on the day the election is announced. This is an absolute, antidemocratic scandal. Nearly 300,000 people lost their right to vote in the 1983 election when Malcolm Fraser did the same thing. The same thing is going to happen at the next election. We are already in a terrible situation. We have 50,000 fewer enrolments now, at this very moment, in Australia than we had in April 2005. How is the government going to get all of those people on the electoral roll when they are going to close the roll on the day the election is announced? Hundreds of thousands of people’s democratic rights are at stake. (Time expired) 8 13:00:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm 8 Questions in Writing 8 8 1788 and 1790 8 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 23 June 2005: Will the Minister provide a list of advertising agencies which are used by the department and the agencies in the Minister’s portfolio. What sum was paid to each advertising agency used by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 2003-2004 and (b) 2004-2005. 8 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2). Refer to tables below. 2003-04 Department/Agency Advertising Agency Amount Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Clemenger BBDO $7,397 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Direct Contracts Pty Ltd $4,427 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Infobreak Pty Ltd $143,420 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Killey Withy Punshon $340,309 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade M & C Saatchi $6,567 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Marktforschung und Kommunikation $3,993 Australia Japan Foundation Blue Bamboo $4,709 Export Finance and Insurance Corp. Spire B2B $19,914 Austrade Bush Atkins $271,461 Austrade Boomerang $280,500 AusAID Did not use any advertising agencies. Total $1,082,697 2004-05 Department/Agency Advertising Agency Amount Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Bearcage Productions $49,193 Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade Killey Withy Punshon $44,959 Australia Japan Foundation Blue Bamboo $3,699 Export Finance and Insurance Corp. Spire B2B $7,395 Austrade Bush Atkins $55,000 Austrade Boomerang $3,026 Austrade Tequila $112,544 AusAID Not applicable Total $275,816 8 8 2955 8 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, on 7 February 2006: Further to the answer to question No. 2538, can the Minister explain why a contract appeared on the list of AusTender contracts, contract agency ref. no. 002610968, stating that the Minister’s department had engaged Eleven Group consulting on 27 September 2005. 8 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 answer that was provided by DIMA and tabled on 18 January 2006 stating that the department has no record of engaging Eleven Group Consulting was incorrect. DIMA has now advised that it did engage Eleven Group Consulting to provide services to facilitate business planning. The incorrect answer that was tabled on 18 January 2006 was due to a mis-communication of the details of the service provider within DIMA. This in turn caused the search of DIMA’s vendors to be incorrectly specified. DIMA has also advised that it has now instituted procedures to minimise the risks of this type of mistake reoccurring. 8 8 3140 to 3158 8 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked all ministers, in writing, on 1 March 2006: Must builders comply with the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry to be engaged to undertake construction work for the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio. Has the lowest cost tender for construction work in the Minister’s portfolio ever been rejected in favour of a higher cost tender because it did not comply with the code; if so, how many times has this occurred and what was the cost to the department or agency on each occasion. Have any construction tenders been cancelled or delayed because no tenderer was compliant with the code; if so, in each instance (a) what projects were affected and (b) what costs were incurred by the 3988 No. 87—1 March 2006 department or agency, such as rent for alternative premises and other associated costs, as a result of the delay. 8 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, on behalf of Ministers is as follows: Yes, the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry has applied since its inception in 1998. Tenders are evaluated on the basis of value for money. This requires a comparative analysis of all relevant costs and benefits of each proposal throughout the whole procurement cycle. Cost is not the only determining factor in assessing value for money. In addition, tenderers who do not meet the Australian Government’s mandatory tender requirements, including the National Code where relevant, are not eligible to be awarded tender contracts and therefore tendered prices are irrelevant. I am advised that of all of the tenders let since the Code’s inception, there have been four projects which may fall within this category. The cost attributed to tender delays, although not necessarily as a result of the Code, are as follows: Australia Post Sydney Gateway Facility. $860,000. Australia Post Melbourne Gateway Facility. $2,131,000. Fit out of a new electorate office for the Hon Bob McMullan, MP. $5,790 in rent per month for the new office between December 2005 and May 2006. The Department of Defence reports that one project has been delayed. The cost of this delay is not anticipated to exceed $200,000. 8 8 3619 8 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 13 June 2006: What sum has the Government spent on (a) consultants and other non-employees of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, including advertising agents, market researchers, and public relations consultants, in the development of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, and (b) promotional and educational material, and advertising, to publicise the WorkChoices system. 8 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 the 2005-06 financial year, the Department spent $4,864,535.72 (GST exclusive) on advertising agents, market researchers, and public relations consultants during the development of the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005. Prior to the introduction of the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Act 2005, the Department spent $39.407 million in 2005-06 on promotional and educational material, and advertising, to publicise the WorkChoices system. 8 8 4024 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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. 8 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: Neither the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, or the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, including any associated portfolio agency, has any record of awarding a contract to Crosby/Textor for the years in question. 8 8 4032 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, 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. 8 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No contracts were granted to Crosby/Textor by the Department of Education, Science and Training (including Questacon) or its portfolio agencies in 2004-05 or 2005-06. Not Applicable Not Applicable 8 8 4168 8 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 7 September 2006: Can he confirm that ticket levy collections to fund the Ansett recovery scheme have been redirected to non-Ansett recipients; if so, will he identify those recipients. 8 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: No. 8 8 4442 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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: The total cost of fuel purchases for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is: Financial Year       Expenditure 2000/01                   $305,840.04 2001/02                   $288,703.56 2002/03                   $241,510.62 2003/04                   $301,746.03 2004/05                   $331,327.38 2005/06                   $386,240.62 8 8 4456 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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: 8 8 4463 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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 following tables represent the portfolio’s answer: Cost of Gardening 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Department of the Environment and Heritage* $45477 $35504 $51378 $41742 $37265 $49464 Bureau of Meteorology** N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 0 0 0 $1836 0 0 Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 Director of National Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sydney Harbour Federation Trust 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $45477 $35504 $51378 $43578 $37265 $49464 * Costs for the Department of the Environment and Heritage relate to the Australian Government Antarctic Division, Hobart and the Jabiru facility operated by the Supervising Scientist in the Northern Territory. ** The Bureau of Meteorology report that records for gardening are recorded with general maintenance and are not available separately. Cost of Indoor Plants 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Department of the Environment and Heritage* $20181 $36597 $48483 $38920 $25349 $34575 Bureau of Meteorology # $9686 $9219 $12128 $4590 $6940 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority $5087 $6120 $5536 $5870 $6047 $6558 Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 Director of National Parks $970 $1247 $1534 $1833 $2090 $2058 Sydney Harbour Federation Trust 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL $26238 $53650 $64772 $58751 $38076 $50131 Notes: # The Bureau of Meteorology records for 2001-02 have not been retained. * Expenditure by the Australian Greenhouse Office and the National Oceans Office which became part of the Department of the Environment and Heritage in October 2004 have been reflected in the Department of the Environment and Heritage figures in the above tables. 8 8 4466 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Education, Science and Training Financial Year (a) Gardening costs (b) Indoor plant hire costs 2000-01 $0 $74,859.33 2001-02 $0 $61,188.88 2002-03 $0 $57,586.82 2003-04 $0 $64,793.55 2004-05 $0 $84,826.46 2005-06 $0 $94,187.28 Questacon Externally, Questacon only controls to the building footpath. The National Capital Authority controls the grounds. At Fyshwick, the front garden and lawn are maintained by North-South Contractors which provides a monthly service for approximately $80.00 a month. Financial Year (b) Indoor plant hire costs 2000-01 $2,641.90 2001-02 $3,750.00 2002-03 $3,511.00 2003-04 $5,219.00 2004-05 $5,175.92 2005-06 $4,787.90 Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Financial Year (a) Gardening costs (b) Indoor plant hire costs 2000-01 Not available Not available 2001-02 $53,318.18 $480.00 2002-03 $86,786.36 $2,407.27 2003-04 $65,032.72 $4,456.36 2004-05 $70,496.36 $5,370.91 2005-06 $113,175.45 $2,028.18 Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Financial Year (a) Gardening costs (b) Indoor plant hire costs 2000-01 $35,232.32 $5,966.68 2001-02 $41,322.74 $5,673.63 2002-03 $42,208.91 $5,990.90 2003-04 $40,477.79 $3,680.14 2004-05 $48,756.05 $3,698.07 2005-06 $40,498.97 $4,107.45 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) CSIRO is unable to provide this information. CSIRO’s expenditure on garden maintenance is included with cleaning services and materials in expenditure transactions under CSIRO’s General Ledger Account Record (AR) Codes. This, plus the fact that the organisation consists of more than 20 research divisions and other units located on over 50 sites across Australia, with the responsibility for gardening, cleaning and maintenance being handled locally, means that identifying and separating out the costs of gardening from other maintenance costs would need to be undertaken manually at these various sites. Such manual checks of all the records for the past six financial years would require a significant diversion of CSIRO’s staff resources. CSIRO is unable to provide this information. CSIRO’s expenditure on indoor plants is included with expenditure transactions on all Office Supplies, Printing and Stationery under CSIRO’s General Ledger Account Record (AR) Code. In many CSIRO locations any expenditure on indoor plant hire will be authorised by a divisional group at a site (i.e. not even at the whole of site level). Manual checking records at this local level would be needed to capture and confirm the relevant items of expenditure. This would require a significant diversion of staff resources. Australian Research Council (ARC) Financial Year (a) Gardening costs (b) Indoor plant hire costs 2000-01 $0 N/A # 2001-02 $0 N/A * 2002-03 $0 $1,696.00 2003-04 $0 $2,718.00 2004-05 $0 $2,900.00 2005-06 $0 $2,704.00 # The ARC was not established as a separate agency until 1 July 2001 * Payments were processed by the Department of Education, Science and Training Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) External grass areas are maintained by the Museum and there is no charge to the Institute. Due to the Institute’s collection our policy does not allow for indoor plants. 8 8 4468 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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:   8 8 4488 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, there have been no sexual harassment claims reported in my department or portfolio agencies. 8 8 4492 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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 Australian Reward Investment Alliance Commonwealth Grants Commission ComSuper Future Fund Management Agency Nil. Australian Electoral Commission 2000-01   Nil 2001-02   1 2002-03   Nil 2003-04   Nil 2004-05   Nil 2005-06   Nil 8 8 4493 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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: Air Services Australia: 2005/2006: 1 2004/2005: 1 2003/2004: 0 2002/2003: 0 2001/2002: 0 2000/2001: 0 Australian Maritime Safety Authority: 2005/2006: 0 2004/2005: 0 2003/2004: 0 2002/2003: 1 2001/2002: 0 2000/2001: 0 Department of Transport and Regional Services: 2005/2006: 0 The Department did not maintain centralised records of sexual harassment claims until July 2005. The Department is not aware of any claims for previous years and to review files for all locations for prior years to identify instances, if any, would involve a significant diversion of resources, which I am not prepared to authorise. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: No claims National Capital Authority: No claims 8 8 4499 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: For the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources and its agencies: 2000-2001 Nil 2001-2002 Nil 2002-2003 Nil 2003-2004 Nil 2004-2005 Nil 2005-2006 One 8 8 4501 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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 table below represents the number of sexual harassment claims which have been reported in the Department and Portfolio agencies: 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Department of the Environment and Heritage 1 1 0 1 1 0 Bureau of Meteorology 0 0 0 0 1 0 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 0 0 0 0 - - Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sydney Harbour Federation Trust 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 1 0 1 2 0 Note: Any claims made by staff from the Director of National Parks or the Australian Greenhouse Office and the National Oceans Office (which became part of the Department of the Environment and Heritage in October 2004) have been reflected as part of the Department of the Environment and Heritage report. 8 8 4502 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of formal claims lodged with the department and agencies for the financial years identified were: 2000/01   1 2001/02   0 2002/03   1 2003/04   3 2004/05   3 2005/06   5 8 8 4504 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department had one sexual harassment claim in 2005/06. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had one sexual harassment claim in 2001/02, one claim in 2002/03 and two claims in 2003/04. 8 8 4506 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 8 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: 2000-01, Nil 2001-02, 1 2002-03, Nil 2003-04, Nil 2004-05, Nil 2005-06, Nil 8 8 4512 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: In respect of the secondment to the Minister’s office of a Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO), what is the (a) average, (b) shortest and (c) longest period of secondment and (d) what is the total number of DLOs that have been employed in the Minister’s office since 1 July 2000. 8 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information provided is for all Ministers, junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries for the portfolio since 1 July 2000. 167.19 days 1 day 758 days 37 staff have worked at least one day as a DLO since 1 July 2000. 8 8 4570 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000: (a) which employment agencies has the Minister’s department engaged; (b) what was the total cost of engaging employment agencies; and (c) how may employees were placed by these agencies and, of those, which were employed on (i) and ongoing and (ii) a non-ongoing basis. 8 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: Most of the information sought has been provided in previous responses, from Minister Truss, to questions in writing 1104 and 3284, which were published in Hansard on 18 August 2005 and 9 August 2006 respectively. On that basis, I provide the following information for the 2005-06 financial year only, which was not provided in the earlier answers. The employment agencies engaged by the Department for the 2005-06 financial year were: Acumen Contracting Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Affinity It Recruitment Ambit Group Pty Ltd Cantlie Recruitment Services Pty Ltd Careers Unlimited Pty Ltd Chandler MacLeod Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd Data#3 Ltd Drake Australia Effective People Pty Ltd Firstwater Pty Ltd Frontier Group Hansen & Searson Executive Search Hays Personnel Services (Aust) Pty Ltd Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd Julia Ross Recruitment Pty Ltd Kelly Services (Australia) Pty Ltd Kowalski Recruitment Pty Ltd Link Recruitment Manpower Services (Aust) Pty Ltd Patriot Alliance Pty Ltd Prime Recruitment Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd Quadrate Solutions Recruitment Management Company Pty Ltd Ross Logic Pty Ltd Select Australasia Pty Ltd Skillsearch Contracting Pty Ltd SOS Recruitment Spherion Technology Solutions Pty Ltd The Green and Green Group Pty Ltd The Public Affairs Recruitment Verossity Pty Ltd Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd The total payments to employment agencies for 2005-06 financial year was $5,527,374.34. This figure is the total amount paid to employment agencies, which include the provision of recruitment services as part of their business line. The amounts paid to these agencies (as shown above) include payments for a range of services such as: salary related costs for provision of contract staff (for example to meet short-term shortages resulting from absence of the substantive occupant, during interim periods associated with the filling of ongoing vacancies, or where the Department is unable to find suitably skilled staff through normal recruitment processes), assistance with recruitment services, conduct of recruitment campaigns, scribing services and other related services. The Department has devolved the engagement of employees to line managers. While the Department utilises selection reports on individual recruitment exercises, these reports do not systematically identify whether the successful candidate was selected through a process involving the services of an employment agency. To prepare a detailed response to this question would therefore involve a significant diversion of resources, which I am not prepared to authorise. 8 8 4577 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 15 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000: (a) which employment agencies has the Minister’s department engaged; (b) what was the total cost of engaging employment agencies; and (c) how many employees were placed by these agencies and, of those, which were employed on (i) an ongoing and (ii) a non-ongoing basis. 8 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: The Department has in place a panel arrangement of ten employment agencies to provide short term labour and a suite of recruitment services. Due to the decentralised function groups are able to access these services without involvement from Corporate. It would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide any further information. 8 8 4584 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant, (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 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: None. Not applicable. 8 8 4588 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant; (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 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: At 12 September 2006, the Department of Finance and Administration had vacant office space located at Level 1, Murray Street Pier, Hobart. The office space in Hobart has been vacant from 1 April 2006 and is currently being fitted out as an electorate office for a Member of Parliament. The office space is due to be occupied on 17 January 2007. The rental cost for the office space is $5,841.50 per month. The department has a lease on this tenancy until 31 March 2012. 8 8 4590 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant; (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (c) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 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: Nil. Not applicable. 8 8 4594 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant, (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: None. Not applicable. 8 8 4596 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 15 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant, (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 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: and (2) The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations does not have any office space currently vacant. 8 8 4597 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant, (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 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: Nil Not applicable. 8 8 4600 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office space identified in Part (1), (a) from what date has it been vacant, (b) how long will it remain vacant, (c) what is the monthly rental cost and (d) how long will the department continue to pay rental. 8 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Education, Science and Training had no vacant rented office space as at 12 September 2006. 8 8 4605 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. In each instance identified in Part (1), (a) what action was taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified. Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access. What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records. 8 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There have been no instances of Treasury staff accessing electronic or paper records inappropriately during the identified timeframe. Not applicable. Not applicable. Treasury employees are unable to access personal or customer files without proper authority. The paper based records are contained in a secure room with only authorised personnel able to access the room via swipe card. Access to the Treasury Human Management Information System (HRMIS) and Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) is controlled by user ID and password. Further restrictions are imposed by the use of security profiles that are established to grant the required access to users. The Treasury systems have inbuilt audit trails for accessing the system and modification of records contained in the system. The HRMIS and ERMS system controls and processes are audited annually to ensure that changes to the information are completed in accordance with the requirements of the employee on a need to know basis. The audit includes a review of system access. Viewing of personal files by employees require them to make an appointment and the viewing is supervised to ensure the integrity of the records is maintained. 8 8 4608 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. In each instance identified in Part (1), (a) what action was action taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified. Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access. What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records. 8 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: There have been no recorded instances of unauthorised access to files and records during the period requested. Not Applicable. No. All personal and customer files are stored and handled in accordance with the Australian Government Protective Security Manual. As indicated in Part (3) access to files is controlled on an ongoing basis in accordance with requirements established under the Australian Government Security Manual. 8 8 4609 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. In each instance identified in Part (1), (a) what action was action taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified. Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access. What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records. 8 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: During this period the Department has identified one employee who accessed a record without proper authorisation. The employee was formally reprimanded and was provided counseling about the incident. The customer whose record was accessed was deceased. The Department has a range of controls in place to protect its customer files and information assets. Departmental information is stored (electronically and physically) in such a way that access is limited to those employees that require access for the performance of their duties. Departmental systems and applications require password access and authentication to enable access to electronic information, and have the capacity to log and record the time and date that an employee has logged on and off a system. There are controls and processes in place to audit and continually review employees level of authorisation to access Departmental systems and information. Controls and processes are also in place to enable and ensure that all instances or suspected instances of non-compliance and/or inappropriate access to departmental systems or information are documented and reported to the IT Security Advisor and Agency Security Advisor. 8 8 4627 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Is the Minister’s department, or any portfolio agency, in the process of having office accommodation constructed at a new location; if so, (a) what is the total construction cost and (b) when will construction be completed. 8 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 only portfolio agency currently in the process of having office accommodation constructed at a new location is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Amount expended to 31 October 2006: $4,179,617 Completion date 12 October 2006. 8 8 4680 8 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what sum was charged by the Australian Government Solicitor’s Office to each Commonwealth department and agency. 8 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government Solicitor is a Government Business Enterprise competing in the highly contested Australian Government legal services market. It would not be in the commercial interests of AGS or of the Commonwealth as owner of AGS to disclose information of the full detail requested by the Member for Wills. AGS has reporting obligations to this Parliament through me as AGS’s portfolio Minister. AGS publishes an annual report. I tabled AGS’s 2005-06 report in this Parliament on 31 October 2006. Based on information in that report and in previous published annual reports, I am able, however, to provide the following information in answer to the honourable member question: AGS’s revenue from sales of legal services for the period 2001-06 (rounded) was as follows: Financial year Revenue from Commonwealth Departments Other legal trading revenue (inc. from Commonwealth agencies) Total legal trading revenue $m $m $m 2000-01 40 43 83 2001-02 49 45 94 2002-03 52 47 99 2003-04 50 52 102 2004-05 52 57 109 2005-06 55 58 113 8 8 4686 8 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Further to his reply to Part (2) of question No. 1647 (Hansard, 11 August 2005, page 211,) on what date did he first receive advice from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee regarding the delisting of calcium tablets from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and what were the details of that advice. Has he read the article titled ‘Abbott urged to keep calcium cheap’ published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 August 2005. Further to his reply to Part (5) of question No. 1647 that subsidies for calcium tablets make only a small difference in affordability for individuals, what is his reply to that part of the article which states that “the patients most likely to need calcium tended to be on aged-pension cards and often already had to take a variety of other medicines”. What is his response to comments by Professor Lyn March of the Australian Rheumatology Association that “Mr Abbott’s comment that paying full price for calcium supplements is relatively inexpensive is just nonsense to these people”. Can he be certain that older Australians on low incomes who require multiple medications are not being disadvantaged by having to pay full price for calcium supplements; if not, why not. Can he advise whether medications have been subsidised by the government in the past without the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, and if so, what drugs. Will he now act to prevent the additional cost of calcium tablets being imposed on older Australians, including those suffering from, or at severe risk of, osteoporosis; if not, why not; if so, when. 8 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: With regards to the delisting of calcium tablets from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) provided advice between 6-8 July 2005. The advice was tabled in Parliament on 31 October 2005, and is attached. Yes. For patients with chronic renal failure calcium tablets remain subsidised. For patients other than those with chronic renal failure, calcium supplements remain relatively inexpensive at doses used to treat osteoporosis and other conditions. They are widely available as over-the-counter products. Calcium tablets, such as Caltrate and Citracal, are available for around $13 to $15 for two months’ supply of 120 tablets or $7 per month. Professor March’s comments were noted. The Commonwealth Government takes great care with its decisions on drug listing and pricing and aims to keep medicines affordable for all Australians. It must also keep the PBS affordable into the future. Some medications rejected by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) have been referred to other programs, such as the Lifesaving Drugs Program and the Herceptin Program. As a result of the budget decision, calcium was removed from the PBS for most purposes. It remains listed for patients with renal failure. The PBS includes a wide variety of drugs for many conditions, including bone-strengthening products for certain patients with osteoporosis post-fracture, but it is not possible, and it is not intended, that the PBS cover every useful treatment. ————————— Attachment CALCIUM TABLETS- Deletion from PBS - 2005-06 Budget Decision - Advice to the Minister - July 2005 PBAC meeting 250 mg (as citrate), Citrocal®, Key Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd; 500 mg (as carbonate), Cal-Sup®, 3M Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Ltd; 600 mg (as carbonate), Caltrate®, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare. The PBAC noted the policy context of the Budget decision and Government’s view that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) does not need to subsidise inexpensive over-the-counter medicines that are required in low doses to obtain health outcomes or where dietary modification could suffice to meet clinical needs. It also noted that the current restricted benefit listing allows for prescribing for hyperphosphataemia in chronic renal failure, hypocalcaemia, osteoporosis, or proven calcium malabsorption. The PBAC recalled that at the June 2005 Special Meeting it had identified the following patient groups where calcium supplementation is clinically necessary.-patients with hyperphosphataemia in chronic renal failure; patients with established osteoporosis and taking bisphosphonates; patients with bone metastases associated with, certain malignancies and taking bisphosphonates; and patients with multiple myeloma and taking bisphosphonates. With respect to use in chronic renal failure, the PBAC again acknowledged that particularly large doses of calcium were required in the treatment of this condition and therefore these patients would be particularly disadvantaged by the de-listing of calcium tablets. The PBAC recalled that the PBS listings for the anti-resorptive agents (including alendronate, risedronate, raloxifene and recently recommended strontium) for established osteoporosis with prior fracture, had been made on the basis that the combination was clinically appropriate, and, when used in combination with calcium, the cost-effectiveness ratio was acceptable. Similarly, the cost-effectiveness of the bisphosphonates in the treatment of bone metastases and multiple myeloma was acceptable on the basis of co-administration with calcium. The PBAC was concerned that these patient groups would not be optimally treated if they ceased taking calcium tablets should they become less affordable by de-listing. The PBAC considered an authority required listing for calcium for the patient groups identified above would ensure that calcium would not be subsidised for dietary supplementation. 8 8 4687 8 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Is he aware that Osteoporosis Australia, the Australian & New Zealand Bone & Mineral Society, the Australian Rheumatology Association and the Australian Orthopaedic Association have called for the government to reverse its decision to remove calcium supplements from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS); if not, why not. Further to his reply to Part (2) of question No. 1647 (Hansard, 11 August 2005, page 211) that the delisting of calcium tablets from the PBS is expected to save around $36 million over four years, is he aware of comments by Professor Geoff Nicholson from the Australian & New Zealand Bone & Mineral Society that the cost to the healthcare system of increased rates of osteoporotic fractures would far outweigh a short term saving to the PBS. How does he reconcile the apparent discrepancy between claims that the delisting of calcium tablets from the PBS will reduce the burden on the health system and claims that the concomitant increase in osteoporotic fractures will increase the burden on the health system. 8 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: Yes. Yes. The delisting of calcium tablets from the PBS for certain patient groups is unlikely to result in these patients stopping use of calcium. These tablets are readily available over the counter and cost $13 to $15 on average for two months treatment. Calcium tablets remain available at community outlets. In addition, there are a number of medicines listed on the PBS for use in the treatment of osteoporosis with a related fracture. The PBS expenditure on these medicines in the financial year 2005-06 was in excess of $152 million. 8 8 4696 8 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 9 October 2006: In respect of the New South Wales Workers Compensation Act 1987, which provides for the termination of weekly payments on retiring age, and of which section 52 defines retiring age as the age at which a person would otherwise be eligible to receive an aged pension under the Commonwealth’s Social Security Act 1991, does this provision effectively shift the burden of payment to injured workers from workers’ compensation insurance companies onto the Commonwealth; if so, has he obtained any advice as to whether the legislation is consistent with the federal Government’s stated intention of encouraging employees to remain in the work force for as long as is reasonably possible. 8 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: All workers’ compensation schemes in Australia have limits on weekly income replacement payments. These range from time or dollar limits, to age limits. Schemes operate on the basis of paying compensation for the loss of ability to earn an income so, by extension, payments would cease at a retirement age that was in line with community expectations. However, as the traditional notion that all workers will retire by age 65 becomes less relevant, there is increasing pressure on schemes to change. There are movements to amend the arrangements of schemes to allow for coverage for workers injured near to, or after, reaching age 65. It should be noted that as most schemes provide continuing coverage for medical and related costs, it is only income replacement which ceases. The Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council (WRMC) has looked at the issue of the impact of an ageing workforce on workers’ compensation schemes in Australia. WRMC has specifically requested that the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC) examine this issue and, in particular, examine any potential barriers which occupational health and safety or workers’ compensation schemes present to labour force participation by mature age workers. The Office of the ASCC in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations is conducting research on both topics and is due to report back to WRMC in 2007. 8 8 4708 8 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 9 October 2006: In respect of all tours of Australian Customs Service facilities at Sydney Airport and the Port of Sydney conducted by Customs since 2000-01, excluding tours provided to Ministers, Shadow Ministers and Parliamentary Committees, will the Minister provide: the date of the tour; the name, or names, of the person, or persons, who requested the tour; the name, or names, of the person, or persons, who participated in the tour; and its purpose. 8 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Customs does not keep records of tours to the extent of the detail requested. 8 8 4712 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 12:00 a.m. on 29 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 a record of any other flights that landed prior to 6 a.m. on 29 August 2006. 8 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 29 August 2006 - flights NJF, BAW15 and QFA6. 8 8 4713 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 5.30 a.m. on 5 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 a record of any other flights that landed prior to 6 a.m. on 5 August 2006. 8 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 movement occurred prior to 6am on 5 August 2006 - flights BAW15 and QFA6. 8 8 4714 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 5.09 a.m. on 30 July 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 a record of any other flights that landed prior to 6 a.m. on 30 July 2006. 8 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. Four approved aircraft movements occurred prior to 6am on 30 July 2006 – flights QFA6, BAW15, SIA221, and a US Registered Gulfstream 4. 8 8 4715 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 5.06 a.m. on 31 July 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 a record of any other flights that landed prior to 6 a.m. on 31 July 2006. 8 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. Four approved aircraft movements occurred prior to 6am on 31 July 2006 – flights QFA6, QFA2, BAW15 and SIA221. 8 8 4716 8 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Can he explain the circumstances surrounding the breach of the Sydney Airport curfew by an aircraft at approximately 5.05 a.m. on 29 July 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 a record of any other flights that landed prior to 6 a.m. on 29 July 2006. 8 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. Four approved aircraft movements occurred prior to 6am on 29 July 2006 – flights QFA6, BAW15, QFA2 and SIA221. 8 8 4719 8 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms Hoare asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 October 2006: Is he aware that, under sub-sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Family Assistance Act 1999, people electing to receive annually in the form of a lump sum are excluded from rent assistance payments, while those receiving fortnightly payments remain eligible for rent assistance payments. Is he aware that among claimants who fulfill the same rent assistance eligibility criteria, some are deemed ineligible because of their selected method of payment of Family Tax Benefit Part A; if so, what is the policy basis for this apparent inequity. Will he seek to have the House amend the legislation to remove the apparent inequity contained in sub-sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Family Assistance Act 1999; if not, why not. 8 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: Current policy requires people who wish to receive Rent Assistance as part of their Family Tax Benefit (FTB) to claim fortnightly FTB payments through the Family Assistance Office (FAO), rather than a lump sum payment through their tax return. This generally reflects the need for these families to receive Rent Assistance on a fortnightly basis, as well as the need for the FAO to administer rent verification procedures. The FTB tax claim instructions make it clear that Rent Assistance must be claimed directly from the Family Assistance Office (FAO), not through a tax return. An individual may initially receive a lump sum of Rent Assistance for a past period, through the FAO, as long as they claim fortnightly payments of Family Tax Benefit at the same time. This ensures people who may have been unaware that Rent Assistance is not available through their tax return are not disadvantaged when they first claim FTB. No amendment to policy is required as the current policy is still appropriate. 8 8 4720 8 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Treasurer (Costello), in writing, on 10 October 2006: What is the Government’s response to the ongoing expansion of Mutual Discretionary Funds (MDFs). Does the Government have any proposals for regulating MDFs. Are Australian consumers able to make complaints against the operation of a MDF; if so, how many complaints or incidences of litigation have there been against MDFs. 8 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The Treasurer has referred this question to me as it falls within my ministerial responsibilities. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government has no comprehensive data on whether or not there has been an expansion of Discretionary Mutual Funds (DMFs). The Government is considering proposals for regulating DMFs. DMFs that carry on a financial services business in this jurisdiction must hold an Australian financial services licence covering the provision of the financial service. All Australian financial services licensees, who provide financial services to persons as retail client, are required to have internal dispute resolution mechanisms and also be a member of an ASIC approved external dispute resolution scheme or schemes. In relation to complaints made against DMFs, specific data it is not available. Data collected reflects the nature of a complaint in relation to a product, rather than the structure of the product provider. 8 8 4721 8 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 October 2006: What is the Government’s response to the ongoing expansion of Direct Offshore Foreign Insurers (DOFIs). Does the Government have any proposals for regulating these DOFIs. Are Australian consumers able to make complaints against the operation of a DOFI; if so, how many complaints or incidences of litigation have there been against DOFIs. How many DOFIs operating in Australia originate in countries that are not in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. How many DOFIs are overseen by prudential regulators in constituencies that are not considered to be of the same standard as Australia. 8 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The Treasurer has referred this question to me as it falls within my ministerial responsibilities. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government has no comprehensive data on whether or not there has been an expansion of DOFIs. The Government is considering proposals for regulating DOFIs. DOFIs that carry on a financial services business in this jurisdiction must, either themselves or through their Australian financial intermediary distributing their financial service, hold an Australian financial services licence covering the provision of the financial service. All Australian financial services licensees, who provide financial services to persons as retail client, are required to have internal dispute resolution mechanisms and also be a member of an ASIC approved external dispute resolution scheme or schemes. In relation to complaints made against DOFIs, specific data it is not available. Data collected reflects the nature of a complaint in relation to a product, rather than the origin of the product provider. Data on how many DOFIs operating in Australia originate in countries that are not in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is not available. Data on how many DOFIs are overseen by prudential regulators in constituencies that are not considered to be of the same standard as Australia is also not available. 8 8 4724 8 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 Mrs Irwin asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 10 October 2006: What is the veteran, veteran partner and war widow(er) population in New South Wales (NSW) by the following payment type: (a) service pension, (b) special rate pension, and (c) war widow(er)’s pension. For each of the payment types referred to in Part (1), what is the number of veterans, veteran partners and war widow(er)s in NSW in (a) high level residential aged care, (b) low level residential aged care and (c) respite care, in nursing homes or other approved residential aged care facility. For service pension and special rate pension recipients in NSW, (a) how many are paid at the married rate, (b) how many are paid at the separated-due-to-ill-health rate, (c) how many of those couples separated due to ill health are both in high or low level residential aged care facilities and (d) how many among those couples separated due to ill health, and both in residential aged care, are in different residential aged care facilities. For NSW, what is the (a) home residence suburb and postcode, and (b) residential care facility suburb and postcode, for each service pension and special rate pension recipient separated due to ill health. For NSW, what is the number of (a) veterans and (b) war widow(er)s receiving assistance through the Veterans’ Home Care program. For NSW, what is the number of ex-prisoner of war veterans in residential aged care attracting the daily care fee payment. 8 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 30 June 2006, there were: 38,366 veteran service pensioners and 31,483 partner service pensioners; 8,369 Special Rate pensioners; and 40,000 war widows/ers. As at 30 June 2006, in high level residential aged care in NSW there were: - 1,773 veteran service pensioners; - 1,320 partner service pensioners; - 227 Special Rate pensioners; and - 3,166 war widows/ers. As at 30 June 2006, in low level residential aged care in NSW there were: - 980 veteran service pensioners; - 514 partner service pensioners; - 87 Special Rate pensioners; and - 1,881 war widows/ers. Data for respite care is not available.   As at 30 June 2006, there were 4,466 service pension and special rate pension recipients in NSW paid at the married rate. Of these, 47 were paid at the separated-due-to-ill-health rate. The number of couples separated due to ill health and both in high or low level residential aged care facilities is not readily available. The data could not be obtained to provide reliable information. and (b) Due to the small number of residents in individual suburbs and postcodes, the information cannot be provided due to the Privacy legislation. and (b) During 2005/06, 12,411 veterans and 11, 487 war widows/ers in NSW received assistance through the Veterans’ Home Care Program. As there are 422 veterans who are also war widows/ers, they are reported in both numbers. There are currently 88 ex-POWs in residential aged care facilities in NSW for whom DVA is paying the daily care fees. 8 8 4736 8 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 October 2006: Further to his response to question No. 3267 (Hansard, 4 September 2006, page 107), what is the total cost to the Commonwealth of the prosecution of persons for alleged offences under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952. 8 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: These prosecutions are ongoing and accordingly a total cost is not able to be provided. As at 7 November 2006, external expenses of $20,099 have been incurred. 8 8 4746 8 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 11 October 2006: Further to his response to question No. 3953 (9 October 2006) concerning the supply of office consumables to all current and retired Members of Parliament: (a) what was the contract period in the original contract with Corporate Express Australia Ltd (Corporate Express); (b) why did the department extend the Corporate Express contract on a monthly basis from the expiry date in 2002 until the Request for Tender was advertised on 30 June 2006; (c) is it usual departmental policy to allow contracts to be extended on a month-by-month basis for up to four years; (d) for each of the financial years in which Corporate Express held the contract, what was the value of the contract to Corporate Express; (e) which other companies supplied office consumables to Senators, Members and Commonwealth-funded offices of former Prime Ministers for each of the financial years in which Corporate Express held the contract, and what was the value of each of these services; and (f) what are the Australian Government procurement policy guidelines for Members and Senators who choose to purchase office consumables outside the contract. 8 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The arrangement with Corporate Express Australia Ltd (Corporate Express) for the provision of office supplies, put in place by the former Department of Administrative Services in 1997, was for an initial term of four years with the option to extend the arrangements by a further one year. From 2003, after the expiry of the one year extension period, the arrangement with Corporate Express continued on a month to month basis as it was of comparatively low commercial risk, given the low value of individual transactions and the non-exclusivity of the arrangements. It is not usual departmental practice to extend contracts on a month-by-month basis. The following data is the expenditure that was incurred for departmental office supplies from Corporate Express from 1999-2000 onwards: Financial year Expenditure (excluding GST) 1999 - 2000 $690,487.57 2000 – 2001 $804,522.94 2001 - 2002 $905,656.18 2002 - 2003 $1,045,015.47 2003 – 2004 $1,205,771.58 2004 – 2005 $1,666,554.12 2005 – 2006            $1,685,098.14 2006 – 16 October 2006 $426,257.59 Table 1: Expenditure with Corporate Express on departmental stationery supplies The department’s financial management information system was introduced in April 1999. Data for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 cannot be provided because of incomplete records and the changed accounting system. The data in Table 2 below relates to the expenditure under the arrangement with Corporate Express for the provision of office supplies to electorate offices: Financial year Expenditure (excluding GST) 1996 - 1997 $267,867.70 1997 - 1998 $385,008.91 1998 - 1999 $508,592.22 1999 – 2000 $487,149.19 2000 - 2001 $617,577.24 2001 - 2002 $3,201,869.10 2002 - 2003 $2,591,829.03 2003 - 2004 $3,203,065.69 2004 - 2005 $5,016,142.47 2005 - 2006 $3,558,459.06 Table 2: Expenditure with Corporate Express on electorate offices’ stationery supplies Attachment A provides, by financial year, a list of the suppliers that have provided office consumables in addition to Corporate Express and the value of these services is summarised in the table below. Financial year Expenditure (excluding GST) 1996 - 1997 $1,655,949.32 1997 - 1998 $1,541,437.52 1998 - 1999 $1,829,323.65 1999 – 2000 $1,295,950.08 2000 - 2001 $1,342,333.33 2001 - 2002 $774,637.39 2002 - 2003 $251,166.97 2003 - 2004 $287,586.15 2004 - 2005 $247,052.30 2005 - 2006 $180,919.43 Table 3: Expenditure on stationery supplies by electorate offices with other suppliers Departmental Circular No. 2006/29, Overseas Travel – Value for Money and Accountability Issues, which was sent to all Senators and Members on 4 August 2006, advises that ‘In planning overseas travel itineraries, Senators and Members should be aware of the importance of ensuring an efficient, effective and ethical use of public money. The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 underpins a requirement to seek value for money in the use of Commonwealth resources.’ This advice also applies to other purchasing decisions. Attachment A 2005 - 2006 Suppliers of stationery to electorate office in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value Vendor Name $621.56 $683.71 A 2 Z BUSINESS MACHINES $8,886.72 $9,775.40 ACCESS OFFICE SYSTEMS PTY LTD $1,707.00 $1,877.70 ADKENT PTY LTD $1,212.00 $1,333.20 ADVANCED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $1,119.68 $1,231.65 ADVANCED DISPLAY SYSTEMS $643.64 $708.00 Andrews Office Furniture $627.28 $690.00 ARDENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT $570.00 $627.00 ARTFAST P/L -$212.00 -$233.20 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $405.42 $445.96 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $1,333.95 $1,467.34 Brilliant Technologies $2,446.35 $2,690.99 BROCHURE HOLDERS & DISPLAYS $81.00 $89.10 BROWNBUILT P/L $31.78 $34.95 BURNIE NEWSAGENCY $525.00 $577.50 BUSINESS MACHINE SPECIALISTS $858.92 $944.82 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $4,372.83 $4,810.11 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES (TAS) BISTEC $493.44 $542.78 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L $1,166.64 $1,283.30 CDM AUSTRALIA P/L $3,932.92 $4,326.22 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $74.41 $81.85 CENTRAL PLAZA NEWSAGENT $894.31 $983.75 CHRIS HUMPHREY OFFICE SYSTEMS $330.00 $363.00 COLOURPAC $50.00 $55.00 COMMAND-A-COM PTY LTD $138.00 $151.80 COMPLETE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $546.26 $600.90 CONNELLY'S OFFICE NATIONAL $2,302.00 $2,532.20 COPY FIRST PTY LTD $186.00 $204.60 COPYVISION $646.14 $710.75 COPYWORLD TOSHIBA $108.00 $118.80 CREATIVE PLASTICS $590.91 $650.00 CROWN CONTENT PTY LTD $61,906.51 $68,097.22 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $18,986.20 $20,884.82 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $14,194.54 $15,614.00 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $441.00 $485.10 DARO TWIN CITY P/L $64.00 $70.40 DATA MOBILITY VOICE PTY LTD $436.00 $479.60 DATAFILE IMS $800.00 $880.00 DESIGNLINK $552.41 $607.65 DEXION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $556.30 $611.93 Digital Business Technology $380.00 $418.00 DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS AUSTRALIA P/L $2,380.00 $2,618.00 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $232.73 $256.00 ELECTRIC WORLD $230.91 $254.00 EMERTON'S HOME APPLIANCES $1,323.23 $1,455.55 Essential Office Supplies $342.50 $376.75 FORMLINE OFFICE INTERIORS-DO NOT US $848.28 $933.11 GBC AUSTRALIA $3,716.85 $4,088.54 GBC FORDIGRAPH $134.00 $147.40 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $215.75 $237.33 GBC WA LTD $44.55 $49.00 GENUINE ACCESSORIES $1,219.09 $1,341.00 GLIDE BUSINESS HELP $443.45 $487.80 GUNNERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $948.93 $1,043.81 HARVEY NORMAN $212.00 $233.20 HUNTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $108.18 $119.00 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $605.45 $666.00 Inland Technology $143.64 $158.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $163.06 $179.37 KEMP AND DENNING LTD T/AS $353.50 $388.85 KINNINMONT BUSINESS MACHINES $430.00 $473.00 Konica Minolta $704.00 $774.40 LF BERWICK & CO P/L $299.62 $329.57 MANUKA NEWSAGENCY $982.45 $1,080.70 MAYFIELD ENGINEERING PTY LTD $454.09 $499.50 MIDWEST BUSINESS SERVICES $459.64 $505.60 MITTYS NEWSAGENCY $4,610.15 $5,071.15 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $131.82 $145.00 NORTH COAST MODERN OFFICE $318.18 $350.00 OFFICE EVERYTHING $1,566.77 $1,723.45 OFFICEESSENTIAL EQUIP AND SUPPLIES $220.91 $243.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $235.00 $258.50 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $1,249.00 $1,373.90 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $13.00 $14.30 PPS AUSTRALIA P/L $312.57 $343.83 PROGRAMMED MAINTENANCE SERVICES LTD $1,968.00 $2,164.80 QLD DATA AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE $522.73 $575.00 RETRAVISION $1,602.83 $1,763.12 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $227.27 $250.00 Riverina Document Centre $589.09 $648.00 ROBERT FERGUSON PTY LTD $1,365.00 $1,501.50 SCRAP LTD $460.09 $506.10 SETON AUSTRALIA P/L $640.00 $704.00 SHANKS BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $265.00 $291.50 SHARP DIRECT $868.36 $955.20 SHARP ELECTRONICS OFFICE NATIONAL $386.49 $425.14 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $328.95 $361.85 SHOP BASICS PTY LTD $515.55 $567.11 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $233.76 $257.14 SOUTHERN CROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $210.00 $231.00 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $199.41 $219.35 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $309.55 $340.50 SPRINGFORDS BUSINESS MACHINES $49.63 $54.60 ST GEORGE NEWS $762.72 $839.00 STORM OFFICE NATIONAL $720.00 $792.00 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $140.00 $154.00 SYDNEY BLADERUNNER P/L $165.00 $181.50 SYSTEMBRITE $1,624.50 $1,786.95 TAB PRODUCTS PTY LTD $1,456.82 $1,602.50 TASMANIAN TONER CARTRIDGES $593.37 $652.70 TELELINK BUSINESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD $1,148.19 $1,263.00 TELL TECHNOLOGY $9.86 $10.85 THE ARCADE NEWS & CASKET $286.05 $314.65 The Paperclip (Gunnedah) $1,464.34 $1,610.77 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $641.91 $706.10 TUDOR HOUSE $177.27 $195.00 WAREHOUSE SALES P/L $327.27 $360.00 ZIEGLER OFFICE PRODUCTS WHYALLA P/L $180,919.43 $199,011.44   2004 - 2005 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value VendorName $968.00 $1,064.80 ADVANCED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $690.91 $760.00 ALBANY OFFICE SUPPLIES $0.55 $0.60 ALBURY NEWSAGENCY $450.00 $495.00 ARCA CONCEPTS $313.64 $345.00 ARDENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT $6.36 $7.00 BELMONT NEWSAGENCY-VIC $906.60 $997.26 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $1,664.19 $1,830.62 BIZCOM NT PTY LTD $15.55 $17.10 BLOOMFIELD STREET NEWSAGENCY $461.03 $507.14 Brilliant Technologies $483.00 $531.30 BUSINESS MACHINE SPECIALISTS $810.91 $892.00 Business Requisites $430.46 $473.50 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $350.00 $385.00 Business Technical Assistance $7,225.18 $7,947.70 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES (TAS) BISTEC $838.08 $921.89 CAIRNS STATIONERY SUPPLIES $2,732.00 $3,005.20 CANDIDA STATIONERY $201.82 $222.00 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (WA) $921.08 $1,013.18 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $39.00 $42.90 CENTRAL PLAZA NEWSAGENT $1,136.36 $1,250.00 CHRIS HUMPHREY OFFICE SYSTEMS $397.73 $437.50 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $219.72 $241.69 COPYWORLD TOSHIBA $540.91 $595.00 CROWN CONTENT PTY LTD $148.50 $163.35 Cut Price Copiers $95,157.62 $104,673.41 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $38,617.50 $42,479.25 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $22,648.50 $24,913.35 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $462.00 $508.20 DARO TWIN CITY P/L $168.75 $185.63 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $4.09 $4.50 DEVONSHIRE STREET NEWSAGENCY $3.95 $4.35 DOWNTOWN NEWSAGENCY $45.91 $50.50 DYNAMIC PRINTING & RUBBER STAMPS $417.60 $459.36 EMERALD OFFICE NATIONAL $2,158.00 $2,373.80 Essential Office Supplies $715.45 $787.00 E-tec Business Centre $32.28 $35.51 FRANK KINNINMONT OFFICE NATIONAL $220.85 $242.94 FRANK VAUGHAN BUSINESS ELECTRONICS $771.48 $848.63 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L $1,089.88 $1,198.87 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $6,329.44 $6,962.39 GBC AUSTRALIA $2,299.08 $2,528.99 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $3,113.77 $3,425.15 GBC WA LTD $79.36 $87.30 GLENELG NEWSAGENCY $735.30 $808.84 GUNNERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $163.55 $179.90 HARVEY NORMAN $608.60 $669.46 HUNTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $297.91 $327.70 Icon Office Technology $89.10 $98.01 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $1,507.27 $1,658.00 Inland Technology $2,448.45 $2,693.31 INTUIT TECHNOLOGIES $2,005.00 $2,205.50 INTUIT TECHNOLOGIES $22.73 $25.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $119.50 $131.45 JUST ENVELOPES $148.93 $163.81 KEMP AND DENNING LTD T/AS $437.50 $481.25 KINNINMONT BUSINESS MACHINES $292.00 $321.20 Konica Minolta $71.77 $78.95 LABEL PRODUCTIONS $120.00 $132.00 LF BERWICK & CO P/L $67.45 $74.19 MANUKA NEWSAGENCY $4.09 $4.50 MAREEBA NEWSAGENCY $3,014.53 $3,315.95 MITTYS NEWSAGENCY $1,955.06 $2,150.57 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $1,214.40 $1,335.84 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $506.00 $556.60 OFFICEESSENTIAL EQUIP AND SUPPLIES $580.91 $639.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $936.60 $1,030.25 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $51.82 $57.00 PALM SPRINGS GOLD COAST $586.33 $644.96 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA P/L $350.00 $385.00 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $2,257.00 $2,482.70 PITNEY BOWES $475.00 $522.50 R HOGAN & SONS $813.59 $894.95 RETRAVISION $677.00 $744.70 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $232.73 $256.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $1,321.78 $1,453.95 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $158.18 $174.00 Riverina Document Centre $677.92 $745.72 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $720.00 $792.00 SHANKS BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $396.00 $435.60 SHARP DIRECT $551.84 $607.02 SHARP ELECTRONICS OFFICE NATIONAL $1,187.68 $1,306.46 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $669.60 $736.57 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $352.88 $388.17 SOUTHERN CROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $1,640.00 $1,804.00 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $6,407.15 $7,047.87 SPACEMASTER OFFICE SYSTEMS PTY LTD $792.28 $871.50 SPADE $313.09 $344.40 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $918.64 $1,010.50 SPRINGFORDS BUSINESS MACHINES $1,984.55 $2,183.00 Stem Office Supplies $786.37 $865.00 STORM OFFICE NATIONAL $1,282.00 $1,410.20 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $86.50 $95.15 TAB PRODUCTS PTY LTD $275.00 $302.50 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $706.37 $777.00 TELL TECHNOLOGY $242.77 $267.05 The Paperclip (Gunnedah) $2,277.27 $2,505.00 Total Office Maintenance $1,807.80 $1,988.58 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $955.45 $1,051.00 TUDOR HOUSE $315.54 $347.10 WEST PERTH NEWSAGENCY $257.52 $283.27 XEROX SHOP THE (HOBART) $109.09 $120.00 XIBIT Printers $781.82 $860.00 ZIEGLER OFFICE PRODUCTS WHYALLA P/L $247,052.30 $271,757.56   2003 - 2004 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value Vendor Name $177.40 $195.14 A 2 Z BUSINESS MACHINES $298.00 $327.80 AAB OFFICE EQUIPMENT $1,108.00 $1,218.80 ADVANCED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $1,079.00 $1,186.90 AMEC ENGINEERING PTY LTDDO NOT USE $630.00 $693.00 APEX GOLDSTAMPING $271.82 $299.00 BIZCOM NT PTY LTD $368.41 $405.25 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $6,191.00 $6,810.10 BR PRINTING PTY LTD $1,225.51 $1,348.06 Brilliant Technologies $656.12 $721.73 BUSINESS MACHINE SPECIALISTS $488.45 $537.30 Business Requisites $826.36 $909.00 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $355.00 $390.50 Business Technical Assistance $535.86 $589.45 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (QLD) $195.45 $215.00 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (SA) $190.91 $210.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $461.82 $508.00 Canon Office Machines (Tamworth) $666.72 $733.39 CHRIS HUMPHREY OFFICE SYSTEMS $806.82 $887.50 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $209.09 $230.00 Computer Alliance $262.72 $289.00 Computerquest Pty Ltd $211.00 $232.10 COMTECH BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $210.00 $231.00 Copy Craft Business Machines $218.40 $240.24 D2K Pty Ltd $132,672.93 $146,041.36 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $8,868.50 $9,755.35 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $80,665.66 $88,732.23 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $198.00 $217.80 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $495.00 $544.50 DANKA TOWER P/L $791.87 $871.06 DARO TWIN CITY P/L $37.31 $41.04 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY P/L $1,099.00 $1,208.90 DELTA OFFICE SOLUTIONS $609.09 $670.00 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $279.00 $306.90 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $380.91 $419.00 Dubbo Betta Electrical $10.50 $11.55 EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION SERVICES $35.45 $39.00 ELECTRIC WORLD $1,539.05 $1,692.96 Essential Office Supplies $231.82 $255.00 G.B.M OFFICE NATIONAL $3,710.49 $4,081.54 GBC AUSTRALIA $2,777.50 $3,055.25 GBC WA LTD $690.42 $759.47 GUNNERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $90.00 $99.00 HARTEL COMMUNICATIONS $268.18 $295.00 HARVEY NORMAN $988.88 $1,087.77 HOPWOODS BTA $1,907.12 $2,097.82 HUNTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $119.00 $130.90 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $461.82 $508.00 Inland Technology $89.09 $98.00 JJ Kerr's Appliance Centre $1,117.27 $1,229.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $235.10 $258.61 KEMP AND DENNING LTD T/AS $479.50 $527.45 KINNINMONT BUSINESS MACHINES $160.00 $176.00 KONICA $210.00 $231.00 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $200.00 $220.00 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $660.00 $726.00 Konica Minolta $163.64 $180.00 KONICA NEWCASTLE -DO NOT USE $175.50 $193.05 Kyocera Mita Australia Pty Ltd $178.00 $195.80 LF BERWICK & CO P/L $315.28 $346.80 MIDWEST BUSINESS SERVICES $6.00 $6.60 MINOLTA DARWIN-DO NOT USE $341.00 $375.10 Office National Riverina $85.80 $94.38 OFFICELINE $702.00 $772.20 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $1,161.00 $1,277.10 OUTSOURCE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $436.00 $479.60 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $89.25 $98.18 PARRYS OFFICE NATIONAL $90.80 $99.88 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $80.00 $88.00 Petals on the Plaza $540.00 $594.00 PHA PROMOTIONAL $403.00 $443.30 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $2,504.00 $2,754.40 PITNEY BOWES $344.82 $379.30 RETRAVISION $1,092.00 $1,201.20 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $1,943.64 $2,138.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $198.18 $218.00 ROBERT FERGUSSON P/L $2,606.16 $2,866.77 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $1,347.00 $1,481.70 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES P/L $90.00 $99.00 SHANKS BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $383.56 $421.91 SHARP DIRECT $598.72 $658.59 SHARP ELECTRONICS OFFICE NATIONAL $2,222.91 $2,445.20 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $685.04 $753.56 Sheather & Merrigan Business Equip $1,736.41 $1,910.04 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $80.45 $88.50 SOUTH HOBART NEWSAGENCY $460.00 $506.00 SOUTHERN CROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $570.00 $627.00 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $910.64 $1,001.70 SPADE $331.91 $365.10 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $157.27 $173.00 STORM OFFICE NATIONAL $30.00 $33.00 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $522.40 $574.64 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $111.80 $122.98 Tasmanian Office Equipment $206.46 $227.10 TASPRINT P/L $1,232.73 $1,356.00 TELL TECHNOLOGY $740.36 $814.40 TORRESTECH PTY LTD $323.64 $356.00 TORRESTECH PTY LTD $142.00 $156.20 Total Office Maintenance $578.55 $636.40 TOWNSVILLE ART & FRAMING P/L $140.00 $154.00 UNION OFFSET $415.00 $456.50 XIBIT Printers $390.91 $430.00 ZIEGLER OFFICE PRODUCTS WHYALLA P/L $287,586.15 $316,445.90   2002 - 2003 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST GrossValue Vendor Name $95.00 $104.50 AAB OFFICE EQUIPMENT $351.80 $386.98 ADVANCED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $715.38 $786.92 AMEC ENGINEERING PTY LTDDO NOT USE $490.90 $540.00 ARDENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT $119.00 $130.90 ASPECT COMMERCIAL INTERIORS $865.00 $951.50 AUSSIE MAGNETS $62.27 $68.50 BATTERIES PLUS $180.35 $198.38 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $169.00 $185.90 BLUMEN STUDIO $4,537.64 $4,991.41 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $5,303.57 $5,833.93 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $137.50 $151.25 Brilliant Technologies $462.00 $508.20 BUSINESS MACHINE SPECIALISTS $507.27 $558.00 Business Requisites $373.82 $411.20 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $3,438.70 $3,782.57 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES (TAS) BISTEC $137.50 $151.25 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (QLD) $381.82 $420.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $678.00 $745.80 CLEARTECH TRADING $120.00 $132.00 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $137.27 $151.00 Computerquest Pty Ltd $400.23 $440.25 Computerquest Pty Ltd $50.00 $55.00 CPS COMPUTER SHOP $536.36 $590.00 Crown Content Pty Ltd $792.00 $871.20 CUSTOM TEL (TAS) PTY LTD $149,227.24 $164,150.07 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $5,103.16 $5,613.47 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $14,511.84 $15,963.03 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $330.00 $363.00 DARO TWIN CITY P/L $2.45 $2.70 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY P/L $136.36 $150.00 DESIGN INN $2,773.93 $3,051.30 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $4,976.00 $5,473.60 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $38.18 $42.00 Eastcoast Business Equipment P/L $117.27 $129.00 ELECTRIC WORLD $34.23 $37.65 EMERALD HOME MAINTENANCE $71.90 $79.09 ENVELOPE SPECIALISTS $543.36 $597.70 E-TEC BUSINESS - DO NOT USE $43.75 $48.13 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $1,666.09 $1,832.70 FRANK VAUGHAN BUSINESS ELECTRONICS $649.96 $714.96 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L ACT $3,600.00 $3,960.00 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $111.18 $122.30 G.B.M OFFICE NATIONAL $2,499.52 $2,749.49 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $2,032.80 $2,236.08 GBC WA LTD $27.23 $29.95 GOODNA NEWS $850.79 $935.87 GUNNERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $48.63 $53.49 HARRIS AND COMPANY LIMITED $1,912.60 $2,103.86 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $118.14 $129.95 HARVEY NORMAN $1,350.00 $1,485.00 HIGHLAND PRESS $1,300.92 $1,431.01 HOPWOODS BTA $934.55 $1,028.00 HUNTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $76.18 $83.80 IMPRINT RUBBER STAMPS $116.31 $127.94 Information Solution Works $415.00 $456.50 INTEGRATED TECHNICAL SERVICES PL $81.73 $89.90 JESSUPS RETRAVISION $18.64 $20.50 JETTY NEWS $747.72 $822.50 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $79.46 $87.40 KEMP AND DENNING LTD T/AS $351.40 $386.55 KINNINMONT BUSINESS MACHINES $297.42 $327.16 KONICA $394.07 $433.48 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $605.30 $665.83 KONICA NEWCASTLE -DO NOT USE $202.00 $222.20 Kyocera Mita Australia Pty Ltd $352.00 $387.20 LF BERWICK & CO P/L $234.55 $258.00 LIL'S RETRAVISION $287.00 $315.70 MARK HOHN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $11.18 $12.30 MCKENDRY'S NEWS $6.55 $7.20 Murray Computer & Office Shop $49.95 $54.95 MYER STORES LTD $525.00 $577.50 Office National Riverina $882.00 $970.20 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $3,791.00 $4,170.10 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES P/L $1,804.73 $1,985.20 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $227.27 $250.00 PANASONIC @ WORK $227.27 $250.00 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA $374.24 $411.66 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA P/L $509.36 $560.30 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $717.00 $788.70 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $1,554.00 $1,709.40 PITNEY BOWES $469.00 $515.90 POINT OF SALE DISPLAY PTY LTD $420.93 $463.01 RETRAVISION $1,249.00 $1,373.90 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $632.72 $696.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $1,377.27 $1,515.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $145.45 $160.00 ROBERT FERGUSSON P/L $739.97 $813.97 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $2,510.50 $2,761.55 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES P/L $454.45 $499.90 SBA DISTRIBUTORS P/L $55.00 $60.50 SHANKS BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $533.47 $586.83 SHARP DIRECT $704.30 $774.73 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $681.57 $749.73 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $1,708.00 $1,878.80 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $174.95 $192.45 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $1,033.10 $1,136.40 SYDNEY PINCOMBE PTY LTD $847.80 $932.58 TAB PRODUCTS PTY LTD $382.00 $420.20 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $492.20 $541.42 Tasmanian Office Equipment $50.00 $55.00 TAYLORS ELECTRICAL (RETRAVISION) $881.37 $969.50 TELL TECHNOLOGY $69.00 $75.90 TELSTRA AUSTRALIA-MAIN ACCOUNT $2,419.85 $2,661.83 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) P/L $973.00 $1,070.30 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $323.64 $356.00 URBAN OFFICE PTY LTD $173.64 $191.00 WAREHOUSE SALES P/L $672.00 $739.20 XEROX BUSINESS CENTRE (NEWCASTLE $251,166.97 $276,283.81   2001 - 2002 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value Vendor Name $1,168.00 $1,284.80 AAB OFFICE EQUIPMENT $64.37 $70.81 ASCOM $77.72 $85.49 AUSDOC INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PL $87.73 $96.50 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $1,315.60 $1,447.16 AZTEC OFFICE NATIONAL $63.64 $70.00 BADGER MAKES BADGES $150.00 $165.00 BENTLEY HOUSE $458.22 $504.04 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $1,697.74 $1,867.52 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $82.18 $90.40 BISTEC TASMANIA - DO NOT USE $80.00 $88.00 BLUMEN STUDIO $240.00 $264.00 BLYTH ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $212,620.15 $233,882.20 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $135,055.87 $148,561.48 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $55.45 $61.00 BRISBANE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $598.18 $658.00 Business Requisites $455.45 $501.00 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $63.00 $69.30 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (QLD) $246.00 $270.60 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $382.80 $421.08 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $356.82 $392.50 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $115.00 $126.50 COLEMANS PRINTING PTY LTD $64.55 $71.01 COLLEX PTY LTD $4,177.33 $4,595.07 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $109.09 $120.00 Computerquest Pty Ltd $131.82 $145.00 Crown Content Pty Ltd $166,799.61 $183,479.62 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $625.00 $687.50 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $25,299.85 $27,829.84 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $51,400.54 $56,540.58 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $3,545.46 $3,900.01 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $114.58 $126.04 DANKA TOWER P/L $120.00 $132.00 DARWIN BUSINESS MACHINES P/L $20.45 $22.50 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY P/L $614.19 $675.62 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $35.00 $38.50 DATA & ELECTRICAL SERVICES P/L $4,652.18 $5,117.40 DELTA OFFICE SOLUTIONS $25.39 $27.93 DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS $38.00 $41.80 DIRECT NATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE $1,845.29 $2,029.80 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $1,060.45 $1,166.50 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $243.18 $267.50 EMERALD OFFICE NATIONAL $124.00 $136.40 ESSENTIAL OFFICE PRODUCTS $63.64 $70.00 FLOWERS IN THE GARDEN $3,391.74 $3,730.92 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $2,402.60 $2,642.88 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L ACT $226.00 $248.60 G.B.M OFFICE NATIONAL $124.00 $136.40 GBC FORDIGRAPH Do not use $5,120.31 $5,632.36 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $3,085.50 $3,394.05 GBC WA LTD $4.05 $4.45 GOODNA NEWS $18.14 $19.95 Gordon Walters Retravision $1,269.24 $1,396.16 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $40.00 $40.00 HAZELWOOD $139.77 $153.75 HEALESVILLE AUTHORISED NEWSAGENCY $1,400.00 $1,540.00 HOPWOODS BTA $126.00 $138.60 HUNTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $52.27 $57.50 HYATT REGENCY ADELAIDE -$3,192.00 -$3,511.20 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $4,210.09 $4,631.11 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $17.50 $19.25 INDOOROOPILLY NEWS $1,325.48 $1,458.03 J WALCH & SONS $1,311.81 $1,443.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $23.36 $25.70 JUPITERS TOWNSVILLE HOTEL & CASINO $120.57 $132.63 KEMP AND DENNING LTD T/AS $96.32 $105.95 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $1,181.07 $1,299.18 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $5,281.84 $5,810.04 KONICA NEWCASTLE -DO NOT USE $500.00 $550.00 LESTACO P/L $528.00 $580.80 LOCK ELECTRONICS P/L $198.95 $218.85 M.K. COLOR LAB $560.00 $616.00 MARK HOHN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $643.55 $707.90 Marong Mailing Service $78.95 $86.85 MBO OFFICE EQUIPMENT $38,633.63 $42,496.99 MEDIA WHOLESALERS $40,462.75 $44,509.03 MEDIA WHOLESALERS $7.23 $7.95 MT ISA NEWS $172.00 $189.20 NASHUATEC $8,485.14 $9,333.64 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $981.50 $1,079.65 Office National Riverina $1,607.18 $1,767.90 OFFICELINE $891.00 $980.10 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $2,646.50 $2,911.15 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES P/L $79.30 $87.23 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $199.82 $219.80 PARRYS OFFICE NATIONAL $505.00 $555.50 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $179.05 $196.96 PENFOLD W C $1,368.00 $1,504.80 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $3,206.00 $3,526.60 PITNEY BOWES $195.96 $215.55 PLANEX SALES P/L $267.84 $294.62 PLANEX SALES PTY LTD $145.45 $160.00 REMOTECH $292.74 $322.00 RETRAVISION $802.90 $883.20 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $1,299.50 $1,429.45 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $440.00 $484.00 RICOH OFFICE AUTOMATION $776.86 $854.55 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $509.50 $560.45 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES P/L $98.64 $108.50 SBA DISTRIBUTORS P/L $47.28 $52.01 SHARP DIRECT $776.40 $854.04 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $3,436.42 $3,780.07 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $170.55 $187.61 SNAP PRINTING (SURRY HILLS) $308.18 $339.00 Southern Business Machines $233.76 $257.14 SOUTHERN CROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $1,552.88 $1,708.17 SPADE $309.27 $340.20 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $332.51 $365.76 STAMFORD PLAZA ADELAIDE $1,464.96 $1,611.46 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $3,095.33 $3,404.87 SUPPLY SA $2,648.14 $2,912.95 SUPPLY SA $64.00 $70.40 SYDNEY PINCOMBE PTY LTD $207.00 $227.70 SYLEX ERGONOMICS P/L $72.50 $79.75 TAB PRODUCTS PTY LTD $2,054.00 $2,259.40 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $1,043.45 $1,147.80 TELL TECHNOLOGY $411.15 $452.27 TELL TECHNOLOGY $3.86 $4.25 TERRACE NEWS $280.00 $308.00 TNT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $204.00 $224.40 TORRESTECH PTY LTD $2,602.85 $2,863.13 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) P/L $1,271.40 $1,398.54 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $38.38 $42.22 WALKABOUT INDUSTRIES $927.00 $1,019.70 XEROX BUSINESS CENTRE (NEWCASTLE $774,637.39 $852,097.37   2000 - 2001 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value Vendor Name $2,185.00 $2,403.50 AAB OFFICE EQUIPMENT $35.00 $38.50 Active Electronics (Tas) Pty Ltd $740.00 $814.00 ADKENT PTY LTD $2,167.80 $2,384.58 ADVANCED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $4,203.00 $4,614.30 AMEC ENGINEERING PTY LTDDO NOT USE $44.00 $44.00 ASSET SERVICES P/L $47.00 $51.70 AUSDOC INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PL $150.44 $165.48 AUSDOC ON DEMAND PTY LTD $265.60 $292.16 AUSSIE MAGNETS $1,118.91 $1,230.80 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $8,068.55 $8,875.41 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $9,000.00 $9,900.00 BAYSIDE STAR $18.24 $20.06 BENTLEY HOUSE $910.54 $1,001.60 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $79.05 $86.95 BETTA PRINT RUBBER STAMPS $1,251.17 $1,363.53 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $135,392.11 $148,554.58 BLUE STAR GROUP P/L $158,883.05 $174,630.52 BLUE STAR GROUP P/L $453,921.32 $495,842.44 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $22,147.79 $24,333.45 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $22.73 $25.00 BOLMAC P/L T/A COLEMANS OFFICE PROD $654.55 $720.00 Business Requisites $460.80 $506.88 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (AUST) $27.55 $30.30 CAIRNS STATIONERY SUPPLIES $510.60 $558.31 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (QLD) $462.00 $508.20 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (SA) $2,123.51 $2,335.86 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $806.00 $886.60 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $25.00 $27.50 CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS $618.00 $679.80 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $131.82 $145.00 CLICK'S SOLUTIONS $47.27 $52.00 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $219,813.04 $241,296.45 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $25,637.47 $28,139.58 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $77,234.44 $84,885.64 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $17,422.24 $19,164.47 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $20,323.33 $22,313.69 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $208.18 $208.18 DARO BUSINESS MACHINES $40.28 $44.31 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY P/L $1,129.70 $1,196.16 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $1,105.10 $1,215.61 DATAFILE IMS $79.27 $87.20 DAY-TIMERS $936.05 $1,029.65 DELTA OFFICE SOLUTIONS $92.82 $96.63 DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS P/L $314.34 $345.77 Digital Business Technology $4,229.11 $4,652.00 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $296.00 $325.60 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $52.60 $57.86 EAGLE OFFICE PRODUCTS P/L $38.18 $42.00 Eastcoast Business Equipment P/L $85.00 $93.50 EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION SERVICES $614.46 $675.91 ESSENTIAL OFFICE PRODUCTS $4,607.07 $5,067.76 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $1,252.91 $1,382.29 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L ACT $2,825.29 $3,107.83 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED $1,342.92 $1,477.21 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $2,905.28 $3,188.08 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $3,434.00 $3,766.60 GBC WA LTD $2,833.86 $3,083.73 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $40.00 $40.00 HAZELWOOD $61.64 $67.80 HEALESVILLE AUTHORISED NEWSAGENCY $85.00 $93.50 HOMEWRAP $1,365.45 $1,502.00 HOPWOODS BTA $728.63 $801.50 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $56.00 $61.60 IMAGEMAKERS NORTHERN CIRCUITS $70.00 $77.00 INNERSPACE $2,118.00 $2,329.80 INTEGRATED TECHNICAL SERVICES PL $250.00 $275.00 INTERLINK UCI $9.05 $9.95 INVERMAY NEWSAGENCY $9,826.76 $10,383.29 J WALCH & SONS $246.65 $254.32 J WALCH & SONS $15.95 $15.95 JETTY NEWS $3,695.84 $4,036.71 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $608.48 $636.13 KENNYS OFFICE NATIONAL $45.00 $49.50 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $513.49 $556.72 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $69.30 $76.23 KYOCERA MITA AUSTRALIA P/L $1,633.40 $1,796.74 LEISURE COAST COPIERS $493.59 $510.95 LESTACO P/L $572.00 $629.20 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES P/L $682.00 $727.30 Lloyd Scott Enterprises Pty Ltd $560.00 $616.00 MARK HOHN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $10.00 $11.00 MHBT TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIV PTY LTD $89.10 $89.10 MYER STORES LIMITED $159.30 $159.30 NASHUATEC $78,683.17 $84,830.84 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $1,258.50 $1,323.09 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $1,102.00 $1,212.20 NORTHERN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY $798.09 $877.90 Office National Riverina $104.00 $114.40 OFFICELINE $487.27 $508.20 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $429.50 $472.45 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES P/L $396.13 $435.74 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $1,709.05 $1,837.79 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $3,329.00 $3,638.90 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $194.22 $213.64 PHONE TEC $5,501.30 $6,051.43 PITNEY BOWES $570.05 $627.05 Q STORES $92.73 $102.00 REMOTECH $90.00 $99.00 RETRAVISION $283.00 $311.30 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $1,160.00 $1,276.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $250.00 $275.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $475.00 $522.50 RICOH OFFICE AUTOMATION $7.73 $8.50 SALUTE $55.00 $60.50 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES (QLD) $1,802.50 $1,982.75 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES P/L $152.36 $167.60 SHARP CORPORATION OF AUST P/L $975.00 $1,072.50 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $50.00 $55.00 SIMON WINDSOR ELECTRICAL $641.00 $675.60 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $97.20 $97.20 SONY AUSTRALIA LIMITED $863.64 $950.00 Southern Business Machines $4,439.65 $4,809.02 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $405.86 $446.45 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $1,270.10 $1,397.11 SPS SUPPLY $111.81 $123.00 STRATHFIELD CAR RADIOS P/L $198.25 $218.08 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $995.10 $995.10 SUPERIOR BUSINESS SUPPLIES AUST $1,947.42 $2,142.17 SUPPLY SA $321.82 $354.00 SYDNEY FRAMING CENTRE $345.00 $379.50 SYLEX ERGONOMICS P/L $1,368.84 $1,505.72 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $5,884.08 $6,472.49 Tasmanian Office Equipment $554.54 $610.00 TELL TECHNOLOGY $748.40 $823.24 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) P/L $134.00 $147.40 TOTAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $601.67 $661.84 TRANSCRIPT STATIONERY WAREHOUSE $1,829.00 $2,011.90 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $73.64 $81.00 WAREHOUSE SALES P/L $170.74 $170.74 XEROX SHOP THE (MELBOURNE) $1,342,333.33 $1,469,021.15   1999 - 2000 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Entitlement Value Sum Of GST Gross Value VendorName $509.00 $509.00 ABBOTT PRINTERS & STATIONERS $277.51 $277.51 ARGEE RUBBER STAMPS PTY LTD $1,120.00 $1,120.00 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $560.00 $560.00 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $24,248.38 $24,248.38 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $9,180.55 $9,180.55 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $70.10 $70.10 BALLARAT OFFICE SYSTEMS $5.70 $5.70 BANNISTERS $489.00 $489.00 BERWICKS (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD $360.00 $360.00 BERWICKS (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD $788.62 $788.62 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $357.13 $357.13 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $225,369.68 $225,369.68 BLUE STAR GROUP P/L $26,857.63 $26,857.63 BLUE STAR GROUP PTY LTD -$267.56 -$267.56 BOISE CASCADE $149,646.48 $149,646.48 BOISE CASCADE $334,233.63 $334,233.63 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $264.00 $264.00 BYFIELD OFFICE EQUIPMENT PTY LTD $202.00 $202.00 BYFIELD OFFICE EQUIPMENT PTYLTD $483.31 $483.31 C.S.T. DISTRIBUTORS $342.15 $342.15 CAIRNS STATIONERY SUPPLIES $556.50 $556.50 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (SA) $265.40 $265.40 CANON AUSTRALIA P/L (WA) $2,771.20 $2,771.20 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (NSW) $735.00 $735.00 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (SA) $278.00 $278.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINCES (CAIRNS) $5,766.16 $5,766.16 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $1,324.75 $1,324.75 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $164.00 $164.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES (CALARE) $262.00 $262.00 CENTRAL VIC BUSINESS MACHINES $444.00 $444.00 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $311.22 $311.22 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $955.00 $955.00 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $120.00 $120.00 COASTAL BUSINESS MACHINES $118,438.13 $118,438.13 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $27,794.97 $27,794.97 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $18.00 $18.00 COMPLETE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $55.00 $55.00 COMPUTER ROOM FURNITURE $19.10 $19.10 COMSPEC NT PTY LTD $1,053.00 $1,053.00 COMTECH-WEST BUSINESS TECHOLOGY $84.40 $84.40 DALTONS CITY NEWS $751.34 $751.34 DANKA AUSTRALIA $35,320.93 $35,320.93 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $1,108.64 $1,108.64 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $25,701.75 $25,701.75 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $279.78 $279.78 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $2,535.37 $2,535.37 DANKA AUSTRALIA WA $28,575.41 $28,575.41 DANKA DATAKEY P/L $15,512.90 $15,512.90 DANKA DATAKEY PTY LTD $28,921.02 $28,921.02 DANKA TOWER PTY LTD $105.00 $105.00 DARO BUSINESS MACHINES $185.00 $185.00 DARO BUSINESS MACHINES $991.53 $991.53 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $944.76 $944.76 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $95.00 $95.00 DAVID JONES (AUSTRALIA) P/L $79.50 $79.50 DAY-TIMERS $270.00 $270.00 DELTA OFFICE EQUIPMENT $2,272.60 $2,272.60 DELTA OFFICE SOLUTIONS $22.53 $22.53 DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LTD $3,432.00 $3,432.00 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $134.00 $134.00 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $902.30 $902.30 EASTCOAST OFFICE SUPPLIES $339.60 $339.60 EMERALD OFFICE SUPPLIES $110.00 $110.00 ESSENTIAL OFFICE PRODUCTS $211.76 $211.76 EZI-TAG SYSTEMS $126.35 $126.35 FGP CO PTY LTD $1,830.45 $1,830.45 FORMFILE $1,312.26 $1,312.26 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $347.45 $347.45 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $342.00 $342.00 FUJI XEROX $768.02 $768.02 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L $1,100.32 $1,100.32 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L ACT $564.34 $564.34 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $1,062.80 $1,062.80 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $675.50 $675.50 GBC FORDIGRAPH $303.72 $303.72 GBC FORDIGRAPH $30.00 $30.00 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $80.00 $80.00 GBC WA LTD $128.80 $128.80 GODFREY OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $349.20 $349.20 GOODMAN CANNINGTON PRINCE $196.71 $196.71 GRANGEBURN OFFICE SUPPLIES $3,306.31 $3,306.31 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $176.25 $176.25 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $183.60 $183.60 HODDAV TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD $829.80 $829.80 HOPWOOD BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $1,295.47 $1,295.47 HOPWOODS BTA $39.95 $39.95 HUTCHINS SENATOR STEPHEN $1,112.70 $1,112.70 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $241.00 $241.00 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $13.00 $13.00 IMPRINT RUBBER STAMPS $20,606.13 $20,606.13 ISLAND STATIONERY DISTRIBUTORS $23,676.93 $23,676.93 J WALCH & SONS $8,750.95 $8,750.95 J WALCH & SONS $18.00 $18.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $547.20 $547.20 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $97.50 $97.50 KENNYS OFFICE NATIONAL $276.48 $276.48 KENNYS OFFICE NETWORK $19.00 $19.00 KONICA $15.00 $15.00 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $90.00 $90.00 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $1,553.43 $1,553.43 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $784.00 $784.00 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $173.60 $173.60 KYOCERA MITA AUSTRALIA P/L $422.55 $422.55 LEEDALL PRESENTATION SYSTEMS $1,260.00 $1,260.00 LESTACO P/L $7,235.90 $7,235.90 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL P/L $4,420.72 $4,420.72 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD $204.00 $204.00 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES P/L $414.62 $414.62 Lloyd Scott Enterprises Pty Ltd $222.00 $222.00 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $512.00 $512.00 LOCK ELECTRONICS P/L $138.00 $138.00 LUGGAGE LEISURE WAREHOUSE $145.00 $145.00 MARSTAN OFFICE SERVICES $190.00 $190.00 MILPOST TECHNOLOGIES P/L $50.00 $50.00 MPIA $605.40 $605.40 NASHUATEC $56,791.29 $56,791.29 NATIONAL 1 LIMITED $276.25 $276.25 NATIONWIDE DICTATING $965.00 $965.00 NATIONWIDE DIGITAL PRODUCTS P/L $269.00 $269.00 NOWRA OFFICE NETWORK $184.54 $184.54 OES BUSINESS EQUIPMENT PTY LD $197.60 $197.60 Office Choice $295.00 $295.00 OFFICE DATA SYSTEMS $76.55 $76.55 OFFICE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES $100.00 $100.00 OFFICE EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE P/L $79.00 $79.00 OFFICE EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE P/L $34.82 $34.82 OFFICE NATIONAL BURWOOD $132.00 $132.00 Office National Riverina $1,103.00 $1,103.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $278.00 $278.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $5,103.85 $5,103.85 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES P/L $1,392.00 $1,392.00 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES PTY LTD $489.40 $489.40 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $615.08 $615.08 PENCRAFT - DUBBO $1,021.00 $1,021.00 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $164.00 $164.00 PETER BAILEY OFFICE MACHINES $2,215.00 $2,215.00 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $1,105.00 $1,105.00 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $68.40 $68.40 PHILLIP LANE ELEGANT DRYCLEANING $24.00 $24.00 PRINTWORKS $753.20 $753.20 Q STORES $292.20 $292.20 Q STORES $130.00 $130.00 RADSHIELD (AUSTRALIA) P/L $348.27 $348.27 RAPID STATIONERS $328.00 $328.00 RAZORBACK COMPUTERS PTY LTD $608.30 $608.30 REMOTECH $144.00 $144.00 RENTOKIL PTY LTD $2,754.00 $2,754.00 RICOH AUTOMATION PTY LTD $1,094.15 $1,094.15 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $14.00 $14.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $1,314.00 $1,314.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE (DO NOT USE) $574.00 $574.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $285.36 $285.36 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $640.00 $640.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $1,000.00 $1,000.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE- NEWCASTLE $893.00 $893.00 RICOH OFFICE AUTOMATION $333.00 $333.00 RICOH OFFICE AUTOMATION PTY LTD $1,883.60 $1,883.60 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $167.00 $167.00 SALUTE $8.50 $8.50 SALUTE $688.50 $688.50 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES P/L $2,272.50 $2,272.50 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES PTY LTD $151.74 $151.74 SHARP CORP AUST PTY LTD $1,849.55 $1,849.55 SHARP CORPORATION OF AUST P/L $649.88 $649.88 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $717.65 $717.65 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $369.80 $369.80 SHEPPARTON CAMERA & VIDEO $40.00 $40.00 SHOLL COMMUNICATIONS $51.40 $51.40 SID COHEN RUBBER STAMPS P/L $24.00 $24.00 SMADA SECURITY SHREDDING $499.00 $499.00 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES P/L $54.90 $54.90 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES PTY LTD $535.00 $535.00 Southern Business Machines $2,286.14 $2,286.14 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $384.45 $384.45 SPS SUPPLY $275.27 $275.27 STATE SUPPLY DEPT STATE SERVICES $843.10 $843.10 Stedmans Commercial Office Supplies $1,145.00 $1,145.00 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $2,070.40 $2,070.40 SUPERIOR BUSINESS SUPPLIES AUST $8,455.62 $8,455.62 SUPERIOR BUSINESS SUPPLIES AUST $1,557.97 $1,557.97 SUPPLY SA $60.00 $60.00 SYDNEY BLADERUNNER P/L $58.30 $58.30 SYLEX ERGONOMICS P/L $360.00 $360.00 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS SYSTEMS $2,246.00 $2,246.00 Tasmanian Office Equipment $127.30 $127.30 TASPRINT P/L $914.00 $914.00 TELL TECHNOLOGY $250.00 $250.00 TERRY RIDLEY (SALES) P/L $54.10 $54.10 THE OFFICE OF TOMORROW PTY LTD $294.45 $294.45 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) P/L $8.40 $8.40 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $74.99 $74.99 TOSHIBA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $650.00 $650.00 TRILOGY BUSINESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD $747.70 $747.70 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $146.25 $146.25 WEST HOBART NEWSAGENCY $1,300.44 $1,300.44 XEROX $359.20 $359.20 XEROX SHOP THE (HOBART) $815.35 $815.35 XEROX SHOP THE (MELBOURNE) $612.10 $612.10 ZENITH $1,245.00 $1,245.00 ZENITH $1,295,950.08 $1,295,950.08   1998 - 1999 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Amount Amount GST Vendor $395.00 $395.00 AGPS $426.00 $426.00 AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS TELEPHONE CO $12,571.00 $12,571.00 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $83,803.70 $83,803.70 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $1,373.25 $1,373.25 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $4,900.74 $4,900.74 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $336,729.29 $336,729.29 BLUE STAR GROUP PTY LTD $693,551.94 $693,551.94 BOISE CASCADE $182.00 $182.00 BOLTON BROS PTY LTD $352.00 $352.00 BYFIELD OFFICE EQUIPMENT PTYLTD $407.05 $407.05 CAIRNS DISCOUNT STATIONERY $24.00 $24.00 CANBERRA RUBBER STAMPS $132.40 $132.40 CANON $561.00 $561.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINCES (CAIRNS) $700.00 $700.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES (CALARE) $15.35 $15.35 CAPALABA PARK NEWS $36.00 $36.00 CAPITAL APPLIANCES $10.00 $10.00 CENTRAL VIC BUSINESS MACHINES $73.20 $73.20 CHANDLERS APPLIANCE STORES $39.95 $39.95 CHANDLERS INNISFAIL $390.00 $390.00 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $500.00 $500.00 CITYLINK $19.79 $19.79 COLEMANS OFFICE PRODUCTS PTY LTD $207,812.47 $207,812.47 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $109.00 $109.00 COMPUTERLAND $511.05 $511.05 COMSPEC NT PTY LTD $9.25 $9.25 COORPAROO MALL NEWS $45.00 $45.00 COSTELLO'S BETTA ELECTRICAL $14,678.47 $14,678.47 DANKA AUSTRALIA $15,721.59 $15,721.59 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $1,853.06 $1,853.06 DANKA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $40,236.58 $40,236.58 DANKA DATAKEY PTY LTD $110,628.76 $110,628.76 DANKA TOWER PTY LTD $49.20 $49.20 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY $2,926.12 $2,926.12 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $63.00 $63.00 DATAFILE IMS $172.40 $172.40 DEBOS $3,106.00 $3,106.00 DELTA OFFICE EQUIPMENT $60.83 $60.83 DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LTD $1,745.55 $1,745.55 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $661.17 $661.17 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $55.35 $55.35 DUNSTAN'S PTY LTD $1,140.00 $1,140.00 E WHITEHEAD PTY LTD $1,108.10 $1,108.10 EASTCOAST OFFICE SUPPLIES $449.00 $449.00 FORDIGRAPH AUST LTD $140.00 $140.00 FORDIGRAPH SATAS $3,320.05 $3,320.05 FORMFILE $405.70 $405.70 FRAMING CORNER $2,689.58 $2,689.58 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $3,694.34 $3,694.34 FUJI XEROX $1,772.00 $1,772.00 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L $3,051.73 $3,051.73 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACT $2,108.90 $2,108.90 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $404.00 $404.00 GBC FORDIGRAPH $290.00 $290.00 GBC FORDIGRAPH PTY LTD $53.00 $53.00 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $476.25 $476.25 GE CAPITAL FINANCE AUSTRALIA $2,160.00 $2,160.00 GEM PRESS $156.00 $156.00 GENERAL MERCHANDISE (SALES) P/L $240.00 $240.00 GISLERS WIRE WORKS $877.00 $877.00 HARRIS BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $109.40 $109.40 HASTINGS PRINTERS PTY LTD $40.00 $40.00 HAZELWOOD $995.00 $995.00 HOMEWRAP $1,326.00 $1,326.00 HOPWOOD BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $2,316.45 $2,316.45 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $398.00 $398.00 IMAGE OFFSET PTY LTD $168.25 $168.25 IMPRINT RUBBER STAMPS $109,581.84 $109,581.84 ISLAND STATIONERY DISTRIBUTORS $51,694.29 $51,694.29 J WALCH & SONS $4,055.80 $4,055.80 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $846.36 $846.36 KENNYS OFFICE NETWORK $140.00 $140.00 KILGOUR ROD OFFICE MACHINES $128.05 $128.05 KMART EASTLANDS $45.00 $45.00 KONICA AUSTRALIA PTY LYD $3,934.15 $3,934.15 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $835.11 $835.11 LASERFAX PTY LTD $1,600.00 $1,600.00 LESTACO PTY LTD $13,435.00 $13,435.00 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD $528.00 $528.00 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $258.00 $258.00 LOCK ELECTRONICS PTY LTD $193.95 $193.95 MARK HOHN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES $100.00 $100.00 MARSTAN OFFICE SERVICES $102.00 $102.00 MICRO-TECH $50.00 $50.00 MPIA $148.80 $148.80 N.Q.BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $2,008.28 $2,008.28 NASHUATEC (LAUNCESTON) $500.00 $500.00 NASHUATEC (NEWCASTLE) $821.30 $821.30 NASHUATEC DARWIN $1,100.00 $1,100.00 NATIONWIDE BUSINESS MACHINES P/L $815.00 $815.00 NORTHERN BUSINESS SUPPLIES $520.00 $520.00 NORTHERN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY $540.00 $540.00 NOWRA OFFICE NETWORK $46.82 $46.82 ODS OFFICE DATA SYSTEMS PTY LTD $2,437.25 $2,437.25 OFFICE DATA SYSTEMS $130.00 $130.00 OFFICE EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE P/L $165.00 $165.00 OFFICE EVERYTHING $75.90 $75.90 OFFICEFORCE STRATHPINE $523.00 $523.00 OFFICELINE $1,202.00 $1,202.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $1,182.00 $1,182.00 ORCHARD OFFICE SERVICES PTY LTD $366.00 $366.00 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $1,706.00 $1,706.00 PAPER HANDLING EQUIPMENT $175.00 $175.00 PAPERWORK PROFESSIONALS P/L $1,153.40 $1,153.40 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $179.00 $179.00 PENFOLD W C $723.30 $723.30 PETER BAILEY OFFICE MACHINES $385.00 $385.00 PETER BAILEY PTY LTD $4,590.00 $4,590.00 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $207.30 $207.30 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LD $424.60 $424.60 PHILLIP LANE ELEGANT DRYCLEANING $625.00 $625.00 PICASSO ART & FRAMES $795.20 $795.20 PICTURE IT NOW $440.00 $440.00 PITNEY MAILING SERVICES $4,833.66 $4,833.66 RAPID STATIONERS $1,089.00 $1,089.00 RED CROSS INDUSTRIES $490.00 $490.00 RICHMOND CONCEPTS & PRINT $1,608.00 $1,608.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $2,122.95 $2,122.95 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE DARWIN $2,152.52 $2,152.52 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $299.80 $299.80 ROLLS PRINTING PTY LTD $90.00 $90.00 RON'S REMOVALS $168.00 $168.00 SALUTE $113.00 $113.00 SAVERY'S RETRAVISION $8.75 $8.75 SBA DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD $772.00 $772.00 SETON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $540.02 $540.02 SHARP DIRECT $645.50 $645.50 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $642.50 $642.50 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES $1,547.10 $1,547.10 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES PTY LTD $1,183.00 $1,183.00 SOUTHERN CROSS COMPUTER SYSTEMS $2,806.55 $2,806.55 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $919.60 $919.60 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $379.85 $379.85 SPS SUPPLY $450.00 $450.00 ST HILLIERS (QLD) PTY LIMITED $516.40 $516.40 STEDMANS COMM. OFFICE SUPPLIES $315.00 $315.00 STRATHFIELD CORPORATE $649.48 $649.48 STYLESETTER OFFICE EQUIPMENT $3,084.60 $3,084.60 SUPERIOR BUSINESS SUPPLIES AUST $14.00 $14.00 SUPPORT SERVICES $314.45 $314.45 SUPPORT SERVICES  -  SA $98.60 $98.60 SYLEX ERGONOMICS PTY LTD $35.00 $35.00 TAREE OFFICE PRODUCTS $1,271.16 $1,271.16 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS $10,071.74 $10,071.74 TASMANIAN OFFICE EQUIPMENT $133.60 $133.60 TASPRINT PTY LTD $1,192.90 $1,192.90 TELL HOLDINGS PTY LTD $499.00 $499.00 TERRITORY MATERIALS HANDLING $60.34 $60.34 THE XEROX SHOP $1,225.37 $1,225.37 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $239.72 $239.72 TOSHIBA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $220.00 $220.00 TOUCH BY LAURIE P/L $1,049.12 $1,049.12 TOWER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $2,052.81 $2,052.81 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $714.95 $714.95 TWS OFFICE FORCE $5.00 $5.00 WALKABOUT INDUSTRIES $411.00 $411.00 WAREHOUSE SALES PTY LTD $633.50 $633.50 WEST HOBART NEWSAGENCY $1,772.46 $1,772.46 XEROX $841.69 $841.69 XEROX SHOP THE $1,829,323.65 $1,829,323.65   1997 - 1998 Suppliers of stationery to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Amount Amount GST Vendor $889.40 $889.40 ADVANCE SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY $602.60 $602.60 ADVOCATE BUSINESS MACHINES $1,075.00 $1,075.00 AGPS $21.00 $21.00 AMEC MAYFIELD $212.00 $212.00 ASCOM $20.00 $20.00 AUST POST (EAST MELBOURNE) $90.00 $90.00 AUSTRALIA POST $6,256.50 $6,256.50 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $51,352.15 $51,352.15 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $110.00 $110.00 AUTOMATED SHREDDERS & COMMERCIAL $16.95 $16.95 BALLARAT OFFICE SYSTEMS $37.95 $37.95 BANNISTERS $708.00 $708.00 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $835.65 $835.65 BESLEY & PIKE $1,100.00 $1,100.00 BETTA BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $851.96 $851.96 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $145,183.08 $145,183.08 BLUE STAR GROUP PTY LTD $566,889.70 $566,889.70 BOISE CASCADE $495.00 $495.00 BOLTON BROS PTY LTD $255.68 $255.68 BROWNBUILT LTD $953.00 $953.00 BYFIELD OFFICE EQUIPMENT PTYLTD $1,454.46 $1,454.46 C.S.T. DISTRIBUTORS $2,836.15 $2,836.15 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (NSW) $4,597.70 $4,597.70 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (QLD) $2,280.00 $2,280.00 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (SA) $570.00 $570.00 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (VIC) $852.00 $852.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES (CALARE) $9.60 $9.60 CAPALABA PARK NEWS $40.00 $40.00 CATHY SADLER AGENCIES $8.40 $8.40 CENTRE NEWSAGENCY $466.60 $466.60 CITY CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICES $32.55 $32.55 CITY NEWS $95.00 $95.00 CLASSIC COPY & BUSINESS CENTRE $230.00 $230.00 CLIFTONS WAREHOUSE $109.60 $109.60 COEBURN PTY LTD $540.00 $540.00 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY $194,918.79 $194,918.79 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $111.00 $111.00 COMPUTER SHARK AUSTRALIA $1,509.00 $1,509.00 COMPUTERLAND $14,743.00 $14,743.00 COPY WORLD $600.00 $600.00 DALE PRINT $3,642.68 $3,642.68 DANKA AUSTRALIA $663.12 $663.12 DANKA AUSTRALIA P/L $47,028.59 $47,028.59 DANKA DATAKEY PTY LTD $87,837.10 $87,837.10 DANKA TOWER PTY LTD $629.15 $629.15 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $367.46 $367.46 DELTA OFFICE EQUIPMENT $209.24 $209.24 DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LTD $150.00 $150.00 DIRECT NAT. BUSINESS MACHINES $116.20 $116.20 DORRACK PTY LTD $775.80 $775.80 DOUG LIDDICUT BUSINESS MACHINES $2,534.64 $2,534.64 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $7.39 $7.39 DUNSTAN'S PTY LTD $244.00 $244.00 E H BURGESS & CO PTY LTD $1,735.90 $1,735.90 EASTCOAST OFFICE SUPPLIES $93.00 $93.00 FORDIGRAPH AUST LTD $977.65 $977.65 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $524.07 $524.07 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L $1,360.27 $1,360.27 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACT $4,454.95 $4,454.95 FUTURE GROUP PTY LTD $204.80 $204.80 FUTURE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $732.35 $732.35 GBC AUSTRALIA $156.00 $156.00 GBC FORDIGRAPH PTY LTD $33.00 $33.00 GBC SOUTH AUSTRALIA $55.50 $55.50 HARRIS BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $9,842.51 $9,842.51 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES $5,410.37 $5,410.37 HARRIS BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $80.00 $80.00 HAZELWOOD $86.40 $86.40 HUNTS CIVIC CENTRE NEWSAGENCY $71.65 $71.65 HYGOLET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $183.10 $183.10 IAN RUMNEY OFFICE EQUIPMENT $905.82 $905.82 ILLAWARRA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT P/L $1,224.00 $1,224.00 INSTANT OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,664.30 $1,664.30 INTERSHRED VICTORIA $75,130.96 $75,130.96 ISLAND STATIONERY DISTRIBUTORS $27,604.95 $27,604.95 J WALCH & SONS $82.45 $82.45 JESSUPS RETRAVISION $1,692.50 $1,692.50 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $377.00 $377.00 KALAMAZOO $491.00 $491.00 KASYS PTY LTD $24.90 $24.90 KMART EASTLANDS $1,671.50 $1,671.50 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $92.00 $92.00 KW MCCULLOCH PTY LTD $150.00 $150.00 LAUNCESTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $540.00 $540.00 LESTACO PTY LTD $2,316.00 $2,316.00 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD $438.00 $438.00 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $60.00 $60.00 MCDONALD & ROSBROOK $6,280.57 $6,280.57 MODE PTY LTD $211.00 $211.00 MURRAY NECK ELECTRIC WORLD $317.90 $317.90 NASHUA GESTETNER $134.15 $134.15 NASHUATEC $1,400.52 $1,400.52 NASHUATEC (LAUNCESTON) $2,380.00 $2,380.00 NASHUATEC (NEWCASTLE) $360.00 $360.00 NASHUATEC (SOUTH WEST) $28.00 $28.00 NASHUATEC BRISBANE $346.00 $346.00 NASHUATEC DARWIN $35.00 $35.00 NATIONWIDE BUSINESS MACHINES P/L $845.00 $845.00 NORTHERN BUSINESS SUPPLIES $493.00 $493.00 NOWRA OFFICE NETWORK $148.85 $148.85 NQ BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $4,823.81 $4,823.81 NRG OFFICE AUTOMATION $4,071.77 $4,071.77 OFFICE DATA SYSTEMS $106.00 $106.00 ON-LINE BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $73.00 $73.00 PACIFIC OFFICE SYSTEMS $1,163.70 $1,163.70 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA $366.16 $366.16 PANASONIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $585.39 $585.39 PAPER HOUSE XPRESS $7,226.40 $7,226.40 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $109,328.51 $109,328.51 PENFOLD WC & CO PTY LTD $2,254.57 $2,254.57 PENFOLDS W C & CO P/L $961.55 $961.55 PETER BAILEY OFFICE MACHINES $528.50 $528.50 PETER BAILEY PTY LTD $920.00 $920.00 PHIL HUGHES' OFFICE SOLUTIONS $552.60 $552.60 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LD $13,032.04 $13,032.04 PITNEY BOWES $780.00 $780.00 PITNEY MAILING SERVICES $6.50 $6.50 PLAYFORD AVENUE NEWSAGENCY $5,980.00 $5,980.00 POINCIANA PUBLISHING $58.00 $58.00 PRIORITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS P/L $133.85 $133.85 QBN STAIONERY & RUBBER STAMPS $337.00 $337.00 RADSHIELD (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $7.50 $7.50 RALTONE $3,248.50 $3,248.50 RAPID STATIONERS $410.00 $410.00 RAPTEK AUSTRALIA $387.00 $387.00 RETRAVISION $2,027.60 $2,027.60 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $255.00 $255.00 RIDLEY OFFICE FURNISHERS $2,279.55 $2,279.55 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $246.00 $246.00 SALUTE $121.00 $121.00 SANYO OFFICE MACHINES $331.20 $331.20 SBA DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD $195.60 $195.60 SETON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $243.28 $243.28 SHARP CORP OF AUST PTY LTD $449.40 $449.40 SHARPE STATIONERY $645.50 $645.50 SHEATHER & MERRIGAN BUS EQUIP PL $798.75 $798.75 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES PTY LTD $549.25 $549.25 SONIC OFFICE EQUIPMENT $1,391.33 $1,391.33 SOUTHERN CROSS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $461.16 $461.16 SPICERS & COLLINS $919.60 $919.60 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $20,819.73 $20,819.73 SPICERS PAPER INDUSTRIES $576.82 $576.82 SPICERS PAPER LTD (WA) $350.00 $350.00 SPORTS GUIDE PUBLICATIONS P/L $2,115.56 $2,115.56 SPS SUPPLY $72.00 $72.00 STAMP WORLD PTY LTD $169.70 $169.70 SUPPORT SERVICES $80.00 $80.00 SUPPORT SERVICES  -  SA $690.00 $690.00 SYSTEM SALES PTY LTD $153.52 $153.52 TANDY ELECTRONICS PTY LTD $35.00 $35.00 TAREE OFFICE PRODUCTS $399.00 $399.00 TASMAN AV $11,710.58 $11,710.58 TASMANIAN OFFICE EQUIPMENT $460.00 $460.00 TC TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD $493.00 $493.00 TELEGRAFAX $474.00 $474.00 TELL HOLDINGS PTY LTD $36.00 $36.00 THE PAPER HOUSE $2,894.94 $2,894.94 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $6,576.93 $6,576.93 TOSHIBA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $12,344.59 $12,344.59 TOWER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $413.02 $413.02 TOWN AND COUNTRY OFFICE NETWORK $280.00 $280.00 TOWNSVILLE ART & FRAMING P/L $3,577.58 $3,577.58 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $1,544.00 $1,544.00 TWS OFFICE FORCE $1,149.00 $1,149.00 VETNER(BRENDALE) PTY LTD $5.00 $5.00 WALKABOUT INDUSTRIES $562.19 $562.19 WEST HOBART NEWSAGENCY $119.00 $119.00 WILLS & CO PTY LTD $1,365.46 $1,365.46 XEROX $1,746.60 $1,746.60 XEROX SHOP THE $356.00 $356.00 ZENITH $1,541,437.52 $1,541,437.52   1996 - 1997 Suppliers of office supplies to electorate offices in addition to Corporate Express Sum Of Amount Amount GST Vendor $1,338.60 $1,338.60 3M AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $446.00 $446.00 A.S.C.O.M. $726.45 $726.45 ACCENT KURTH STAMPS $2,747.33 $2,747.33 ADVOCATE BUSINESS MACHINES $2,078.95 $2,078.95 AGPS $29.65 $29.65 ALLIED OFFICE PRODUCTS $30.00 $30.00 ALL-TECH INDUSTRIES $100.20 $100.20 ALPHA OFFICE SUPPLIES LTD $42.75 $42.75 AMA SERVICES (WA) PTY LTD $1,468.50 $1,468.50 ASCOM $203.00 $203.00 AUSSIE MAGNETS $1,128.50 $1,128.50 AUSTRALIA POST $30.00 $30.00 AUSTRALIA POST (MAROOCHYDORE) $313.73 $313.73 AUSTRALIA PROPERTY GROUP $5,430.00 $5,430.00 AUSTRALIAN LASER CHARGE $1,392.00 $1,392.00 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO $62,702.70 $62,702.70 AUSTRALIAN TONER CARTRIDGE CO. $441.00 $441.00 AUTOMATED SHREDDERS & COMMERCIAL $19.00 $19.00 AWAY VOICE AND DATA SERVICES $149.00 $149.00 B & H (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $100.80 $100.80 BALLARAT OFFICE SYSTEMS $27.80 $27.80 BANNISTERS $318.00 $318.00 BBC BUSINESS MACHINES $118.10 $118.10 BEATTIES NEWSAGENCY $314.50 $314.50 BERWICKS (SUNSHINE COAST) PTY LT $975.65 $975.65 BESLEY & PIKE $1,280.65 $1,280.65 BETTA BUSINESS MACHINES PTY LTD $255.52 $255.52 BETTER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (BBE) $1,423.25 $1,423.25 BLACKWOOD J & SON $162.40 $162.40 BLACKWOOD J & SON LTD $316,571.98 $316,571.98 BOISE CASCADE $95.00 $95.00 BOLTON BROS PTY LTD $380.00 $380.00 BROWNBUILT LTD $349.00 $349.00 BRUNING BUSINESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD $645.20 $645.20 BUNZL LIMITED $434.44 $434.44 BUNZL LTD $357.00 $357.00 BYFIELD OFFICE EQUIPMENT PTYLTD $31.50 $31.50 CANCALC $2,909.00 $2,909.00 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (NSW) $3,807.65 $3,807.65 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (QLD) $434.70 $434.70 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (SA) $380.00 $380.00 CANON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (WA) $16.00 $16.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES $432.00 $432.00 CANON OFFICE MACHINES (CALARE) $95.00 $95.00 CASTLEDEX $334.55 $334.55 CEDAR HOSPITALITY SUPPLIES $15.05 $15.05 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $1,586.00 $1,586.00 CLIFTONS WAREHOUSE $125.00 $125.00 COMMONWEALTH PAPER CO PTY LTD $171.00 $171.00 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY $174,382.91 $174,382.91 COMMONWEALTH PAPER COMPANY (WA) $2,126.00 $2,126.00 COMPUTER SHARK AUSTRALIA $218.00 $218.00 COMPUTERLAND $923.90 $923.90 COMSPEC NT PTY LTD $195.00 $195.00 COOLUM SIGNWORKS $6.45 $6.45 CUT PRICE STATIONERY $1,742.40 $1,742.40 DANKA ACCESS $3,559.46 $3,559.46 DANKA AUSTRALIA $1,287.18 $1,287.18 DANKA DATAKEY PTY LTD $66,258.07 $66,258.07 DANKA TOWER PTY LTD $71.05 $71.05 DANNY BURKE PTY LTD $4.86 $4.86 DARWIN NEWSAGENCY $625.30 $625.30 DARWIN OFFICE TECHNOLOGY $7,100.00 $7,100.00 DATAFLEX PTY LTD $1,138.30 $1,138.30 DELTA OFFICE EQUIPMENT $177.40 $177.40 DESIGN EQUIP SPINAL MEDICAL AIDS $78.50 $78.50 DIMENSION AUDIO VISUALS $100.00 $100.00 DIRECT NAT. BUSINESS MACHINES $3,818.00 $3,818.00 DOWNS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $49.13 $49.13 DUNSTANS PTY LTD $22.13 $22.13 DUNSTAN'S PTY LTD $6,980.00 $6,980.00 EASTCOAST OFFICE SUPPLIES $369.00 $369.00 FORDIGRAPH AUST LTD $1,561.00 $1,561.00 FORMFILE $1,739.89 $1,739.89 FRANK KINNINMONT BUS MACHINES $1,395.67 $1,395.67 FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA P/L $4,418.70 $4,418.70 FUTURE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $408.00 $408.00 GBC AUSTRALIA $90.00 $90.00 GBC FORDIGRAPH PTY LTD $156.81 $156.81 GEC ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE $301.40 $301.40 HARRIS BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $229.00 $229.00 HARTEL COMMUNICATIONS $643.00 $643.00 HILDER BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $261.06 $261.06 HILLS INDUSTRIES $4.00 $4.00 HOPWOOD BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $55.80 $55.80 HYPERDOME NEWSAGENCY $132.10 $132.10 IAN RUMNEY OFFICE EQUIPMENT $78.95 $78.95 IMPRINT RUBBER STAMPS $390.00 $390.00 INCHCAPE NRG PTY LTD $7,103.23 $7,103.23 ISLAND STATIONERY DISTRIBUTORS $23.60 $23.60 J LARSEN QLD LTD $24,215.65 $24,215.65 JOHN SELWYN COX $21,502.06 $21,502.06 J WALCH & SONS $1,464.00 $1,464.00 JH COMPUTER SERVICES PTY LTD $2,223.00 $2,223.00 JOHN ABBOTT BUSINESS MACHINES $60.95 $60.95 JOHNSONS HARDWARE PTY LTD $148.50 $148.50 JR LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL $66.50 $66.50 KENNYS OFFICE NETWORK $1,025.00 $1,025.00 KONICA BUSINESS MACHINES $960.00 $960.00 LASERCHARGE $1,864.84 $1,864.84 LASERFAX PTY LTD $748.98 $748.98 LCC BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $607.00 $607.00 LESTACO PTY LTD $9,620.00 $9,620.00 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD $684.00 $684.00 LLOYD SCOTT ENTERPRISES PTY LTD $5.00 $5.00 MACKAY BUSINESS MACHINES $0.95 $0.95 MACKAY NEWSAGENCY $89.00 $89.00 MANTACHS BETTA ELECTRICAL $195.00 $195.00 MASTER BUTCHERS LIMITED $374.00 $374.00 MERCURY BUSINESS SUPPLIES $59.60 $59.60 MERREDIN-WHEATBELT MERCURY $40.00 $40.00 MJC INDUSTRIES $2,629.40 $2,629.40 MODE PTY LTD $281.00 $281.00 MODERN OFFICE CONCEPTS $113.00 $113.00 MULTI-SHRED BUSINESS MACHINES $373.00 $373.00 MURRAY NECK ELECTRIC WORLD $562.40 $562.40 N.Q.BUSINESS EQUIPMENT $1,584.96 $1,584.96 NASHUATEC $2,392.00 $2,392.00 NASHUATEC (LAUNCESTON) $490.00 $490.00 NASHUATEC (NEWCASTLE) $127.76 $127.76 NASHUATEC (PHILRENE WEST) $2,076.60 $2,076.60 NASHUATEC (SOUTH WEST) $3,036.50 $3,036.50 NASHUATEC BRISBANE $828.09 $828.09 NASHUATEC DARWIN $265.00 $265.00 NATIONWIDE BUSINESS MACHINES P/L $427.60 $427.60 NORTHERN BUSINESS MACHINES $652.35 $652.35 NORTHERN BUSINESS SUPPLIES $1,205.70 $1,205.70 NORTHSIDE DRUMMOYNE LAUNDRY DRY $161.00 $161.00 NOWRA OFFICE NETWORK $89.40 $89.40 NRG OFFICE AUTOMATION $1,280.80 $1,280.80 OFFICE DATA SYSTEMS $715.95 $715.95 OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL $136.75 $136.75 OFFICE SUPPLIES CO PTY LTD $243.50 $243.50 OLDFIELDS PTY LTD $13,225.00 $13,225.00 PAPERWORK PROFESSIONALS P/L $1,587.00 $1,587.00 PARAGON (NT) PTY LTD $194,127.93 $194,127.93 PEDERSEN/CONTACT STATIONERS $206,081.98 $206,081.98 PEDERSON CONTACT STATIONERS $3,602.30 $3,602.30 PENCRAFT OFFICE EQUIPMENT DIV $161.00 $161.00 PENFOLD W C & CO PTY LTD $362,719.87 $362,719.87 PENFOLD WC & CO PTY LTD $655.85 $655.85 PETER BAILEY OFFICE MACHINES $198.00 $198.00 PETER BAILEY PTY LTD $942.49 $942.49 RAPID STATIONERS $1,757.00 $1,757.00 RETRAVISION $150.00 $150.00 RICOH BUSINESS CENTRE $402.25 $402.25 RICOH OFFICE AUTOMATION $782.47 $782.47 ROCKHAMPTON BUSINESS MACHINES $143.00 $143.00 RUSSELL SIMPSON PTY LTD $9.00 $9.00 SALUTE $76.94 $76.94 SANDS & MCDOUGALL PTY LTD $1,175.05 $1,175.05 SBA DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD $470.00 $470.00 SHARP CORP OF AUST PTY LTD $400.00 $400.00 SHARPE STATIONERY $262.00 $262.00 SHOPPINGTOWN NEWSAGENCY $160.00 $160.00 SMITH D W & SONS $2,717.20 $2,717.20 SMITHS OFFICE MACHINES PTY LTD $170.00 $170.00 SOUTHERN CROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $170.00 $170.00 SOUTHERNCROSS BUSINESS MACHINES $2,048.00 $2,048.00 SPEEDY - TRS (GOLD COAST) $1,115.12 $1,115.12 SPICERS OFFICE EQUIPMENT P/L $16,403.22 $16,403.22 SPICERS PAPER INDUSTRIES $143.20 $143.20 SPICERS PAPER LIMITED $4,497.12 $4,497.12 SPICERS PAPER LTD $4,232.70 $4,232.70 SPICERS PAPER LTD (NT) $835.90 $835.90 SPICERS PAPER LTD (WA) $1,368.74 $1,368.74 STATIONERY WHOLESALERS (NT) $1,220.00 $1,220.00 SYSTEM SALES PTY LTD $646.00 $646.00 T & B  BUSINESS MACHINES $1,292.00 $1,292.00 T & B BUSINESS ELECTRONICS $364.00 $364.00 TASMAN AV $1,266.04 $1,266.04 TASMANIAN BUSINESS MACHINES $169.00 $169.00 TASMANIAN OFFICE & BUSINESS $556.00 $556.00 TASSIE KITCHEN SNACKS $554.13 $554.13 TELL HOLDINGS PTY LTD $596.95 $596.95 TERRITORY BUSINESS SUPPLIERS $256.00 $256.00 THE CABOOLTURE GALLERY $70.50 $70.50 THE OFFICE EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE $1,433.52 $1,433.52 THE PAPER HOUSE $5,366.10 $5,366.10 TONER EXPRESS (SA) PTY LTD $3,626.05 $3,626.05 TOSHIBA (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD $9,396.70 $9,396.70 TOWER AUSTRALIA PTY LTD $24.61 $24.61 TOWN AND COUNTRY OFFICE NETWORK $1,794.60 $1,794.60 TRIGELLE PTY LTD $1,470.90 $1,470.90 TRS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $946.00 $946.00 TWS OFFICE FORCE $482.00 $482.00 UNICEF AUST CARD & GIFT CENTRE $5.00 $5.00 WALKABOUT INDUSTRIES $4,709.10 $4,709.10 WPA BUSINESS PRODUCTS $71.30 $71.30 WPA SUPPLY COMPANY $1,328.01 $1,328.01 XEROX $2,500.34 $2,500.34 XEROX SHOP THE $2,198.00 $2,198.00 ZENITH $1,655,949.32 $1,655,949.32